Preference rating: What score speaker do you use? What can you tolerate? Where do you start to deviate? Where can you hear until?

[wwenze]

Referring to MZKM's database. I like the scatterplot:

Speaker Data (beta)

docs.google.com

I know that my own personal preference generally tracks the rating until around a score of 3 to 4. After that it goes everywhere i.e. I can think that a speaker of 3+ rating sound better than a speaker at 4.5 (JBP 305P). Above this rating of 3 to 4 I also find that speakers, while still detectably sounding different, are generally all acceptable after EQ and nearly identical after EQ. I doubt I can find a reason for intentionally going above 5 unless it is for bass, then yea definitely go as low as possible.

So here is a question for all:

1) What is the rating of the speaker you are using?
- Unfortunately the speakers I use (yea, plural) have not been tested here but Edifier S2000 Pro seems like a close match and that is a 4.7. I also bass boost the ____ out of my speakers to reach 40Hz tho so that should give me a 5 at least simply due to that? Distortion notwithstanding.

2) Looking at that chart, what is the minimum rating you can accept for long term use without feeling discontent?
- So I look at the graph, take note the speakers that I know I will feel "yuck" about, then move up the score axis and see where the "yuck" stop appearing. For me that is around 4, with 5 making it really safe.
- If I don't have a choice i.e. space or money constraint, I will still go for at least a 3 probably.

3) Where do you start deviating from the rating?
- Like, you like a speaker with score=4 more than a speaker with score=6. So you start deviating at 4.
- Don't need to remove non-ideal effects such as placement / room / nearfield / speaker size etc. Because it is interesting to see when these effect start becoming more important vs anechoic performance. If a score=4 sounds better than a score=6 on your table, that is a data. Or datum, do people still use that word?
- I would say I start deviating at around 3+ or 4+, depending on how bad my favorite speakers measure.

4) With EQ, where do you think you can differentiate until?
- I have to mention EQ because even at a score of 5, BS22 and ELAC 6.2 have clear differences in bass volume.
- I believe I can hear until around 5. As in. the speakers are >5 after EQ. Then I can't tell which is which. I do these experiments when comparing two speakers directly.

5) What aspects do you find important and what do you not care about?
- For me, treble can fluctuate and even get shelfed low as long as the general trend is good I am not really bothered. On-axis not really important since I listen off-axis. Bass extension, I'm very particular.

 

[RayDunzl]

Mine (or the general type) rank lowest in this test:

Everybody hated them.

Part 1- Do Untrained Listeners Prefer the Same Loudspeakers as Trained Listeners?

One of the more controversial topics among audio researchers is whether or not trained listeners should be used for audio product testing an...

seanolive.blogspot.com

I've had them since 1998 and feel no need to part with them.

Left and right, with and without flat EQ, 1/3 smoothing, in room, at 10 feet (listening position):

 

[wwenze]

I've had them since 1998 and feel no need to part with them.

If money and space is no issue, would you?

Serious question. I have been wanting to upgrade but was scared I might end up hating the sound. So a NT$4800 speaker that I bought for the lolz while on a holiday to temporarily tide over my spoilt speakers ended up sitting beside my monitor for 7 years. To be fair they do sound better subjectively and the bass post-EQ goes lower than even USD$400/pr speakers so that's a main barrier.

I had ATC SCM and PMC twenty on my radar because of hype and "recommendations" as end-game >$1000 speakers but put the purchase on hold after auditioning them because I trusted my ears more than "recommendations". That was long before this website was a thing. Scary thinking back about it.

 

[RayDunzl]

If money and space is no issue, would you?

When are those not an issue for us regular dudes?

a NT$4800 speaker

Taiwan?

I had ATC SCM and PMC twenty on my radar because of hype and "recommendations" as end-game >$1000 speakers but put the purchase on hold after auditioning them because I trusted my ears more than "recommendations".

So, they sounded different than what you were accustomed to hearing?

 

[wwenze]

So, they sounded different than what you were accustomed to hearing?

Yes, and that is a phenomenon I acknowledge exists. Back in 2002 I thought computer speakers with 1-inch full-range were "clean and accurate" compared to boomboxes. Tho to be fair those boomboxes are also bad compared to what I would use today.

Anyway multiple years later after I developed a method to EQ bass by hearing, I bought a UMIK-1 and it largely agrees with my EQ, so there's that. In-room treble is shelved down by at least 3dB tho (boundary gain) and very funky (no waveguide) and I acknowledge that as my preference and apathy. Still better than the two speakers that I was planning to buy.

So, paragraph 1 demonstrates the possibility of deviating from the preference rating, paragraph 2 demonstrates the possibility of agreeing with the preference rating. So the question of interest becomes - Where does it happen?

 

[RobL]

I think for me, anything that scores 4.5+ is a speaker I would find satisfying enough to live with. The only speakers I have had I can find preference scores for are my 705p’s (score 4.7), and my 1032A’s (score 6.9 HERE) and the Lsr6328p (score 6.5 HERE). The 1032A and 6328p scores weren’t using an NFS scan, so may be a little inflated. That said, I would probably line these speakers up in the order they score…though the 705p’s and 6328p’s would be a tough call.

 

[Offler]

1. Elac DBR-62, rated at 5,7

2. I dont know.
I just decided to get pair of decent speakers with budget up to 1000 euro. DBR-62s had only favourable reviews (from both objectivists and subjectivists) and after i learned how to read the charts (frequency response, distortion, others) i have purchased pair purely on technical data. Wasnt disappointed after i heard them.

3. I cant reply to this completely.
Lets say I like speakers with "natural" response. No excessive bass or treble, but also i dislike when some frequencies got lost...

4. I use EQ provided on this forum, with slight adjustments.
Meaning i did not use curve which silents low-frequency, and i added corrections for Windows CALimiter induced distortions.

Result makes treble sound bit clearer, but there is very little difference from sound without EQ.

5. Clear sound?
I dont need studio-type precision, yet i value low distortion and if possible little to no EQ corrections.

 

[jhaider]

1) What is the rating of the speaker you are using?
- Unfortunately the speakers I use (yea, plural) have not been tested here but Edifier S2000 Pro seems like a close match and that is a 4.7. I also bass boost the ____ out of my speakers to reach 40Hz tho so that should give me a 5 at least simply due to that? Distortion notwithstanding.

Main system speakers are 6.8* with subs. Desktop speakers are 8.4 with sub, others not tested.

*708P model tested, 708i model used

2) Looking at that chart, what is the minimum rating you can accept for long term use without feeling discontent?

538.2

3) Where do you start deviating from the rating?

I see at least one speaker that’s over 8 with sub that would get a hard no from me.

4) With EQ, where do you think you can differentiate until?

EQ cannot fix crossover region dispersion disruptions, so however high a speaker with a marked dispersion disruption can get - at least one is over 8.

5) What aspects do you find important and what do you not care about?

I consistently find my preferences track horizontal polar smoothness, but generally if a speaker designer pays attention to that she’s also going to have paid attention to the on axis and listening window, resonances, likely diffraction, etc.

I don’t care about PIR within reason. I think its utility is vastly overstated.

 

[Pattern]

I have original passive LS50s crossed over to stereo subs at 180hz. Dirac corrected to 500hz and beyond that I'm running a recommended PEQ. I have no idea what this setup would score but I can say the kefs primary advantage for me is how good they are off axis both horizontally and vertically. The ability to enjoy the music from more places within the room and the luxury of being able to largely ignore the vertical relationship between the tweeter and my ear well overcome other considerations for my use case. I think at this point I may eventually graduate to R3s if my room size ever meaningfully increases, otherwise perhaps moving to Metas or coaxial Genelecs. But for now I don't hear any reason to move away from my shruging panthers. More likely I upgrade to subs with better 100+hz performance. All of this I believe points to the inherent flaws in the idea of boiling speaker preference down to a single value. It's too complex a question to be satisfactorily answered by a single metric. That said, I do find the scores interesting and potentially very helpful in building a shortlist of speakers to audition.

 

[watchnerd]

I don't pay any attention whatsoever to the preference score.

I know what I like, and I know the plots of the speakers I've liked. I look at the spins.

I actually find the preference score reductionist and uninformative.

My DAW monitors score an 8-something with a sub (which I use), but I bought them before they were ever rated on ASR after reading reviews, seeing other plots, demoing them, and knowing the house sound already.

 

[BoredErica]

Ls50 Meta score 8.5 w/ EQ + sub and I only look at score with EQ + sub. I start looking at anything 8 or higher and looks/size is one of the biggest factors. Regular preference score is not useful to me.

 

[dfuller]

I don't pay any attention whatsoever to the preference score.

I know what I like, and I know the plots of the speakers I've liked. I look at the spins.

I actually find the preference score reductionist and uninformative.

My DAW monitors score an 8-something with a sub (which I use), but I bought them before they were ever rated on ASR after reading reviews, seeing other plots, demoing them, and knowing the house sound already.

Wow, you summed it up better than I possibly could've. Preference score doesn't take a bunch of other important stuff into account - namely, group delay and settle time. This is mostly an issue in the low end, everywhere else resonances pop up as blatantly obvious, but you can have an entirely linear low end with way underdamped response and it'll be a total mushfest.

 

[watchnerd]

Wow, you summed it up better than I possibly could've. Preference score doesn't take a bunch of other important stuff into account - namely, group delay and settle time. This is mostly an issue in the low end, everywhere else resonances pop up as blatantly obvious, but you can have an entirely linear low end with way underdamped response and it'll be a total mushfest.

Yep. It doesn't know about bass Q tuning.

It's also doesn't know about near field issues like desk reflections.

 

[watchnerd]

Ls50 Meta score 8.5 w/ EQ + sub and I only look at score with EQ + sub. I start looking at anything 8 or higher and looks/size is one of the biggest factors. Regular preference score is not useful to me.

Genelecs always get removed from my consideration because I can't stand their looks.

I have complete respect for their engineering, mind you. I just can't get past the aesthetics and I know if I hate a way of piece of gear looks I'm not going to like living with it.

 

[wwenze]

Yep. It doesn't know about bass Q tuning.

It's also doesn't know about near field issues like desk reflections.

Do you correct it, or just leave it there like me because I am too used to the sound and it is needed for the so-called "downward sloping in-room preference blah blah" anyway?

 

[RayDunzl]

To attempt to answer the questions posed:

1) What is the rating of the speaker you are using?

Unknown. Probably in the lower quartile for the measurement suite in use here at ASR. They could even measure below zero like the Magnepan tested.

2) Looking at that chart, what is the minimum rating you can accept for long term use without feeling discontent?

I may or may not be able to use the numerical ratings table to determine what I might like.

I group things broadly, if I get to hear them.

Junk.

Better than nothing.

Good enough.

Wow.

I'm content with consistent "good enough" and some occasional "wow" with the right material being played. Flat (or other reasonable curve) response, low room interaction, convincing imaging, low distortion, more power available than can be tolerated.

---

For daily use I have JBL LSR 308. I rate them "good enough" for that, but they don't create any "wow" in my application. They are adjacent to the Martin Logans and also are 10 feet from the listening position. If played loudly, they distort. They are wide dispersion and excite many reflections in the room, so the imaging is what it is, lacking focus/precision.

3) Where do you start deviating from the rating?

Without deviation there can be no progress.

4) With EQ, where do you think you can differentiate until?

Don't understand the question. Flat response and balance between left and right sounds good to my tin ears.

5) What aspects do you find important and what do you not care about?

See #2.

 

[watchnerd]

Do you correct it, or just leave it there like me because I am too used to the sound and it is needed for the so-called "downward sloping in-room preference blah blah" anyway?

At my desk, I use monitors that are designed for desktop nearfield DAW use, including reflections.

My listening distance is <1 m, the speakers (Dynaudio LYD 5 + Sub 18S) are on IsoAcoustics stands that adjust the midpoint distance between the drivers to my ear height, the speakers are set for Wall, and I minor EQ for my listening position.

 

[restorer-john]

I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in the 'preference score'. I don't ever look at it. Amir's testing however is invaluable and presents extremely useful measurements that would serve to highlight or discount characteristics in loudspeakers I may wish to try, or listen to.

Like @watchnerd, I know what I like, what I don't like and what is acceptable or just plain broken when it comes to loudspeakers.

That said, if people want to base their buying/listening decisions on an arbitrary number, that's up to them. Just not for me.

 

[KSTR]

Any one-dimensional "preference score" for such a multi-dimensional and multi-facetted room of properties that a speaker represents does not work well. Never did and never will.

Simple numbers are for simple-minded people (the kind that probably give or use preference scores for their wifes/husbands/kids/pets as well ;-)

Of course, this rating that we have here is based on some serious research and as such it might provide some pointers. Alas, many factors that are also important are not measured (and some of them are hard to measure) and thus they are not factored in.

 

[Certainkindoffool]

I'm not sure how well my preference tracks the ratings. While I've heard many speakers that have been rated, they were in different environments, typically in less than ideal circumstances.

I do keep loose tabs on the ratings, but didnt reference them for any of my purchases. I do point people towards them if they ask for purchase advice, as I think its a good system for eliminating speakers with serious problems(very low scores).

Personally, I would rate my speakers as f208>8030c>RT-7>m105. I have never setup my speakers in the same environment for comparison though.