• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. 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!

Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

I think Toole and Olive’s work is indicative of a majority preference, but I think you have perhaps overstated it. We really don’t have large N trials to go on.
Well, to say 'majority preference' is to very much understate it. That gives the entirely wrong impression that, hey, maybe only 55%, or 66%, or 75%, gave speaker A that preference. If you look at the confidence intervals on their preference ratings of individual speakers, they are very tight indeed. Such confidence levels also suggest that the trial N is sufficient for the purpose of drawing the conclusion drawn.

Also, Olive has over the years conducted informal facility demonstrations that include eliciting preferences from visitors that number in the hundreds if not 1000+, and IIRC has said that, if he predicts from the measurements that you would prefer speaker A over B at the facility, then it would be truly extraordinary if you didn't. That's not the same as saying something like 'then a majority of you would prefer A over B'.

cheers
 
As I’ve said before, there is a way in which speaker measurements can be made easier to comprehend, which is by an adopting a target curve as your general criteria.
So if you just take the general type of response cited on this forum as indicative of a well designed loudspeaker with good sound, you’d be looking at essentially what some call the Harman Curve. It doesn’t take long to recognize the pattern there of the essentially flat on axis response with a gently sloping evenly spaced set of off access responses.

So you can say “ look for a measurement like this this sounds good.” And then one can also have their own experience of having greatly win down their selections, listening to loud speakers with essentially that curve, and understanding with that sounds like.

But where things get far more difficult is when you ask “ OK but what do all the other loudspeaker designs sound like?”

In that case, there are so many different speaker designs that measure so differently, you are being asked to look at a large variety of all sorts of different measurement aspects and somehow knowing just from the measurements exactly how any loudspeaker at all would sound. That takes a different level of understanding and direct experience correlating measurements to their Sonic consequences.

And then, what do you do if your interests extend beyond the relatively few available loudspeakers that have not spinorama-level measurements? Then it seems to be a “ try to hear them yourself” situation.

So on that level of knowing what all loudspeaker sounds like just from the measurements, not to put you on the spot, but I’m curious about what you would infer from this set of measurements.

If you were put into words what these measurements tell you in terms of the subjective effect, what would that speaker sound like?

I’d open up that question to anyone else here who would take a stab at it.

(I ask because I have quite a bit of experience, listening this loudspeaker):

View attachment 405753

View attachment 405754
View attachment 405755
View attachment 405756
View attachment 405757

View attachment 405758
View attachment 405759
(From stereophile)

Gosh, this is not not putting me on the spot. :D

I have never heard that speaker, and describing how it sounds from this isn't easy. Knowing how Stereophile frequency response measurements usually look, I would guess this is likely a lean both in the bass and upper bass / lower mids, so from that perspective not my kind of speaker. There's a pretty narrow peak/boost at the port tuning that may be audible on some tracks, which is not ideal. Beyond the bass I suspect it may sound tonally decent in-room, and also when moving around. Off-axis is not ultra smooth but not horrible either.

It's a bit uneven between 1-4khz, which is also not ideal, but it is hard to know how audible. Just looking at the response I would expect that it may sound a bit harsh on some tracks, and possibly lack a bit of bite on others. There's something happening off-axis at around 3khz too that may be adding energy to the room.

There's some significant resonances at 150-200hz, again hard to know how audible it will be in practice, but I suspect they might be perceived as coloration, again not necessarily on all material.

I am not going to pretend the step response tells me anything at all about how it sounds, because it doesn't.

Looking at the impedance curve there might be something going on at 2khz too, which is likely to shine through. All in all with a lean response and a number of resonances across the spectrum, I suspect this would not be my favorite speaker.
 
Last edited:
As I’ve said before, there is a way in which speaker measurements can be made easier to comprehend, which is by an adopting a target curve as your general criteria.
So if you just take the general type of response cited on this forum as indicative of a well designed loudspeaker with good sound, you’d be looking at essentially what some call the Harman Curve. It doesn’t take long to recognize the pattern there of the essentially flat on axis response with a gently sloping evenly spaced set of off access responses.

So you can say “ look for a measurement like this this sounds good.” And then one can also have their own experience of having greatly win down their selections, listening to loud speakers with essentially that curve, and understanding with that sounds like.

But where things get far more difficult is when you ask “ OK but what do all the other loudspeaker designs sound like?”

In that case, there are so many different speaker designs that measure so differently, you are being asked to look at a large variety of all sorts of different measurement aspects and somehow knowing just from the measurements exactly how any loudspeaker at all would sound. That takes a different level of understanding and direct experience correlating measurements to their Sonic consequences.

And then, what do you do if your interests extend beyond the relatively few available loudspeakers that have not spinorama-level measurements? Then it seems to be a “ try to hear them yourself” situation.

So on that level of knowing what all loudspeaker sounds like just from the measurements, not to put you on the spot, but I’m curious about what you would infer from this set of measurements.

If you were put into words what these measurements tell you in terms of the subjective effect, what would that speaker sound like?

I’d open up that question to anyone else here who would take a stab at it.

(I ask because I have quite a bit of experience, listening this loudspeaker):

View attachment 405753

View attachment 405754
View attachment 405755
View attachment 405756
View attachment 405757

View attachment 405758
View attachment 405759
(From stereophile)
I'll take a shot at part of the sound.
Looking at whatever is going on at around 15-250Hz, I'm guessing a slightly "old fashioned" sound with voices tending towards the plummy, especially male voice. I'm going to add that the middle voice in three part classical guitar pieces may be affected and a bit unclear - the same for some piano left hand, and steel string acoustic guitar. The odd thing is that whatever is going on at around 3-4KHz is going to affect very much the same things and maybe even enhance that plummy voice effect. I suspect the speaker itself has lumpier FR than the graphs indicate, as well, so simple instrument recordings aren't going to fare well here.
String bass may sound quite rich and woody for the same reason.
The peak just below 2KHz may or may not be audible.

It will sound a bit like a "speaker". So it will be deceptively nice on some music, but will show its true colours with a fingerstyle steel string recording with some strumming thrown in, and probably with solo piano. I can't be certain what those true colours are for sure, but a lack of clarity in a key area for solo acoustic guitar is almost certain.
 
Well, to say 'majority preference' is to very much understate it. That gives the entirely wrong impression that, hey, maybe only 55%, or 66%, or 75%, gave speaker A that preference. If you look at the confidence intervals on their preference ratings of individual speakers, they are very tight indeed. Such confidence levels also suggest that the trial N is sufficient for the purpose of drawing the conclusion drawn.

Also, Olive has over the years conducted informal facility demonstrations that include eliciting preferences from visitors that number in the hundreds if not 1000+, and IIRC has said that, if he predicts from the measurements that you would prefer speaker A over B at the facility, then it would be truly extraordinary if you didn't. That's not the same as saying something like 'then a majority of you would prefer A over B'.

cheers
I disagree with your conclusions, despite my strong presumption that the Toole/Olive model is right. We don't have access to his facility demonstrations, so we have only the published work to rely on, and there's been far too little third party reproduction of results. The confidence intervals by themselves can not justify broad conclusions. I suppose part of my presumption is the complete lack of contradictory work, but that isn't dispositive, only indicative.
 
I wish there were more blind testing studies. I think it’s really interesting that amongst the four most prominent speaker companies we look at here, two have bet their companies on coaxials (Genelec and KEF), and two seem to have disregarded the concept (Neumann and Harman).

They certainly have all the measurements at their disposal, so I think it’s interesting that they’ve converged on very different approaches. Some of this comes down to marketing, but it’s suggestive that there isn’t one speaker to rule them all.
 
One may need to adjust position or eq on the low end.
This is part of what I meant, but not all. You are actually talking about preference in sound - not in speakers because different speaker concept i.e. speakers are not necessarily interchangeable. Close to similar speakers could be interchangeable with positioning or EQ, but radically different concepts such as free space dipole and in-wall closed may be impossible or require external device or acoustical tricks to make sound compatible or satisfy preference. Different concepts are also differently sensitive to acoustics and locations which mixes assumptions and expectations about common preference in speakers.
This is the reason why CTA-2034 Directivity Response has different measurement method for different (but still conventional) speaker concepts. The other group is In-Wall, In-Ceiling, On-Wall and On-Ceiling Loudspeakers. Other strange concepts are not included in the standard so suitable interpretation of spinorama may not be the same. They could produce sound which fits to common prerence in sound.
 
If you look at the confidence intervals on their preference ratings of individual speakers, they are very tight indeed.
Are they? I think that the error bars are more than +/- 1 point on the score. That isn't exactly tight.
 
If you were put into words what these measurements tell you in terms of the subjective effect, what would that speaker sound like?

I’d open up that question to anyone else here who would take a stab at it.

Hello

Here's the rub I read the review when it was done years ago. That said I looked at the measurements first and was surprised by it. With that up front here goes:


That's quite the challenge and not an easy one. Looking at the impedance and phase plots you can see obvious resonances but a high overall average so it shouldn't be hard to drive. You have some cabinet resonances, but will they be audible?

Looking at the FR you can see the resonances and the port tuning, impedance as well, 40 Hz. That said JA does his LF measurements close in and splices them. With it flat like that and the 40Hz tuning I would expect LF to be a bit light not bass heavy at all possibly a bit anemic.

Looking at the Polars it's non cd and you again can see the resonances. On the Vertical flat axis it is below the tweeter so how high on stands and if low can you tolerate the roll off? I would expect the top end and low end to be rolled off. This is in my room using a spinorama design as a comparison. I have F206'S in my living room. With the resonances I would expect the mids to be a bit ragged.

The $64,000 question? Resonances and mid's not sure how audible. The extremes low and high end rolled off. Subjectively?? This gets really difficult.

What are you listening too for comparison purposes? Is the source material going to unmask a speaker's deficiencies or enhance them? What are your preferences?

I believe in the research and own speakers that do well in spinorama testing. I purchase my F206's with no audition and think they are great! Couldn't be happier with them.

I got what I expected so is that conformation bias? It just never ends!

Rob :)
 
People should read the original paper. Harman made it available for free. I attached it. Those error bars are 95% confidence intervals. :cool:

The statistics are provided in detail, quite dramatic ranking by preference, and high consistency between groups' preference across speakers. Please review the stats and ponder. Hard to imagine such a statistically relevant result being unique to 4 speakers. Agree it would be nice to see more of these big studies. But if I told my boss that I was going to redo a result like this just to make double-sure, I would get laughed at. This is an incredibly tight study. Is it really a surprise though?
 

Attachments

  • Differences in Performance and Preference of Trained vs Untrained Listeners - Sean E Olive.pdf
    295.8 KB · Views: 32
People should read the original paper. Harman made it available for free. I attached it. Those error bars are 95% confidence intervals. :cool:

The statistics are provided in detail, quite dramatic ranking by preference, and high consistency between groups' preference across speakers. Please review the stats and ponder. Hard to imagine such a statistically relevant result being unique to 4 speakers. Agree it would be nice to see more of these big studies. But if I told my boss that I was going to redo a result like this just to make double-sure, I would get laughed at. This is an incredibly tight study. Is it really a surprise though?
As I say, I find it pretty compelling. My comments go more to what would constitute a definitive answer on 'what the science says' about loudspeaker characteristics. It would be nice to see replication, especially with more/different speakers and subjects and a less skewed listener group. All of which could come naturally out of some replication.
1731433277847.png
 
"Are measurements everything or nothing?"
Hard to imagine a more closed-ended question, yet here we are, 730 pages and counting.
 
"Are measurements everything or nothing?"
Hard to imagine a more closed-ended question, yet here we are, 730 pages and counting.
Because it's the junk thread that gets posts imported whenever the subject comes up elsewhere.
 
Well, that's what you should have said, then.

I think "plotting survey data and error bars" was enough of a clue. And look where the discussion went.

Can you show in support of that, the data sets concerned are "somewhat limited"? Can you point to a larger dataset that shows something different? What are your conclusions based on the available data?

Lay out your own argument in detail. I'm here to learn.

I enjoy people's long-form discussions here too. It's reasonable to ask for elaboration. When I'm less busy, hopefully.
 
As I’ve said before, there is a way in which speaker measurements can be made easier to comprehend, which is by an adopting a target curve as your general criteria.
So if you just take the general type of response cited on this forum as indicative of a well designed loudspeaker with good sound, you’d be looking at essentially what some call the Harman Curve. It doesn’t take long to recognize the pattern there of the essentially flat on axis response with a gently sloping evenly spaced set of off access responses.

So you can say “ look for a measurement like this this sounds good.” And then one can also have their own experience of having greatly win down their selections, listening to loud speakers with essentially that curve, and understanding with that sounds like.

But where things get far more difficult is when you ask “ OK but what do all the other loudspeaker designs sound like?”

In that case, there are so many different speaker designs that measure so differently, you are being asked to look at a large variety of all sorts of different measurement aspects and somehow knowing just from the measurements exactly how any loudspeaker at all would sound. That takes a different level of understanding and direct experience correlating measurements to their Sonic consequences.

And then, what do you do if your interests extend beyond the relatively few available loudspeakers that have not spinorama-level measurements? Then it seems to be a “ try to hear them yourself” situation.

So on that level of knowing what all loudspeaker sounds like just from the measurements, not to put you on the spot, but I’m curious about what you would infer from this set of measurements.

If you were put into words what these measurements tell you in terms of the subjective effect, what would that speaker sound like?

I’d open up that question to anyone else here who would take a stab at it.

(I ask because I have quite a bit of experience, listening this loudspeaker):

View attachment 405753

View attachment 405754
View attachment 405755
View attachment 405756
View attachment 405757

View attachment 405758
View attachment 405759
(From stereophile)

Good on people for having a bash at describing the sonics from the graphs. The second graph of cabinet resonance/vibration is fun. Congrats to Genelec (also per Stereophile).

Ha! I wrote "contrast to Genelec" ... but auto-correct knows better.

722GenG3fig1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Gosh, this is not not putting me on the spot. :D

I have never heard that speaker, and describing how it sounds from this isn't easy. Knowing how Stereophile frequency response measurements usually look, I would guess this is likely a lean both in the bass and upper bass / lower mids, so from that perspective not my kind of speaker. There's a pretty narrow peak/boost at the port tuning that may be audible on some tracks, which is not ideal. Beyond the bass I suspect it may sound tonally decent in-room, and also when moving around. Off-axis is not ultra smooth but not horrible either.

It's a bit uneven between 1-4khz, which is also not ideal, but it is hard to know how audible. Just looking at the response I would expect that it may sound a bit harsh on some tracks, and possibly lack a bit of bite on others. There's something happening off-axis at around 3khz too that may be adding energy to the room.

There's some significant resonances at 150-200hz, again hard to know how audible it will be in practice, but I suspect they might be perceived as coloration, again not necessarily on all material.

I am not going to pretend the step response tells me anything at all about how it sounds, because it doesn't.

Looking at the impedance curve there might be something going on at 2khz too, which is likely to shine through. All in all with a lean response and a number of resonances across the spectrum, I suspect this would not be my favorite speaker.

I'll take a shot at part of the sound.
Looking at whatever is going on at around 15-250Hz, I'm guessing a slightly "old fashioned" sound with voices tending towards the plummy, especially male voice. I'm going to add that the middle voice in three part classical guitar pieces may be affected and a bit unclear - the same for some piano left hand, and steel string acoustic guitar. The odd thing is that whatever is going on at around 3-4KHz is going to affect very much the same things and maybe even enhance that plummy voice effect. I suspect the speaker itself has lumpier FR than the graphs indicate, as well, so simple instrument recordings aren't going to fare well here.
String bass may sound quite rich and woody for the same reason.
The peak just below 2KHz may or may not be audible.

It will sound a bit like a "speaker". So it will be deceptively nice on some music, but will show its true colours with a fingerstyle steel string recording with some strumming thrown in, and probably with solo piano. I can't be certain what those true colours are for sure, but a lack of clarity in a key area for solo acoustic guitar is almost certain.
Here's the rub I read the review when it was done years ago. That said I looked at the measurements first and was surprised by it. With that up front here goes:


That's quite the challenge and not an easy one. Looking at the impedance and phase plots you can see obvious resonances but a high overall average so it shouldn't be hard to drive. You have some cabinet resonances, but will they be audible?

Looking at the FR you can see the resonances and the port tuning, impedance as well, 40 Hz. That said JA does his LF measurements close in and splices them. With it flat like that and the 40Hz tuning I would expect LF to be a bit light not bass heavy at all possibly a bit anemic.

Looking at the Polars it's non cd and you again can see the resonances. On the Vertical flat axis it is below the tweeter so how high on stands and if low can you tolerate the roll off? I would expect the top end and low end to be rolled off. This is in my room using a spinorama design as a comparison. I have F206'S in my living room. With the resonances I would expect the mids to be a bit ragged.

The $64,000 question? Resonances and mid's not sure how audible. The extremes low and high end rolled off. Subjectively?? This gets really difficult.

What are you listening too for comparison purposes? Is the source material going to unmask a speaker's deficiencies or enhance them? What are your preferences?

I believe in the research and own speakers that do well in spinorama testing. I purchase my F206's with no audition and think they are great! Couldn't be happier with them.

I got what I expected so is that conformation bias? It just never ends!

Rob :)
Good on people for having a bash at describing the sonics from the graphs. The second graph of cabinet resonance/vibration is fun. Congrats to Genelec (also per Stereophile).

Ha! I wrote "contrast" ... but auto-correct knows better.

Thanks for playing folks ! :)

I’m impressed with the details some of you brought out from the measurements. Here you can compare your inferences to my own impressions of the loudspeaker FWIW.

For those who didn’t notice, those measurements were taken from the Stereophile review of the Devore Fidelity O/96 loudspeakers.

The reason I chose that loudspeaker to ask this question is:

  1. I am very familiar with it having auditioned extensively as well as the other similar O/93 model
  2. It seems to be interestingly complex to interpret. A generally flat trend in the on axis response, with some peaks and dips, and also some peaks and dips in the off axis response, some possibly audible port and cabinet resonances as well. Knowing exactly how that will all come together in terms of the subjective sound certainly isn’t easy for me to determine for the measurements and I wondered how others would do.
I was curious about to what degree anybody could predict and describe what I would perceive when I heard these loudspeakers.

So I’ll try to describe how the loudspeaker sounded to me. Of course, nobody need take my impressions as informative, so it’s up to the individual how much credence they want to put in to my impressions.

FWIW, I auditioned the O/96 speakers numerous times over the course of about a year, at two different audio stores, and the rooms varied from Medium size two large showroom, in both cases, the speakers were able to be kept well away from side and back walls. I would listen to, say, Magico and Revel speakers and then return to listen to the Devore speakers, and back-and-forth with other brands, as well as whenever I listened to any loudspeaker I would come home and replay many of the test tracks on my Thiel speakers to compare.

Next post is what I heard from these speakers. (FWIW my observations were quite consistent with many of the subjective reviews, as well as reports from people who own these loudspeakers.)
 
Last edited:
What I heard consistently from the O/96 when properly set up, was a big, rich sound, very meaty and palpable. They gave a real sense of heft and weight to instruments , while also sounding generally well-balanced, with open airy highs that allowed for a sense of “un-canned, realistic quality” accompanied by some richness and bloom in the bass.

It was a fascinating mix of characteristics: my eyes saw these big squat loudspeakers and expected the sound to be very old-fashioned and “ stuck in” the loudspeakers, and yet they (almost) disappeared as sound sources and cast a big airy soundstage with great imaging and sonic density.

The tonal balance struck to me was a rare combination: very open and extended to give “ in the room realism and presence, “ so I could effortlessly hear the texture of instruments like bows on strings, human hands, hitting bongo skins, etc.

And yet it was at the same time relaxed sounding, which is a combination that I hear in real life.

As I’ve said one of the main features is the sense of surprising scale of the sound to these loud speakers, and the sense that the sonic images have something like a life like impression of weight density and body. Saxes had more body and air moving believability, voices leaned a touch on the rich side, but what that did was give them a sense of chest and body and corporeal density, that could sound a bit more like when a real person is talking in the room.

Two things that really stuck out were massed strings and drums. String sections to me tend to sound particularly artificial on most sound systems - thinner than life.

The O/96 produced massed strings and perhaps the most convincing way I had encountered: they actually had scale weight heft, with an obvious bow texture, yet not exaggerated, naturally situated within the whole. The string tracks tend to sound thinner and more artificial through many other loudspeakers.

Finally, I was completely mesmerized by the sound of drums through these speakers. cymbals sounded big, brassy and complete, with less of the “ tiny spotlight of white noise sound” effect that I get through many sound systems.

Snares had vivid texture and heft so they cut through the mixes beautifully like a real snare.

And kick drums were beautiful! As most listeners have noted about these speakers, there is a combination of richness and quickness and room feel to the bass that makes for an amazing connection with what the drummer is playing.

You get the hard WAP of the drum pedal, attached to a deeper richer rounder bass quality, that sort of “ blooms” out into the room and washes over you so you can feel it.

And yet it doesn’t sound sluggish at all as if listening to some one-note-inducing room bass node. It’s a very nimble presentation, and I felt constantly physically connected to whatever the drummer was doing in a track.

In comparison, speakers like the Magico A3 did more of the “ audiophile bass,” that I hear through plenty of speakers, in which the bass is tightly controlled “ to a fault “ leaving the bass instrument occupying a well-defined space in the soundstage, but with the sense the bass instrument is happening “ over there in another room between the speakers.” Whereas the Devore speakers bass reached out more into the room, so I felt connected with the instrument.

So that is the gist of how these loudspeakers sounded to me: a sense of scale in Sonic images that would belied their visual size, a sense of open, airy soundstaging and imaging that seemed at odds with their squat, old-fashioned look. And, for my purposes, they were coloured in a way that was very cannily balanced so that I was rarely bothered by colorations, and was able to enjoy what they did with all types of music. They somehow managed to at once have a very pleasing particular character of presentation, while not sounding too “samey” - individual recordings sounded very individual and different!

They did sound more “ speakerly”

than other less coloured loudspeakers. I attribute much of that to their bass quality. But it was a trade-off I didn’t mind.

Also, while I described the sound as “ generally balanced with some richness in the bass” zooming in more finely there was evidence of imbalances. Occasionally, I heard unevenness in some instruments.

I remember a harp piece in particular, where some of the notes played by the harp seem to be softer than others, and almost sort of blink in and out, like certain knows were encountering dips or interference. This seems similar to what John Atkinson described with Solo piano eventing a similar uneven quality.

Also, the sound did not cohere properly unless I was 8 feet at least from the speaker. And finally, they did not sound unless dialled properly. They seemed particularly sensitive to how far apart they were and tow in. Get that wrong and the richness and scale I’m describing actually goes away!

(this sensitivity to the proper speaker width was also noted by some reviewers).
 
Last edited:
Finally, I don’t expect any of this to influence what anybody else here thinks. But as my own experiment I find it interesting to ask, What type of information can I personally get from the measurements, and what type of information can I get from other “ measurement oriented” individuals in terms of interpreting those measurements and predicting the subjective consequences? And how does this compare to what I can find in subjective reviewing?

I found that the subjective reviews of this loudspeaker tended to capture a more comprehensive and detailed way what it was like listening to different types of instruments and music through these loud speakers. In most of the reviews certain themes about the character of the loudspeakers kept coming up - characteristics that were just the ones I found so engaging.

I am printing some of those Devore O/96 review comments, so anyone interested can see what I mean.

(printing them in small so anyone can easily bypass this post who isn’t interested)

Devore Fidelity O/96 review selections:

Stereophile John Atkinson:

Even though I knew about the low-treble resonance and the lively enclosure, these problems were considerably less audible than I was expecting. Only with recordings of solo acoustic piano did they get in the way of the music by producing noticeable coloration, the piano's midrange sounding uneven, with some notes obscured. But with well-recorded rock and classical vocal recordings, the measured problems seemed to step into the background, letting me appreciate the O/96's full-range, evenly balanced sound and superb clarity.


———-

Dagogo



They have a big, rich, colorful tone, and a very natural, relaxed presentation, while still being very agile and transparent.



Massed strings were very visceral, full-bodied, and extended . The way they could swell, and float in a sea of air was breath taking. Massed strings most often sounded both powerful and relaxed.



You wouldn’t expect from their size, that theses apes would sound so big. Big in the same kind of way that our Publisher’s Tannoy Westminster Royal SEs sound big. They move a lot of air and the performance sounds real. If you listen in the dark or with your eyes closed, with the right recordings you may think and feel the music is coming from musicians and not speakers. The sound is energizing, life-size, full of emotion, and just flows into the room.



The O/96s struck a great balance between the overly tight bass of a modern loudspeaker and the big bloom of vintage speakers. They played music that was very emotionally involving with great bloom. Part of this bloom probably comes from the amount of air they move. This bloom maybe more than any other thing accounts for how lifelike they sound on rock, blues, and big orchestral music.



In his 2014 Axpona show report Miles Astor said this about the DeVore Fidelity Orangutan O/96 speakers, “Wha’ts more, these speakers are truly the bumblebees of high-end audio. Given their relatively diminutive size, the Orangatan 96s should not sound as big as they do. Yet I continue to marvel at their ability to cast not only a wide and deep stage but also one with height! There are far bigger speakers that don’t have the image height of these apes! And most of all, John always seem to get it right where it counts: the midrange.”

I concur, there is no way a two way with a 10 inch woofer and a one inch tweeter should sound like these speakers. How do they sound so coherent, how do they sound so big, how do they sound so alive? I don’t know, but I do love it even if I can’t explain it.



They balance all of the above in such a way that is very beguiling. They have a significantly rich sound. They do this differently from the Linn Audio Loudspeaker’s Athenaeums whose richness seemed to add a sameness to the sound from one recording to another. This is not the case with the O/96s, through which each recording sounds significantly different from all others, just a richer and smoother.



The O/96s are also play music with great dynamics and micro-dynamics in such a beautifully relaxed way, but not so relaxed as to rob the music of its great emotion.



They also have a way of letting you hear the air around and within instruments that is so important to adding to the realism of listening to recorded music.



——————

Art Dudley



the Orangutan O/96s served them all with clarity, color, impact, drama, and scale.



Singing voices were clear and uncolored, if timbrally a shade richer than the mean.



The O/96 communicated the force of his playing better than any non-horn loudspeaker with a 1" tweeter and a high-Q woofer has a right to. Bonham's entrance in Led Zep's "In My Time of Dying," from Physical Graffiti (LP, Swan Song/Classic SS 2 200 1198), was especially impactful



. Musical sounds through this combination were also wonderfully physical,



Among the performance characteristics that are as difficult to describe as to quantify—and that, coincidentally, rise above others in distinguishing vintage from contemporary products—is a loudspeaker's ability to convey the substance of musical sound, rather than suggesting a pale if attractively pellucid sonic outline. The DeVore O/96 hit the latter goal more handily than most modern loudspeakers I've heard,



There's a great new reissue of Glenn Gould's recording, with Leonard Bernstein and the New York Philharmonic, of Beethoven's Piano Concerto 4 (LP, Columbia/Impex MS 6262); the O/96s played it with an exceptional sense of sonic flesh and blood.



Just as remarkably, the Orangutans did that while conveying far more of the recording space around and behind the instruments than other speakers no less substantial. That, I think, will be heard by some as the O/96's unique strength.



———



O/93



Audio beatnik



I know my job is to tell you what the O/93s sound like, but let me start by saying that this is a speaker that doesn’t sound like it looks. They are small, two-way, floor standing speakers; but they sound like BIG floor standing speakers. So, if I had to put it very succinctly, I’d say the O/93s sound big and alive like live music sounds.



Few other speakers that I have heard in any setting are as great at reproducing a jazz drum kit or brass instruments as the O/93s.



So, I think that’s what we always have to judge the ability of a system by when it comes to drums. It’s easy to rob all the weight and substance from your system if you try to get every recording to have fast and tight bass, but I feel drums should always convey real rhythm and pace.



—————



Part-time audiophile



A snare drum skin sounds exactly like a real snare drum skin. A cymbal crashes, splashes, sparkles, and has airborne sonic decay as if a drum kit is being played in front of me. A singer’s voice has chest resonance – not just throat vibration – which signals my brain to believe that vocal emanation is being projected by an organic, physical mass, just like a real singer standing in the room would sound.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for playing folks ! :)

And yet to me the post important part of the review was not posted. The measured in-room response from the review.

Fig.7 DeVore Fidelity Orangutan O/96, spatially averaged, 1/6-octave response in: AD's listening room (red), JA's listening room (blue).

Now a speaker designed using Harman/Toole guidelines

Fig.7 JBL 1400 Array, spatially averaged, 1/6-octave response in LG's listening room.

And another

Fig.7 JBL 4367 Studio Monitor, spatially averaged, 1/10-octave response in AH's listening room.

And finally Salon 2

So what do these in-room measurements show?

Rob :)
 

Attachments

  • 1212DO96fig7.jpg
    1212DO96fig7.jpg
    54.9 KB · Views: 28
  • 510JBLfig7.jpg
    510JBLfig7.jpg
    32.2 KB · Views: 29
  • 422JBLfig7.jpg
    422JBLfig7.jpg
    40.1 KB · Views: 25
  • 708Revfig08.jpg
    708Revfig08.jpg
    32.1 KB · Views: 25
And yet to me the post important part of the review was not posted. The measured in-room response from the review.

Fig.7 DeVore Fidelity Orangutan O/96, spatially averaged, 1/6-octave response in: AD's listening room (red), JA's listening room (blue).

Now a speaker designed using Harman/Toole guidelines

Fig.7 JBL 1400 Array, spatially averaged, 1/6-octave response in LG's listening room.

And another

Fig.7 JBL 4367 Studio Monitor, spatially averaged, 1/10-octave response in AH's listening room.

And finally Salon 2

So what do these in-room measurements show?

Rob :)

I thought about posting those as well, but I saved them for when I posted the link to the review so that people could see them.

I wanted people to try and infer from the Anechoic type data, so they could include their speculations about how such a loudspeaker might interact in different rooms. Hence why I didn’t post the particular in-room results from Stereophile.
 
Back
Top Bottom