Thanks for your concern, but didn't I write that the speakers would be on the floor. A 16cm tall stand, if I place them vertically; 53cm stand for horizontal placement.
-
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 sent Erin their speaker??!!
- Thread starter nerdemoji
- Start date
Agree. At the end of the day, I am buying a pair of speakers, not one speaker.
For the longest time, I've been a Revel guy. Revel are great speakers, but they simply don't have that 3D imaging magic (at least not with the PerformaBe lines and below). It wasn't until I went to Perlisten, Neumann and Ascend all within the last year when I realized how amazing good sound is when there is 3D imaging. I will never go back.
And you know what? Mono evaluation won't tell me a lick about 3D imaging.
I really like the Industrial Design. As an Industrial Designer.
DSJR
Major Contributor
I usually ignore the subjective puff in reviews, but I make an exception for Erin, because he listens to a lot of the same music I do, so his general subjective findings - yes, in his room and in his climate - I find I can identify with to a degree. I don't listen to the music Amir uses a lot (but still, my sincere thanks for linking to some of it).
I'm still hoping that some well off and knowledgeable person in Europe can buy a Klippel and start testing European speakers, as well as the odd one tested in the US to confirm consistency. Our rooms tend to be smaller too and any bass anomalies in-room may well be magnified possibly.
I'm still hoping that some well off and knowledgeable person in Europe can buy a Klippel and start testing European speakers, as well as the odd one tested in the US to confirm consistency. Our rooms tend to be smaller too and any bass anomalies in-room may well be magnified possibly.
moonlight rainbow dream
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2020
- Messages
- 160
- Likes
- 239
It's possible, and could be a factor in explaining the perceived differences between bookshelf and tower speakers... but actually, the design that goes the farthest in eliminating this effect would be line array and line source type speakers.
Again, it looks like R2D2 on Ozempic. Not my style.
DSJR
Major Contributor
Please fellas, keep the dialogue going... If PS sells these speakers which seem well optimised for smaller rooms with positioning closer to the wall behind, it'll hopefully give budgets for future refinements and designs.
Sad to say this, but so many times on other UK sites have I seen friendly designers come in and try to give a rationale to their thinking only to be hounded off by amateur forum 'experts' with seemingly six months to a year 'experience' in audio matters and little apparent knowledge at all. This serves nobody in the long term. Whatever the product, I enjoy still learning about them even though I no longer have any real budget for such things. So many here DO have the funds to invest and don't want a grey finished 'pro box' reproducing their music in their well furnished living/listening room, so interesting dialogue can help no end for everyone.
Sad to say this, but so many times on other UK sites have I seen friendly designers come in and try to give a rationale to their thinking only to be hounded off by amateur forum 'experts' with seemingly six months to a year 'experience' in audio matters and little apparent knowledge at all. This serves nobody in the long term. Whatever the product, I enjoy still learning about them even though I no longer have any real budget for such things. So many here DO have the funds to invest and don't want a grey finished 'pro box' reproducing their music in their well furnished living/listening room, so interesting dialogue can help no end for everyone.
But you questioned the idea of having a woofer close to the floor like the FR10 based on the lack of recommendation of the same from Genelec. How is that feasible with a typical studio monitor (and especially in a studio)?
I do think this is a fair point. I think it is very rare that I find a speaker that measures significantly different from the other, but it does happen, especially at very low budgets. Have also seen it with powered speakers when amplification is on one speaker and the other is passive.
And of course, sometimes there's damage. I remember once a pair of speakers seemed to have an oddly unbalanced soundstage. It turns out one had a shallow dent in the tweeter and it showed up as reduced treble energy in the quasi anechoic frequency response. Might still have that measurement somewhere.
DanielT
Major Contributor
Speaking of which and to link back to what was discussed earlier in the thread.
Ppataki built a pair of line speakers. A good build that certainly sounded good, these:
Murphy's Corner Line Array project
I always thought that the more sources of sound you have in different poles of a room mode the less seat to seat variance you have and at a certain number of sources even the effect of the room mode is smoothed out entirely. I think we are saying the same thing sort of. I am just saying that...
audiosciencereview.com
But now he has skipped them and is completely into broadband drivers.
Some general thoughts. Not questions directly directed at you moonlight rainbow dream.The point is,how can you know which type of speaker you like, which fits with your taste in music in the listening room with the sounds you like if you don't test? With his DIY projects, Ppataki has also EQed them (which is more or less a must with line speakers), so his likes and tastes can hardly depend on different FR between his speakers.
Here Ppataki's new favorite:
Sphere shaped speakers with CHN110 drivers
Inspiring.:D Also in this thread, speakers were built with Ikea Blanda Matt bamboo salad bowls. I think you got inspiration from that thread: https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/sphere-shaped-speakers.49807/ You can also build a classic two-way speaker with a sphere shape...
audiosciencereview.com
Another person might love omni speakers...a third loves...and so on.
With all that said, in any case, I would not buy any new speakers that had not been measured.
Last edited:
OP
nerdemoji
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2023
- Messages
- 194
- Likes
- 301
- Thread Starter
- #211
Thanks for replying.
I also understand that you have lots of other stuff going on and doing 2 separate listening sessions separated by measurements (which I think I remember you saying we’re done quite far from the listening room) is very time consuming for you and provides us, in your mind, with no additional value. From that perspective I can understand why you don’t do it. I can see the benefits of measurements in the first 2 points, as well.
I think this whole disagreement in method probably comes down to the underlying philosophy between people (Erin and Amir specifically) of what subjective analysis provides the most utility to the viewer.
(Note that the following is just a guess) I think both methods have unique qualities that cater to the different audiences with ultimate differences in goals. Erin’s content is posted in an environment (YouTube) where most viewers know little about audio science and people who click on his videos may not believe in, or know about audio science. By starting with subjective experience, he appeals to these viewers and provides a quite clear bridge for how subjective audio experiences can be more or less explained with measurements. To this end, I think Erin has done well in providing an easy bridge from subjectivity to objectivity.
On ASR, I get the feeling that the assumption is that people should have some background understanding in audio science, and the review methodology reflects this, providing subjective analysis that suits different goals.
Of course, I still believe that a mixed method between Amir and Erin is best, but obviously this is hugely time committal, (and I’m starting to repeat myself at this point). Am I off in my assessment here?
These two are great and make sense to have measurements for
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?3. Dynamic playback ability. I power speakers with a very high power amplifier. I then push them hard. Best speakers handle that with ease until my ears give up.
Wouldn’t these be improved (less biased) without seeing measurements?
I also understand that you have lots of other stuff going on and doing 2 separate listening sessions separated by measurements (which I think I remember you saying we’re done quite far from the listening room) is very time consuming for you and provides us, in your mind, with no additional value. From that perspective I can understand why you don’t do it. I can see the benefits of measurements in the first 2 points, as well.
I think this whole disagreement in method probably comes down to the underlying philosophy between people (Erin and Amir specifically) of what subjective analysis provides the most utility to the viewer.
(Note that the following is just a guess) I think both methods have unique qualities that cater to the different audiences with ultimate differences in goals. Erin’s content is posted in an environment (YouTube) where most viewers know little about audio science and people who click on his videos may not believe in, or know about audio science. By starting with subjective experience, he appeals to these viewers and provides a quite clear bridge for how subjective audio experiences can be more or less explained with measurements. To this end, I think Erin has done well in providing an easy bridge from subjectivity to objectivity.
On ASR, I get the feeling that the assumption is that people should have some background understanding in audio science, and the review methodology reflects this, providing subjective analysis that suits different goals.
Of course, I still believe that a mixed method between Amir and Erin is best, but obviously this is hugely time committal, (and I’m starting to repeat myself at this point). Am I off in my assessment here?
Respectfully, that logic is flaw.
Two speakers combine in stereo will do things one speaker alone cannot.
Which point are you addressing in this case? Here I am agreeing that occasionally one speaker in a pair measures differently from the other. Rarely in my experience, since I find excellent matching with measurements performed by other people, let alone from the same pair in the same setup, but it does happen.
MAB
Major Contributor
With the room contributing larger variations than reasonable speaker mismatch. Please show measurement of your hypothetical mismatch!
My understanding of what you wrote is that it is rare that the same exact model speaker will measure with a large variation.
Is that what you mean? If so, that implies that listening to mono is sufficient to evaluate a pair of the same speaker in stereo mode.
Such implication is flaw because again, when listening to a pair of speakers in stereo there are characteristics that cannot be produced by mono.
I submit to you, that mono listening evaluation simply cannot replace nor substitute stereo listening evaluation (period).
Please note that I am not devaluing mono listening evaluation at all.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,334
- Likes
- 12,296
From observing comments on other forums/youtube threads etc, there is at least one disadvantage to Amir only evaluating speakers in mono.
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!"
So, putting aside it's methodological soundness, it can be an inconvenient "look" for Amir and ASR in the broader audiophile-sphere.
(And you'll likely find such audiophiles appreciating a site like Erin's where he often comments on soundstaging/imaging, which most audiophiles take as important qualities
to mention).
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!"
So, putting aside it's methodological soundness, it can be an inconvenient "look" for Amir and ASR in the broader audiophile-sphere.
(And you'll likely find such audiophiles appreciating a site like Erin's where he often comments on soundstaging/imaging, which most audiophiles take as important qualities
to mention).
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.
DSJR
Major Contributor
Not sure Amir is doing 'sonic evaluations' as we would as end users. He tests them and is then trained to do a hopefully impartial evaluation in mono as most good designers do I gather. If one is used to it, what's the issue?
Most of us delude ourselves if we think we have good or great hearing acuity and let's face it, this site isn't about *subjective comments passing as facts* as most/many reviews are. heck, I've heard some speakers TOTALLY change in tone and perspectives depending on the room used! Worst of all for me was a pair of Rogers BBC LS5/9's, where the deliberately odd balance and corresponding dispersion (as the sound guys at the BBC wanted it apparently) gave totally opposing subjective vibes depending on the room and position!
Similar threads
