PS Audio sent Erin their speaker??!!

[MattHooper]

For the love of God. No one is saying mono evaluation is illegitimate, or wrong.

I and others are saying it is incomplete! Why is it incomplete, you may ask? Please see post #182

Please note, I said I was referencing comments on other forums and YouTube comments.

 

[Geert]

It's mostly not understood by many audiophiles. Many audiophiles see this as strange and unreasonable and a demerit point against taking ASR seriously.
"Why listen to him? He only listens to one speaker!"

That's a valid point, but the same goes for Amir being incapable of hearing differences between DAC's or cables. So where does it end?

 

[Chris Brunhaver]

I find this company to be one of the worst actors in peddling pseudoscience in the service of reaping outlandish profits. For anyone not in the know, Paul McGowan created an entire cult of false beliefs around IIS being a superior transport to USB, throughout outright lies, solely in the service of selling his suite of Directstream/Perfectwave SACD/DAC combos, at a price of $6,999 each.

Those who read the fine print will discover that only through the relatively obscure IIS protocol could he get around Sony’s inviolable DRM restrictions on the digital signal from SACD players being ported unadulterated from the SACD to an external DAC via Direct DSD—every other SACD player is forced to scale down the DSD64 signal to a maximum of PCM 48/16 bit through S/PDIF outputs to prevent piracy of these high resolution masters.

Do the research—the Directstream SACD is literally the only player that offers this function, namely the ability to port the digital data stream directly to an outboard DAC to be decoded in native DSD without a PCM downsampling. The only other way people have gotten around it is via HDMI/I2S audio extractors sourced from China. And Paul went another step further by creating a proprietary IIS pinout that is conveniently compatible with his own Directstream DAC. If you still aren’t convinced, read the marketing materials on the DS SACD player—they openly boast about this juggernaut right on their website.

Whether they financially colluded with Sony on this I don’t know—but there are innumerable suckers on Head-Fi on record that they purchased the DS suite solely for this purpose, seemingly oblivious to the sham. And many more continue to parrot Paul’s sciencey explanation for why IIS is WAY better than USB as a consequence of this. There simply is no science behind this claim.

Well, this is definitely off topic in a thread about a speaker review.

For what it's worth, there was no external I2S connector standard before ours and we published the HDMI pinout. I think Audio Alchemy may have done something similar with an RJ45 connector in the past, though I can't say for certain (and it wasn't used for DSD). Many other DAC/streamer manufacturers use this HDMI I2S implementation now based on the our published pinout etc. A few 3rd party products get some channel/polarity stuff wrong but there are workarounds in a lot of DACS to support these as well.

PS doesn't have any direct contact with Sony on anything (other than Gus Skinas who was working on editing/mastering some stuff for the record label being a contractor for sony for some of their spatial audio work (VME and 360RA). He is Mr. DSD, having worked for David Kawakami at Sony and taken over the Sonoma project (with Andreas Koch of playback designs) for a DSD recorder after they abandoned it/left it to him.
While there are some engineers at Sony that still love DSD, I don't think there are any plans for future development of it as a format per se.

 

[srkbear]

Well, this is definitely off topic in a thread about a speaker review.

For what it's worth, there was no external I2S connector standard before ours and we published the HDMI pinout. I think Audio Alchemy pay have done something similar with an RJ45 connector in the past, though I can't say for certain (and it wasn't used for DSD). Many other DAC/streamer manufacturers use this HDMI I2S implementation now based on the our published pinout etc. A few 3rd party products get some channel/polarity stuff wrong but there are workarounds in a lot of DACS to support these as well.

PS doesn't have any direct contact with Sony on anything (other than Gus Skinas who was working on editing/mastering some stuff for the record label being a contractor for sony for some of their spatial audio work (VME and 360RA). He is Mr. DSD, having worked for David Kawakami at Siby and taken over the Sonoma project (with Andreas Koch of playback designs) for a DSD recorder after they abandoned it/left it to him.
While there are some engineers at Sony that still love DSD, I don't think there are any plans for future development of it as a format per se.

Point taken about being off-topic. I admit that I didn’t sufficiently review the entire thread, my apologies.

 

[MaxBuck]

As near I can tell, this speaker performs similarly to the Polk R500 at only 20 times the price.

Perhaps I'm being overly simplistic, but that's what the spins look like to me.

 

[MAB]

Please read post #182

I did.
It was an odd anecdote for sure.

 

[MAB]

You are making the assumption that in a listening evaluation, one is only listening for tonal characteristics.

Uh, no I’m not.

 

[CleanSound]

I did.
It was an odd anecdote for sure.

Please do explain to me why it is odd. And also please enlighten us what measurements to look at or what to listen for in a single speaker for imaging. I think such revelation would perhaps save a lot of consumers a lot of money so that they can just buy one speaker instead of a pair.

 

[pkane]

Well, this is definitely off topic in a thread about a speaker review.

For what it's worth, there was no external I2S connector standard before ours and we published the HDMI pinout. I think Audio Alchemy pay have done something similar with an RJ45 connector in the past, though I can't say for certain (and it wasn't used for DSD).

Off topic, for sure, but Audio Alchemy introduced external I2S on a mini-DIN connector added to many devices, from a CD transport to dejittering boxes to DSP and DAC supporting it as part of the same ecosystem of moderately inexpensive components. Expensive I2S DIN cables came soon thereafter by third parties But yes, no DSD at that time, as this was mid-90's.

 

[amirm]

This is like compression + SPL capability. Do you generally consider compression to be much less important and that is why you don’t measure for it?

What Erin is running is not compression testing. Compression happens as voice coil heats up and efficiency drops due to increased DC resistance. Those quick tests Erin runs do not reveal this as there is no time for voice coil to heat up. They also show odd results like output increasing at higher SPLs which can't happen with thermal compression.

What I think is going on is parameter shifting in complex but minor ways that won't occur in music because it doesn't have a flat spectrum. I wear hearing protection when running sweeps and even then, 96 dBSPL is ear piercing. Music has an exponentially dropping spectrum. If you want to do such a comparison, you need to follow that (kind of like what M-noise does).

As a general rule, you have to be very careful in running these differential/null tests. They hugely magnify non-important things. And stuff that is not audible due to masking and such.

The only value there is in active monitors when amplifier reduces power, true DSP compression. This is easily seen in my THD sweeps:

Subtracting those two curves mathematically and then worrying about small up and downs is a mistake and classic case of "measurebating." Don't do it.

 

[Doodski]

Please do explain to me why it is odd. And also please enlighten us what measurements to look at or what to listen for in a single speaker for imaging. I think such revelation would perhaps save a lot of consumers a lot of money so that they can just buy one speaker instead of a pair.

Not aimed @ you specifically @CleanSound. You simply asked and so resultingly I am going to take a stab at the topic.
Speakers are for sure not my forte but I'm going to contribute to the thread and see where this goes whether I am right or wrong.

I am approaching this commentary from a systems wide & recording operation viewpoint, speaker imaging viewpoint and single speaker or stereo listening viewpoint.

The imaging of a audio system is dependent on many variables and nobody truly knows what the imaging is supposed to sound like.
The recording engineers/studio artistically creates a imaging effect that depends on their version of the best hardware for the task @ hand and a vision for the imaging effect.
The imaging depends on the environment @ playback and variables in the environment can radically change the imaging.

So to state that the imaging is better on one pair or another of speakers seems more like guesswork than fact to me.
For that reason I agree with the @amirm methodology in using a mono method to determine the audible response of the speaker and then after that the imaging can be something to take into consideration as a special effect that is not a defined standard.

If somebody really really wants a special imaging effect then by all means fly @ a stereo audition speaker test and select accordingly but it's not the best way to get the best overall sound due to the room's variables and acoustics.

Myself I take whatever imaging the speaker affords me and I historically buy matched pair speakers for the best imaging.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

EDIT: Both are normalized graphs now.

View attachment 358356

View attachment 358353

i'd say the fr10 is still wider, has better distortion apparently (but i think at this point is not that important, but IMD distortion is something that this speaker is the best by Erin measurements)
So apparently the planar mid range is a GREAT idea, nice one Chris.

Construction won FR10, the asc has a plastic feet that look rlly bad... the feet from ps audio is way more nice (alum)

 

[CleanSound]

methodology in using a mono method to determine the audible response of the speaker and then after that the imaging can be something to take into consideration as a special effect that is not a defined standard.

You are echoing what I am saying.

I am saying the evaluation should be done in both, not just mono alone.

 

[Doodski]

You are echoing what I am saying.

Oh cool... Nice to be on the same page.

 

[CleanSound]

Oh cool... Nice to be on the same page.

Yes, many times over.

I and others are saying it is incomplete! Why is it incomplete, you may ask? Please see post #182.

 

[Duke]

... according to Dr. Toole, no speaker that has done well in mono, has lost in stereo. Goodness in mono directly translates to stereo.

My understanding is that @Floyd Toole has clearly and consistently said that sound quality ranking in mono unfailingly predicts sound quality ranking in stereo.

But I am under the impression that, in this context, he is talking about "sound quality" as something SEPARATE FROM "spatial quality", rather than "sound quality" as something INCLUSIVE OF "spatial quality."

Am I mistaken?

Instead of properly focusing on tonality, your mind shifts to admiration of spatial qualities of stereo recording.

Absolutely agreed, stereo listening distracts from focusing on sound quality by introducing enjoyment of spatial quality.

What are your thoughts on how spatial quality should be evaluated?

 

[Doodski]

What are your thoughts on how spatial quality should be evaluated?

I think equal and identical conditions for the speaker pair comparison must be made. Like a revolving /sliding speaker platform with instantaneous switching capability. Go figure but this is so difficult to do.

 

[napilopez]

My understanding is that @Floyd Toole has clearly and consistently said that sound quality ranking in mono unfailingly predicts sound quality ranking in stereo.

But I am under the impression that, in this context, he is talking about "sound quality" as something SEPARATE FROM "spatial quality", rather than "sound quality" as something INCLUSIVE OF "spatial quality."

Am I mistaken?

You are mistaken in this case; spatial qualities are still assessable in mono although obviously it's almost never as enjoyable. But that's kind of the point.

3.4 in the book (I feel like I'm a pastor sometimes)

We listen to almost all music in stereo; that is the norm. So, it makes sense to do double-blind listening tests in stereo too, right? Wrong. It all came to a head back in 1985, when I decided to examine the effects of loudspeaker directivity and adjacent side-wall reflections (Toole, 1985, described in Section 7.4.2). In the process I did tests using one and both of the loudspeakers. Because stereo imaging and soundstage issues were involved, listeners were interrogated on many aspects of spatial and directional interest. To our great surprise, listeners had strong opinions about imaging when listening in mono.

....

Over the years mono vs. stereo tests have been done to satisfy various doubters. Each time the loudspeaker that won the mono tests also won the stereo tests, but not as convincingly, because in stereo everything tended to sound better. And what about imaging? It turns out to be dependent on the recording and the loudspeaker; there is a strong interaction. Classical recordings, with their high content of “ambiance” (i.e., uncorrelated L and R channel information), tended to be quite unaffected by the loudspeaker. However, some popular and jazz recordings, with close-miked, panned and equalized mixes, exhibited some loudspeaker interactions—as might be expected because they were control-room creations, not capturing a live event. But there were interactions involving specific recordings with specific loudspeakers.

He does seem to allow that some speakers may sound better with some music, depending on the recording; this seems unsurprising to me.

Edit: A perhaps more relevant passage from 7.4.2:

"In the results shown in Figure 7.14, the first surprise was that single loudspeakers elicited strong opinions about spatial quality. Those of us who had participated in many single-loudspeaker comparisons were aware that there were differences in the perception of the spatial extent and distance of the single sound source. To us, the most neutral sounding loudspeakers tended to not draw attention to themselves; they almost disappeared, leaving the sense of distance to be conveyed by the recordings. The least neutral loudspeakers were localizable sources; they “sounded like” loudspeakers. In stereo this was especially noticed in recordings with hard-panned left and right images, which are monophonic signals. However, it was still a surprise that this was an impression shared by other listeners not accustomed to this form of critical analysis."

"In these results, spatial quality and sound quality ratings were obviously not completely independent—one followed the trends of the other. Is it possible that listeners cannot separate them even though, consciously, most were confident that they could (the author included)? In monophonic tests, listeners reported large differences in both sound quality and spatial quality. However, in stereo listening most of the differences disappeared in these data that average ratings for all programs. The two highly rated loudspeakers kept their high sound quality ratings, but the loudspeaker with low spatial ratings in mono became competitive in stereo. This was a puzzle, because it had been assumed that it was stereo that would reveal the relative merits in terms of imaging and space."

 

[ctrl]

What Erin is running is not compression testing. Compression happens as voice coil heats up and efficiency drops due to increased DC resistance. Those quick tests Erin runs do not reveal this as there is no time for voice coil to heat up. They also show odd results like output increasing at higher SPLs which can't happen with thermal compression.

Amir, one cannot say this in general terms.

Nearly instantaneous compression is achieved through:

- voice coil, as it can heat up in a few seconds
- limited peak displacement of the driver
- resonance of the BR-port and enclosure, flow problems
- resonance frequency of the driver. Because of low electrical damping, peaks can occur
- Nonlinearities

These types of speaker compression are indeed captured by short sine sweeps with increasing voltage.

 

[Duke]

You are mistaken in this case; spatial qualities are still assessable in mono

I didn't say spatial qualities were unassessable in mono. I questioned whether, when Dr. Toole uses the term "sound quality" in the context of mono versus stereo listening, he intends it to be inclusive of "spatial quality".

I understand that there is a strong tendency for the assessment of spatial quality to track the assessment of sound quality. What is not clear to me is whether spatial quality rankings in stereo unfailingly track spatial quality rankings in mono. Such is evidently the case of sound quality rankings. Hence my interest in knowing whether Dr. Toole is using the term sound quality in this context as inclusive of spatial quality.