PSB Alpha P5 Speaker Review

[maltux]

If thinking out of 10 and traditional US school grades, a 6/10 is just shy of failing. So yeah, I wouldn’t get anything less than a 7/10 (though, as I learned at university, a C- is passing but isn’t enough to advance, so one has to retake the course and get at least a C).

In Canada; High School (1970's) a C (60+) meant no Summer school.

 

[MZKM]

In Canada; High School (1970's) a C (60+) meant no Summer school.

To steer the discussion back to ranking: I do wonder if the human participants were given a guideline for how to rank. For instance, on a 0-100 scale, I default to 50 being average, so like a normal distribution, others however may default to school grades, where in the US a 75 would be average. I remember an AskReddit post where it just asked people to rank their physical attractiveness, and some people would say “I’m about average, a 7/10”, and to me that is not “average“.

I know the Harman slides show that trained listeners use a wider range of scores, but is what they consider “average“ in their minds the same or lower compared to the average listener?

This is also why I like that Google Maps used to show (maybe they still do on desktop) what your star rating means:

 

[richard12511]

To steer the discussion back to ranking: I do wonder if the human participants were given a guideline for how to rank. For instance, on a 0-100 scale, I default to 50 being average, so like a normal distribution, others however may default to school grades, where in the US a 75 would be average. I remember an AskReddit post where it just asked people to rank their physical attractiveness, and some people would say “I’m about average, a 7/10”, and to me that is not “average“.

I know the Harman slides show that trained listeners use a wider range of scores, but is what they consider “average“ in their minds the same or lower compared to the average listener?

This is also why I like that Google Maps used to show (maybe they still do on desktop) what your star rating means:
View attachment 77312

I'd say average is more like 7/10, for most people. This is something that's always bugged me. I'll often get confused responses from friends when rating a movie we just watched a 5/10. "Dang you thought it was that bad?". No, I just thought it was average. Not really bad or good.

I say that if we're gonna have a 10 point scale, we should use it.

 

[flipflop]

Spoiler: EQ filters

Preamp: -2 dB
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 377 Hz Gain 14.6 dB Q 5.000
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 379 Hz Gain -17.1 dB Q 5.000
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 403 Hz Gain 16.9 dB Q 5.000
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 411 Hz Gain -14.5 dB Q 5.000
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 571 Hz Gain 1.2 dB Q 1.003
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 682 Hz Gain 3.5 dB Q 5.000
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 770 Hz Gain -3.9 dB Q 5.000
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 1045 Hz Gain -6.9 dB Q 1.000
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 1321 Hz Gain 5.4 dB Q 1.000
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 1556 Hz Gain -1.0 dB Q 13.000
Filter 11: ON PK Fc 1680 Hz Gain 0.9 dB Q 12.000
Filter 12: ON PK Fc 2061 Hz Gain -3.7 dB Q 1.001
Filter 13: ON PK Fc 3187 Hz Gain 6.5 dB Q 5.000
Filter 14: ON PK Fc 3296 Hz Gain -6.7 dB Q 1.487
Filter 15: ON PK Fc 3721 Hz Gain 3.3 dB Q 5.000
Filter 16: ON PK Fc 8777 Hz Gain -1.4 dB Q 1.000
Filter 17: ON PK Fc 10612 Hz Gain 0.9 dB Q 5.000
Filter 18: ON PK Fc 12593 Hz Gain -0.9 dB Q 4.938
Filter 19: ON PK Fc 14782 Hz Gain 0.6 dB Q 5.000
Filter 20: ON PK Fc 15792 Hz Gain -5.5 dB Q 1.000

Without EQ:
Olive score: 3.9

With EQ:
Olive score: 6.0

 

[tecnogadget]

Spoiler: EQ filters

Preamp: -2 dB
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 377 Hz Gain 14.6 dB Q 5.000
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 379 Hz Gain -17.1 dB Q 5.000
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 403 Hz Gain 16.9 dB Q 5.000
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 411 Hz Gain -14.5 dB Q 5.000
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 571 Hz Gain 1.2 dB Q 1.003
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 682 Hz Gain 3.5 dB Q 5.000
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 770 Hz Gain -3.9 dB Q 5.000
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 1045 Hz Gain -6.9 dB Q 1.000
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 1321 Hz Gain 5.4 dB Q 1.000
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 1556 Hz Gain -1.0 dB Q 13.000
Filter 11: ON PK Fc 1680 Hz Gain 0.9 dB Q 12.000
Filter 12: ON PK Fc 2061 Hz Gain -3.7 dB Q 1.001
Filter 13: ON PK Fc 3187 Hz Gain 6.5 dB Q 5.000
Filter 14: ON PK Fc 3296 Hz Gain -6.7 dB Q 1.487
Filter 15: ON PK Fc 3721 Hz Gain 3.3 dB Q 5.000
Filter 16: ON PK Fc 8777 Hz Gain -1.4 dB Q 1.000
Filter 17: ON PK Fc 10612 Hz Gain 0.9 dB Q 5.000
Filter 18: ON PK Fc 12593 Hz Gain -0.9 dB Q 4.938
Filter 19: ON PK Fc 14782 Hz Gain 0.6 dB Q 5.000
Filter 20: ON PK Fc 15792 Hz Gain -5.5 dB Q 1.000

Without EQ:
Olive score: 3.9
View attachment 77415

With EQ:
Olive Score: 6.0
View attachment 77416

Top curves looks nice but Sound Power still a mess after EQ. Then Sean Olive’s formula does not put that much weight on SP ?

 

[flipflop]

Top curves looks nice but Sound Power still a mess after EQ. Then Sean Olive’s formula does not put that much weight on SP ?

It doesn't put any weight on SP directly, only indirectly through PIR, where it makes up 44%. ER is a better approximation of PIR, though.

 

[lashto]

Yes, just eye balling the spin data I would never have guessed a score so high. Not that it is high, but it is higher than I thought it would get by a good bit. Maybe the score thing is just a bad idea.

Wouldn't call it a bad idea but it surely needs some improvement. And the spinorama alone is not enough to describe the SQ: distortion, resonances, etc, all these things should be in for a meaningful score.

 

[Rossi]

Thanks Amir!

I guess I'll play a bit of devil's advocate again to give PSB some benefit of the doubt .

That hole below 700Hz is really puzzling and I really don't know what's going on there or how it made it into the speaker as it shows clearly in the NRC measurement, not to mention ASR, Stereophile's, and mine. Edit: I especially don't get the claim of +/- 1.5 dB from 65Hz to 10kHz; it's very rare to see a mainstream manufacturer claim an accuracy window of less than +/- 3dB, so I have no idea how they arrived at this figure, as they specifically claim it is for the anechoic response.

Although it's probably not quite as audible as it looks on-axis because there's more room interaction than in the upper half of the response.

But otherwise, to be fair, the speaker is designed for an upside down configuration and the smoothness of the top portion does depend on where you choose your reference point. Amir said he did it from the tweeter (unless he changed the reference axis in the software), where stereophile and I did it from the woofer, and the NRC/soundstage did it from the top of the cabinet (opposite of the tweeter). Unfortunately, PSB doesn't mention the intended axis, but top of the cabinet or woofer level is more realistic from a typical seated height. It doesn't quite 'fix' the response but it does seem to mellow it out a bit.

Here's how the LW and PIR compare for me vs the NFS. I got quite a bit less bass than Amir did, and I can't quite seem to match the bass contour here even if i try messing around with the individual woofer and port files, so not totally sure what the differences are there.

View attachment 76988

Similar, but at the same time my results were definitely more acceptable. Of course, in the low mids part of that may just be the lack of resolution. Here's the same measurements overlaid:

View attachment 76989

Again similar, but the deviations are just a bit less extreme from my reference point.

Similar to what the soundstage/NRC got for their listening window, which I'm guessing is what PSB optimized for; it's quite nice above 700Hz.

View attachment 76992

Also perhaps worth noting that the grille actually tames that top octave and maybe even improves the response??
View attachment 76991

All that being said, I did also prefer the Q acoustics 3020i, which scored better too.



I thought it might score higher than it looked (though I'd already done the score for my own measurements) because the PIR isn't that bad and that's the biggest chunk of the score. And the way the NBD scores work, by looking at individual chunks rather than the whole picture, seems to help it out.


I believe the stereophile window is +/- 15 degrees (a 30 degree window meaning 30 degrees total)

Excellent comments..........one should ask why these PSB P5 speakers received so many positive reviews, even by critical reviewers: did they all receive money and sold their solid reputation? I do not think so. I am a stereophile without background in speaker measurements (impressive stuff, I must say) but I trust my ears and subjective sound preferences: these PSB sound very good. In my near field, desktop and bookshelf setup, with lower volumes, they had to much bass and male-female voices in music were too laid back. However, placing them a little bit higher in a small living room setup made a huge difference and now they just sound excellent (to me). So what do measurements really mean? You just cannot take into account every possible setup. They might give some indications of possible problems, but you have to listen to them in a real-normal setup with your owns ears and own preferences. In those contexts, a supposedly "bad measuring" speaker thus might be a real winner. Cheers !

 

[617]

Excellent comments..........one should ask why these PSB P5 speakers received so many positive reviews, even by critical reviewers: did they all receive money and sold their solid reputation? I do not think so. I am a stereophile without background in speaker measurements (impressive stuff, I must say) but I trust my ears and subjective sound preferences: these PSB sound very good. In my near field, desktop and bookshelf setup, with lower volumes, they had to much bass and male-female voices in music were too laid back. However, placing them a little bit higher in a small living room setup made a huge difference and now they just sound excellent (to me). So what do measurements really mean? You just cannot take into account every possible setup. They might give some indications of possible problems, but you have to listen to them in a real-normal setup with your owns ears and own preferences. In those contexts, a supposedly "bad measuring" speaker thus might be a real winner. Cheers !

The speakers which have high preference scores are precisely those which are designed in such a way that the room has less of an impact on the sound.

A speaker which is smooth on axis but rough off axis may sound good in a sufficiently dead room or in the near field, where the room plays a smaller role in the sound. However, a speaker with smooth off axis will sound better in any real room.

Good speakers have less variability between rooms, accomplished through any number of means; narrow dispersion, optimizing for smooth directivity index, dsp tuning to an extent.

 

[amirm]

Excellent comments..........one should ask why these PSB P5 speakers received so many positive reviews, even by critical reviewers: did they all receive money and sold their solid reputation? I do not think so. I am a stereophile without background in speaker measurements (impressive stuff, I must say) but I trust my ears and subjective sound preferences: these PSB sound very good. In my near field, desktop and bookshelf setup, with lower volumes, they had to much bass and male-female voices in music were too laid back. However, placing them a little bit higher in a small living room setup made a huge difference and now they just sound excellent (to me). So what do measurements really mean? You just cannot take into account every possible setup. They might give some indications of possible problems, but you have to listen to them in a real-normal setup with your owns ears and own preferences. In those contexts, a supposedly "bad measuring" speaker thus might be a real winner. Cheers !

Everything is a winner online when it comes to audio. People creating music do such a good job at times that anything above a bluetooth speaker can sound wonderful. If you don't know what to listen to and don't have a reference of something that is less broken, then the speaker can sound fine or even wonderfull.

Our job is to sift through thousands of speakers out there -- almost all with raving fans -- and find the ones that are truly wonderful. That way, no matter how much you like this speaker, you will have options for something better.

Remember, there are tons of people who like Justin Bieber. His popularity doesn't mean he creates the best music there is.

 

[napilopez]

Excellent comments..........one should ask why these PSB P5 speakers received so many positive reviews, even by critical reviewers: did they all receive money and sold their solid reputation? I do not think so. I am a stereophile without background in speaker measurements (impressive stuff, I must say) but I trust my ears and subjective sound preferences: these PSB sound very good. In my near field, desktop and bookshelf setup, with lower volumes, they had to much bass and male-female voices in music were too laid back. However, placing them a little bit higher in a small living room setup made a huge difference and now they just sound excellent (to me). So what do measurements really mean? You just cannot take into account every possible setup. They might give some indications of possible problems, but you have to listen to them in a real-normal setup with your owns ears and own preferences. In those contexts, a supposedly "bad measuring" speaker thus might be a real winner. Cheers !

Thanks, though I have to reiterate I was playing a bit of devil's advocate

While I do think there's some reason to believe this speaker is better than it's being given credit for, in general, I'm more positive about speakers than many here.

Part of the reason I tend to not be so negative is I feel most people buying new speakers ultimately enjoy them, and there are few speakers I've actually straight-up disliked. I think most speakers can be made to sound good with the right music, in the right setup, at the right output levels. I did enjoy these when I heard them(but I'm also a reviewer so maybe I'm a paid shill too).

That said, don't take anything I wrote to indicate the measurements don't tell the full story. I actually think they pretty much do; I just have a bit of a different reading of the measurements.

But it ultimately all comes down to: are you getting your money's worth? And that's where people's barometers differ. I personally think that for the price, these speakers do a good enough job, especially considering some nice design touches like the magnetic grilles, lack of visible screws etc. I also personally think ASR has measured a disproportionate amount of speakers from 'good' companies relative to my view of the market so that somewhat affects my barometer for what is 'good' (so many revels! so few b&w's!). I've certainly seen what I consider to be much bigger problems from speakers, far, far more expensive.

At the same time, I can very much see why some think these are disappointing. What @617 said is true: the better speakers are generally more consistent from room to room. There also seems to be no excuse for the spec sheet saying the speaker is +/-1.5dB from 65Hz-10kHz. That hole below 700Hz essentially makes that impossible.

But yes, if you're enjoying these, that's great. No reason you should enjoy them less just because the measurements have some issues.

 

[Rossi]

Thanks, though I have to reiterate I was playing a bit of devil's advocate

While I do think there's some reason to believe this speaker is better than it's being given credit for, in general, I'm more positive about speakers than many here.

Part of the reason I tend to not be so negative is I feel most people buying new speakers ultimately enjoy them, and there are few speakers I've actually straight-up disliked. I think most speakers can be made to sound good with the right music, in the right setup, at the right output levels. I did enjoy these when I heard them(but I'm also a reviewer so maybe I'm a paid shill too).

That said, don't take anything I wrote to indicate the measurements don't tell the full story. I actually think they pretty much do; I just have a bit of a different reading of the measurements.

But it ultimately all comes down to: are you getting your money's worth? And that's where people's barometers differ. I personally think that for the price, these speakers do a good enough job, especially considering some nice design touches like the magnetic grilles, lack of visible screws etc. I also personally think ASR has measured a disproportionate amount of speakers from 'good' companies relative to my view of the market so that somewhat affects my barometer for what is 'good' (so many revels! so few b&w's!). I've certainly seen what I consider to be much bigger problems from speakers, far, far more expensive.

At the same time, I can very much see why some think these are disappointing. What @617 said is true: the better speakers are generally more consistent from room to room. There also seems to be no excuse for the spec sheet saying the speaker is +/-1.5dB from 65Hz-10kHz. That hole below 700Hz essentially makes that impossible.

But yes, if you're enjoying these, that's great. No reason you should enjoy them less just because the measurements have some issues.

Thanks, now I understand better why my (a lot cheaper) Polk S15s seem to be more consistent and better to place in diferent rooms and setups than the PSB P5s. If I am not mistaken, the Polks have better measurements than the PSBs. To be honest, I expected more from the P5s, in my near field setup they just did not perform well enough. Greetings to you all, I'll just enjoy them and hopefully someday get something better......as I understand you guys, there will always be some room for improvement.

 

[tuga]

The black curve is basically what we have. The resolution of stereophile graphs are very low so is not as clear as my measurements but otherwise, it is very close.

As are Soundstage's NRC measurements:

It's good to know that all three are valid sources of (frequency response) information.

 

[tuga]

According to this admittedly limited study by Olive (some of Harman's research suffers from overly small sampling) the 4 untrained listeners preferred excessive bass and quite a bit of treble (the infamous smile-shapped curve "boom-tizzz" sound).





Could this perhaps justify different performance targets or "voicing" across the range, from a manufacturer's commercial approach?

Some may view it as wrong but in my opinion the answer is an obvious yes.
Designing for the target market's preference makes all the sense from both a business as well as a client satisfaction perspective.
One could even find support in the little "science" (OK, research) available.

If a company is able to manufacture a flagship with flat on-axis and smooth off-axis response (the Imagine T3 matches or betters any of the top Revels in most if not all parameters) surely they can also do it with an entry-level design...

And in fact the predecessor of the speaker under review performed better.

 

[tuga]

You know, at some level it looks similar to this PSB! I wonder if they think this sells and are copying each other.

Maybe they don't just think that this sells, maybe it actually sells.

 

[Teeter]

Thanks, now I understand better why my (a lot cheaper) Polk S15s seem to be more consistent and better to place in diferent rooms and setups than the PSB P5s. If I am not mistaken, the Polks have better measurements than the PSBs. To be honest, I expected more from the P5s, in my near field setup they just did not perform well enough. Greetings to you all, I'll just enjoy them and hopefully someday get something better......as I understand you guys, there will always be some room for improvement.

_________________
I have the Polk S-15's as surrounds and perfect. With the review of P5s, I'm wondering if their psb Imagine XB, bookshelf are worth it or go for SVS bookshelf? One local HT business[installer] says the Imagine XB are exceptional and worth more.

 

[BWard]

JA has been playing this con at Stereophile for decades. I remember when he took over at Stereophile and that magazine instantly turned into a comic book.

 

[BWard]

A speaker company doesn't have to care how good a speaker performs. When their advertising dollars get them 3 page long love letter reviews; which is the best advertisement you can get. It will even get you speaker of the year. Stereophile is an absolute fraud.

 

[musicforcities]

Remember, there are tons of people who like Justin Bieber. His popularity doesn't mean he creates the best music there is

The Bieber Curve…

 

[Jake C]

Stereophile is so full of BS I can smell it from here. What else would you expect from a magazine that reviews $450,000 turntables?