Lack of high-end speaker reviews

[Keith_W]

Was it earlier in this thread or somewhere else where someone said that romanticism outsells engineering?

 

[fpitas]

Was it earlier in this thread or somewhere else where someone said that romanticism outsells engineering?

Everything needs a "story" now.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

Amir hasn't, but Erin has reviewed a Kii Three.

And a D & D 8C, and a Mesanovic CDM 65, so yes he has reviewed cardioid speakers, but he does not have a forum with members having the depth and breadth of knowledge this site has. I think an Amir review would prompt a great deal of discussion and analysis of cardioid designs and shed a lot of light on whether it's just something which allows more convenient in room positioning, or whether it provides a dimension to sound reproduction which is a major qualitative improvement over other designs.

Certainly a more interesting discussion, I think, than whether Beryllium makes a difference.

 

[sigbergaudio]

And a D & D 8C, and a Mesanovic CDM 65, so yes he has reviewed cardioid speakers, but he does not have a forum with members having the depth and breadth of knowledge this site has. I think an Amir review would prompt a great deal of discussion and analysis of cardioid designs and shed a lot of light on whether it's just something which allows more convenient in room positioning, or whether it provides a dimension to sound reproduction which is a major qualitative improvement over other designs.

Certainly a more interesting discussion, I think, than whether Beryllium makes a difference.

One "problem" is that the experience of soundstage and immersiveness is one of the key things that are different, but you won't be able to hear that in the same way listening to only one speaker.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

One "problem" is that the experience of soundstage and imersiveness is one of the key things that are different, but you won't be able to hear that in the same way listening to only one speaker.

And the discussion also pertains to the Harman score. You are implying, I think, that it does not fully capture major dimensions of qualitative differences among various speakers, and, I think, most people would agree, though they would still see it as having utility.

Among other things, I've read that the Harman Score virtually ignores differences in the directivity of bass frequencies in its computation, and you seem to be implying that it fails to fully capture the ability of speakers to create an "immersive" sound space. Certainly both areas are worthy of discussion, as well as what measures and scoring methodology would be required to capture both, in addition to what might be entailed to provide psycho acoustic validity to any proposed hypothesis.

I'm not suggesting tailor-made solutions would come out of such discussions, merely that the first step to a better model is to explore the limitations of the existing one, and propose remedies.

 

[sigbergaudio]

And the discussion also pertains to the Harman score. You are implying, I think, that it does not fully capture major dimensions of qualitative differences among various speakers, and, I think, most people would agree, though they would still see it as having utility.

I think Harman agrees too, if I'm not mistaken they're saying that if it's within +/-1 it's in the same ballpark quality wise. So from that perspective the model is much less precise than the score itself implies (giving a score like for instance 5.6). It has just ended up becoming a thing to compare preference scores.

I think it is also lost on many that the scale is from -10 to +10. So when a speaker gets a score of 6, that's not actually 6/10 (60% of maximum) but 16/20 (80% of maximum).

For our speakers specifically it's of course also problematic that they will get a horrible score due to the fact that they rely on subwoofers. But that's somewhat of an edge case. So I'm not holding that against the preference score as such, it just makes it difficult to explain that the score is wrong / not applicable.

Among other things, I've read that the Harman Score virtually ignores differences in the directivity of bass frequencies in its computation, and you seem to be implying that it fails to fully capture the ability of speakers to create an "immersive" sound space.

I don't think that is a very controversial statement. But as mentioned earlier, a thread exists with measurements of the Manta, so feel free to discuss there.

 

[Newman]

One "problem" is that the experience of soundstage and immersiveness is one of the key things that are different, but you won't be able to hear that in the same way listening to only one speaker.

...and you won't be able to discriminate the differences in such qualities as well when listening to stereo...

cheers

 

[Sancus]

One "problem" is that the experience of soundstage and immersiveness is one of the key things that are different, but you won't be able to hear that in the same way listening to only one speaker.

This gets thrown around a lot as if it's self-evident, and I don't think that it is. All the data we have shows that speakers which are preferred relative to other speakers remain so regardless of if they are compared in mono or stereo.

But I'll also never understand why people continue chasing stereo soundstage perfection when surround does it so much better. And it's more consistent room-to-room, more configurable, and less dependent on speaker characteristics.

 

[rynberg]

One "problem" is that the experience of soundstage and immersiveness is one of the key things that are different, but you won't be able to hear that in the same way listening to only one speaker.

You can absolutely hear the differences between speakers in mono...I auditioned multiple speakers in my listening room and could clearly hear a bigger halo on the speakers with wider directivity; speakers with much narrow directivity sounded much smaller and it was much easier to tell where the speaker was. Since (A) it is pretty well known that wider directivity speakers will have a larger but less deep and precise soundstage, and vice versa; and (B) we can clearly see directivity problems by frequency with the Klippel data (such as large changes in the width with frequency that may result in the soundstage shifting with frequency), there is still a lot of value testing a single speaker.

Imaging tests in stereo would be dependent on the specific listening room and dominated by the directivity and how precisely matched in response the two speaker samples are.

 

[8bits]

Also, @amirm mentioned in this thread that if the manufacturer requests it, he can do the subjective listening part of the review in stereo. So there's no excuse not to send speakers in because of that.

 

[kemmler3D]

It has just ended up becoming a thing to compare preference scores.

This is why Amir is rightly careful about creating a certification or benchmark criterion... any system worth gaming will be gamed, whether in audio or otherwise. People have a universal and unfortunate tendency to focus too much on single metrics that can be used to rank things.

I'll also never understand why people continue chasing stereo soundstage perfection when surround does it so much better.

Speaking for myself, not everyone has a place for 3+ additional speakers.

 

[dfuller]

Speaking for myself, not everyone has a place for 3+ additional speakers.

No space, no budget, zero desire to run cables.

 

[MattHooper]

But I'll also never understand why people continue chasing stereo soundstage perfection when surround does it so much better. And it's more consistent room-to-room, more configurable, and less dependent on speaker characteristics.

I have a very nice surround system in the same room as my 2 channel system.

The surround system is a bit more immersive. The 2 channel system easily images better (and is overall superior in some other ways).

Most surround systems are associated with home theater, so the L/C/R speakers are normally surrounding the screen, and hence arrayed near the back wall around the screen. With my 2 channel speakers I can pull them well out in to the room, dial in their position just perfectly, to get the most immersion and 3 dimensional and smoothest sound. So there is a coherence, depth and dimensionality the surround system doesn't match.

I've found that in pretty much every surround system I've heard.

Now I'm sure it's possible that some people have a room in which they can situate every surround speaker perfectly, but I think that's pretty rare.

It's just a lot easier dealing with two channel speakers and systems, and I've found that properly done, surround isn't that much of a "wow" compared to what 2 speakers can do.

 

[Newman]

Ah, the old "pull speakers into the room and imagine there is more depth" myth? Bravo.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Well I would agree the difference in mono vs stereo is huge. The difference in stereo vs surround sound for music is substantial, but not huge. It is big, but not huge for movie sound. I think doubling speakers from mono to stereo results in more than double your possible pleasure. 2.5 or 3 times the speakers going from stereo to 5.1 does not even double your pleasure with music and may come close to doubling it for movie sound. So diminishing returns I suppose.

The world moved right on to stereo when it became available and never looked back. Surround is still a niche even if a sizable niche. I'd like to do some music recording in surround, but among musicians, friends etc there is effectively zero desire or ability to make use of it. A rounding error level of significance.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Ah, the old "pull speakers into the room and imagine there is more depth" myth? Bravo.

Well it is one that works. BTW, been meaning to ask about your signature. Why are zip codes meaningless (is this about the Newman thing on Seinfeld)?

 

[Duke]

Most surround systems are associated with home theater, so the L/C/R speakers are normally surrounding the screen, and hence arrayed near the back wall around the screen. With my 2 channel speakers I can pull them well out in to the room, dial in their position just perfectly, to get the most immersion and 3 dimensional and smoothest sound. So there is a coherence, depth and dimensionality the surround system doesn't match.

I have found that to be true particularly of the center channel speaker. Ime a good two-channel system's phantom center image has more depth. Which doesn't really matter on movies, but imo that sense of depth adds to the experience with music videos. I have multiple customers who sold their center channel speakers because they no longer preferred to use them.

Ah, the old "pull speakers into the room and imagine there is more depth" myth? Bravo.

Pulling speakers out into the room benefits two things that matter when it comes to spatial quality: The direct-to-reflected sound ratio; and the time gap between the first-arrival sound and the onset of many (if not most) of the first reflections.

 

[MattHooper]

Ah, the old "pull speakers into the room and imagine there is more depth" myth? Bravo.

Proof's in the pudding.

I'm able to do direct comparisons - same content, whether it be streaming music or "live" music performances (e.g. from youtube) and I've closed my eyes listening switching between my surround and the 2 channel speakers which are pulled out wide apart near the listening position. The 2 channel easily gave the greatest sensation of the room disappearing behind it, "real space" and musicians arrayed in space.

Again, this is MY set up. As I said, I'm not speaking for whoever else may have achieved superb imaging with their surround set up. (I just personally haven't heard a surround system yet that is as coherent as two loudspeakers, and images with the same precision).

 

[MattHooper]

I have found that to be true particularly of the center channel speaker. Ime a good two-channel system's phantom center image has more depth. Which doesn't really matter on movies, but imo that sense of depth adds to the experience with music videos. I have multiple customers who sold their center channel speakers because they no longer preferred to used them.

I LOVE music videos on my surround system.

But sometimes I plug in my 2 channel speakers instead and it always amazes me how the experience actually gets better in some ways. The mapping of the sound to the screen, the coherence of the soundfield, the clarity, the seeing-in-to-the-space impression sonically. Again, I have my 2 channel speakers set up pretty wide and close to my listening/viewing sofa, so it's not just precise imaging but also quite immersive. Which is why when I switch to my 7.0 system it's not a "holy cow" difference in immersion.

You can see photos of how far out my 2 channel speakers are towards my listening sofa, vs the screen wall behind them, so it will make sense here:

WIDE OPEN ROOM ENTRANCE - Consequences for bass frequencies etc? (PHOTOS within)

Also, interesting thread, thanks for details. Plans were done when you had the room set-up/treated?

www.audiosciencereview.com

Pulling speakers out into the room benefits two things that matter when it comes to spatial quality: The direct-to-reflected sound ratio; and the time gap between the first-arrival sound and the onset of many (if not most) of the first reflections.

Yup. My L/C/R speakers - Hales Transcendence models, excellent sound - are arrayed around my projection screen. For a number of years I just used the L/R speakers also for my two channel listening. When I'd want to switch to 2 channel I just pulled them out in to the room and hooked them to the cables leading to my two channel amps (tube amps). They unquestionably sounded smoother pulled out from the back wall, which helped the "disappearing" feeling better, and they just did imaging better.

Sometimes when I'm listening to music in surround sound I'll switch it to "stereo" so just the L/R speakers, though still near the screen wall. They still image for sure, and have some decent depth. But what I find a bit disconcerting with speakers against the wall is the sonic images "appearing" on or behind the wall I'm staring at. There's almost a "that's a bit too weird" aspect. Of course it's perfect when there is a projected image for movies, and now I'm peering "in to" visual scene.

With 2 channel speakers pulled out, the imaging not only becomes more precise, but the space behind the speakers makes more sense of the imaging - a place where the sonic images "appear" in the room. IMO

 

[Newman]

Well it is one that works.

Well, if you're still using those dipoles...understandable comment!

BTW, been meaning to ask about your signature. Why are zip codes meaningless (is this about the Newman thing on Seinfeld)?