Lack of high-end speaker reviews

[Thomas_A]

1st order crossovers create off axis ripples in response. Which often fall on the range of frequency you are noting. So positioned so the off axis ripples don't cause troublesome reflections they might enhance a spacious quality in stereo.

They usually do, some more and some less. Look at the i14s in the link I gave. The on-axis may be a bit uneven particularly on the left speaker, so I suspect some individual variations. But the lateral dispersion is not too bad.

 

[Duke]

How does a "curtain" convert a dipole to monopole?

A dipole could approximate a monopole over part of the spectrum if the backwave was sufficiently attenuated. A curtain would probably only affect the shorter wavelengths, and imo this is undesirable because it degrades the spectral balance of the backwave. Arguably one of the features of a good dipole is its spectrally correct reflection field, ideally with the additional reflections being relatively late-onset, which calls for adequate distance from the front wall.

In my opinion if you're going to absorb the backwave of a dipole, do it fullrange (or nearly so), or use something else (like diffusion or adequate distance to the wall). The SoundLab electrostats I'm familiar with have a faceted-curved diaphragm which results in a focal point (well, a vertical "focal line") not too far behind the diaphragm. Here is a link to an absorber they sell which is fairly broadband and fairly effective when placed at the focal point:

https://www.soundlabspeakers.com/accessories/

I bought a pair of Sallies to familiarize myself with them, so that I could recommend them, or not as the case may be, to my customers. Imo they are a last resort.

 

[Sokel]

They usually do, some more and some less. Look at the i14s in the link I gave. The on-axis may be a bit uneven particularly on the left speaker, so I suspect some individual variations. But the lateral dispersion is not too bad.

Height does it's thing too when it comes to 2-10Khz,see mine at three axis at one meter (NOT anechoic) :
(1/24 and 1/6 smoothing for easy reading)



No wonder I prefer just a little above tweeter-mid axis .

 

[Keith_W]

How does a "curtain" convert a dipole to monopole?

Sloppy writing on my part. It attenuates shorter wavelengths and converts part of the spectrum to a monopole.

 

[Bjorn]

Here is a link to an absorber they sell which is fairly broadband and fairly effective when placed at the focal point:

https://www.soundlabspeakers.com/accessories/

I bought a pair of Sallies to familiarize myself with them, so that I could recommend them, or not as the case may be, to my customers. Imo they are a last resort.

That product will only absorb well down to 500-600 Hz at best.

Something like a 150x80x10.4 cm Broadsorbor will absotb to 110 Hz will high efficiency.

 

[Digital_Thor]

Well.... there's always Verity Audio... if 40.000$ is enough to be considered "high-end".... at least the price is up there
https://www.stereophile.com/content/verity-audio-sarastro-loudspeaker-measurements
Measurements are all over the place, and JA tries to put it mildly in his last comment.

Snell B Minor seems like a better option - at a much more reasonable price - almost budget in comparison, when looking at what we might call, "aging speakers" - aka, closer to vintage speakers.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/snell-b-minor-loudspeaker-measurements
So it's not like it can't be done.... just more in the lines of... let's create mystery and "magic" with several combined bad design choices - but in fine veneer using our "trusted" ears

 

[gnarly]

Center channels sound substantially better than phantom center because of crosstalk cancellation. This is well-documented and studied. The "depth" you're talking about is exactly the problem, phantom center sounds indistinct and vague. That is an inaccuracy, not a beneficial spatial effect at all. Vocals are noticeably off from how they're supposed to sound and do sound in acoustic settings. They just come out inaccurate, and you can't fix it with EQ or by moving your speakers around. The best you can do is get as far away from the speakers as possible so you're mostly hearing reflected sound which reduces the interference, but that creates its own separate issues.

Strongly agree.

I've spent considerable time evaluating LCR vs stereo. LCR easily wins when optimized.

Optimized for me, has meant:
* Center speaker is identical to left and right main speakers.
* All three speakers need to be equidistant from listening position; either placed in a physical arc, or time delaying the center.
* Of the various LCR matrixing methods, Gerzon's and other energy preservation techniques, have worked the best so far.

I now consider the first two of those to be mandatory for best results. I even found adding a sub to center, like my left and right mains have, to make a positive difference.
If physical distances are not reasonably the same, or made equivalent via delaying the center.....imaging can be vager than stereo.
LCR matrixing is fun to play with. Its effect varies track by track, of course like recordings do in general.....but at least 90% of all tracks improve.

Every now and then however, stereo doesn't seem to be able to be improved on...pretty rare. But then again. every now and then I also find a track that sounds best in single speaker mono...also rare.

I feel confident about my take on LCR due to the test bed I've used for over a year. It allows instant and silent switching between stereo and LCR.

Also allows each individual speaker to play summed mono singly. Or left and right to both play summed mono. Or all three...etc.
Helps to recognize how tracks were stereo mastered.

And allows switching between various matrices. Here's an example of a remote, that runs on touchscreen.

I know what i use (for audio only) is not practical for most homes, and certainly not for home theater until we get acoustically transparent video screens.
But for pure audio quality, when it works and can be properly implemented, I think a real center speaker LCR setup is a heck of an improvement over stereo.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I know what i use (for audio only) is not practical for most homes, and certainly not for home theater until we get acoustically transparent video screens.
But for pure audio quality, when it works and can be properly implemented, I think a real center speaker LCR setup is a heck of an improvement over stereo.

They have acoustically transparent video screens. I need to cough up the dough and get one myself for all the reasons you described.

Acoustically Transparent Screens Archives

Explore the widest collection of acoustically transparent projector screens exclusively at Elite Screens. Available in various sizes and 4K/HDR compatible.

elitescreens.com

 

[Sashoir]

I have never and would never consider the idea of designing a speaker for use a a mono source.

But as you are forcing me to to consider the idea, I would agree that many of the same design parameters would probably be beneficial for both, you would just not be able to hear the full benefit of it from a mono setup. And you would also not be able to detect the lack of these qualities when listening in mono.

I have listened to speakers that objectively appear to measure better than the Mantas but to me sound inferior with regards to the qualities discussed here. Since it's not immediately apparent in the measurements what is going on, we are in the realms of speculation when trying to understand what is happening. I do not think it is a single parameter that enables this, but a combination of several things, including the room.

We already have a long thread on this topic here:

Properties of speakers that creates a large and precise soundstage

There are some similar threads about what imaging and soundstaging even is, and some threads about how to measure it (we're not great at that). In this thread I thought it would be interesting to have a look what properties is likely to enable a speaker to be good at this. My (!) definition of...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I suggested the following as possibly beneficial properties (pasted from the opening post of the thread above):

1. Point source. I don't think this is controversial, and I think this is almost a prerequisite. Coaxial drivers are of course the easy approach to this. There are speakers with traditional drivers that sound big too, but interestingly it's often 2-way speakers with relatively small drivers and/or with at least the midrange and tweeter placed pretty close to each other. Exactly why this elevates the quality of soundstage and imaging I'm not sure.
2. Even off-axis response / controlled directivity, so that reflections feel like a natural addition to the direct sound as opposed to being perceived as a distraction or noise.
3. Linear phase crossover between the tweeter and midrange.
4. Less late reflections. So a well damped room, speakers not too far away, and/or cardioid speakers.
5. Enough level and capacity in both the deep bass and the midbass. This I think is another relatively well known thing, that well defined, deep bass can often add to the sensation of space.

I assume there are Bix Beiderbecke (or whomever) lovers who mostly listen to monophonic recordings. Surely there is a subset of these music fans who are also "hifi" enthusiasts; it would be interesting to know whether there's a consensus among them as to what are good loudspeakers which differs from the consensus (if it exists) of stereophonic music fans.

 

[gnarly]

I assume there are Bix Beiderbecke (or whomever) lovers who mostly listen to monophonic recordings. Surely there is a subset of these music fans who are also "hifi" enthusiasts; it would be interesting to know whether there's a consensus among them as to what are good loudspeakers which differs from the consensus (if it exists) of stereophonic music fans.

I'll give a try here....
As folks can see in my post #387 above, I have presets that enable comparisons of a single speaker running mono.
This is for several reasons in terms of testing and evaluating, but it is also because I enjoy listening to a single speaker outdoors in mono.

Outdoors offers so much additional clarity from reduced reflections, it's a beautiful sound of its own. And a heck of a good way to critically evaluate a speaker.
It's also interesting to compare with another of the same speaker playing mono indoors, at same time. To quickly hear a room's thumbprint on the sound, going back and forth.

Anyway, point is...i really enjoy stereo summed to mono alot....in fact I'll say outdoors mono is my favorite sound. Simply because I hear can clarity and nuances beyond anything indoors.
(Favorite would probably be outdoor stereo, but i don't have an easy way to set that up.)
Indoor stereo is awesome too; 3 ch LCR even better. I love them all.

My firm view from many comparisons, and from DIYing a bunch of different speaker types, is that whatever speaker is best at mono, will be best at stereo.

Doesn't matter what type speaker......point source, dipole, cardioid, omni, line source, horn directed/loaded, etc.....to make the best stereo pair possible, ime it stems from the best single mono speaker possible.
Imo, stereo speaker selection really just comes down to what radiation pattern a person wants in what type room, and then how loud with how much bass extension.
But whatever stereo pair is chosen, they all come from a damn good mono speaker.

 

[Sashoir]

I'll give a try here....
As folks can see in my post #387 above, I have presets that enable comparisons of a single speaker running mono.
This is for several reasons in terms of testing and evaluating, but it is also because I enjoy listening to a single speaker outdoors in mono.

Outdoors offers so much additional clarity from reduced reflections, it's a beautiful sound of its own. And a heck of a good way to critically evaluate a speaker.
It's also interesting to compare with another of the same speaker playing mono indoors, at same time. To quickly hear a room's thumbprint on the sound, going back and forth.

Anyway, point is...i really enjoy stereo summed to mono alot....in fact I'll say outdoors mono is my favorite sound. Simply because I hear can clarity and nuances beyond anything indoors.
(Favorite would probably be outdoor stereo, but i don't have an easy way to set that up.)
Indoor stereo is awesome too; 3 ch LCR even better. I love them all.

My firm view from many comparisons, and from DIYing a bunch of different speaker types, is that whatever speaker is best at mono, will be best at stereo.

Doesn't matter what type speaker......point source, dipole, cardioid, omni, line source, horn directed/loaded, etc.....to make the best stereo pair possible, ime it stems from the best single mono speaker possible.
Imo, stereo speaker selection really just comes down to what radiation pattern a person wants in what type room, and then how loud with how much bass extension.
But whatever stereo pair is chosen, they all come from a damn good mono speaker.

That's interesting; if I'd had to guess, I should have guessed that monophonic music enthusiasts would have preferred omnidirectional loudspeakers, but I know next to nothing about either hifi or psychoacoustics.

 

[Newman]

They have acoustically transparent video screens. I need to cough up the dough and get one

I was very positively motivated to do the same, until I went to a local loudspeaker factory who do excellent cinema and Home Cinema installations, and learned a couple of lessons in their AV demonstration room.

One was that, based on sighted listening only, the audio is either just as good, or nearly as good, as without a screen. I was leaning towards nearly as good, and the experts who were providing the demonstration were of the same opinion.

The second lesson was that the video on an AT screen is definitely a step down in brilliance, contrast/sharpness, and overall pop, compared to a good quality acoustically non-transparent screen. This was the major dealbreaker for me, as I am in the process of getting a very nice projector, and don't want to throw away the quality that I am paying for.

Cheers

 

[MattHooper]

I was very positively motivated to do the same, until I went to a local loudspeaker factory who do excellent cinema and Home Cinema installations, and learned a couple of lessons in their AV demonstration room.

One was that, based on sighted listening only, the audio is either just as good, or nearly as good, as without a screen. I was leaning towards nearly as good, and the experts who were providing the demonstration were of the same opinion.

The second lesson was that the video is definitely a step down in brilliance, contrast/sharpness, and overall pop, compared to a good quality acoustically non-transparent screen. This was the major dealbreaker for me, as I am in the process of getting a very nice projector, and don't want to throw away the quality that I am paying for.

Cheers

That sounds exciting!

When I designed my home theater set up, I bought a massive Stewart ST130 white screen. I didn't go Acoustically Transparent for a few reasons, including I couldn't fit speakers behind it, probably wouldn't have wanted to anyways, and it wouldn't have worked with my automated masking system.

I know that at some point back in the day not only did you lose a bit of light with AT screens, but you could also lose a bit of resolution. I think the finer weave versions mostly solved that. But another thing to remember...and it sounds like you've already looked in to this...is that many places are pushing ALR screens these days (Ambient Light Rejection, so you can watch with some lights on, or if you have brighter surroundings to cut reflections on the screen). You can also lose resolution by using an ALR screen, depending on the construction. Many of them have very heavy coatings to focus the light toward the viewer as well as make up gain for the gray screen material, and it can blur detail. I was pretty shocked when I sold my JVC projector to my friend who had an ALR screen - up close we couldn't even focus the projector because the surface texture scattered the edges so badly. Tends to look ok from a distance, but..something to watch out for.

 

[Newman]

Thanks Matt, very helpful.

I didn't go Acoustically Transparent for a few reasons, including I couldn't fit speakers behind it

I have seen measurements that show the further the speakers can go behind the screen, the more acoustically transparent, and conversely, speakers up close behind the AT screen are causing audible degradation to the point they are generally not ideal.

ALR is not an issue for me since the room can be fully blacked out.

cheers

 

[GXAlan]

And your solution is what? That I listen in stereo in a random room, with random content and provide a random subjective remark of 'how they sound'?

Maybe?

For ASR, and today, the answer is probably not.

Stereo speakers = more shipping cost, more boxes, more carrying speakers, more setup, more time spent, etc.

Here is another thing to think about: assessing subjectively factors like soundstage is extremely hard and effectively impossible to do reliably.

^^^ and this is problem #2.

But when you look at something like Magnepan speakers which have stayed in business when companies like Snell, Thiel, Infinity (audiophile home), Citation (audiophile cinema) have not, there has to be something about the sound that might be preferred by some.

We KNOW the LRS measures poorly.

We KNOW that stereo playback masks the the frequency response and tonality irregularities.

Is it all sighted bias? Or do the characteristics of a planar soundstage boost the stereo bonus to a greater degree? Is it ignorance? That as good as the LRS’s are in stereo, someone would prefer a more traditional setup with a higher preference score in the same price point?

Looking at Dr Toole’s comments about setups other than direct radiating speakers being special effects with limited predictability, does it turn out that it happens to work in 90% of rooms and recordings? Or 50%? Or 25% jazz and classical and 15% of rock?

What sort of content do Magnepan owners enjoy?

Right now, the Preference score is one of the best tools we have, but it’s just Project Mercury. We are showing that it is possible to quantify preference based upon the Spinorama with pretty convincing accuracy in mono, and when translated into stereo the overall trends remain.

But no one sticks to mono listening even though
1) most live amplified concerts are mono
2) I could get a better speaker that way by moving up the product line and just getting one instead of two speakers. Why buy a stereo pair of JBL L100’s when I can just get one JBL 4349 for the same price?

We enjoy stereo.

When you started ASR, you set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all audiophiles. Magazines have always had measurements but you took it to the next step and brought science to the art of music reproduction. You have a lot of members who share this vision.

The next frontier has to be the science of stereo loudspeakers. When this decade was started, many of us probably looked at fancy audiophile cables and line conditioners. We poured over amplifier topologies.

Today, we all know that speakers and recordings are the true arbiter of sound.

“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we which we intend to win, and the others, too.”

Why don’t we, as a community, take on the challenge of quantifying soundstage? What are the musical genres or specific music tracks that highlight this? What are the speakers with popularity that defies the predicted performance based upon the monaural spin?


What happens if I run the NFS with the mic in an equilateral triangle with a stereo pair of speakers so it is sampling at the MLP?

You should get some messy response but maybe if we can agree on speakers that have above or below average soundstage, we may be able to put the data it into a machine learning algorithm

Or maybe even as an experiment, what if you run the NFS with a stereo pair of speakers wired in phase versus out of phase with the mic sampling at the virtual equilateral triangle portion?

 

[restorer-john]

And your solution is what? That I listen in stereo in a random room, with random content and provide a random subjective remark of 'how they sound'?

However you choose to audition loudspeakers for the purpose of your reviews is entirely up to you. I don't care one way or another Amir. It's not up to me to provide you a solution to the unfortunate glaring hole in your otherwise excellent loudspeaker analysis is it? It has after all, been politely discussed and suggested several times by me and others previously and just fell on deaf ears.

Keep doing what you're doing- it is appreciated.

But we could acknowledge that there may be qualities in a speaker that isn't apparent when listening to a single speaker.

Absolutely. I am of the belief and it is my experience, that many people really are not sensitive to a rock solid imaging presentation, or don't listen to content particularly demanding in that regard. A few instruments and a wailing girl centred is hardly a challenge is it?

Ask classical music audiophiles what they value most and it's scale, delineation, placement and stability in the 3 dimensional image or space- right down to each instrumentalist.

Without individually testing two louspeakers in a pair, there is no data and no listening tests to come to any conclusions in those areas. And if they aren't listened to as a pair, playing stereo content, no conclusions can be made as to their suitability or efficacy in that particular task.

 

[Blumlein 88]

However you choose to audition loudspeakers for the purpose of your reviews is entirely up to you. I don't care one way or another Amir. It's not up to me to provide you a solution to the unfortunate glaring hole in your otherwise excellent loudspeaker analysis is it? It has after all, been politely discussed and suggested several times by me and others previously and just fell on deaf ears.

Keep doing what you're doing- it is appreciated.



Absolutely. I am of the belief and it is my experience, that many people really are not sensitive to a rock solid imaging presentation, or don't listen to content particularly demanding in that regard. A few instruments and a wailing girl centred is hardly a challenge is it?

Ask classical music audiophiles what they value most and it's scale, delineation, placement and stability in the 3 dimensional image or space- right down to each instrumentalist.

Without individually testing two louspeakers in a pair, there is no data and no listening tests to come to any conclusions in those areas. And if they aren't listened to as a pair, playing stereo content, no conclusions can be made as to their suitability or efficacy in that particular task.

So you are cueing in on how close to being identical two speakers are? I presume you are thinking identical speaker response would give optimum stereo results. Which makes sense.

 

[audiofooled]

Dr Toole was kind enough to share some of the essential points here:

Blind Listening Test 2: Neumann KH 80 vs JBL 305p MkII vs Edifier R1280T vs RCF Arya Pro5

I am not a newbie in this field, but came for me to another conclusion. Indeed, sometimes it is better not to excite the room with too much low-frequency energy. I don't think you are a newbie, I just think you have never got the implementation of subwoofers right which is hard to get right...

audiosciencereview.com

So when we set up a pair of speakers in room, chances are that there will be a correlation between loudspeaker's radiation pattern and DI as to how "room friendly" it would be. But I can imagine that quantifying the "optimum" parameters would be no easy task, with "room" part of the equation being another step into the unknown. Anechoic measurements can give us a very good prediction, but in room we have to know weather the loudspeakers are placed, spaced and aimed correctly. In room measurements can tell us that but still we decode the imaging part with our ears and a brain. So a large portion of it is still a preference. Auditioning a pair of loudspeakers in our rooms is the step we cannot skip?

 

[Galliardist]

However you choose to audition loudspeakers for the purpose of your reviews is entirely up to you. I don't care one way or another Amir. It's not up to me to provide you a solution to the unfortunate glaring hole in your otherwise excellent loudspeaker analysis is it? It has after all, been politely discussed and suggested several times by me and others previously and just fell on deaf ears.

Keep doing what you're doing- it is appreciated.



Absolutely. I am of the belief and it is my experience, that many people really are not sensitive to a rock solid imaging presentation, or don't listen to content particularly demanding in that regard. A few instruments and a wailing girl centred is hardly a challenge is it?

Ask classical music audiophiles what they value most and it's scale, delineation, placement and stability in the 3 dimensional image or space- right down to each instrumentalist.

Without individually testing two louspeakers in a pair, there is no data and no listening tests to come to any conclusions in those areas. And if they aren't listened to as a pair, playing stereo content, no conclusions can be made as to their suitability or efficacy in that particular task.

Ah, but what is a "classical music audiophile"? Full orchestra is very different to, say, solo classical guitar or violin, and then there is the king of the hard to reproduce, the harpsichord (which seems to attract being badly recorded in the first place). For me, something close to tonal accuracy is key to reproducing the range of classical music accurately, and it's precisely that aspect that we find out about from the single speaker testing.

For stereo reproduction, the speaker/room interface is the important thing - and Amir certainly isn't listening in my rather poor living room in a different country, so he actually tells me more by listening in mono, I guess. It may be a hole, but it may not be a hole that a reviewer is best to fill in every case.

 

[Galliardist]

Dr Toole was kind enough to share some of the essential points here:

Blind Listening Test 2: Neumann KH 80 vs JBL 305p MkII vs Edifier R1280T vs RCF Arya Pro5

I am not a newbie in this field, but came for me to another conclusion. Indeed, sometimes it is better not to excite the room with too much low-frequency energy. I don't think you are a newbie, I just think you have never got the implementation of subwoofers right which is hard to get right...

audiosciencereview.com

So when we set up a pair of speakers in room, chances are that there will be a correlation between loudspeaker's radiation pattern and DI as to how "room friendly" it would be. But I can imagine that quantifying the "optimum" parameters would be no easy task, with "room" part of the equation being another step into the unknown. Anechoic measurements can give us a very good prediction, but in room we have to know weather the loudspeakers are placed, spaced and aimed correctly. In room measurements can tell us that but still we decode the imaging part with our ears and a brain. So a large portion of it is still a preference. Auditioning a pair of loudspeakers in our rooms is the step we cannot skip?

Beat me to it, it seems!