PS Audio sent Erin their speaker??!!

[ahofer]

I submit to you that "more revealing" or "more detailed" would be the result of one of three possible causes:

a)entirely imagined by the listener, and due to more attention focus on the material or simply expectation.

b)differing frequency response at the listening position, the result of perhaps greater reflected high frequency sound (wider dispersion, for instance, could cause it, even if the near field measurements are similarly flat). Or, in a more negative way, emphasis from distortion at certain frequencies. Ribbon and planar implementations often do both of these things.

c) the result of the comparison source having a higher noise floor (inclusive of distortion) that masks high freqency information.

In any event, all but the first cause would show up in multipolar FR or noise/distortion measurements and be predictable to the educated consumer.

So, in scientific pursuit of better sound, the measurements are still going to tell us a lot here that "just listening" might not. Of course, a blind test would be instructive, but we would expect a variety of audible differences in loudspeakers, not just the revealed high frequency information.

If I've missed something, let me know, but I think that's it.

 

[Penelinfi]

It comes down to the impulse response of the driver, is it a very low mass or not and what frequency range it is covering. A low mass tweeter taking over at lower crossover frequency under 2khz is usually a recipe for more detail heard. A low mass mid driver taking over at a lower cross over frequency is usually a recipe for more detail heard.

But, if someone looks at frequency response simplistically, he may think it is an elevated response in some area that made something pop out more.

An elevated response could make things bright, but not detailed. Some guys who think in a simplistic manner might think bright is detailed. Bright does not mean detailed. Some manufacturers can deliberately do that to make a simplistic guy think the speaker is detailed.

Out of curiousity, where was this speaker elevated in the FR on Erin's measurement? Where do you think there was some elevation in FR that made it detailed?

When some frequencies are higher in level than others, then yes, certain things in music will be highlighted more. Even if they aren't elevated like a shelf or one high peak. The wavy variance around the trend line can do this.
It might not make it sound "more detailed", but can give people the "never heard that detail before" experience.


A good clean impulse/spectral decay will also help with "real detail". As you mention.

Dispersion will play a role as well depending on reflections.

 

[Chris Brunhaver]

Part of why our planars could sound different is that they have essentially no inductance and no magnetic hysteresis distortion. Distortion on our planars is primarily 2nd harmonic (with essentially no higher order distortion) and IMD is very low - pretty different sounding than a lot of cone midranges.

Erin has measured a couple of speakers with equally good or better IMD in the mid/treble (like the KEF Blade 2 or Arendal 1528), but we're in pretty good company there.

 

[Soria Moria]

I submit to you that "more revealing" or "more detailed" would be the result of one of three possible causes:

a)entirely imagined by the listener, and due to more attention focus on the material or simply expectation.

b)differing frequency response at the listening position, the result of perhaps greater reflected high frequency sound (wider dispersion, for instance, could cause it, even if the near field measurements are similarly flat). Or, in a more negative way, emphasis from distortion at certain frequencies. Ribbon and planar implementations often do both of these things.

c) the result of the comparison source having a higher noise floor (inclusive of distortion) that masks high freqency information.

In any event, all but the first cause would shoe up in multipolar FR or noise/distortion measurements and be predictable to the educated consumer.

So, in scientific pursuit of better sound, the measurements are still going to tell us a lot here that "just listening" might not. Of course, a blind test would be instructive, but we would expect a variety of audible differences in loudspeakers, not just the revealed high frequency information.

If I've missed something, let me know, but I think that's it.

I agree. And based on all speakers and headphones I have ever owned or heard they all «make me hear new things in a song I've never heard before» because they all have different frequency responses and masking. And there is certainly no correlation between price, quality and the idea of hearing new things either. Even on the dirt cheap worst things I have ever heard there are still details to be had due do the different presentation of frequencies.

 

[Chris Brunhaver]

When some frequencies are higher in level than others, then yes, certain things in music will be highlighted more. Even if they aren't elevated like a shelf or one high peak. The wavy variance around the trend line can do this.
It might not make it sound "more detailed", but can give people the "never heard that detail before" experience.


A good clean impulse/spectral decay will also help with "real detail". As you mention.

Dispersion will play a role as well depending on reflections.

Well, I have done some driver work in our second production run of these where I was able to sort out the "wavy variance" and eliminate the couple of narrowband dips in the tweeter and midrange.

They don't leave the factory like that and were caused by the thermal cycling of the teonex (PEN) diaphragm material and it slightly de-tensioning over time. We are now using a PEEK (polyether ether keytone) polymer backing to the foil now that has superior thermal stability and power handling.

We're going to roll this into some future products that I'm working on but, as of the last 12 months, it was kind of a silent upgrade, since the product ha been in market for a couple of years now and it wouldn't make sense to re-review etc (the change is more subtle than you might think subjectively). However, your analysis might be incorrect, as a result, and I thought it was worth mentioning to the technically minded here.

 

[Arindal]

This is usually because of elevated frequency response in certain areas making things pop-out more

Cannot confirm this, unless you have something like very elevated treble which would also be perceived as tonally different. Some might attribute this for example to current B&W 800 series tweeters and call this ´boosted´ or ´artificial´ resolution/transparency, and we have no hint that such boosted treble is at play here. Did not do any extended listening test with PS Audio speakers by they sounded tonally balanced, rather on the slightly relaxing side, like I know it from competently engineered AMT or planar magnetostatic tweeters/midrange speakers.

I submit to you that "more revealing" or "more detailed" would be the result of one of three possible causes:

...

b)differing frequency response at the listening position, the result of perhaps greater reflected high frequency sound (wider dispersion, for instance, could cause it, even if the near field measurements are similarly flat). Or, in a more negative way, emphasis from distortion at certain frequencies. Ribbon and planar implementations often do both of these things.

According to my experience it is indeed a difference in response at the listening position, but not necessarily visible in the anechoic on-axis response as these are at one single point only and usually smoothed with or that way.

Would say subjective transparency or detail resolution is rather the opposite of what you are describing: such speakers which do it without enhanced treble, deliver excellent clarity and transparency wich lesser disturbance, reflection and distortion. One might attribute this to less edge diffraction, less distortion, less compression, less narrow-banded cancellation/lobing, less sharp resonances, a more even wavefront within in the listening window of one's head, lack of lower frequency resonances, a more balanced directivity reducing the likelihood of dominating reverb masking the details... there are lots of explanations which would need verification, but I noticed it in recent years that many companies have managed to achieve such goals.

My personal conclusion is that is has usually nothing to do with phase linearity or diaphragm mass, as I have heard some pretty phasey models with diamond tweeters which are not light. But that's just gut feeling.

It can take a lot of focus and time with familiar material to discern the difference between bright and detailed initially. After training one's ears, it becomes quick to discern.

There is such thing like transparency, clarity, subjective detail resolution, independent from tonality. For those who don't believe, I recommend to listen to some very complex pieces with orchestra and multiple choirs (Mahler #8, for example, can give recommendations) on a speaker with excellent non-fatiguing transparency, but neutral or rather warm tonality. When I did this more than 15 years ago on a TAD Labs Reference One, it was an eye-opener for me. It gave some transparency and I could hear details which previously could only be heard on electrostatic headphones like Stax.

I was able to sort out the "wave variance" and eliminate the couple of narrowband dips in the tweeter and midrange.

That sounds like a potential explanation for non-fatiguing resolution and clarity. Kudos to PS Audio if you have achieved this in a planar midrange and tweeter. Most of manufacturers I am aware of use something like ceramic or Beryllium tweeters to do so, which has others implications on directivity.

 

[ahofer]

not necessarily visible in the anechoic on-axis response

…I highlighted reflections in cause #2, as you quoted. That's why the Spinorama and/or listening position response is critical to making FR measurements meaningful.

 

[LEA-Ebenisterie]

I don't really believe he listens without every having seen a measurement (even if a measurement somewhere else before he measures).

In this review he talks about recesses in specific frequency ranges, listening to music.... that magically show up in his measurement.

There is no way someone can pick a small scoop in 500-700 Hz range by listening to music.

But apparently Erin can.

I'm working for "La Maison du Haut Parleur" in Paris, France as a cabinet maker and have designed the cabinetry for the 2025 Iteration of their "Aéria Système" - 2 Way 38cm/15" Bass + Mid/High Compression with a Horn - (Only visually, they did study all the parameters for Volume, Bass Reflex lenght/diameter and size constraints on the front panel which I took from the previous iteration of the speaker, as Bass drivers were no longer built, they decided to ask one manufacturer a design for their specific use, and as they changed this, they asked TAD for their 2002 Compression driver as an upgrade from the previous one).

I listened to their previous version with old drivers etc... in their ShowRoom

And after one specific track I know, noticed a ditch in the 400/500/600Hz area, by ear.

The guy who is in charge of the project and being one of the 4 associates in this company told me "Totally right, that's where the crossover point is, no worries, there won't be this problem in the new version".

I ain't have "Golden Ears" as for me this statement is snooty/pretentious, I record some bands, took some lessons in Mixing/Mastering tips. Everyone can do this, just train your ears, as some respected Mix/Mastering engineers say, it ain't magic, watch Warren Huart videos on Produce Like A Pro channel where he records mixing lessons, you'll understand.

An the best to train your ears as people say and Erin do (of course we are not 100% he really does that, but I tend to believe him as it's possible, it ain't magic as I said), is to listen before, make notes, measure after, the more you do this, the more you ears are trained.

We don't say it'll replace measurements, because it litterally doesn't, we just say it's useful to do this to know what you're talking about and educate yourself.

 

[Chris Brunhaver]

So, I got a thing.

 

[NTK]

View attachment 517249
So, I got a thing.

Merry Christmas

 

[sigbergaudio]

Congrats! I wish that thing was 1/10th of the price.

 

[amirm]

So, I got a thing.

Ah, welcome to the club.

Do reach out if you need help with config, etc.

 

[Chris Brunhaver]

Ah, welcome to the club.

Do reach out if you need help with config, etc.

Thank you!

 

[RexrothPigeon]

@Chris Brunhaver gonna single-handedly rehability PS Audio's reputation, calling it now

 

[amirm]

@Chris Brunhaver gonna single-handedly rehability PS Audio's reputation, calling it now

We will certainly have less to complain about.

 

[ahofer]

Looking forward to the avuncular Paul video ‘explaining’ the tech and how everyone else is using it wrong.

 

[Chris Brunhaver]

Looking forward to the avuncular Paul video ‘explaining’ the tech and how everyone else is using it wrong.

It was a big investment so I'm sure we'll do some marketing around it. Not that it hasn't been talked about extensively here or by other owners (like Magico, Ascend, Erin etc.) but I'm sure I'll be tasked with doing some videos around it for our youtube etc. and highlight the benefits.

We have had an APx555 for a few years but now we have the loudspeaker equivalent of that and can even pipe Ravenna audio to a merging DAC in the listening room from live recording sessions going on in another part of the building. We may do some marketing around "closed loop engineering" highlighting the design improvements, making the most out of these tools.

 

[ahofer]

It was a big investment so I'm sure we'll do some marketing around it. Not that it hasn't been talked about extensively here or by other owners (like Magico, Ascend, Erin etc.) but I'm sure I'll be tasked with doing some videos around it for our youtube etc. and highlight the benefits.

We have had an APx555 for a few years but now we have the loudspeaker equivalent of that and can even pipe Ravenna audio to a merging DAC in the listening room from live recording sessions going on in another part of the building. We may do some marketing around "closed loop engineering" highlighting the design improvements, making the most out of these tools.

I think it’s great that you will use this measurements-based approach.

It can be a hard row to hoe if your clientele would prefer magic, though. Just ask Alan Shaw over at Harbeth, who espouses science-based approaches but scours any mention of directivity out of his forum.

 

[egellings]

It really irrelevant which order this is done in... the measurements are not going to change.


JSmith

It's possible that if the listener reviews the measurements first, those results may influence the listener's impression of sound quality. Have the measuring and listening done separately and independently. Compare results later.

 

[aagstn]

@Chris Brunhaver gonna single-handedly rehability PS Audio's reputation, calling it now

I would love to see PSAudio actually release good products at the prices they sell them for.