Polar response is not the key

[FrantzM]

Why are we feeding the troll?

+1

 

[RayDunzl]

There's no free lunch

From my vantage point, the Free Lunch began with the Big Bang (or whatever other Creation Theory to which you might subscribe).

 

[Cosmik]

Therefore you can hear more room sound with the LS50's than the JBL's. It is readily apparent on the recordings as being the fundamental tonal difference between the speakers.

I don't think that necessarily follows. More room sound might be the difference, but the chief difference in perceived tone could also be a different baffle step frequency or dispersion vs. frequency 'profile' (I would put money on that being the reason, myself). i.e. for example we don't know that a wider uniform dispersion would sound tonally different from a narrow uniform dispersion unless we compared speakers with uniform dispersion. And whether this would be different when listening to the speaker 'in person' compared to a recording of it.

The LS50 probably has similar dispersion to a larger speaker at high frequencies but differs at the lower frequencies.

 

[mitchco]

@Cosmik did you listen to the binaural recordings? The "room sound" difference can be heard in the 1 kHz to 3 kHz range... As seen elsewhere, there are off axis plots for the LS50 and I have the spinorama for the JBL's. The LS50's have a much wider high frequency dispersion than the narrow constant directivity JBL waveguide. The JBL waveguide has a 90 x 40 pattern and is XO'd at 630 Hz.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I would need to hear the results for myself.

But you have to do so under controlled double-blind conditions and, even then, it will only tell you what you prefer, not anything objective.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Music can’t be used for measurements. Music is also just a bunch of tones.......

which are constructed with the scandalous intent of engaging your emotions.

 

[Cosmik]

@Cosmik did you listen to the binaural recordings? The "room sound" difference can be heard in the 1 kHz to 3 kHz range... As seen elsewhere, there are off axis plots for the LS50 and I have the spinorama for the JBL's. The LS50's have a much wider high frequency dispersion than the narrow constant directivity JBL waveguide. The JBL waveguide has a 90 x 40 pattern and is XO'd at 630 Hz.

I didn't listen to the recordings, but I know that if I make a recording from audience position at a concert, on replay it sounds tonally different from how it did 'live' - not a controversial observation I think: it's the reason why recordings are often/usually made laboriously with close mic'ing not just a pair of mics at a distance.

Even a binaural recording doesn't cut it, because it doesn't allow me to turn my head to provide all the information I need to 'hear through the room'.

So if I hear a difference in the recordings of the speakers
(a) I don't know that I would have heard that difference if I was in the same room as the speakers
(b) I don't know that the difference is due to "more" room sound, or just "different" room sound.

 

[jazzendapus]

The premise of the thread is a bit silly but it's still an amusing though experiment. Even given the anechoic chamber scenario and identical on axis response of two speakers, their non identical off axis respone should matter to some degree at least. Our ears aren't located in a single point in space after all (horizontal dispersion matters here), and other parts of the head also affect how sound is percevied (HRTF) (both horizontal and vertical dispersion can affect this).

 

[edechamps]

Our ears aren't located in a single point in space after all (horizontal dispersion matters here), and other parts of the head also affect how sound is percevied (HRTF) (both horizontal and vertical dispersion can affect this).

I agree in principle, but I would expect the effect to be negligible unless you're listening very close to the speaker, in which case I would expect diffraction on the edges of the speaker to mess things up anyway. You can "fix" the experiment simply by moving away from the speaker such that the horizontal and vertical angles that your head projects on the speaker are very small.

 

[Audiojim]

But you have to do so under controlled double-blind conditions and, even then, it will only tell you what you prefer, not anything objective.

Stereophile do good reviews of expensive speakers such as Magico.
Do your measurements show that these speakers have exemplary polar response and if not what makes them so good?

 

[amirm]

Do your measurements show that these speakers have exemplary polar response and if not what makes them so good?

The research does not say "exemplary polar response" leads to listener preference. It says that if you measure what radiates from the speaker all around in a sphere, then group those into direct, early and late responses, and then create a weighted composite scores of those three sets, then you have a great predictor of listener preference.

Polar response is just a slice in frequency. By itself it is a clue but not a direct predictor. You need the full sphere with the above weighting.

 

[Audiojim]

is polar response just like moving the microphone around the speaker?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Stereophile do good reviews of expensive speakers such as Magico.
Do your measurements show that these speakers have exemplary polar response and if not what makes them so good?

You might find this article by Kal in Stereophile of interest.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/blind-listening-harman-international

 

[Audiojim]

The research does not say "exemplary polar response" leads to listener preference. It says that if you measure what radiates from the speaker all around in a sphere, then group those into direct, early and late responses, and then create a weighted composite scores of those three sets, then you have a great predictor of listener preference.

Polar response is just a slice in frequency. By itself it is a clue but not a direct predictor. You need the full sphere with the above weighting.

Ok but the problem is it does not explain the quality of the stereo imaging, the timing, the dynamics, the transparency, the detail and insight into a recording and so on. It does not tell us anything about clarity. Did you know that much of the rear soundwaves bounce around inside the box before coming straight back out? This will cancel some frequencies and add at others. You may get a flat response, but it's not pure sound you're getting.

Frequency response cannot be measured perfectly. The measurement would have to be better than what ours ears hear.

 

[RayDunzl]

Ok but the problem is it does not explain the quality of the stereo imaging, the timing, the dynamics, the transparency, the detail and insight into a recording and so on. It does not tell us anything about clarity.

Change the subject much?

 

[amirm]

Ok but the problem is it does not explain the quality of the stereo imaging, the timing, the dynamics, the transparency, the detail and insight into a recording and so on. It does not tell us anything about clarity. Did you know that much of the rear soundwaves bounce around inside the box before coming straight back out? This will cancel some frequencies and add at others. You may get a flat response, but it's not pure sound you're getting.

Frequency response cannot be measured perfectly. The measurement would have to be better than what ours ears hear.

First, a caution about your tone. You are discussing a topic which is the expertise for some of us. If you are claim to have higher authority than us, then let's see your qualifications. Otherwise, please stay away from "do you know" type of comments. Answer is yes, we know 1+1 is two.

No one has told you those factors are not important. It is the reverse: you have told us the most important thing: the tone and timbre of the speaker is not important.

I can get anyone off the street, audiophile or not, and they can tell if a speaker has too much bass, sucked out mid-range, too much highs, etc. Our hearing is naturally very capable there. So you need to get this right above and beyond everything else.

If you got a car and the moment you drove it, it start to pull hard right, you are not going to care how much power it has. Same here. Research into listener preference shows by far that it is the frequency response that matters to us the most.

Once there, sure, some speakers are much more dynamic, can go to lower frequencies, have lower distortion, etc. All are good things to look at. But make sure you have not missed the forest from the trees by focusing on these things first.

Also, be careful of audiophile mumbo jumbo terminology. Most people wouldn't know how to really detect detail in music despite how much they talk about it. Ditto for imaging, clarity, etc. They fail blind tests of such characters.

 

[Soniclife]

If you have to concentrate that hard to hear the differences then the obvious point is the differences must be very small. This gets overlooked in a lot of more stringent ABX tests.
Once you've got to the differences are very small point then is the time to start thinking about what those differences might mean to you as a listener.
I like I reasonably low bass that doesn't roll away too quickly. This will influence my choice more than minimum distortion in the midrange driver for example.

Very much this.

 

[Kvalsvoll]

Ok but the problem is it does not explain the quality of the stereo imaging, the timing, the dynamics, the transparency, the detail and insight into a recording and so on. It does not tell us anything about clarity. Did you know that much of the rear soundwaves bounce around inside the box before coming straight back out? This will cancel some frequencies and add at others. You may get a flat response, but it's not pure sound you're getting.

Frequency response cannot be measured perfectly. The measurement would have to be better than what ours ears hear.

It can be measured, and the measurement will be much better than what our ears can hear. The most significant factor for a loudspeakers sound signature is its radiation pattern. Frequency response on-axis can be equalized, but polar response can not, and will affect the sound regardless what you do.

As you can see from the replies here, this is something that is agreed upon. "It is known".

Imaging, "timing", dynamics, transparency (whatever that is meant to define), detail - all that is determined from the radiation pattern of the loudspeaker.

And they will sound different even outdoor, if the radiation pattern is different.

 

[mitchco]

I didn't listen to the recordings, but I know that if I make a recording from audience position at a concert, on replay it sounds tonally different from how it did 'live' - not a controversial observation I think: it's the reason why recordings are often/usually made laboriously with close mic'ing not just a pair of mics at a distance.

Even a binaural recording doesn't cut it, because it doesn't allow me to turn my head to provide all the information I need to 'hear through the room'.

So if I hear a difference in the recordings of the speakers
(a) I don't know that I would have heard that difference if I was in the same room as the speakers
(b) I don't know that the difference is due to "more" room sound, or just "different" room sound.

LOL! This experiment has nothing to do with live versus recorded, nor mic positioning, nor turning one's head. You can hear "through the room" plenty fine on the binaural recordings. Try it and hear the answer for yourself - it is fairly obvious

 

[solderdude]

If polar response was what makes speakers sound different, they would all sound identical if we put them outdoors then equalised the response on axis. I suspect this wouldn't be true so I believe that polar response is unfortunately not relevant

Polar response is just one aspect of a speaker not THE sole important aspect that makes speakers sound different.
It IS an important aspect in a room even though we can 'ignore' certain room reflections in our assessment of the sound.

The 'they would all sound identical if we put them outdoors then equalised the response on axis' is pure nonsense because that would mean that ONLY polar response would make speakers sound different which all of us know is certainly NOT the case. It is just 1 of many aspects.
If that were true there would not be so many different drivers and speaker cabinets.

This invalidates your 'believe' 'I suspect this wouldn't be true so I believe that polar response is unfortunately not relevant' as polar response IS also relevant and not solely relevant or irrelevant.

It does not look like you thought this through thoroughly enough or the whole thesis you put forward is meant to troll or rattling cages.