My Takeaways From ASR Speaker Testing

[Ron Texas]

1. Knowledge is power. We are much better off with these measurements than without.
2. Expect the unexpected. There have been some surprises like the KEF R3 topping the field in passive speakers while the LS50 measured meh.
3. Controversy is part of life. There was a lively discussion about why @amirm liked the M16 better than the R3. The mystery was solved with a little EQ.
4. Don't frorget the preference index is only one number. It can be adjusted for adding a sub, but not for low output. Speakers with 4" mid/low drivers can't play loud.
5. A little EQ can work miracles. My LS50's sound a lot better with some adjustments to deal with known frequency response deviations. Could preference scores be recomputed for EQ on some kind of a consistent basis? Conversely, bad dispersion can't be easily fixed. Do we need a separate dispersion index?
6. Some people must be really fortunate to have a perfect room. The Klippel shows simulated room response in what looks like a perfect room. My room goes nuts between 100 and 200Hz no matter what I put in there. Remember that uneven response lead to EQ-ing the R3's with a big improvement in sound.
7. I believe the science behind this is good. If you don't like the science, take the argument somewhere else.
8. Never forget the result is about preference of A over B. Not everyone has the same tastes. That's why electrostatics and Maggies remain popular.

Edited to eliminate a source of ambiguity.

 

[MZKM]

Could preference scores be recomputed for EQ on some kind of a consistent basis?

That’s a can of worms, as not everyone has access to the same EQ capabilities. And the PIR curve is the one we care about the most, and if EQ’ing that, we have no clue how that would effect the on-axis or listening window (but the reverse can be done).

 

[RayDunzl]

Not everyone has the same tastes. That's why electrostatics and Maggies remain popular. If you don't like the science, take the argument somewhere else.

Hey!

I resemble that remark!

Not certain how to interpret it, though.

Can't decide it it is one thought or two, since they are, if there are two, co-mingled in the same paragraph.

 

[Marakk]

As newcomer to sound, I'm thankful that we have objective measurements of the speakers. Subjective opinions are reviews are not trustworthy at all, especially after seeing the results of Klipsch RP-600M. Those are some popular speakers apparently, especially in hometheater sub over at reddit. Soundbars can produce sound better than those. Thankfully, Rtings is also testing soundbars.

 

[blueone]

7. I believe the science behind this is good. Never forget the result is about preference of A over B. Not everyone has the same tastes. That's why electrostatics and Maggies remain popular. If you don't like the science, take the argument somewhere else.

So, these are John Atkinson's measurements of the Martin Logan Renaissance 15a electrostatic hybrids. The averaged listening seat in-room response looks pretty good to me. I've auditioned these speakers extensively, and they sound pretty good, certainly comparable to the Salon2s. Why do you seem to be saying that people who like electrostatic are ignoring science and just expressing a preference?

https://www.stereophile.com/content...-renaissance-esl-15a-loudspeaker-measurements

 

[direstraitsfan98]

Pretty sure Ron just mentioned some people like Maggies to illustrate that people have different tastes, not an attack at them at all.

 

[Wes]

Maggies & various electrostatic speakers (not to mention plasma) have several differences from cone speakers.

One - just one - is that while cones use Be or bamboo or whatever tweeters to try and reach the lowest possible mass (and hence momentum), the others already have that.

But my question is what measurement captures that? Impulse response maybe?

 

[Ron Texas]

Hey!

I resemble that remark!

Not certain how to interpret it, though.

Can't decide it it is one thought or two, since they are, if there are two, co-mingled in the same paragraph.

It's two thoughts. There was no intent to infer that people who like electrostatics are arguing about the science or causing any trouble at all.

 

[kokishin]

<snip>
8. Never forget the result is about preference of A over B. Not everyone has the same tastes. That's why electrostatics and Maggies remain popular.

I don't understand your reference to electrostatics.

I don't own electrostatics.

Just trying to understand your comment.

 

[Shazb0t]

I don't understand your reference to electrostatics.

I don't own electrostatics.

Just trying to understand your comment.

His reference is that they generally measure like crap.

 

[kokishin]

His reference is that they generally measure like crap.

 

[Shazb0t]

You asked.

 

[kokishin]

You asked.

Oops! The emoji meant I should have figured it out.

Wasn't directed at you.

Thanks for explaining.

 

[MZKM]

Klipsch RP-600M. Those are some popular speakers apparently, especially in hometheater sub over at reddit.

Ignoring the ~2kHz dip, it’s sensitivity is ~89dB, which makes it excellent for home theater purposes.

Looking at it‘s normalized horizontal directivity, it is really well controlled, thus making it easy to EQ (it has low distortion ~2kHz), and since the majority of surround sound setups (ignoring HTiBs) employ the included room correction, it will sound pretty good.

 

[Deleted member 9286]

There’s been a lot of talk lately about Amir’s opinion on this or that. That for me is separate to the objective measurements, which are only part of the puzzle when it comes to speakers. Yes, we measure against a suggested ideal, but what we all like to listen to is the other part of the puzzle. Personally I like his subjective commentary as it adds another perspective to his reviews and I know he’s heard quite a lot of different speakers so I can consider that as part of my opinion forming. I’m not saying anyone in this thread is specifically saying otherwise, I’m just saying that DACS/Amps yes, we should really just consider measurements, but speakers require a more 3 dimensional consideration. All this how can that speaker be considered better than this speaker seems counterintuitive, given the taste factor.

 

[Thomas savage]

My takeaway is that I need a pay rise and should be given free headache tablets .

 

[Xulonn]

My takeaway is that I need a pay rise and should be given free headache tablets .

I can't help with the pay raise - although it's time for another contribution...

However, here's some virtual medicine for your headache!

 

[napilopez]

Somewhat ironically, I actually think the reviews have given me some clarity on subjective reviews or the subjective portions of reviews (including my own).

What I've noticed from reading some subjective reviews after measurements.

• The measurements make me think a fair many subjective reviews get the primary sound descriptions right. Or, at least, reading two or three subjective reviews of a speaker can give you a pretty decent idea of sound characteristics that seems to match measurements. This speaker sounds bright, this speaker has a forward soundstage, that speaker has recessed mids. These aspects seem to roughly track the measurements from the samples I've read.
• There are details subjective reviews can be useful, as even the most extensive measurements out there are not completely comprehensive due to simple practical constraints. SPL levels is a big one, especially for active speakers. Impressions of dynamics are also hard to quantify - as far as I know, there are no public measurements on this.
• Subjective reviews seem to fail in two or three places: First is value assessment. They might be able to characterize a speaker's sound, but not so much whether you can get the same sound quality for much less. Conversely, they might assume a cheap speaker can't possibly sound as good as a significantly more expensive one.
• It also shows the importance of room EQ below the transition frequency, as it can really affect the perception of the other frequencies.
• On the other hand, even with measurements, people can disagree on the interpretation.

So I think if you can sift through some of the dramatic review language (which I admittedly enjoy sometimes) and read multiple reviews there's some value there. I'd try to read while ignoring the value assessments.

 

[Blumlein 88]

So, these are John Atkinson's measurements of the Martin Logan Renaissance 15a electrostatic hybrids. The averaged listening seat in-room response looks pretty good to me. I've auditioned these speakers extensively, and they sound pretty good, certainly comparable to the Salon2s. Why do you seem to be saying that people who like electrostatic are ignoring science and just expressing a preference?

https://www.stereophile.com/content...-renaissance-esl-15a-loudspeaker-measurements

Looking at all the measurements and what result you might get in a spin-o-rama graph those are not good looking measurements. They look pretty poor. The work prior to and at Harman was newsworthy because it showed that more than generalized good response near the listening area was needed for most people to prefer a speaker as better than another. Direct straight ahead FR was a key to good sound, but even that if accompanied by very variable off-axis measurements that differed dramatically vs on axis would get a poor result in blind testing. Such would likely be the result of the M-L ESL in your stereophile link.

And just to be clear about whether I condemn such speakers, I've owned several ESL's over my life and currently have some Soundlabs.

 

[blueone]

Looking at all the measurements and what result you might get in a spin-o-rama graph those are not good looking measurements. They look pretty poor. The work prior to and at Harman was newsworthy because it showed that more than generalized good response near the listening area was needed for most people to prefer a speaker as better than another. Direct straight ahead FR was a key to good sound, but even that if accompanied by very variable off-axis measurements that differed dramatically vs on axis would get a poor result in blind testing. Such would likely be the result of the M-L ESL in your stereophile link.

And just to be clear about whether I condemn such speakers, I've owned several ESL's over my life and currently have some Soundlabs.

Is it possible for any dipole (or bi-pole, for that matter) to get a great set of spin-o-rama measurements?

I have found that listening seat measurements do seem to loosely predict which speakers I might like. I heard the MLs before I read JA's review (the dealer handed me a copy), I can see why I probably preferred my own Salon2 configuration. I thought they made some instruments sound awesome (horns and strings, for example), but I didn't care so much for them with solo piano or a drum kit. My takeaway at the time was they might be euphonically colored. After seeing the JA review I did think that flat response curve is not something I've ever found realistic sounding since I started measuring perhaps ten or twelve years ago. I think the so-called Harman Curve sounds more realistic with my own recordings.

I've been tempted by electrostatics a couple of times, occasionally with MLs and especially with Sound Labs, and a long time ago with Quads. I just never pulled the trigger.

Which Sound Labs?