Vuki
Senior Member
Well...https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/wilson-audio-tunetot-review-high-end-bookshelf-speaker.29219/
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Magnepan LRS Speaker Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
OK, correction
The Objective component would be analyzed with one speaker only. Two speakers on mono test signal would be moot.
The Subjective component would be analyzed by listener with two speakers in stereo.
Is it possible for a Speaker to fail miserably on Objective analysis, but pass favorably on NON EQ'ED Subjective analysis?
I am leaning No.
"Proper" is impossible to define for a subjective test that depends upon the reviewer's room, taste, and so forth. Your room, taste in music, preferred EQ, etc. are not in general going to match the reviewer. There are plenty of subjective review sites; ASR focuses on objective measurements rarely provided elsewhere.
See above. Subjective reviews may not match how you would review the same speaker.
Of course, and there are many examples of this. We are less sensitive to distortion than many think, and a speaker's objective problems may be something you prefer, like over- or under-emphasized treble or bass that may complement your room's response or simply match your taste.
dedobot
Senior Member
Modern painting "masterpieces" miserably fail on objective analysis but in many people pass triumphantly the subjective one . It's a endless discussion .
Last edited:
Old_School_Brad
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2024
- Messages
- 1,794
- Likes
- 2,388
Not at all. It's completely acceptable to have different sound preferences and favor non-neutral speakers.
dedobot
Senior Member
Its same and even more with the art painting. S. Dali paintings are completely acceptable but they're just interesting comics pictures compared to the work of the old masters.
norman bates
Active Member
I listened to a single speaker for years in the past.
And upstairs now in a bigger 18’ x 25’ open concept kitchen / living room, I’m using a single m106 raised up out from a corner.
But for maybe 10 years I ran a (better) clone of a jbl 4732. Initially I had only 1 (free) jbl 4509 cabinet that I bought discontinued eminence magnum 15lf woofers. Started with an ev 291 (I think) compression driver on an ev hr90 diffraction horn. Later upgraded to a 2384 horn and a prohibitively expensive jbl 2435h with a beryllium diaphragm. It had excellent bass, sub bass, and dispersion.
It was huge to look at.
I upgraded 4 years ago to a pair of jbl 12” 2-ways (better mids/highs but missing some punch and even less subwoofery bass).
The main change was due to switching from an active crossover (one input, also used as a volume control), to a receiver.
Before it was dvd/blu ray, or a cd as a source only.
Since then (stereo receiver), music has been playing 24 hours a day, and I like jazz now (local college station).
Even to this day, I appreciate detail, bass, and dynamics over imaging.
Honestly, I could care less about imaging……..
And upstairs now in a bigger 18’ x 25’ open concept kitchen / living room, I’m using a single m106 raised up out from a corner.
But for maybe 10 years I ran a (better) clone of a jbl 4732. Initially I had only 1 (free) jbl 4509 cabinet that I bought discontinued eminence magnum 15lf woofers. Started with an ev 291 (I think) compression driver on an ev hr90 diffraction horn. Later upgraded to a 2384 horn and a prohibitively expensive jbl 2435h with a beryllium diaphragm. It had excellent bass, sub bass, and dispersion.
It was huge to look at.
I upgraded 4 years ago to a pair of jbl 12” 2-ways (better mids/highs but missing some punch and even less subwoofery bass).
The main change was due to switching from an active crossover (one input, also used as a volume control), to a receiver.
Before it was dvd/blu ray, or a cd as a source only.
Since then (stereo receiver), music has been playing 24 hours a day, and I like jazz now (local college station).
Even to this day, I appreciate detail, bass, and dynamics over imaging.
Honestly, I could care less about imaging……..
H-m-m-m. Let us first get the horse in front of the cart. The definitive comment on loudspeaker performance is how it sounds - that is a subjective judgement. Ideally, one would want the loudspeaker to be a "transparent", neutral reproducer, so we get to hear what the artists created for us. If we don't like what we hear, then we can play with tone controls, equalization, to see if it can be improved. That is the basis of the audio industry.
The problem with subjective judgments is that humans are influenced by much more than the sound. Appearance, price, brand, other opinions and reviews all exercise bias in forming our opinions - the evidence is abundant. The worst subjective evaluations are those conducted in the fully sighted,"take it home and listen to it" method used by most reviewers and virtually all a casual listeners. There are no references, and adaptation sets it. Some call it "breaking in", but it is humans adapting, not electronic or mechanical devices changing. This practice has been the basis of audio opinions from day one, and it has led to the notion that we all must find the loudspeaker we like, because we all "hear differently".
Proof that this is rubbish was revealed to me in 1966 when I conducted my first blind, loudness equalized, four-loudspeaker comparison test at the National Research Council of Canada. The loudspeakers of that era were very distinctively "colored", not at all neutral, but most of the listeners in the group agreed on what was good sounding, even those who criticized the loudspeakers they selected and lived with at home. When they heard something "better" they preferred it. Where were the personal preferences? The second important observation was that the loudspeakers most preferred had the best looking - i.e. flattest and smoothest - anechoic frequency responses. These logically should be the most neutral. All electronics, even then, had ruler flat frequency responses. Why would loudspeakers be different?
There began a research career that extended over 5 decades, many papers, three books, an industry loudspeaker measurement standard, and many fundamentally neutral loudspeakers in the marketplace. For those willing to read, the scientific proofs are there, and have been for many years. An hour and 14 minutes will give a good summary of some of the key science:
Now we can recognize a neutral loudspeaker by inspecting the right set of anechoic measurements. This does not ensure satisfaction because recordings vary - they are created in recording control and mastering rooms by people listening through unknown loudspeakers in unknown rooms. It is wrong to assume that recordings are flawless, and all audible faults are attributable to the playback apparatus. Stereo soundstage and imaging are primarily determined in the recording control room, and there are no standards. Playback apparatus and rooms matter, but at a secondary level.
Except: A fact that cannot be ignored is that bass accounts for about 30% of one's overall evaluation of sound quality, and bass sound quality is dominated by the listening room - and they are all different. Arguably this is the weakest link in sound reproduction, but it is often ignored. There are excellent multiple subwoofer solutions to room resonance problems, but most people think that a bigger sub is the solution - or bigger tower speakers. Wrong.
The problem with subjective judgments is that humans are influenced by much more than the sound. Appearance, price, brand, other opinions and reviews all exercise bias in forming our opinions - the evidence is abundant. The worst subjective evaluations are those conducted in the fully sighted,"take it home and listen to it" method used by most reviewers and virtually all a casual listeners. There are no references, and adaptation sets it. Some call it "breaking in", but it is humans adapting, not electronic or mechanical devices changing. This practice has been the basis of audio opinions from day one, and it has led to the notion that we all must find the loudspeaker we like, because we all "hear differently".
Proof that this is rubbish was revealed to me in 1966 when I conducted my first blind, loudness equalized, four-loudspeaker comparison test at the National Research Council of Canada. The loudspeakers of that era were very distinctively "colored", not at all neutral, but most of the listeners in the group agreed on what was good sounding, even those who criticized the loudspeakers they selected and lived with at home. When they heard something "better" they preferred it. Where were the personal preferences? The second important observation was that the loudspeakers most preferred had the best looking - i.e. flattest and smoothest - anechoic frequency responses. These logically should be the most neutral. All electronics, even then, had ruler flat frequency responses. Why would loudspeakers be different?
There began a research career that extended over 5 decades, many papers, three books, an industry loudspeaker measurement standard, and many fundamentally neutral loudspeakers in the marketplace. For those willing to read, the scientific proofs are there, and have been for many years. An hour and 14 minutes will give a good summary of some of the key science:
Now we can recognize a neutral loudspeaker by inspecting the right set of anechoic measurements. This does not ensure satisfaction because recordings vary - they are created in recording control and mastering rooms by people listening through unknown loudspeakers in unknown rooms. It is wrong to assume that recordings are flawless, and all audible faults are attributable to the playback apparatus. Stereo soundstage and imaging are primarily determined in the recording control room, and there are no standards. Playback apparatus and rooms matter, but at a secondary level.
Except: A fact that cannot be ignored is that bass accounts for about 30% of one's overall evaluation of sound quality, and bass sound quality is dominated by the listening room - and they are all different. Arguably this is the weakest link in sound reproduction, but it is often ignored. There are excellent multiple subwoofer solutions to room resonance problems, but most people think that a bigger sub is the solution - or bigger tower speakers. Wrong.
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,327
- Likes
- 5,650
It's acceptable, but it is so much less common than the myth ("we all hear differently") would have us believe. Indeed, it is fair to call it rare, among people who don't have substantial hearing damage.
Controlled listening has shown that system-wide neutrality is preferred to non-neutrality, and it is common-sense logical too, since we have the real world of natural sound sources as our baseline.
The only way that non-neutral speakers would be preferred would be if some other part of the chain was non-neutral, and the speakers were helping to counter that. That's why I wrote 'system-wide neutrality' above. Start with a neutrally-balanced mastering, recording/playback source, and amplifier, (all of which is common today, especially digitally), and neutral speakers are the only safe bet.
cheers
[edit: I see @Floyd Toole has gazumped me! Read him instead, of course!]
I would add only that the problem with non-neutral loudspeakers is that they add the same monotonous coloration to absolutely everything that is played through them. One can adapt to this to some extent, but in my experience, when something more neutral is heard it is obvious, and preferred. Most people never get to experience a valid, blind, equal loudness comparison test. As Newman said, hearing loss is a factor in preference, but it shows up not only as a fixed bias in preference but also as rating inconsistencies in repeated auditions of exactly the same sound - love it in the morning, hate it in the afternoon has been observed.
Sure. Let me answer that in a "plain talk" manner. It's also very possible for a speaker to sound nothing like the recorded signal, but the subjective reviewer likes it.. It meets his personal bias for what "sounds good" to HIM.
I could list a gaggle of cases where that is true. But it is not a High Fidelity speaker.
People can absolutely hear tonality differences in stereo pair. This statement is an over exaggeration at best.
We all know the Maggie's are unique design and most certainly require both speakers to possibly enjoy.
I'm fine with confirming data by listening to a single speaker, but reviewing a product in a manner that is not intended by the manufacturer presents obvious issues, and an incomplete test if you can't judge soundstage depth and phantom center.
I appreciate the points made and certainly Mr Toole's input.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 23,575
- Likes
- 44,223
Require both speakers to possibly enjoy????? What aspect makes them unique in this regard?
Alice of Old Vincennes
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2019
- Messages
- 1,583
- Likes
- 1,030
Sounds like it.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 23,575
- Likes
- 44,223
I thought I would point out that another panel speaker was introduced in the days of mono systems. The Quad ESL-57 was released at a time when stereo was not yet the norm. Many single speakers were sold to people using them in mono. Then later stereo was the norm and pairs were the common usage. Those Quads had a woofer panel and a narrow tweeter panel not terribly unlike Maggies that have something similar or a woofer panel and tweeter ribbon.
Old_School_Brad
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2024
- Messages
- 1,794
- Likes
- 2,388
Sure, I agree.
My main point was rather to highlight that I haven’t seen anyone here outright criticize someone for liking B&W, Dali, or Cerwin Vega speakers. It’s generally accepted when someone enjoys the sound of a non-neutral speaker.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #1,758
They *think* they can when there is no way to verify anything they say. Fortunately we have controlled testing that shows how much the tonal discrimination shrinks as more channels are added:
As you see, by the time you get to multi-channel, it is all gone (everything sounds good). Stereo allows some level but nothing remotely like mono (Situation B).
Add to that the fact that non-trailed listeners do poorly in these tests to begin with, and you can safely surmise you are reading random assessments:
OP
- Thread Starter
- #1,759
Numerous controlled tests by Harman included Martin Logan speakers which are also "unique." They did poorly due to significant colorations/resonances. That, you can't get rid of just because you add another one to the setup:
Speaker "M" is Martin Logan. This is a shot of it when I attended Harman's Blind Listening test setup:
I ranked it extremely low. It almost sounded broken to me.
The thing Maggies have is the false spatial qualities due to back radiation. It sounds super natural on some content but becomes tiresome as it adds the same effect to *every* track you listen to. It is very odd sounding to me when I hear studio produced rock/pop with that kind of effect instead of tight presentation.
Vuki
Senior Member
Maybe so, but the first graph also shows that for eq B stereo is much more preffered than mono.They *think* they can when there is no way to verify anything they say. Fortunately we have controlled testing that shows how much the tonal discrimination shrinks as more channels are added:
As you see, by the time you get to multi-channel, it is all gone (everything sounds good). Stereo allows some level but nothing remotely like mono (Situation B).
Add to that the fact that non-trailed listeners do poorly in these tests to begin with, and you can safely surmise you are reading random assessments:
Similar threads
- Poll
