Measuring speaker for review.

[witwald]

But why can the same measurements that confirm a speaker's excellence to its designer not also confirm its excellence to a reviewer?

Some reasons may come to mind after reading/watching the results produced by some reviewers.

In a recent video, a reviewer labelled his talk as "today's show". Therein, he proceeded to indulge us with lots of emotive language: "tiny box", "not that many sealed box subwoofers", "adequate but lacking", "you gotta try", "straight shooter", "the synergy", "wow", "zero effort to make them play nice together", "completed the sound", "it was magical", "this thing has the ability to disappear", "this is the ideal subwoofer for people who don't like subwoofers", "it really did complete the sound of the speaker", "it's like it was supposed to be there all the time", "whatever it is going on down there it's really good", "it's got speed and detail and you can hear each note", "no booming, no thickening", "seamlessly blending", "I was shocked...I really didn't see that coming", "the soundstage gets deeper and more dimensional when you're using a subwoofer, it just does,...I was totally in", "the recording is a phenomenal recording", "here sound is like it's right there", "instrument just pops out of the speakers", "the ... is an over-achiever, a serious over-achiever", "bass extension down to about 40Hz, that's pretty impressive", "pitch definition and musicality, that's its real strength", "it's working on a different level", "this is more about playing music", "so freakin' tiny and beautifully finished".

A decent set of measurements would simply have showcased the capabilities of the product being reviewed, within its form factor and budgetary restrictions.

 

[dfuller]

The multiple sub solution I find easiest

I generally find you need a combination of both.

 

[Chrispy]

I generally find you need a combination of both.

I haven't found much use for treatment for lower bass due its bulk

 

[dfuller]

I haven't found much use for treatment for lower bass due its bulk

In dedicated control rooms, generally there's little expense spared on that front. In a domestic space or theater I can see where you're coming from for sure.

 

[Chrispy]

In dedicated control rooms, generally there's little expense spared on that front. In a domestic space or theater I can see where you're coming from for sure.

I have no control room, never have, never will. I'm a consumer, not a producer.

 

[kongwee]

I had work audiophile shop in 7 years. In my small country, space is limited. I only encounter two clients take can do up their room. $200k system in untreated room is very common. Everyone know room acoustic is important. Properly one in hundred or even tens of thousands can afford to do up their room. That why audiophile speakers are never engineered to be flat as compare to processed 8361A.

 

[YSC]

As room to room or even everytime after minor furniture change the room or speaker placement could vary so much, and you know homes, even apartments have so many sizes shapes and materials. I would say a speaker as flat in anechoic chamber as possible is the best bet one can go. So all EQ or placement or room treatments can be only aiming to fix the particular room which is easier to estimate beforehand.

And don’t forget the most prominent in room problem is the bass regions where everyone will have some big peaks and nulls. But the location of those peaks and nulls varies greatly from one room to another. Designing the speaker FR to counter the room modes sounds really counter intuitive. Say in my room the peak is around 60hz and nulls at 80hz (random makeup), in a double sized room it might have 60hz peak due to placement proximity to the walls to liking but the null moved to say 100hz. That would make the speaker sounding great in the small room sound terrible in the larger room. So to say if one just want to have a speaker randomly out in room and sound decent, a flat speaker is likely to sound more consistent among different placement scenarios. And if one would spend effort to do some EQ, it’s easy to tame bass peaks with REW. If one have the money for perfection, of course will do it together with room treatment.

Trying different house sound or design FR goal IMO is the compromised approach in the analogue era. Where all you have are spinning vinyl and amps and no way to easily measure and fix the room modes. So ppl design speakers or so to make it sound better in the common listening rooms for those who could afford, which is likely the wealthy crowds which is likely to have larger house and dedicated room, high roof, nice and thick carpet etc.

In modern day rooms and electronics I think go flat FR and then tune in room response to target by EQ is a much better way

 

[Cote Dazur]

when it comes to evaluating speakers, measurements are still useful because there is significant evidence to show that even a speaker will sound and measure different in different rooms, the preference ranking for the speakers will tend to remain the same. In other words, it's true that some rooms and positions are better than others, but they are likely to affect most speakers similarly

Thank you for your extensive reply, a lot of interesting (to me) information relating to my concerns. Will read into what you have suggested.
I highlighted point 3, I would like a clarification, the preference ranking, is it based on better anechoic or similar to anechoic measurements or is it base on what people prefer when listening to them? What is the ranking based upon?

I expect that all of this depends on what defects the "bad" room has, and their effect on the listening experience. If we know that a room is "good", then it would make sense to also place a "great" speaker in there. Why even bother putting in an "average" speaker? Of course, one's purchasing budget will come into it. If you have a "bad" room, you can't really fix it with a "good" speaker, so there's no point in even trying that approach.

Yes, it makes sense to place the better speaker in the better room, but it is not the info I was trying to share. it was about how different a speaker sound and measure in different room and room location as being a transformative aspect on speakers/room relationship. also, I am not thinking that measuring in (a) room is a good solution, or even a solution at all for reviewing, I am trying to better understand the relevance of measuring speakers anechoically for reviewing.
Measuring in your specific room and set up is very enlightening and allows to understand what needs to be done in your existing situation.

 

[YSC]

Thank you for your extensive reply, a lot of interesting (to me) information relating to my concerns. Will read into what you have suggested.
I highlighted point 3, I would like a clarification, the preference ranking, is it based on better anechoic or similar to anechoic measurements or is it base on what people prefer when listening to them? What is the ranking based upon?

Yes, it makes sense to place the better speaker in the better room, but it is not the info I was trying to share. it was about how different a speaker sound and measure in different room and room location as being a transformative aspect on speakers/room relationship. also, I am not thinking that measuring in (a) room is a good solution, or even a solution at all for reviewing, I am trying to better understand the relevance of measuring speakers anechoically for reviewing.
Measuring in your specific room and set up is very enlightening and allows to understand what needs to be done in your existing situation.

This to me is pretty simple, you get one speaker extend reasonably low, so in room and measure once, so you got a typical room mode in your listening position, likely 1 or 2 peak followed by a null, so you could estimate the boost and cancellation magnitude, this will always have effect on whatever speaker you put there, so a well measured speaker will likey be easier to predict also. Now if you have a very not flat speaker you will make the room effect more complicated.

Either way you will need to deal with the room mode by EQ or absorbtion. if you ignore that and just put whatever speaker in, you likely get mixed experience, e.g. one track the room modes make the peak cancelling the roll off in bass and it sounds great, the other with frequencies in the null sounds just like crap

 

[Cote Dazur]

@napilopez thank you again for your reading recommendations, after reading this pdf, I now have an answer to my questions and understand the value of precise measurements in reviewing/evaluating speaker capabilities/qualities.

This extract, says it all, after pages and pages of scientific test and evaluation.

"In spite of the incomplete state of this area of work, there remains one compelling result: When given a chance to compare, listeners sat down in different rooms and reliably rated loudspeakers in terms of sound quality. Now we need to understand what it is about those loudspeakers that caused some to be preferred over others. If that is possible, it suggests that by building those properties into a loudspeaker, one may have ensured that it will sound good in a wide variety of rooms—a dream come true. The corollary to this is that we should be able to predict much about the sound quality of loudspeakers, at least above the transition frequency, by a thorough analysis of the sounds they radiate—that is, anechoic data."