Nice Talk with Paul Barton of PSB Speakers

[antcollinet]

As some of you may know, Paul Barton was there at National Research Institute when Dr. Toole started doing his research on speakers. In this interview with Darko, he fills in some of the details about that experience. It is about 50 minutes and sadly, I don't know how to speed it up on Soundcloud. But is very well worth a listen:

I've downloaded to listen during my bike ride today

 

[Saponetto]

Darko being Darko.

I only respect him for his taste with electronic music, but that's as far as it goes.

I love his flats furnitures.

 

[SSS]

As some of you may know, Paul Barton was there at National Research Institute when Dr. Toole started doing his research on speakers. In this interview with Darko, he fills in some of the details about that experience. It is about 50 minutes and sadly, I don't know how to speed it up on Soundcloud. But is very well worth a listen:

Interview with Paul Barton

As an aside, Darko without mentioning my name, asks Paul about listening to speakers to mono. To his surprised, Paul confirms why this is better and explains why. There are other moments where Darko has no choice but to accept the technical points Paul is making about importance of measurements, etc.

Here are some bits I transcribed if you don't want to listen to it:
---
Before you were introduced to dr. Toole were you designing by ear? Yes, I was designing based on early days ..... pink noise listening to it and music... when I took the first speaker to Ottawa [at NRC], there were clearly things that could be improved based on theory that speaker is a window.... flat frequency response and dispersion are all a factor."

"[measurements at NRC] put a microscope on what I was doing... correlating measurements with listener preference."

1. Most of the people most of the time agree on relative quality of a group of loudspeaker. There is no personal taste when it comes to asking what sounds the most natural. That is the goal to make the recording exactly the musician intended.

2. Properly interpreted set of objective measurements correlate strongly with listener preferences. You can see the measurements and predict how listeners will prefer.

[3] Musical tastes and experience is not material.

When listeners go into the room, it will take a few minutes for listeners to adjust to the acoustics of the room. After that, they are able to sort out the speakers from room.

We did both stereo and mono listening.... did the same experiment in mono and stereo (double blind)...when testing in stereo the anchor got better in stereo because stereo masks tonal aspects of a speaker. You get better differentiation between sonic differences of speakers in mono than stereo. Most of stereo imaging we hear is in the recording, not the room.

The final tuning is done by ear, i.e. ratio of highs to lows. Darko summarizing: "95% is done with measurements last bit is done by ear." Tuning is still done using measurements. Subjecting himself to double blind as he tweaks.

"We can measure everything... but the scale of it you judge by ear."

Hmm, hmm, some to me is wishful thinking. Of course ear/brain makes the decision if one likes the sound. But to determine what a better (based on which assumptions and indicators ???) speaker is hard to tell by ear.

 

[Dennis_FL]

Near the end the conversation went to active speakers (as Sonos pioneered). I have had Sonos speakers for decades and never once had a problem. However, my subwoofer experience has been terrible. Usually a power supply or amp failure and a very, very expensive shipping and packing expense to get repairs. My 60 pound sub required two repairs and my 30 pound sub also had two repairs. Luckily all were still under warranty, but still a hassle.

I had thought long and hard about getting something like the KEF LS50 wireless but stayed with passive due to the above experience.

So, with the advent of the active speaker (and untestable integrated amps) I suppose the long term survivability of the electronics becomes a factor.

I have both active and passive now. The active speakers are all low cost Sonos speakers and are scattered in the house and used mostly for background and non-critical listening whereas my passive speakers are in a room dedicated for music. I replaced my home theater Denon 7+2+2 with a not so low cost Sonos Arc with sub and surrounds and it not only sounds great but the previous passive speakers and subs (+ high end and big receiver ) were an eye sore.

When Paul Barton was talking about making engineering decisions affecting cost, the long term durability of the electronics design is probably hidden. I suspect a nice feature would be a user swappable electronics board or a removable module so you don't have to ship the speaker.

 

[Owl]

Good point on servicabilty, we really need to get away with disposable everything, and start rebuilding again.

 

[JohnnyNG]

He tries so hard to get the answers he wants, only to have Paul tell him the opposite! I wish I could see his face as Paul disputed every assumption he had. Maybe he has learned something and will change in the future.

I got that impression in parts of his Putzeys interview as well. Wants so badly for someone to tell him measurements are meaningless and that each audio opinion carries the same weight.

 

[AdamG]

He also explains as I quoted that the imaging people talk about mostly comes from content and not any property of the speaker.

I had to read this statement several times to make sure I was properly comprehending this information. Paradigm shift.

he said that when testing in stereo, the anchor got higher votes than in mono testing. In other words, listeners are less picky about the fidelity of a speaker in stereo. He explains that Stereo playback helps to mask tonality errors.

Another words testing in Stereo will trick the listener into believing that the fidelity and tonality of the Speakers is better than it really is. Stereo testing will hide/mask weaknesses and flaws in the Speaker design. In your vast collective personal experience testing Speakers, how big/drastic can this Stereo Masking be?

I have never conducted a demo of a speaker in mono when shopping for speakers. They have always been set up in stereo pairs. Are we all being “Catfished” by Sales Associates? I just had a personal moment of oh crap. Everything I thought I knew about how various speakers sound is wrong. Because I always demoed speakers in stereo pairs and almost always listened to whatever music they had playing. I incorrectly believed that good imaging was a product of the “stereo effect” but you are saying that this is incorrect and that the source of good imaging is music dependent and baked in the recording! I think I need an aspirin

Thanks Amir. I think…..?…?…

 

[Mart68]

I got that impression in parts of his Putzeys interview as well. Wants so badly for someone to tell him measurements are meaningless and that each audio opinion carries the same weight.

At least he is talking to these people now. I recall when he set out to discover the truth about power cables - by interviewing some power cable salesmen.

 

[AudioX3]

Darko often says he hates high frequency hurts his ears and thus favors fuller sound which ironically is less full as in muted highs. He is thus a perfect candidate for paying attention to measurements. But it a great gig he has got as he gets a lot of gear sponsors who he then reviews very favorably. He is one the worst of the lot.

 

[MKR]

I had to read this statement several times to make sure I was properly comprehending this information. Paradigm shift.

Another words testing in Stereo will trick the listener into believing that the fidelity and tonality of the Speakers is better than it really is. Stereo testing will hide/mask weaknesses and flaws in the Speaker design. In your vast collective personal experience testing Speakers, how big/drastic can this Stereo Masking be?

I have never conducted a demo of a speaker in mono when shopping for speakers. They have always been set up in stereo pairs. Are we all being “Catfished” by Sales Associates? I just had a personal moment of oh crap. Everything I thought I knew about how various speakers sound is wrong. Because I always demoed speakers in stereo pairs and almost always listened to whatever music they had playing. I incorrectly believed that good imaging was a product of the “stereo effect” but you are saying that this is incorrect and that the source of good imaging is music dependent and baked in the recording! I think I need an aspirin

Thanks Amir. I think…..?…?…

Great observations, I missed this, but indeed quite profound. Guess I better start auditioning speakers in mono!

 

[AdamG]

Darko often says he hates high frequency hurts his ears and thus favors fuller sound which ironically is less full as in muted highs. He is thus a perfect candidate for paying attention to measurements. But it a great gig he has got as he gets a lot of gear sponsors who he then reviews very favorably. He is one the worst of the lot.

I give Darko some credit for helping me discover DAC as a separate component and leading me Here to ASR. First time I heard of ASR was from watching one of his videos. I got super excited about a Forum based solely on Objective Data and actual measurements and research. As I learned more about stuff I thought I knew but didn’t know at all everything started going downhill from there………..once reality hit my ass and I discovered that I still don’t know what I don’t know. Reading Amir’s and to a large degree many other Senior Members Technical Posts is still like drinking from a Fire Hose…..

 

[Mart68]

I give Darko some credit for helping me discover DAC as a separate component and leading me Here to ASR. First time I heard of ASR was from watching one of his videos. I got super excited about a Forum based solely on Objective Data and actual measurements and research. As I learned more about stuff I thought I knew but didn’t know at all everything started going downhill from there………..once reality hit my ass and I discovered that I still don’t know what I don’t know. Reading Amir’s and to a large degree many other Senior Members Technical Posts is still like drinking from a Fire Hose…..

This is true. I spend more time looking up the words and the concepts than I do actually reading the technical posts and I'm sure I still don't understand a lot of it.

Especially bad when you finally think you have a grasp of something and then discover that you don't.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

Whilst I “don’t like Darko” for all the very correct reasons given here, I do actually like watching his YouTube videos and I think he has a pleasant and entertaining delivery style.

 

[hyfynut]

As some of you may know, Paul Barton was there at National Research Institute when Dr. Toole started doing his research on speakers. In this interview with Darko, he fills in some of the details about that experience. It is about 50 minutes and sadly, I don't know how to speed it up on Soundcloud. But is very well worth a listen:

Interview with Paul Barton

As an aside, Darko without mentioning my name, asks Paul about listening to speakers to mono. To his surprised, Paul confirms why this is better and explains why. There are other moments where Darko has no choice but to accept the technical points Paul is making about importance of measurements, etc.

Here are some bits I transcribed if you don't want to listen to it:
---
Before you were introduced to dr. Toole were you designing by ear? Yes, I was designing based on early days ..... pink noise listening to it and music... when I took the first speaker to Ottawa [at NRC], there were clearly things that could be improved based on theory that speaker is a window.... flat frequency response and dispersion are all a factor."

"[measurements at NRC] put a microscope on what I was doing... correlating measurements with listener preference."

1. Most of the people most of the time agree on relative quality of a group of loudspeaker. There is no personal taste when it comes to asking what sounds the most natural. That is the goal to make the recording exactly the musician intended.

2. Properly interpreted set of objective measurements correlate strongly with listener preferences. You can see the measurements and predict how listeners will prefer.

[3] Musical tastes and experience is not material.

When listeners go into the room, it will take a few minutes for listeners to adjust to the acoustics of the room. After that, they are able to sort out the speakers from room.

We did both stereo and mono listening.... did the same experiment in mono and stereo (double blind)...when testing in stereo the anchor got better in stereo because stereo masks tonal aspects of a speaker. You get better differentiation between sonic differences of speakers in mono than stereo. Most of stereo imaging we hear is in the recording, not the room.

The final tuning is done by ear, i.e. ratio of highs to lows. Darko summarizing: "95% is done with measurements last bit is done by ear." Tuning is still done using measurements. Subjecting himself to double blind as he tweaks.

"We can measure everything... but the scale of it you judge by ear."

Darko?

 

[Purité Audio]

It’s a film with Johnny Depp
Keith

 

[thegeton]

Reading Amir’s and to a large degree many other Senior Members Technical Posts is still like drinking from a Fire Hose…

Exactly. But I'm still bellying up to the bar for more. My learning experience here is never ending and I'm kind of excited about that.

 

[SSS]

Adding on, he said that when testing in stereo, the anchor got higher votes than in mono testing. In other words, listeners are less picky about the fidelity of a speaker in stereo. He explains that Stereo playback helps to mask tonality errors. He also explains as I quoted that the imaging people talk about mostly comes from content and not any property of the speaker.

Imaging like the master mixing engineer decided to have is buried in the music file of course. Sound of mono (ONE speaker only, not mono in stereo setup) reveals the sound property of the speaker itself better. But does this help when I want a stereo setup in my listening room. Not really always since the spatial distribution of speakers are different and the room itself influences the sound stage perception. Maybe mono helps to decide when listening in the garden free air. There the soundstage is always strict within the speakers base line.

 

[antcollinet]

I've downloaded to listen during my bike ride today

Well that was really interesting. Now i need to watch the “how to understand speaker measurements” video.

 

[Philosoraptor]

Here are some bits I transcribed if you don't want to listen to it:

Thank you for doing this. I found your notes on this guy's talk interesting and informative. I think I will skip the full interview since I went down the headphones path (until I stop renting I won't own speakers), but again, your transcription is appreciated.

 

[Juhazi]

Imaging like the master mixing engineer decided to have is buried in the music file of course. Sound of mono (ONE speaker only, not mono in stereo setup) reveals the sound property of the speaker itself better. But does this help when I want a stereo setup in my listening room. Not really always since the spatial distribution of speakers are different and the room itself influences the sound stage perception. Maybe mono helps to decide when listening in the garden free air. There the soundstage is always strict within the speakers base line.

Exactly. Different types of speakers can have very different directivity, which makes stereo imaging "sharpness". This also determines how sensitive speakers are to the room, positioning and listening distance. And here higher is not better, this is a matter of personal preference and in a specific room.

Listening to a single speaker gives you good idea of frequency response (range and smoothness) and if distortion or resonances are very bad.