PSB Alpha P3 Review (Bookshelf Speaker)

[4Real]

Well I made the “mistake”of buying a pair of these without seeing the ASR review. On sale for $209 a couple of weeks ago. They were exactly the right size for my desktop. I have them on little 4 inch high stands which brings them relatively close to ear level and relieves a little bit of bass boominess that I noticed when they were sitting on the desk. And they sound… fabulous. Really. The first thing that struck me was their uncannily natural reproduction of voices. I listen to them nearfeild at low to moderate volume. Turn them loud and they do distort across the band. But as long as they’re in their comfort zone they have a relaxed presentation with pleasant, punchy bass and a very detailed and natural mid range. I tried swapping in a pair of Martin Logan bookshelves that were about twice the size and three times the cost and I preferred the P3’s in every way. The P3’s base appeared to extend lower and was livelier. I see all those jaggies in the 1 to 2 kHz region, but if you look it’s almost all within 5 db across the range. Spikey anomalies in the response curve may be harder on the eye than on the ear because they are by definition narrow. In my experience PSB is able to create a relaxed and engaging sound and they pulled it off even in theses little guys.

agree. They are excellent near field speakers.

 

[Dave-Oh]

I don't care what he says about their sound. His assessments has no reliability associated with them. He either needs to measure or test in a controlled manner to produce useful information. And no, these speakers are not end game in any scenario, near or far field. Objective measurements show it to be very flawed.

In my case I purchased them first and listened for a couple of weeks before finding your review & associated measurements. I purchased basically on a trial basis because of the form factor and because I've always liked PSB. (Normally wouldn't happen as I'm reluctant to buy anything without seeing an ASR review!) They were $209 for the pair at Crutchfield. My expectations were not high.

I have a Topping D30/pro DAC and a Topping LA90 on my desk. I fired up the P3's and was immediately impressed. The bass is astonishing for the box size. I just checked again with a tone generator and they have robust response in my system down to 60 Hz & still audible down to 47 Hz. That's amazing for a box volume considerably less than a shoe box. They do have a little boominess when sitting on the desk. I made a pair of 4 inch stands which seems to solve that. There is a hint--I would describe it as slight--of exaggerated sibilance but that's pretty common and its not as bad in the P3's as it is in a number of far more expensive speakers I've owned. The midrange sounds extremely clear and natural. It does not sound at all grainy, it doesn't sound like false detail. I tried swapping out some other book shelve speakers (far more expensive) and this confirmed my clear preference in every respect for the P3's. Thus I was genuinely shocked when I found what your measurements revealed.

Subjective words are cheap, I agree with you. I'm quite aware of the arguments and factions on the question of audio measurements and have always been firmly in the objectivist camp, but I must say that my experience with this speaker made me think a lot more about whether our measurement technology really has all of the sensory and psycho-acoustic bases covered, at least when it comes to speakers.

Is the there something about balancing of characteristics that can ultimately be more important that performance on each measure? I'd be very interested in more discussion of this and particularly in organized blind speaker tests with good protocols. I volunteer!

 

[Dave-Oh]

the only thing flawed here is your narrow minded assessment. I've heard these speakers in the near field. They are excellent no matter the price. I've known other people who have heard these speakers who also love them. Lastly he did measure them. He measured them with his ears.

No need for remarks like that my friend. And while I agree with your opinion, you can't measure with your ears

 

[rirelien]

I owned a pair of AM3s, which are the powered versions of these. I bought them as a temporary solution while in between permanent homes, and I was constrained in terms of system size, availability and prices.

As is typical for that price point, they have a main speaker with all the electronics and then speaker-level outs to the second speaker, which is probably identical to a P3. So probably the same passive crossovers after amplification for both models.

The powered version has DAC + DSP (a couple of pre-made settings, no user tuning) + amps; I fed it SPDIF and was relatively happy, although it was never completely consistent-- good on some tracks, off on others. Yes, surprisingly satisfying lower end for such a tiny speaker. I ran them on proper stands and listened at about 1.5m distance from them.

At that stage I didn't have access to my UMIK-1 so couldn't measure.

For those who like these for desktop use, keep an eye out for the AM3 if they come up used -- perhaps a neat solution? But my impression is for the added cash for the AM3 version you can do MUCH much better.

 

[4Real]

No need for remarks like that my friend. And while I agree with your opinion, you can't measure with your ears

my reply is on point. he is trashing people who believe that the speaker sounds good because of the way that he measured it. that is narrow minded. as far as being able to measure a speaker with your ears, in my opinion it is the best way to measure a speaker. would you rather have a speaker that "measures" well but sounds poor to you or a speaker that measures poorly but sounds good to you.
cheers

 

[Deleted member 21219]

my reply is on point. he is trashing people who believe that the speaker sounds good because of the way that he measured it. that is narrow minded. as far as being able to measure a speaker with your ears, in my opinion it is the best way to measure a speaker. would you rather have a speaker that "measures" well but sounds poor to you or a speaker that measures poorly but sounds good to you.
cheers

There are two groups of people in audio.

1) People who wish to access what is on the recording ... no more and no less.
2) People who wish to hear something that they like ... no matter what is on the recording.

The first group utilize equipment - electronics and transducers - that stress accuracy as much as possible. Comparisons with the original signal yield smaller and smaller deviations and lower amounts of distortion. Once transparency is achieved (transparency being defined as characteristics falling below the threshold of hearing) what is left is, for all practical purposes, the recording. Therefore, if you hear something you don't like, it's the recording, not the equipment. (The exception is loudspeakers, which may display qualities that a listener dislikes.)

The second group want "good sound" ... IOW, they want their music to be attractive. If they hear a recording that does not sound the way they want it to sound, they blame the equipment. There are no comparisons here with the original signal; the only judgement is, as you have said, "your ears".

The first group uses tests and measurements. They are the only way of reducing undesirable characteristics to a level below what people can hear ... below the threshold of hearing. Therefore, tests and measurements do indeed show whether a piece of equipment is "good" or not.

The second group, as I have said, uses only their ears. Even though ears are a very poor and unpredictable standard for gauging circuit and transducer characteristics, this group doesn't worry about that; they only worry about whether they "like the sound". Because that standard can change over time, people in the second group can get lost in a swamp of undefinable differences, going down the rabbit hole of purchasing new equipment every few years ... or even every year. $$$$!

There are many, many sites on the web (called "subjectivist" sites) that cater to the second group. This site is not one of them. This site tries to emphasize the equipment and methodology used by the first group.

Jim

 

[Dave-Oh]

There are two groups of people in audio.

1) People who wish to access what is on the recording ... no more and no less.
2) People who wish to hear something that they like ... no matter what is on the recording.

The first group utilize equipment - electronics and transducers - that stress accuracy as much as possible. Comparisons with the original signal yield smaller and smaller deviations and lower amounts of distortion. Once transparency is achieved (transparency being defined as characteristics falling below the threshold of hearing) what is left is, for all practical purposes, the recording. Therefore, if you hear something you don't like, it's the recording, not the equipment. (The exception is loudspeakers, which may display qualities that a listener dislikes.)

The second group want "good sound" ... IOW, they want their music to be attractive. If they hear a recording that does not sound the way they want it to sound, they blame the equipment. There are no comparisons here with the original signal; the only judgement is, as you have said, "your ears".

The first group uses tests and measurements. They are the only way of reducing undesirable characteristics to a level below what people can hear ... below the threshold of hearing. Therefore, tests and measurements do indeed show whether a piece of equipment is "good" or not.

The second group, as I have said, uses only their ears. Even though ears are a very poor and unpredictable standard for gauging circuit and transducer characteristics, this group doesn't worry about that; they only worry about whether they "like the sound". Because that standard can change over time, people in the second group can get lost in a swamp of undefinable differences, going down the rabbit hole of purchasing new equipment every few years ... or even every year. $$$$!

There are many, many sites on the web (called "subjectivist" sites) that cater to the second group. This site is not one of them. This site tries to emphasize the equipment and methodology used by the first group.

Jim

Can’t agree with what you say there about the subjectivist position. It’s a caricature rather than an accurate reflection. What most of them are saying when they say “sounds better” is not that it has a pleasantly rolled off top end, or bumped up mid bass to make it more sound more punchy or what have you. What they usually mean by “sounds better” is that what comes out of the system sounds more accurate – more like the real thing. A guitar string sounds more like a guitar string, one drum head can be better discerned from another type of drum head, etc. They’re saying that speaker A may actually have better Fidelity than speaker B., even though one wouldn’t know it from the measurements. And the question is whether that is possible.

This discussion makes me wonder about what kinds of questions are typically, asked of the listeners in blind speaker test. If it‘s simply “which do you prefer,“ that’s probably not the right question. Question, should be, which do you think is more accurate, or more revealing of the music.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Can’t agree with what you say there about the subjectivist position. It’s a caricature rather than an accurate reflection. What most of them are saying when they say “sounds better” is not that it has a pleasantly rolled off top end, or bumped up mid bass to make it more sound more punchy or what have you. What they usually mean by “sounds better” is that what comes out of the system sounds more accurate – more like the real thing. A guitar string sounds more like a guitar string, one drum head can be better discerned from another type of drum head, etc. They’re saying that speaker A may actually have better Fidelity than speaker B., even though one wouldn’t know it from the measurements. And the question is whether that is possible.

Perhaps you misunderstand what I said. Please allow me to clarify if I can.

I didn't say anything about a rolled off top end, bumped up bass or a more "punchy" sound. What I said was:

The second group want "good sound" ... IOW, they want their music to be attractive.

Not only that, but I said:

The second group ... uses only their ears.

Auditory memory is exceedingly short; on the order of a fraction of a second to perhaps several seconds. For a listener to judge that a sound is "more accurate" or "more like the real thing" would take comparison to the live sound vs. the playback all within the time frame of several seconds. The vast majority of listeners to whom you refer do not have that luxury, not for guitar strings, for drum heads, or for any other large musical instrument.

Without any scientifically controlled comparison, I must deduce that what they call "more accurate" is not, in reality, more accurate at all. It is simply what they like, which I deem to be the same as "attractive". There is nothing wrong with that. We all (I included) have our likes and dislikes.

But it's best to be frank and honest about that, and not hide behind the curtain of "accurate".

Jim

 

[Dave-Oh]

Perhaps you misunderstand what I said. Please allow me to clarify if I can.

I didn't say anything about a rolled off top end, bumped up bass or a more "punchy" sound. What I said was:


Not only that, but I said:


Auditory memory is exceedingly short; on the order of a fraction of a second to perhaps several seconds. For a listener to judge that a sound is "more accurate" or "more like the real thing" would take comparison to the live sound vs. the playback all within the time frame of several seconds. The vast majority of listeners to whom you refer do not have that luxury, not for guitar strings, for drum heads, or for any other large musical instrument.

Without any scientifically controlled comparison, I must deduce that what they call "more accurate" is not, in reality, more accurate at all. It is simply what they like, which I deem to be the same as "attractive". There is nothing wrong with that. We all (I included) have our likes and dislikes.

But it's best to be frank and honest about that, and not hide behind the curtain of "accurate".

Jim

"rolled off top end, or bumped up mid bass to make it more sound more punchy... " were just random examples of various forms of distortion that might make a speaker "sound better" in the subjective perception of some listeners. I didn't claim that you said that & I’m not sure why you would suggest that I did

You’ve reduced the universe of audiophiles into two categories that appear to be formulated more for drawing battle lines on discussion boards than for any useful purpose. Our esteemed host here on ASR wouldn’t fit in either category since he considers both measurements and listening to speakers as part of his evaluations. The same goes for just about everyone else in this hobby.

Measurements are the foundation of the science & the only tools we have to design & improve the technology, again I agree 1000%.

The question I posed above is whether it’s possible that the measurement technology available to us for loudspeakers doesn’t cover all of the factors that might, in reality, contribute to accurate reproduction of music. As one example, a transmission line speaker may have the same frequency response as a sealed box or a ported box and otherwise be indistinguishable in terms of measurements (not usually but it’s certainly possible). But will the sound necessarily be the same—as perceived by a listener in a room? And if there’s a consistently perceptible difference that measurements don’t reveal, then the measurements couldn’t tell us which speaker is more accurate could they?

 

[Deleted member 21219]

. As one example, a transmission line speaker may have the same frequency response as a sealed box or a ported box and otherwise be indistinguishable in terms of measurements (not usually but it’s certainly possible). But will the sound necessarily be the same—as perceived by a listener in a room? And if there’s a consistently perceptible difference that measurements don’t reveal, then the measurements couldn’t tell us which speaker is more accurate could they?

As far as I know, there is not ANY characteristic of loudspeakers that is audible but which is not measurable.

The total suite of measurements of loudspeakers is quite detailed and complicated to perform. Just because these tests aren't published as part of a review doesn't mean that they don't exist, and that they couldn't be published.

If I understand you correctly, the basis for your comparison seems to be frequency response. Although frequency response is (usually) considered as the most audible (and obvious) basis of comparison, there are others. Group delay? Measurable. Distortion? Measurable. Resonance characteristics? Measurable. Driver offset? Trivially measurable. Differences in off-axis radiation? Measurable. Compression? Measurable.

Again ... AFAIK, there is not any audible characteristic that is not measurable. And being measurable, any differences will be measurable also. So what I'm saying is that a comparison of systems that you (or I) may consider indistinguishable to the ear will not be indistinguishable to appropriately sophisticated tests and measurements. This would include the resultant spread of characteristics in an enclosed space, such as a dead mixing room or a live residential room.

Why aren't these types of measurement suites published more often? I can't be absolutely sure, but I would guess that some of them are under confidential contract. (Can't have our competitors know what we're doing, can we?) Another consideration is that you or I may consider a complete suite of tests interesting, but a publisher may not see enough interest in the general public to pay for his trouble.

As for your statement ...

You’ve reduced the universe of audiophiles into two categories that appear to be formulated more for drawing battle lines on discussion boards than for any useful purpose.

I haven't reduced the universe of audiophiles at all. Others have done that ... I have just observed. It is very common on other sites to see comments from posters such as "I use my ears!" or "Listening is believing", or even as you have postulated above, "Measurements don't show everything that I hear!" Any insinuation otherwise brings a deluge of disagreement and even insult.

So if there has been any formulation for "drawing battle lines on discussion boards", it has been done by others, and it's been going on for a long, long time.

Jim

 

[4Real]

As far as I know, there is not ANY characteristic of loudspeakers that is audible but which is not measurable.

The total suite of measurements of loudspeakers is quite detailed and complicated to perform. Just because these tests aren't published as part of a review doesn't mean that they don't exist, and that they couldn't be published.

If I understand you correctly, the basis for your comparison seems to be frequency response. Although frequency response is (usually) considered as the most audible (and obvious) basis of comparison, there are others. Group delay? Measurable. Distortion? Measurable. Resonance characteristics? Measurable. Driver offset? Trivially measurable. Differences in off-axis radiation? Measurable. Compression? Measurable.

Again ... AFAIK, there is not any audible characteristic that is not measurable. And being measurable, any differences will be measurable also. So what I'm saying is that a comparison of systems that you (or I) may consider indistinguishable to the ear will not be indistinguishable to appropriately sophisticated tests and measurements. This would include the resultant spread of characteristics in an enclosed space, such as a dead mixing room or a live residential room.

Why aren't these types of measurement suites published more often? I can't be absolutely sure, but I would guess that some of them are under confidential contract. (Can't have our competitors know what we're doing, can we?) Another consideration is that you or I may consider a complete suite of tests interesting, but a publisher may not see enough interest in the general public to pay for his trouble.

As for your statement ...



I haven't reduced the universe of audiophiles at all. Others have done that ... I have just observed. It is very common on other sites to see comments from posters such as "I use my ears!" or "Listening is believing", or even as you have postulated above, "Measurements don't show everything that I hear!" Any insinuation otherwise brings a deluge of disagreement and even insult.

So if there has been any formulation for "drawing battle lines on discussion boards", it has been done by others, and it's been going on for a long, long time.

Jim

can machines measure sound stage or imaging? speakers can also sound different depending on placement.

 

[4Real]

Soundstage and image are a construct of the recording, not the speaker. Speakers sounding "different" based on placement is due to room acoustics and angular dispersion. Both of these characteristics can be measured.

Jim

well I have played the same recordings through multiple speakers and some soundstage and image well and others do not.

 

[4Real]

Correct. A faucet that doesn't work as it should can fail to let water through, or let it through at only a trickle. A faucet that works as it should will let the water through, and in an acceptable manner and rate. The faucet is a loudspeaker; the water is the recording.

Jim

so you agree.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

I think we have gotten OT here. I have deleted a couple of my posts, and I think it's best to pursue this subject in this thread:

Properties of speakers that creates a large and precise soundstage

There have been attempts on ASR off and on to get a handle on what’s required for soundstage and imaging, but the problem seems intractable. On top of that, discussions are often hampered by the denial of the existence of imaging, and the ridiculing of the idea, by some.

www.audiosciencereview.com

I apologize to everyone for the inconvenience.

Jim

 

[ricardomontalbahn77]

Very interesting reads here.
I have tried the P3 and they are quite impressive despite the measurements. IMHO I think this is what makes this hobby so amazing. There are speakers on here that measure super and I mostly like the sound and some I didn't prefer. There are so many variables with placement, room etc. that influence the final result (what you hear with your ears) so it is understandable that some speakers that don't measure well in these boards may actually sound good in a particular situation (for example I like the P3 and the kef Q100 ) while other speakers that measure well may sound poorly in certain situations (,I was not a huge fan of the dbr62 and UB52 in my room even prior to reading about the anomalies on the UB52 that were revealed on this site) .The key is what sounds best to you for your particular situation. My favorite peakers right now are Monitor audio Silver 100 7g but my 25 yo JBL s38 sound as good as any of my new stuff in the room they are in. They make beautiful sound effortlessly. Recently I have also been amazed by the older Monitor Audio sil3i. masurements are just one-piece of the puzzle IMHO. This is a great site to get that piece of the puzzle but really good to listen to the actual speakers in your situation as well.

 

[Teeter]

For HT application, their center channel, Imagine XC, pairs well with my other speakers, with voices so clear and distinct.

 

[ricardomontalbahn77]

Has anyone tried the PSB Image B4? (not Imagine but Image) They are a simliar size to the P3 and wondering how those sound as there is a chance to acquire those in my area. Thanks.

 

[Teeter]

Can you return to seller if you don't like? How will you be using? Dorm room, office, computor? Or you just on a budget for used?

 

[ricardomontalbahn77]

Can you return to seller if you don't like? How will you be using? Dorm room, office, computor? Or you just on a budget for used?

Office
No returns
Thanks

 

[ricardomontalbahn77]

Ok I got the PSB Image B4. Wish I kept my Alpha p3 to compare but the B4s are definitely smaller. I did a quick initial listen and....they definitely are less bright than the P3 and have less of the boomy style of bass. The sound has no emphasis on highs or lows so far....I don't have measurement tools so will report back.. so far they are definitely different from the p3. Could be the titanium tweeter vs the aluminum in the p3? When I say different i mean in a good way.. They sound much bigger than they are.