Master Preference Ratings for Loudspeakers

[edechamps]

If we can agree that PIR with slope of 5 deg would intuitively sound "bright" and the one with slope of 45 deg would sound "dark" we can also agree that indicates there is an optimally sounding region of slopes somewhere in between.

I think we discussed this before, and I'm still unconvinced. It's really not obvious to me that an idealized perfectly omnidirectional speaker, with both ON/LW and PIR perfectly flat and horizontal, would sound "bright". I'm not saying it wouldn't, either; I'm saying we don't know. So far I haven't seen a persuasive argument that the perception of overall balance is determined by PIR as opposed to direct sound.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I think we discussed this before, and I'm still unconvinced. It's really not obvious to me that an idealized perfectly omnidirectional speaker, with both ON and PIR perfectly flat and horizontal, would sound "bright". I'm not saying it wouldn't, either; I'm saying we don't know. So far I haven't seen a persuasive argument that the perception of overall balance is determined by PIR as opposed to direct sound.

We need testing of those MBL speakers. Both Klippel and controlled listening.

 

[MZKM]

We need testing of those MBL speakers. Both Klippel and controlled listening.

Since the scoring would rate them poorly due to the PIR slope, a bunch of controlled listening would be needed to be done to see if in this extreme case, if the PIR slope doesn’t matter.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/mbl-101e-radialstrahler-loudspeaker-measurements

 

[QMuse]

I think we discussed this before, and I'm still unconvinced. It's really not obvious to me that an idealized perfectly omnidirectional speaker, with both ON and PIR perfectly flat and horizontal, would sound "bright". I'm not saying it wouldn't, either; I'm saying we don't know. So far I haven't seen a persuasive argument that the perception of overall balance is determined by PIR as opposed to direct sound.

I cannot offer any kind of proof, my opinion is formed/based on my limited experience with EQ-ing different kind of speakers and noticing the difference.
IME it is the slope of the PIR that dictates the LF/MF/HF tonal balance that we actually hear.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Since the scoring would rate them poorly due to the PIR slope, a bunch of controlled listening would be needed to be done to see if in this extreme case, if the PIR slope doesn’t matter.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/mbl-101e-radialstrahler-loudspeaker-measurements

View attachment 65744
View attachment 65745

I also wonder if we had a slope built in via EQ how it would score in blind comparisons. You could use a top scorer and rate the MBL by comparison using a MUSHRA type evaluation. Another interesting comparison would be the MBL flat vs MBL with sloping EQ.

 

[QMuse]

Let's not forget that the absolutely flat anechoic response would result in an inherently sloped PIR at app 9-10dB over the 20Hz-20kHz range.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Let's not forget that the absolutely flat anechoic response would result in an inherently sloped PIR at app 9-10dB over the 20Hz-20kHz range.

I'm not forgetting that.

 

[QMuse]

I'm not forgetting that.

Oh, I said that as a reminder to us all, not to you in particular.

 

[napilopez]

Have you applied 1/12 smoothing as warned by REW to avoid anti-aliasing before doing this export?

I did not. When I tested computing the scores with my own measurements I found using 1/12 smoothing gave too much of a boost. Moreover Toole describes Harman as using "unsmoothed, 200-point, log-spaced stepped-tone anechoic measurements (1/ 20-octave)" so 24ppo unsmoothed seems like the closest approximation.

 

[QMuse]

Well, when I think about it I don't really see how anti-aliasing would be an issue here, but 1/12 smoothing actually would as it would indeed boost the score. So yes, skipping smoothing is a way to do it.

 

[MZKM]

but 1/12 smoothing actually would as it would indeed boost the score

I have tried 1 speaker with 1/24 and 1/96 smoothing and the 1/96 actually scored higher, my thinking is that since there is more data between the min/max, the averages get brought closer to neutral.

 

[QMuse]

I have tried 1 speaker with 1/24 and 1/96 smoothing and the 1/96 actually scored higher, my thinking is that since there is more data between the min/max, the averages get brought closer to neutral.

My guess is that it would vary from case to case, but the difference should be small.

 

[MattHooper]

We need testing of those MBL speakers. Both Klippel and controlled listening.

That would be fun, though even when I had my MBL speakers I would be loathe to ship those delicate/expensive speakers anywhere once I had them.

I've mentioned before, anecdotally as an owner: my MBLs did not sound bright. (I don't like too bright sounding speakers). But my room is not an overly "bright/reflective" sounding room to begin with and I tend to situate myself a bit closer than the norm for more direct sound.

 

[napilopez]

I have tried 1 speaker with 1/24 and 1/96 smoothing and the 1/96 actually scored higher, my thinking is that since there is more data between the min/max, the averages get brought closer to neutral.

My guess is that it would vary from case to case, but the difference should be small.

Do you mean smoothing or points per octave in the data? REW only does 1/48 smoothing at the minimum. When exporting data, you have the option to select both the points per octave and the smoothing.

Assuming you meant PPO, that echoes my experience with my own measurements: stronger smoothing makes the score better, but lower PPO actually makes the score worse. I think the most I saw was a .2 change

 

[MZKM]

I just finished calculating the scores (and generating the Spinoramas) for all 13 speakers from the sample. and besides 2 that scored <1, I can see that the scores in Olive's Measured vs Predicted plot do line up pretty well.

On another note, I just realized my Radar charts have been incorrect for LFX thus far. The way I do it is take the best (results in a 10) and "worst" (results in a 0) and then use those to turn whatever scores a speaker got into percentages. Well, I just realized that I put ~2.48 instead of ~3.48 for the worst case for LFX .

 

[Trouble Maker]

Well, I just realized that I put ~2.48 instead of ~3.48 for the worst case for LFX .

 

[QMuse]

Do you mean smoothing or points per octave in the data? REW only does 1/48 smoothing at the minimum. When exporting data, you have the option to select both the points per octave and the smoothing.

Assuming you meant PPO, that echoes my experience with my own measurements: stronger smoothing makes the score better, but lower PPO actually makes the score worse. I think the most I saw was a .2 change

I also understood he meant PPO.

 

[pierre]

AHA! I've got the list of Paper 1 speakers. Journalist skills coming in handy.

Here is the article from the August 2001 edition of Consumer Reports used to select the Paper 1 speakers:

View attachment 65679

Along with brief descriptions of each:
View attachment 65680

To save you the time reading, by matching the 23 bookshelf speakers above to Table 1 in the paper, we can isolate the ones used in the study.

Here they are as ranked by Consumer Reports. In brackets is their 'Accuracy score' based on CR's flat sound power model, as well as CR's "Bass Handling" score. In the article, CR says the overall ranking is mostly based on the accuracy score, with some weight given to " the ability to play bass notes very loud without distortion."

1. Pioneer S-DF3-K [89/Excellent]
2. Bose 301 Series IV [89/Very Good]
3. Cambridge Soundworks Model Six [88/Very Good]
4. BIC America Venturi DV72si [90/Good]
5. Infinity Entra One [87/Excellent]
6. JBL Northridge Series N28 [85/Excellent]
7. Polk Audio RT15i [88/Good]
8. Yamaha NS-A638 [83/Excellent]
9. Bose 141 [89/Very Good]
10. JBL Studio Series S26 [82/Very Good]
11. Infinity Interlude IL10 [76/Excellent]
12. Klipsch Synergy SB-3 Monitor [76/Excellent]
13. KLH 911B [79/Good]

And here is how they actually ranked in Olive's double-blind tests, along with images for a visual. In brackets is each speaker's previous ranking for quick reference.

1. Infinity Interlude IL10 [11]
   View attachment 65684
   
2. JBL Series S26 [10]
   View attachment 65685
   
3. Infinity Entra One [5]
   View attachment 65686
4. Pioneer S-DF3-K [1]
   View attachment 65687
   
5. JBL Northridge Series N28 [10]
   View attachment 65688
   
6. Klipsch Synergy SB-3 Monitor [12]
   View attachment 65689
7. Polk Audio RT15i [7]
   View attachment 65690
   
8. Cambridge Soundworks Model Six [3]
   View attachment 65691
   
9. BIC America Venturi DV62si [4]
   View attachment 65693
   
10. Bose 301 Series IV [2]
    View attachment 65694
    
11. Yamaha NS-A638 [8]
    View attachment 65695
    
12. Bose 141 [9]
    View attachment 65696
    
13. KLH 911B [13]
    View attachment 65697
    (Poor KLH can't catch a break)

So, as we already knew, they are mostly 2-way bookshelves. And unsurprisingly, most of the top performers are Harman speakers. But the one consistent thing among top performers is the use of what appear to be purposeful waveguides.

@amirm , in case you were curious.

P.S. I see a pair of Infinity IL10 for $79 a pair on eBay. Just sayin'

Thanks. I imported them.

 

[pierre]

I've attached 24 ppo

In which order are they sorted? by preferences, or in order as in your post?

 

[MZKM]

In terms of my Performance : Price graphs, I currently have 3 categories:

• Passive (blue)
• Active (red)
• DIY (green)

It is just a matter of time (hint hint) until Amir measures an active speakers with digital connections (Bluetooth, USB, optical, etc.). Since this should be separated from those that only accept analog connections, any ideas on the colors (and naming)?