New Record Day - Binaural Shootout (Revel, Klipsch, Spatial, Q Acoustics)

[ctrl]

Then my wallet shrivelled up when I saw the price. Nice looking though makes the revels look a bit pedestrian.

For the fact that the speaker was developed by Karl-Heinz Fink, a veteran of speaker design, the price seems to me still reasonable - the speaker design may not have been quite cheap.

 

[MrPeabody]

On second thought, I wrote a lot of crap there.

With binaural recordings, the HRTF is included in the recording and is thus optimized specifically for headphone listening - even if the KU100 dummy head lacks the upper body to generate an "optimal" HRTF.

Here, the already often shown, graph about the composition of the HRTF. There you can also see the reason why the missing upper body hardly makes a difference (compared to the other influences) in the dummy head recordings:
View attachment 123240

The original source is in most cases not optimized for listening over headphones, but for stereo listening over loudspeakers and was mastered accordingly over studio monitors.

That means via headphones alone, the timbre of the original source (if it is not a binaural recording) just cannot be compared to the binaural recordings, because the HRTF is not included. Rather, the orignal source would have to be heard through neutral speakers in order to compare the timbre.

What does this say about the validity of comparing each of the speaker-specific files you provided with the "original" file you provided? I didn't really think about what was going on with this setup before ... now I'm wondering what it was supposed to reveal. Since the setup applies an acoustic transfer function to what the mic picks up, it doesn't really make sense to compare any of the speaker-specific files to the "original", correct?

 

[ctrl]

What does this say about the validity of comparing each of the speaker-specific files you provided with the "original" file you provided?

If you want to put it very directly, that was also crap.

I didn't really think about what was going on with this setup before ... now I'm wondering what it was supposed to reveal. Since the setup applies an acoustic transfer function to what the mic picks up, it doesn't really make sense to compare any of the speaker-specific files to the "original", correct?

Yep.
So it actually only makes sense to compare the speakers with each other.
As already said, if the original source is heard through a neutral speaker, the timbre comparison should be fair again - as long as the headphones are as neutral as possible, or even better tuned to the HRTF of the dummy head.

To make the comparison fair and meaningful, @New Record Day should have provided the original source, folded with the HRTF of the KU 100.
Then it would really be possible to judge the sound deviations from the original source with any headphone, whether neutral or not, and at the same time have spatial information like a binaural recording allows.
In this way (and of course with adjusted sound pressure levels of the different speakers) such comparisons would really be a useful addition to measurements.

Unfortunately, I can no longer edit the error in my opening and the following posts

 

[Jim Matthews]

View attachment 123270

You were faster.

 

[MrPeabody]

If you want to put it very directly, that was also crap.


Yep.
So it actually only makes sense to compare the speakers with each other.
As already said, if the original source is heard through a neutral speaker, the timbre comparison should be fair again - as long as the headphones are as neutral as possible, or even better tuned to the HRTF of the dummy head.

To make the comparison fair and meaningful, @New Record Day should have provided the original source, folded with the HRTF of the KU 100.
Then it would really be possible to judge the sound deviations from the original source with any headphone, whether neutral or not, and at the same time have spatial information like a binaural recording allows.
In this way (and of course with adjusted sound pressure levels of the different speakers) such comparisons would really be a useful addition to measurements.

Unfortunately, I can no longer edit the error in my opening and the following posts

Thanks for clearing this up plainly. Don't worry about the earlier stuff. We've all been there, done that. Had I been thinking clearly, I would have realized that what I thought it was, wasn't what it was.

This has caused me to ponder the inherent difficulty in using listening tests to judge the accuracy of speakers, and has reinforced my view that the only good way to judge the accuracy of speakers is through objective measurements taken in carefully controlled circumstances.

 

[Rick Sykora]

@ctrl was there any takeway that you gleaned from this exercise or does this just illustrate a need for a better controlled experiment?

 

[ta240]

one thing I really learned from the comparison is my attention span is way too short to listen to the same thing over and over and over...

 

[maverickronin]

one thing I really learned from the comparison is my attention span is way too short to listen to the same thing over and over and over...

I never bother with these kinds of things for a similar reason. If the music isn't something I'm interested in to begin with there is no way I can keep listening to it over and over again.

 

[noobie1]

I let my hearing have a rest then took another listen. I have a clearer understanding the differences. The QAcoustics is easily the one that sounds closest to the original. To match the level of the Revel to the original you have to turn the Revel up a bit, and once you do that, to where the overall level is closely matched to the original, it is apparent that the Revel applies an emphasis to the bass. Not unpleasant, but not accurate. And on the second listen, the deficiencies of the two Spatial speakers, and especially the Klipsch, were more apparent than previously. Both Spatial speakers sound very similar, with the same coloration. There is coloration in the bass, and a clear emphasis at higher frequency that gives the piano an unnatural sound, which some people might describe as "forward". And as for the Klipsch, well, it doesn't belong with this group of speakers. Even the two Spatial speakers outclass it by a wide margin. My thought about which of these speakers I would most want to buy has changed from the Revel to the QAcoustics.

I agree with you on the colorations of the Spatial speakers and the Kilpsch. As someone who's never played around with one, I wonder if adding a quality subwoofer could make the Spatial and Klipsch speakers sound neutral.

 

[osullis]

Just ordered the X5's. Can't wait to hear the X5 clip through the X5's.

 

[richard12511]

Just ordered the X5's. Can't wait to hear the X5 clip through the X5's.

Should be a great speaker. I'd love to own an open baffle at some point. You should send one to Amir to measure .

 

[MaxBuck]

I learned that the Revel has inadequate bass, the Klipsch is an awful speaker, the Spatials are interesting and the Q Acoustics 500 reproduces string bass beautifully, to my ears.

This stuff is inevitably so subjective. Lots of fun, and many thanks to the OP.

 

[TheInquiring]

Just ordered the X5's. Can't wait to hear the X5 clip through the X5's.

Have you had a chance to hear the entire Ron's recording through your X5's yet? Would you kindly share your impressions, please?

 

[N9R]

Interesting video.. Though, to be honest, I got more from the presenter's spoken introduction, which very effectively demonstrated the Neumann microphone setup, which undoubtedly sounds amazing (e.g. general tonality, and when walking behind the recording position, where it sounds on good headphones like he's actually behind you!)

As for the speakers, I especially wanted to hear Revel, and during "Bass Drops" was a little shocked at the overblown LF during its playback. But then I obtained the track in 24/96, and on my modest but flat, calibrated system it sounded just the same - overblown.

Also, the recording is a little bizarre in other ways - particularly, the hard-panned ambience on the opposite channel. If I were cynical, I could say that this track is a gift for open baffle speakers, which with all the backward-directed output would be just right for filling the information "hole" in the recording with listening room sound.