Seriously, this thread should be Exhibit A when someone asks ‘why don’t more manufacturers actively participate on this site?’ There’s a way to respectfully disagree with design choices or express concern with performance without it devolving into name calling.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
PS Audio FR30 speakers
- Thread starter Pearljam5000
- Start date
Seriously, this thread should be Exhibit A when someone asks ‘why don’t more manufacturers actively participate on this site?’ There’s a way to respectfully disagree with design choices or express concern with performance without it devolving into name calling.
I think we have to separate the insults from the pointed questions. I have strong disagreements with what McG says and what some of his sycophants stand for in his site. Many of them are ridiculous.
But, many here have asked specific questions from Chris and sometimes he has not answered them directly. Statements like "hate" to expensive equipment do not help his case one bit.
My challenge to him relates to the order of testing of the equipment and the rationale for choosing a FR that is not based on Toole's research, ESPECIALLY because he quotes Toole's work a lot in his postings.
Some of the decision are from McG himself. For example, the investment or lack of it in a validated test rig such as the Klippel NFS. I have seen his video where he is mightly hanging from thin air to set up microphones to test the speakers. Truly brave! That, to me, in a professional environment is not the way to go. In my work, validation of the testing protocol is as important as the study itself. You can't (or shouldn't) compare results if two "trials" used different testing methods. I do give Chris credit for trying, but I challenge the notion itself. He has described "peaks" at different frequencies associated with the tweeter design, but we have NOT yet seen testing which would allow ASR readers, for example, an observation of the speaker's behavior compared to Neumann or even Arundel or the new Kef when tested further away than 1 meter, or using the CTA-2034 protocol.
I mentioned that I have been burned by Audio Scientology and thus choose now to want proper measurements BEFORE I give validity (or not) to subjective reviews. Maybe because I feel burned (or betrayed?) is that I am more skeptical. But when I listen to someone telling me how great the speakers are on one moment, and then that fuses and cable elevators make a difference, please, allow me to be cranky. This is why I am grateful that Chris is here and I hope that he stays but avoids recommendations for subjective reviews for his speaker and sticks to "objective observations" for the FR30.
For one more example, I did notice that the bass response appears very promising. But, I wonder if they built a baffle and tested the mid and tweeter alone to make sure that the directivity was working properly. To test above 1 kHz (as I think the crossover is at around 400 Hz), one could build a baffle and test the mid to tweeter crossover alone, without the need to build a complete speaker. Maybe this is crazy, but I know this has been done before (I have seen personally this situation). They should have been able to get a decent characterization this way. You would still need to test the complete speaker, but you may not need to have it customer ready finished.
In the end, they will not be for me. I have decided that my next speakers will be powered and I will limit the number of "pretty boxes" in my listening area as they don't contribute to the sound or to my feeling of self. I was expecting originally that PS will take a big leap and go really forward, but I understand that they have to defend their business model. Electronic boxes make him money.
Peace.
But, many here have asked specific questions from Chris and sometimes he has not answered them directly. Statements like "hate" to expensive equipment do not help his case one bit.
My challenge to him relates to the order of testing of the equipment and the rationale for choosing a FR that is not based on Toole's research, ESPECIALLY because he quotes Toole's work a lot in his postings.
Some of the decision are from McG himself. For example, the investment or lack of it in a validated test rig such as the Klippel NFS. I have seen his video where he is mightly hanging from thin air to set up microphones to test the speakers. Truly brave! That, to me, in a professional environment is not the way to go. In my work, validation of the testing protocol is as important as the study itself. You can't (or shouldn't) compare results if two "trials" used different testing methods. I do give Chris credit for trying, but I challenge the notion itself. He has described "peaks" at different frequencies associated with the tweeter design, but we have NOT yet seen testing which would allow ASR readers, for example, an observation of the speaker's behavior compared to Neumann or even Arundel or the new Kef when tested further away than 1 meter, or using the CTA-2034 protocol.
I mentioned that I have been burned by Audio Scientology and thus choose now to want proper measurements BEFORE I give validity (or not) to subjective reviews. Maybe because I feel burned (or betrayed?) is that I am more skeptical. But when I listen to someone telling me how great the speakers are on one moment, and then that fuses and cable elevators make a difference, please, allow me to be cranky. This is why I am grateful that Chris is here and I hope that he stays but avoids recommendations for subjective reviews for his speaker and sticks to "objective observations" for the FR30.
For one more example, I did notice that the bass response appears very promising. But, I wonder if they built a baffle and tested the mid and tweeter alone to make sure that the directivity was working properly. To test above 1 kHz (as I think the crossover is at around 400 Hz), one could build a baffle and test the mid to tweeter crossover alone, without the need to build a complete speaker. Maybe this is crazy, but I know this has been done before (I have seen personally this situation). They should have been able to get a decent characterization this way. You would still need to test the complete speaker, but you may not need to have it customer ready finished.
In the end, they will not be for me. I have decided that my next speakers will be powered and I will limit the number of "pretty boxes" in my listening area as they don't contribute to the sound or to my feeling of self. I was expecting originally that PS will take a big leap and go really forward, but I understand that they have to defend their business model. Electronic boxes make him money.
Peace.
Last edited:
Thanks for the excellent post, which seems to define the difference between the ASR approach and the rest of the audio community.
I found a list of Klippel customers, plenty of manufacturers use it (the majority of their client base is Chinese), but the vast majority don’t, including lots that came to mind that could easily afford it. Klippel measures and models performance that can be measured other ways and give consistent results, including in room above about 200hz, as explained in the video by Erin that Chris posted. In that video Mr Olive explained that his scoring of speakers can weed out a bad or mediocre one, but of the good ones is only indicative.
It would be crazy for PS Audio to go out and buy Klippel for $100k+ before ever selling a speaker. Chris clearly more than capable of doing good testing, and can and is using third party facilities now that they have production rather than pre-production units.
Mr Toole may be a legend around these parts, and respected elsewhere, but he’s not the messiah. There is a vast amount of research done elsewhere, and over a much longer period. It is wishful thinking that all speaker designers will suddenly become Toole converts and abandon any other approach.
It is fanciful to suggest that PS Audio should avoid subjective reviews and stick to objective assessment, presumably by ASR. Even Neumann, who you suggest are the gold standard, seem to disagree. I previously referred to their article that said
“When music professionals listen to music, they do it with a different mindset than music consumers. Enthusiasts simply want to enjoy the music they love as best as they can. It doesn’t really matter if the sound they hear is an accurate reproduction of what the artist intended. All that matters is the listeners’ subjective impression. Most music consumers therefore prefer speakers that seem to enhance their listening experience.”
That is why subjective reviews exist and the vast majority of the customers for these speakers will want to read subjective reviews in Stereophile and the like, which will include extensive objective measurements. Of course measurements that might look to Amir like design faults may be there for good reason, which is only apparent from engagement with the designer.
You won’t buy these speakers if only because they are not active, which is fine. The perception and hate suggests few if any ASR readers would. A review, rather than idle chatter, has commercial implications. Irrespective of how well they measure, sending a product for a review that is unlikely to generate a sale and cost time, money and get unmoderated hate doesn’t make any sense.
Vini darko
Major Contributor
And how would you go about fitting this massive multi part speaker with side and rear firing drivers to a kipple nfs? Erin already declined due to these issues.
I searched and came up with this video. I think someone mentioned this company as the one that will do the measurements for you. Looks like most floorstanding speakers would be difficult or impossible to test.
MISCO Speakers | Test & Measurement Services
MISCO customers gain access to measure linear and large signal parameters, a Klippel Near Field Scanner for 3D sound radiation, and more—all in house.
I searched and came up with this video. I think someone mentioned this company as the one that will do the measurements for you. Looks like most floorstanding speakers would be difficult or impossible to test.
MISCO Speakers | Test & Measurement Services
MISCO customers gain access to measure linear and large signal parameters, a Klippel Near Field Scanner for 3D sound radiation, and more—all in house.www.miscospeakers.com
I’ve said this a couple times now and I was the one who mentioned this company when I said this: Chris told me he contacted Warkwyn and they were unable to test the speaker. (I don’t know the details of why. Chris would have to address that if he wants to.)
I agree with the part customers goes for what enhances their experiences, but that generally was found to be their own preference curve, and tbh, I personally find tuning and doing treatment for a smooth, less peaky response way easier to achieve what is preferred by one. For readers, sure 90% want some unbiased reviews to be subjective, but than also the same ppl keep spending and changing for the next magic cure, no harm, that is exactly how the industry is being able to be fed. if every single company is like Genelec where speakers goes way beyond in time achieving mostly to their goal and "house curve" (Flat), and almost never breaks, the industry will be dead as a rock. but then also I don't really think the wild peaks seen in the thus far only measurement could really achieve what makes a flat off axis response (the valley in between the two peaks for example), something like B&W bat curve or so might be a better take on that. But also, ASR is pretty open minded, with uneven responses or directivity, predicted in room etc. one can be guranteed a wide unacceptance on the product, but when something new shows up getting really good measaurements, ppl here don't lurk on the hate of the brand forever.
Which implies buying Klippel would be a waste of $100K if you can't actually use it with your speakers.
My choice of speakers is based on listening. It is not after buying them, as your post might suggest, but after hearing them, or speakers from the same brand, often over many years. I have never had any unpleasant unexpected surprises and I have never had buyer's remorse. I just don't understand and have never experienced this idea of "spending and changing for the next magic cure". An audiophile friend of mine has had the same system since we graduated in 1984.
There are of course people who will buy just about anything a brand makes, and be the first to upgrade, no questions asked, and they probably frequent or dominate manufacturer forums. They are not the general reality. I've bought three pairs of speakers (the same brand, Harbeth) from one dealer, he sells more than anyone in the UK, and he told me only about 1% or 2% of his customers ever visit a forum. His experience (almost 50 years) is that the internet and audio forums give a very different perspective to how the retail audio business actually works.
To the contrary, as people tend to change their speakers very infrequently (so dealers tell me), open days and dealer demo days work because they inform their customer-base so when they do decide to change speakers, which for me has mostly been for cosmetic or changing domestic reasons, they will go to that dealer. It's a long-term strategy. The first and last speakers I have purchased were from the same dealer, 40 years apart.
I've spoken to several speaker designers at open days and one of my kids is a designer at a company that makes speaker products. I've yet to come across one that does not consider measurements and listening equally important in the design of speakers. I'd be amazed if you could make a good speaker without a lot of measuring. When I buy a car, I take it for granted that the car went through extensive design and testing, and it was not the case that a Nissan engineer went into a shed with a spanner and welder and made it up as he went along. There is a level of trust and, whilst some people will want to know all about the automotive engineering, most people just take the car for a test drive and decide that way. Frankly, there's probably as much chance getting the general public to by cars based on measurements and engineering as audio.
DSJR
Major Contributor
I may agree that a typical audiophile buys what he likes the sound of (and ignoring the input of the other senses) and what makes him (usually a 'him) feel good, but hasn't the research so many of us here rely on also stated that lay listeners usually prefer a more neutral and 'truthful' sounding speaker? Some older 'monitors' did tend to put (over)emphasised detail at the top of the requirements and twenty years ago, an accentuated upper midrange (the NS10 balance showing the best - and worst - of this balance when used in free space) seemed quite common. Domestic models of this era could suppress these frequencies a little and I believe still do at the crossover region BUT, today, modern testing and materials techniques do seem to be reducing these excesses on the whole I think.
My first sniffy view of these speakers is that even at $30k, they're 'only' passive models, so automatically second tier eye-fi regardless (my bad I'm sure, but whatever stuff I use currently, my heart belongs to decently optimised active techniques). I'm sure they'll find a ready market and give impetus for other models to join them
My first sniffy view of these speakers is that even at $30k, they're 'only' passive models, so automatically second tier eye-fi regardless (my bad I'm sure, but whatever stuff I use currently, my heart belongs to decently optimised active techniques). I'm sure they'll find a ready market and give impetus for other models to join them
Last edited:
Then I would suggest you go a quick and easy in room REW measurement and EQ exercise to see do you have similar experience with me.
My journey started back with a pair of KEF X300A, it sounded quite nice as itt's not really broken in most of it's FR and anything prior is cheap computerspeaker which I think most agreed are just something makes sounds. afterwards I got a pair of 8030C with the recommended dip switches in my setup location. it feels like it's cleaner and nothing need improve, with the 7040A. But since I am a Tidal streamer who like to keep finding new content, sometimes a song here or there feels strange, after I done my EQ it finally have everything sounded right and realistic.
Disclaimer it could be me having the bias and illusion that the target curve is the be all end all goal. but generally I found that our brain and ears are extremely forgiving as to what makes a good sound, most of the time it's the loudness making us feels "yea, that sounded great".
But one thing I learnt in my measurement exercise is that with room and stuffs placement the same speaker sounded really different as the measurement plots can be seen with a lot of different peaks and nulls, in that way any speaker sounding good/perfect in a demo location can sound drastically different at your place. Yes, the professional dealer would set up for you, but as they don't build your room from ground up there's only so much they can do, setting up with proper distance as possible, tilt and toe them and that's it. so in any room you would better do some EQ to fix the problems, or measure and do old style room treatments targeted to tame room modes, and which most likely will become some preference curve profile you like. And in this process, the lower the original distortion and the more linear (flat) Frequency Response would make it easer to achieve, or even without EQ, a linear response will have a higher chance to not have too wild swinging peaks and nulls due to room mode coinciding with the irregularity in FR.
Be reminded even Chris himself said the speaker is tuned to have a flat response at the listening window, so flat is still somewhat a goal, just his way is not make a wide directivity with flat on axis. although I won't opt for a speaker using that approach I respected that design choice, but then what we would like to see is some proof later that it did deliver that goal. I think generally lurkers here are always welcoming the next speaker that delivers the flat FR in LP with low distortion. see how those cheap small speakers got praised, but also here don't buy into the thing that some very wild fluctuating FR are "tuned by ear and it's what most customers like" without any proof of why that would work.
You are right about dealers I have had more than one say the same to me, most of their customers do not read hi-fi forums or the magazines. They don't understand what they are reading so they don't see the point.
You are wrong about cars though. I have worked in the trade. People will narrow down their options with specs and stats - including cost, fuel economy, range, boot space, availability of options like heated windscreen and yes, even the number of cup holders. Then they will test drive two, maybe three of what has filtered through that process.
I have a feeling a lot of them look at reviews of the equipment they *already bought* rather than during the shopping process. Humans are weird.
Last edited:
Pretty much agree. I have done REW measurements, which is why I know from measurements and listening that my room is pretty good. Plus my dealer, who has installed hundreds of systems, did the speaker alignment and was pleased with it because it was a quick set-up and did not require any EQ because, as you say, the brain is quite forgiving and with real sound can fill in gaps. I have EQ available, but don't use it.
I did an exercise in this room, which I've done before, putting the system in at the start of construction when it was bare brick walls and wood floor. The sound was deeply unpleasant. I then put the system in after building was completed but before furnishing, and it was still a bit harsh. Furnishings were chosen with acoustics in mind and it's worked. I did speak to my dealer about acoustics before building the room and I copied the ceiling design from one of his listening rooms. My wife was equally involved in the speaker choice - it's quite common. At demo's the audience is sometimes one third women. The building materials were from a specialist supplier of acoustic products.
One dealer told me of a client who was determined to have a specific pair of $75k speakers and when he came to install it was a nightmare. The room was awful and he wanted them in the corners. He got them to work in the end with a lot of EQ. As my dealer knows my house, this was not going to happen. He's currently selling someone an expensive pair of speakers, about $400k, they've been installed on demo for a month, at least 4 visits to the client so far and it's a 200 mile round trip. I just wonder how many people here appreciate that, certainly where I live, a lot of audio is sold by dealers who know their clients well, know their house, their taste in music, what brands they like, their budget, even their aesthetic preferences.
I think a pretty flat response is more a starting point than a final destination. I don't know about the Magico M9 in Erin's post above, but I went to a demo of the $100k M3, which measure very well, and ran screaming from the room after 15 minutes. I'm optimistic about Chris's speakers and am looking forward to hearing from them in a couple of months.
Been there. Took me 5 years to get round to buying a pair of Harbeth, listened to SHL5 and bought what I think were the first pair of SHL5+ off the production line. Bought a copy of Stereophile months later to tell me what I already knew. I agree - very weird.
I agree with what you are saying. Personal preference is involved in all speaker decisions. Amir likes a bit of extra bass, but not too much. I like more than Amir. Someone else may not like hardly any bass. Others want a shrill airy hot high end. Others like a more tame and rolled off top end. The curve gets you close and then you have to listen to the speaker. Then you have to hope and pray that your room is conducive to getting good sound. So many rooms are more along the line of anti-good sound that sometimes it is almost impossible to fix and your left with just doing the best you can. So in reality, much of what people get all obsessed with on speakers is shot to pieces when they get it home and in their room. REW has made huge strides in allowing people to see their in room response. But, to be honest, REW users are in reality few and far between. You have to be a real enthusiast to go down that route. The average guy will use speaker placement to tune/tweak their sound to the best they can get and that is usually good enough. Thank heavens our brains make up for many short comings in our sound systems and rooms. The good old brain covers fairly large frequency anomalies. But even our brain can't fix terrible sounding speakers that go beyond what the brain is willing to correct. So many issues to think about in actually creating good sound. Then along comes Amir and he makes it at least 80% easier to find good and great speakers for nearly every price range. It doesn't get any better than that. ASR is a speaker buyers dream!
Last edited:
I agree and would say "very weird" most of the time!
In the video at post 333 at 54:00 is a plot of the difference between predicted and actual in-room response. It's very close ±1dB from 200Hz up, poor below 100Hz and sort of OK in the middle. Which tells me that bass junkies are asking for trouble, because even with Klippel predictions are unlikely to be reliable, you just have to suck it and see in your room and deal with any problems.
I'm the lucky one as I'm not a bass junkie at all, and my speakers go plenty deep enough for me, very well defined, and thanks to the professional set-up there is no masking of upper frequencies (apparently a common set-up fault) with imaging and soundstage nicely balanced. Mr McGowan, on the other hand, is an admitted full-on bass junkie and I suspect the FR-30 don't go as deep as he would like. I suspect there are some design compromises in there, but it may be a good thing in making the speakers work better, or less badly, in poor or untreated rooms, smaller rooms and in systems without EQ.
I'm not an engineer, never got past a bit of physics at high school, and no interest in becoming an amateur audio engineer, but I am interested in products being based on good engineering. Even for me, with a pre-callibated UMIK microphone, REW is pretty easy to use, sending the test tone to my system over AirPlay. There were no peaks, the obligatory bass node about 65Hz, and a quick fix with EQ made no discernible difference so I turned it off because I was told that EQ is best for reducing rather than boosting things. I find EQ much more terrifying than REW.
ASR has tested a lot of speakers, but hardly any current consumer models and virtually none with any WAF. That's apparent from the review index - hardly anything above $1,000 that doesn't come from Harman. Even if I lived next door to Amir and was a happy owner of a Sonus Faber speaker, I don't think I'd lend it to him. I'd rather not know the result and experience the hate. My dealer stocks them, told me they have huge wife acceptance, but not to listen to them as I would not like them. He knows what I like. Fortunately my wife did not like them anyway.
Would you please cut out this nonsense? By far the largest number of speakers I test are consumer models. And speakers like Revel F328Be are some of the best attempts at "WAF" factor as a full range model:
Put the grill on it and it looks as innocent as any speaker of this type can. You sure has heck not going to get there with FR30 if that is your priority.
Similar threads
