Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[MattHooper]

Well then let's all of advocate most strongly for more such measurements, rather than more of the same old subjective review garble.

Isn't that the best way forward?

Agreed. The more high-quality measurements available for loudspeakers the better!

Though personally I would like “ subjective review garble” included. So something like Stereophile that included spinorama measurements would be close to my ideal: I get to read the entertaining-and-sometimes-informative subjective impressions, and one could also skip straight to the spins if they want.

 

[JustJones]

I think a new(ish) company Ascilab are using a Klippel for their speakers.

AsciLab speakers are about to launch

We are about to launch a new line of speakers designed using Klippel NFS. The initial lineup is as follows: AsciLab C5B Specification - 2-way Bookshelf Speaker - Dual Passive Radiator - 1" Alumina Ceramic Dome Tweeter with Custom Waveguide and Phase Plug - 5" Alumina Ceramic Woofer - LW 4th...

audiosciencereview.com

Another company Sigberg Audio from what I've read in his threads here uses extensive measurement though I'm not sure how much they use or have access to a Klippel.

 

[Purité Audio]

Thorbjørn uses SEAS’ anechoic chamber I believe.
Keith

 

[JustJones]

I'm not sure if it's the NFS but I remembered reading about using a Klippel.

Post in thread 'Sigberg Audio Manta (12" wideband cardioid active speakers) development thread' https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...peakers-development-thread.28255/post-1067079

 

[Blumlein 88]

Agreed. The more high-quality measurements available for loudspeakers the better!

Though personally I would like “ subjective review garble” included. So something like Stereophile that included spinorama measurements would be close to my ideal: I get to read the entertaining-and-sometimes-informative subjective impressions, and one could also skip straight to the spins if they want.

Way back when TAS or Stereopile reviews were a couple of small pages, and only half of that subjective description. If it were done that way then maybe. Most current subjective reviews are too long, the attempts to entertain rarely land, and is mostly useless. I in fact do go straight to the specs and then the measurements section. If Stereophile's owners really cared about being informative they would buy a Klippel and use it.

 

[IngMishael]

Good video by Blaine giving a talk at the recent CanJam regarding the variability of headphone/iem measurements and how that relates to a clusterf*ck of misinterpretation regarding the known data

(With occasional interruptions and clarifications courtesy of Oratory)

TLDR/TLDW - Headphone data does not currently portray the range of potential sources of variation perception between listeners

Blaine presenting his thoughts as digestible as possible (well maybe not for those not too into the weeds).
Good stuff regardless

 

[MattHooper]

Way back when TAS or Stereopile reviews were a couple of small pages, and only half of that subjective description. If it were done that way then maybe. Most current subjective reviews are too long, the attempts to entertain rarely land, and is mostly useless. I in fact do go straight to the specs and then the measurements section. If Stereophile's owners really cared about being informative they would buy a Klippel and use it.

I don’t mind a lengthy well written review. (as if it weren’t obvious for my own blovating)

Back in the 90s Stereophile and the absolute sound were pretty thick tomes, and I really enjoyed them. But I think they had better writers then generally. The reason I read few Stereophile reviews these days is that I do not find the writing to be engaging.

I used to read, Listener magazine not because I was likely to ever buy any of the gear reviewed, but because I found the writing to be entertaining, especially from Art.

If you are somebody who just doesn’t find the subjective review aspect, informative, or interesting at all, then I guess it’s unlikely to ever be appealing.

But I am among the many audiophiles who don’t just care about measurements, but also about the subjective experience and sharing that aspect of the hobby. People drawn to this type of website commune over measurements, people drawn to some other forms tend to commune over discussing the subjective experience.

One of my friends who reviews audio gear basically has a goal of making the article, entertaining or engaging read in someway.
“ after all, otherwise, it’s just another piece of gear…”. So yeah, I like to see the personal experience of the reviewer thrown in there, with any relevant observations or a little stories or whatever. Some writers do this better than others.

 

[goat76]

If you are somebody who just doesn’t find the subjective review aspect, informative, or interesting at all, then I guess it’s unlikely to ever be appealing.

I often find that the subjective part can be a great addition to how a loudspeaker sounds over seeing measurements. An attestation to the importance of a good subjective description is when people describe the differences they hear between Genelec and Neumann speakers. Both these speakers are considered good measuring and neutral-sounding. However, there still seem to be large differences in how people find their sound in direct comparisons, and sometimes even to the point of liking/disliking one or the other. These differences in sound will of course show up in the measurements. Still, it doesn't seem to be that obvious for most people what measurement parameters to look for exactly that will contribute to their subjective preferences.

There are of course overly flowery reviews out there that are just fuzzy with strange choices of words, but why are those extreme types of reviews always referred to when speaking about subjective reviews, I mean, an equivalent to a flowery review would be a badly set of measurements done by someone who don't know how measurements should be done.

 

[Purité Audio]

Picked at random from a Stereophile review,
‘The ability of the Duos to present transients at the pppp end of the scale was even more impressive. I've long had a mental picture of music, as a visible entity, surrounded by air and flowing through speakers. With the Duos, this image persisted even with changes so small that they were all but inaudible. What came through most was how tangible the instruments seemed. In one instance, listening to a solo oboe of all things, I had no choice but to stop the record and sit in silence to unpack what I'd just heard. A direct emotional response. To an oboe.

That oboe couldn't have broken my heart if the Avantgardes got just the one thing right: dynamics. The full complement of audiophile goodness is necessary to produce a result like that.’

Really, grown men read this.
Keith

 

[Wesseling Audio Lab]

Just read that, Purite. I have to vomit now!

 

[Purité Audio]

Just read that, Purite. I have to vomit now!

It’s an emotional response,
Keith

 

[Sal1950]

Way back when TAS or Stereopile reviews were a couple of small pages, and only half of that subjective description. If it were done that way then maybe. Most current subjective reviews are too long, the attempts to entertain rarely land, and is mostly useless. I in fact do go straight to the specs and then the measurements section. If Stereophile's owners really cared about being informative they would buy a Klippel and use it.

Really, grown men read this.

The style and length of ridiculousness that has crept into the subjective reviews at Stereophile and TAS has grown and grown over the decades.
It seems each writer is attempting to outdo the other in verbose wordsmanship BS.
As does Blumlein 88 I will first look at specs, cost and the measurement sections, and then maybe take in the subjective conclusion.
It can be some fun detective work to try and justify the subjective prose against what Mr Atkinson found in the numbers.

 

[StigErik]

Thorbjørn uses SEAS’ anechoic chamber I believe.
Keith

Cool room, have been there!
And I think they have a Klippel system at Seas.

 

[kimmosto]

Cost perhaps for some smaller companies, )who also feel their design methods are valid anyway?)

Yes. NFS is way too expensive for most of us. Quasi anechoic is quite adequate for conventional speakers though has some restrictions. Klippel is the most obvious (financial) winner in this market situation.

Well, I guess on ASR it would be sort of tautological to say that good speakers have good measurements, especially as there is a particular criteria accepted for what defines “ good measurements.”

"Good measurements" is quite abstract allowing subjective interpretations, biases and skipping of important tests. For example, researcher/reviewer might focus to <1 dB hump in predicted in-room response, but does not understand or hear (in his room) or reveal that slope of directivity index is way too steep for casual listening off the spot in good acoustics with shortish decay.

In this sense to me, it’s obvious good speakers have good measurements, and I’ve yet to hear speaker that measures well (in the ASR criteria) that doesn’t sound good. So I do think that brings in a good level of predictability.

I have. Speaker could be unacceptable even though spinorama is almost perfect by ASR's standards i.e. the most quoted recommendations by Dr. Toole.
I don't know how wide their studies were and how much weight different studies got in white papers/books, but it seems that some practical needs have not been taken into account at all. For example, listening way off the spot; anywhere (90-180 deg off-axis) in open concept houses and room acoustics where EDT<<RT60 or in some other room.

Some reviewers (such as Erin H) measure compression and operation of active limiters, but not with practical i.e. music's spectrum or AES75 with Music-Noise.

It's not common to measure and show excess group delay though it's the best graph for indicating timing errors in full range. Studies about audibility of excess group delay focus to mid...high, and are performed with headphones which is wrong method so that sector of audio sciense seem to stay in very old but unbroken bubble. Speakers with bad timing sound lame, weak and artificial (=just speakers) so they are unacceptable at least for me. They pass ASR tests, but it does not make them any better in real life.

Not as textbook as a Revel or Neumann.

KH 150 is one of the "unacceptable speakers". Ok, it's near field monitor and sounds good to on-axis, but slope of directivity index is way too steep and has some step at high mid so it sounds dead and muffled to off-axis in acoustics where flutter echo is attenuated with acoustic panels producing acceptable EDT.

So I guess I’m getting it what type of variations one would consider acceptable within the “ good measuring” parameters.

That's nice. I continue to worry about how narrow-minded but aggressive quasi objectivity appears on ASR.

 

[MattHooper]

Really, grown men read this.
Keith

Just read that, Purite. I have to vomit now!

LOL. Whenever subjective reviews are cited here it’s like the high school football team being forced to watch a musical put on by the theatre kids

I took a look at that view Avantgard duo review for context, and while I don’t think it’s written particularly well, I can’t at least see what he is getting it and trying to describe;
With those loud speakers, he finds that they portrayed a sense of “ dynamic contrast/transient of any intensity” and how this maintained a tangibility to instruments even at very low volume levels.

I can see what he’s getting at. I’ve heard plenty of speakers that need to be cranked up in order for the instruments to have a sense of dynamics or tangible “ moving air in the room” presence. But at lower volumes or instruments playing at lower volumes, The instruments lose that density and tangibility. For I’ve heard piano recordings where, when the piano is being played loudly there’s a sense of more realistic solidity, but when the piano is being played quietly, it’s like the sound goes softer, less like that of a physical object in front of me.

He saying one aspect of the performance he found in the speakers was how they were able to maintain that consistent sense of dynamics and tangibility to an instrument - using the specific example of an oboe - which helped improve the impression of a real instrument being played.

So I get what he’s trying to explain. And this stuff can be valuable insight, of a type that many people around here would never even think to provide because “ it’s all bullshit, trying to put sound into words to convey the experience.”

Is he correct? Well, I would like to hear the loudspeaker to see if I get the same experience. I have had that type of experience listening to some other types of speakers, including horn speakers, so his description is at least plausible to me.

And the ironic thing in citing even that
“ randomly chosen” bit of a review, is even that is better than what you can find around here sometimes.

For instance, Keith’s tendency describe speakers he doesn’t like as sounding like a “Kazoo.” Even when such a description is wildly inaccurate (To loudspeakers, I am familiar with)

 

[Purité Audio]

First Stereophile review I opened, at least my ‘kazoo’ review is pithy.
All those old guys should get the sack, they are and have destroyed the hobby reducing it to the ridiculous.
Keith

 

[Purité Audio]

Honestly I don’t know how you can possibly continue to defend charlatanism.
Keith

 

[robh36062]

First Stereophile review I opened, at least my ‘kazoo’ review is pithy.
All those old guys should get the sack, they are and have destroyed the hobby reducing it to the ridiculous.
Keith

Not for me they haven't. A review is nothing more than someone else's opinion. You get to decide how much influence it has. I generally go for what I like and don't worry about others opinions. Just do what you like and enjoy it. It's your system after all so it should make you happy first and foremost.

Rob

 

[MattHooper]

Honestly I don’t know how you can possibly continue to defend charlatanism.
Keith

I guess I just don’t do dogma very well, where anything one personally doesn’t find useful is “ charlatanism,” so I can’t fully play on your team. Sorry.

(and you know very well I don’t defend anti-scientific claims)

 

[krabapple]

LOL. Whenever subjective reviews are cited here it’s like the high school football team being forced to watch a musical put on by the theatre kids

I took a look at that view Avantgard duo review for context, and while I don’t think it’s written particularly well, I can’t at least see what he is getting it and trying to describe;
With those loud speakers, he finds that they portrayed a sense of “ dynamic contrast/transient of any intensity” and how this maintained a tangibility to instruments even at very low volume levels.

etc.

DId those little posts really need such a long reply?

I don’t mind a lengthy well written review. (as if it weren’t obvious for my own blovating)

https://soundcloud.com/kccole%2Fcasablanca-im-shocked