Nice Talk with Paul Barton of PSB Speakers

[Waxx]

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.

that's why you measure in mono, and listen in stereo to speakers. Listening is more about the personal preference and if it fit's yourr needs (on directivity, on house curve is there is one, ...). But you do that after you've measured it in mono, and are sure there are no technical faults in it. That is at least how i work on judging speakers (my own builds or others) if i can. And yes, i'm the guy who sometimes comes with a laptop and a measurment mic and stand on hifi meetings ...

 

[Endibol]

What came 1st the chicken or the egg?

I guarantee you simply due to this interview Darko is already changing his mind. That is why the interview happened. That is how it works frequently. You start hanging out with new friends a bit before you realize you need to let go of some of the old ones you have grown apart from but haven't let go of.
For some folks this takes awhile to play out and for some of us it happens real fast.
He will come around. He actually seems very sincere to me. I prefer a sincere fool to a lot of other personality types.


Same for me. I enjoy his videos, for entertainment of a sort.
Same with Andrew Robinson. I think he may also be slowly coming to understand measurements and how they actually work.
We will see. If those two dudes started getting more into it, they have massive followings. I hope they go there.

Let's wait and see whether this would happen. Right now Darko seems to be pretty depending on his advertisements for straight out con men like Audioquest.
You are even forced to switch on all cookies when you want to watch a review while having selected "functional cookies only": I wanted to watch a B&W review video, but I had to hit a big read button first..
So Darko has a long way to go..
EDIT: but I do like his presentation, his videos are entertaining to watch with nice camera work.

 

[PeteL]

Near the end the conversation went to active speakers (as Sonos pioneered).

I am not sure Sonos "Pioneered" active speakers. Genelec maybe?

 

[Waxx]

Directivity plays a very minor role compared to what is in the content. If I pan all the way to the right in the content, what directivity will change that experience? Nothing. You will hear it all the way to the right no matter what. Sure, there is an effect but it is second order, not first.

That is true, but directivity has an influence on how the room reacts on the sound, and that can destroy imaging that is in the music (when there are many reflections). That's why listening in stereo with music with a wide image tells a lot about that. That's the main reason why i use a certain track (Shakara from Fela Kuti) to test that in the room where the speakers stand. It's a subjective test, but it works for me to know if the directivity is fit for the space. You can do that objectively with your Kippel, but i can't afford that thing, so i (and many) do it that way to get an ID. It's not as good as your way, but it's bette than nothing. And it only works in combination with objective measurements of frequency response and distortion (that i do with REW and a UMIK-1 mic).

 

[amirm]

FYI from what I recall, this interview as done October of last year. Anyone watched Darko's current videos to see if he is indeed coming towards measurements?

 

[amirm]

That is true, but directivity has an influence on how the room reacts on the sound, and that can destroy imaging that is in the music (when there are many reflections).

The room will impart the same in mono. I routinely evaluate how big of a halo/diffused sound a speaker has in mono.

 

[Waxx]

I am not sure Sonos "Pioneered" active speakers. Genelec maybe?

It was actually JBL and Klein & Hummel (now called Neumann) who did that. JBL had an add on amplifier (the JBL SE401 Stereo Energizer) for their studio monitors in 1964, and a few years later Klein & Hummel came with their OY active monitor with active crossover and amps integrated in their speaker. The OY is a far ancestor of the Neumann KH310.

Regielautsprecher OY Speaker-P Klein & Hummel; Stuttgart-Kemnat Marke |Radiomuseum.org

Regielautsprecher OY Speaker-P Klein & Hummel; Stuttgart-Kemnat Marke: K+H,, build 1968 ??, 10 pictures, 10 schematics, Germany, tubes, semiconductors

www.radiomuseum.org

 

[Mauro]

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."

Hi Amir, why don’t you do similar interviews with people like Paul Barton, Floyd Toole and Sean Olive? I am sure you could get deeper into topics than what others can do.
It would give a nice contribution to the community

 

[Dennis_FL]

I am not sure Sonos "Pioneered" active speakers. Genelec maybe?

I should have clarified - I meant active speakers with the integrated playback capabilities.....now with similar systems like Denon HEOS, and KEF wireless.

I cheated and I asked ChatGBT and here's what it says:

The concept of active speakers with multi-room audio and the ability to select music from internet sources like Pandora has been popularized and advanced by Sonos. While Sonos did not invent the active speaker technology itself, they have played a significant role in combining active speakers with wireless connectivity, multi-room functionality, and integration with internet music services.

Sonos introduced their first multi-room wireless speaker system in 2005, which allowed users to stream music from their personal music libraries and internet radio services to different rooms in their homes. They focused on creating a seamless and user-friendly experience, enabling users to control the speakers and music playback through a dedicated app.

Over the years, Sonos has expanded their product lineup, incorporating support for popular streaming services like Pandora, Spotify, Apple Music, and others. They have also integrated voice assistants like Amazon Alexa and Google Assistant into their speakers, allowing users to control their music playback with voice commands.

While Sonos was not the first company to develop active speakers, they have been instrumental in popularizing the concept of active speakers with multi-room audio and internet music streaming capabilities, making it accessible and user-friendly for a wider audience.

 

[Waxx]

I should have clarified - I meant active speakers with the integrated playback capabilities.....now with similar systems like Denon HEOS, and KEF wireless.

I cheated and I asked ChatGBT and here's what it says:

Then you forget about the boomboxes, that were all in one... Those were made by Philips first in 1966 and called the Norelco 22RL962, with an Radio and a cassette player.

And before that you had the big consoles like what is probally one of the first, the RCA Radiola Model 60 from 1929

 

[Dennis_FL]

Then you forget about the boomboxes, that were all in one... Those were made by Philips first in 1966 and called the Norelco 22RL962, with an Radio and a cassette player.

And before that you had the big consoles like what is probally one of the first, the RCA Radiola Model 60 from 1929

Just need to add the APP and multi-room capabilities.

 

[fineMen]

??? The music that was used for testing was not (necessarily) created using that monitor. I think you are misunderstanding the nature of the test.

First of all, I don't have the idea that there is something original in a recording that is independent of the recording technique. Microphone position, number, type, stereo methodology (!!) like Jeklin disk, x-y, wide, panning or time delaying etc.

The recording is the product of a hopefully successful judgment of taste.

The taste judgment is made by listening to the recording during its production, using a pair of loudspeakers. These are operated in a listening room with certain characteristics.

If the loudspeaker plays a role in the listening, and we assume that it does, its characteristics are decisive for the above-mentioned taste judgment. Its characteristics in the context of the listening room are to a certain extent contained in the recording.

If we assume that the aforementioned judgment of taste is correct, then a reproduction with just the aforementioned monitor loudspeaker, or a real equivalent, should be optimal.

Where my argument fails is that probably no one recognizes the first premise. Again and again, the discussion of audio quality falls back on the idea that there is something that is not dependent on studio technology, some original 'spirit', the essence; studio technology in the sense of the parameters mentioned above.

In short, as a quote from the interview: "Playback exactly as the musicians intended" (minute ~12:50). I say this is a pipe dream that only very few recordings come close to. And how did the musicians want to judge the recording? By listening to it. Through the aforementioned monitor loudspeaker, in stereo of course. And all together in the sweet spot?!

 

[Mart68]

If the loudspeaker plays a role in the listening, and we assume that it does, its characteristics are decisive for the above-mentioned taste judgment. Its characteristics in the context of the listening room are to a certain extent contained in the recording.

I have seen a mixing engineer state that he always uses the same monitor and takes them with him to studios which don't already have them. The reason being he knows their flaws and compensates for them with his mix. From memory they were NS10.

If this is the case then just using some NS10 for playback will not mean you're closer to the intended sound.

 

[Snoopy]

FYI from what I recall, this interview as done October of last year. Anyone watched Darko's current videos to see if he is indeed coming towards measurements?

He actually had already way before that videos where he measured room reverb, used room perfect, room treatment with professional absorber panels , Dirac.. high and low pass filters with subwoofers.. active speakers.

While he is a salesman no doubt, he has interesting videos often reviews equipment that measures well enough.

 

[fineMen]

I have seen a mixing engineer state that he always uses the same monitor and takes them with him to studios which don't already have them. The reason being he knows their flaws and compensates for them with his mix. From memory they were NS10.

If this is the case then just using some NS10 for playback will not mean you're closer to the intended sound.

So basically you accept my argument; or just so far as to formulate the counter-argument. Good, the solution is simple.
The weaknesses of the NS10 are known. But from where? Probably from a comparison with a loudspeaker that does not have these weaknesses.

This basically means that you don't have to take the NS10 as a monitor, but the one that the sound engineer has in mind when he mixes via the NS10.

Then the question arises anyway, why the said person wants to use his NS10, and not something that is good from the outset. Today there are cute little things from Genelec, Neumann etc..

We simply have to recognize that tonal tuning is always necessary, because a microphone, or even many of them, 'hear' differently than a pair of ears--and that listening through two speakers is something else entirely. This requires sensitive, technically non-standardized steps after trial and error in the studio. Whether it works is judged on the basis of the monitor. Whether the technician still makes a plan with regard to 'error correction' is a marginal matter.

Basically, believe it or not: we do not need 'better' speakers, but we need a single one and only standard speaker.

 

[Mart68]

So basically you accept my argument; or just so far as to formulate the counter-argument. Good, the solution is simple.
The weaknesses of the NS10 are known. But from where? Probably from a comparison with a loudspeaker that does not have these weaknesses.

This basically means that you don't have to take the NS10 as a monitor, but the one that the sound engineer has in mind when he mixes via the NS10.

Then the question arises anyway, why the said person wants to use his NS10, and not something that is good from the outset. Today there are cute little things from Genelec, Neumann etc..

We simply have to recognize that tonal tuning is always necessary, because a microphone, or even many of them, 'hear' differently than a pair of ears--and that listening through two speakers is something else entirely. This requires sensitive, technically non-standardized steps after trial and error in the studio. Whether it works is judged on the basis of the monitor. Whether the technician still makes a plan with regard to 'error correction' is a marginal matter.

Basically, believe it or not: we do not need 'better' speakers, but we need a single one and only standard speaker.

I totally agree in principle with what you say. My question is: How much does it matter in the real world? I'd say not a lot. We don't need to replicate exactly, getting into the ballpark is good enough to ensure the vast majority of recordings sound good played back at home for nothing more than fun.

All that needs is any well-engineered speaker. We don't need to exactly recreate the mixing or mastering suite for every recording in order to enjoy the music.

 

[dlaloum]

I am not sure Sonos "Pioneered" active speakers. Genelec maybe?

Revox had active speakers in the early 1980's

Revox Agora B on thevintageknob.org

vintage 1980s Revox professional self-powered monitors

www.thevintageknob.org

 

[MacClintock]

I hope more people listen. It is such an informative yet low key talk covering many key aspects of sound reproduction.

It is really very informative. Also it is surprising that Darko sometimes interviews very measurement oriented people who explain many things but keeps going on with his ridiculous subjectivist impressions, like DAC and Streamer sound differences, weights on gear and the like.

 

[Sal1950]

And before that you had the big consoles like what is probally one of the first, the RCA Radiola Model 60 from 1929

I love that RCA stand mount. !!!

 

[fpitas]

I love that RCA stand mount. !!!

They had stand mounts before it was cool!