Questions about speaker measurements and what they represent or don't

[mRpolite]

Hi there,
First time posting, long time lurking.

I have a few questions as to what part/graph of the measurements represent which part of a speaker's performance.
1) transient response - how can I tell from the measurements that a speaker is capable of producing transients properly?
some speakers are lightyears ahead of others in this regard. and not just how they start moving but also whether they can also stop on a dime.
kind of like slew rate of an oscillator. many can do a decent job in the top (twitter) range but exceptionally few can do it across the frequency spectrum.
strauss elektroakustik are amazing at this. kiis are good at connecting from top to bottom, but kinda slow overall compared to strauss.
2) depth of field - quested v2108. this was the speaker that started it all for me. I still remember the first time I heard (better say saw) the depth in a friend's studio and thinking "what kind of sorcery is this?" and thinking: how come there are so many speakers in different price ranges that don't do it like this? since then there were others that do it better. especially when you look at the complete frequency spectrum.
what measurement represents the speaker ability to portray a vast depth of field across the frequency spectrum?
3) erin's horseshoe stage - I am not sure this exist. this might be more tied to speaker positioning.
further apart and more energy is perceived from the side compared to a narrower speaker positioning that you perceive as more level coming from the middle of the picture.
there was a video of brian lucey (exceptional mastering engineer) that kinda says the same thing.
4) overall resolution - what measurements represents the amount of detail you can display (see what I did there?) while reproducing sound? some speakers I can't see the tree within the forest
and yet others overwhelm me and I can't pay attention to the forest from all the details within every tree.
there has to be some micro dynamics thing tied to this. there is so much masking between the elements that occupy the same part of the frequency spectrum especially when they occupy the same position panorama wise.
you know when you play something and you have that thought: "wow the bass and bass drum are really stepping on each other", and then you switch to another speaker and "wow there is actually so much more room there, it's just that speaker couldn't reproduce it correctly". yeah, that thing.
5) how we actually perceive the frequency response of a speaker - well it is more of a overall "feel" and this one feels like it's tied to number 4, kinda. bear with me.
when you take a speaker like the genelec or neumann or even focal solo 6be that measure pretty flat frequency wise, they are a completely fogged up honk fest compared to something like a big atc, or a guzauski swist. so, is that an inability to reproduce a lot resolution wise or what? well, you can't say is the frequency measurement because the speaker measures flat but also sounds like bane from batman when you are A/B-ing to something more capable.

yes, I know you this forum thinks genelecs are the be all end all marvel of alien engineering that is more perfect than a mother's favorite son,
but if you have spent time A/B testing them against other speakers you can tell how further away from the truth that statement is.
and I want to know why. how come they measure so well, and yet they are not the best at anything? at all.

anyways these questions are the ones that I can think of right now. will add others as they pop up

one last thing. I would like to thank everyone who helps keep this forum alive. the amount the unique information stored here is immeasurable. you guys are the shit! <3

 

[staticV3]

Hi @mRpolite! Welcome aboard.

1) transient response - how can I tell from the measurements that a speaker is capable of producing transients properly?

Impulse response, step response, multitone distortion, and instantaneous compression give insight into a speaker's ability to handle transients.

what measurement represents the speaker ability to portray a vast depth of field across the frequency spectrum?

If you're talking about sound stage, I would say consistent and smooth frequency and phase response between left and right, smooth off-axis response.

4) overall resolution - what measurements represents the amount of detail you can display (see what I did there?) while reproducing sound? some speakers I can't see the tree within the forest

Frequency response and multitone distortion.

 

[BDWoody]

Hi there,
First time posting, long time lurking.

Hi there yourself, and welcome!

yes, I know you this forum thinks genelecs are the be all end all marvel of alien engineering that is more perfect than a mother's favorite son,
but if you have spent time A/B testing them against other speakers you can tell how further away from the truth that statement is.
and I want to know why. how come they measure so well, and yet they are not the best at anything? at all.

Funny that you feel you need to generally insult the forum and members with a silly statement like that in your first post.

I hope you find the answers you seek despite the spite.

 

[Jimbob54]

Understanding Speaker Measurements (Video)

Per popular demand, I recorded a long (1 hour) video on how to read speaker measurements but also, the underlying research (and physics) that mandate some of those concepts. Also covered is equalization and listening tests (briefly). As usual, my videos are "one take" directly recorded and...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Amirs video may help

 

[xaviescacs]

So you don't like neutral sound, fine, enjoy your music.

 

[Multicore]

anyways these questions are the ones that I can think of right now. will add others as they pop up

I don't think the questions are very clear. They are so badly formed that I'm not sure they are really supposed to be questions.

For example, you assert A) that Genelec speakers are not the best at anything, B) anyone who had A/B tested them against something better would know this, and then ask Q) how come people believe the measurements of Genelec speakers correspond to desirable performance?

What do assertions A and B have to do with question Q?

 

[rank]

You have to try to be constructive in life and not insult the members of a forum to start with.
Genelec makes speakers as they should be done, from recognized loudspeakers like the PHL (also unfortunately used by Stenheim). Their prices are out of reach for me and I don't think my hearing is worth this expense. And I'm more into DIY.
Blindly, I can like a whole bunch of cheap products even very amateur ones.
Why? Because even very low-end devices like amps, CD players or streamers will transmit 90% or more of the musical message quite easily. Which does not mean that in terms of measurements, more expensive devices are better. But there remains the threshold of audibility.

 

[mglobe]

I think the questions the OP poses are reasonable ones to ask. I recently went from R3’s to Reference1 Meta’s and the difference is very significant, much more so than just what you would expect from FR in my opinion. Like the OP I’m interested in learning why.

As far as the OP’s comments on Genelec speakers, of which I have no experience, those who are offended should look past that and focus on helping folks better understand our perception of sound and how it relates to speaker characteristics.

 

[Multicore]

As far as the OP’s comments on Genelec speakers, of which I have no experience, those who are offended should look past that and focus on helping folks better understand our perception of sound and how it relates to speaker characteristics.

Do you think we don't? The basic question here is often discussed. I have stated it in the past thus:

The goal of psychoacoustics is to find if there are any regularities in the relationships between the measurable physics and the perceptions and preferences, and if there are, to characterize those regularities.

Afaict this is not a solved problem. I have Toole's book and greatly respect it. It frames the question from the point of view of central tendency of preference because the research is intended to inform designs of makers of mass market products (so aiming for the middle of the market makes sense). How then does an individual apply that data to their choices? Irdk. And Toole found that the data was pretty bad in terms of finding real regularities unless the listeners were trained, in which case the central tendencies became clear. What if I'm not trained and don't want to be?

I am sympathetic to questioning how successful psychoacoustics can be in reaching that goal. I think many of us here are. Just for example, we discuss preferences for eq often.

 

[JeremyFife]

Understanding Speaker Measurements (Video)

Per popular demand, I recorded a long (1 hour) video on how to read speaker measurements but also, the underlying research (and physics) that mandate some of those concepts. Also covered is equalization and listening tests (briefly). As usual, my videos are "one take" directly recorded and...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Amirs video may help

^This^

Hi
You do seem to be mixing up questions, which are fair, and assertations, which is a bit odd. This is a great site if you are prepared to listen and to learn. I had to leave a lot of preconceptions at the door after an amplifier I bought was thoroughly trashed in a review here ... then I learned why

I can't actually help with your questions, I'm certainly still catching up on Speaker measurements and how they relate to performance and likely preference. What does come out clearly though is that speaker measurements give an indication - especially on accuracy of frequency response, distortion characteristics, achievable SPL and some directivity considerations. All that is moot though until you put the Speakers in an actual room and measure/assess them in situ.

Take your time, be clear about what you are actually asking and take in what the experts here say. Having an opinion is a good thing, but make sure it is a properly informed opinion.

(Oh, I have a pair of Genelec 8030Cs ... they are fabulous )

 

[Purité Audio]

http://www.guzauski-swist.com/

They look quite interesting but no measurements?
Without measurements it is impossible to know whether a Genelec will sound like a ‘fogged up honk fest’ in comparison .
Keith

 

[AnalogSteph]

I recently went from R3’s to Reference1 Meta’s and the difference is very significant, much more so than just what you would expect from FR in my opinion. Like the OP I’m interested in learning why.

Let me guess: The R1 Metas have quite a bit more bass and less mid-treble brightness? People tend to underestimate the (literal) impact of bass. They also have a slight midrange dip around 1-2 kHz, so the R1 Meta which arguably is a hair too far in the other direction might have a bit of midrange "honkiness" in comparison.

The R3s are tuned for placement close to a back wall, while the R1 Metas can be used freestanding without any issues. An adjustment of room EQ will be required when swapping from one to the other.

 

[Holmz]

Hi there,
First time posting, long time lurking.

I have a few questions as to what part/graph of the measurements represent which part of a speaker's performance.
1) transient response - how can I tell from the measurements that a speaker is capable of producing transients properly?
some speakers are lightyears ahead of others in this regard. and not just how they start moving but also whether they can also stop on a dime.
kind of like slew rate of an oscillator. many can do a decent job in the top (twitter) range but exceptionally few can do it across the frequency spectrum.
strauss elektroakustik are amazing at this. kiis are good at connecting from top to bottom, but kinda slow overall compared to strauss.

There is step function and impulse response occasionally shown.
But in general it is frequency response “Uber alles”.
Some people seem more sensitive to impulse response, and if one listens to music with more impulse sounds, than music with more steady state tones, then that could be a considerations.

2) depth of field - quested v2108. this was the speaker that started it all for me. I still remember the first time I heard (better say saw) the depth in a friend's studio and thinking "what kind of sorcery is this?" and thinking: how come there are so many speakers in different price ranges that don't do it like this? since then there were others that do it better. especially when you look at the complete frequency spectrum.
what measurement represents the speaker ability to portray a vast depth of field across the frequency spectrum?

Possible related to impulse response.
I cannot conjure up any argument as to how frequency response (FR) can affect this.

3) erin's horseshoe stage - I am not sure this exist. this might be more tied to speaker positioning.
further apart and more energy is perceived from the side compared to a narrower speaker positioning that you perceive as more level coming from the middle of the picture.
there was a video of brian lucey (exceptional mastering engineer) that kinda says the same thing.
4) overall resolution - what measurements represents the amount of detail you can display (see what I did there?) while reproducing sound? some speakers I can't see the tree within the forest
and yet others overwhelm me and I can't pay attention to the forest from all the details within every tree.
there has to be some micro dynamics thing tied to this. there is so much masking between the elements that occupy the same part of the frequency spectrum especially when they occupy the same position panorama wise.
you know when you play something and you have that thought: "wow the bass and bass drum are really stepping on each other", and then you switch to another speaker and "wow there is actually so much more room there, it's just that speaker couldn't reproduce it correctly". yeah, that thing.

You are not really hearing the fundamental of the bass drum, but the harmonics are what is localising it.
Any cabinet resonances and distortions could make it more or less localised, and also with the distortion from the amp.

5) how we actually perceive the frequency response of a speaker - well it is more of a overall "feel" and this one feels like it's tied to number 4, kinda. bear with me.
when you take a speaker like the genelec or neumann or even focal solo 6be that measure pretty flat frequency wise, they are a completely fogged up honk fest compared to something like a big atc, or a guzauski swist. so, is that an inability to reproduce a lot resolution wise or what? well, you can't say is the frequency measurement because the speaker measures flat but also sounds like bane from batman when you are A/B-ing to something more capable.

One may trade off FR for impulse response. Or some engineer may trade them off.

yes, I know you this forum thinks genelecs are the be all end all marvel of alien engineering that is more perfect than a mother's favorite son,
but if you have spent time A/B testing them against other speakers you can tell how further away from the truth that statement is.
and I want to know why. how come they measure so well, and yet they are not the best at anything? at all.

anyways these questions are the ones that I can think of right now. will add others as they pop up

one last thing. I would like to thank everyone who helps keep this forum alive. the amount the unique information stored here is immeasurable. you guys are the shit! <3

It could be measurable?

 

[mglobe]

Do you think we don't? The basic question here is often discussed. I have stated it in the past thus:

The goal of psychoacoustics is to find if there are any regularities in the relationships between the measurable physics and the perceptions and preferences, and if there are, to characterize those regularities.

Afaict this is not a solved problem. I have Toole's book and greatly respect it. It frames the question from the point of view of central tendency of preference because the research is intended to inform designs of makers of mass market products (so aiming for the middle of the market makes sense). How then does an individual apply that data to their choices? Irdk. And Toole found that the data was pretty bad in terms of finding real regularities unless the listeners were trained, in which case the central tendencies became clear. What if I'm not trained and don't want to be?

I am sympathetic to questioning how successful psychoacoustics can be in reaching that goal. I think many of us here are. Just for example, we discuss preferences for eq often.

I do not for a moment think we don't. This place is great, and I've learned a LOT. I meant no disrespect to what ASR offers. Simply felt like we could respond in a more positive manner.

 

[Multicore]

Simply felt like we could respond in a more positive manner.

Perhaps so. In the same vein I feel the OP's questions could have been served without the lavish insult gravy.

I've had a pair of Genelec 1029A on my desk for about 20 years, long before ASR existed. I chose them on the recommendation of Keith Fullerton Whitman who told me: if you can afford them, get Genelec and you're done. He also told me to put them on stands and not on the desk top. "Just get them up off the surface of the desk," I recall, or something like that. So I found a demo or returned pair of 1029A as Guitar Center and learned from Genelec customer support that you can screw the boxes onto mic stand threads and I've had them set up like that ever since. A few years back I tried adding a sub but I didn't like the results.

And this morning a New Member joins ASR in order to accuse me thus

yes, I know you this forum thinks genelecs are the be all end all marvel of alien engineering that is more perfect than a mother's favorite son,
but if you have spent time A/B testing them against other speakers you can tell how further away from the truth that statement is.
and I want to know why. how come they measure so well, and yet they are not the best at anything? at all.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Electronics and electro-mechanical devices perform rather consistently. Our brains do not.

Your assessment of what you did or didn't hear may not correlate with reality. People make an assumption otherwise, but all senses form constructions within the brain. These constructions are subject to biases.

List of cognitive biases - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This video primarily addresses sight, but it is applicable to sound also; they are both processed by the brain.

Jim

 

[MAB]

yes, I know you this forum thinks genelecs are the be all end all marvel of alien engineering that is more perfect than a mother's favorite son,
but if you have spent time A/B testing them against other speakers you can tell how further away from the truth that statement is.
and I want to know why. how come they measure so well, and yet they are not the best at anything? at all.

mRpoilte, you are slightly funny in a way that makes your stage-name ironic.

There is something called preference. We each have a preference, and it isn't necessarily flat, or deep bass, smooth on- and off-axis response, etc. I have a friend who likes speakers in a completely untreated room. Your preference is likely much different than other people. I doubt you actually A/B tested in a meaningful way, and if you really have spent time lurking here (and learning) you would already know what that entails. And would already understand preference.

Probably drop the passive aggressive snark, it clashes with your handle.

 

[mglobe]

View attachment 399491
Let me guess: The R1 Metas have quite a bit more bass and less mid-treble brightness? People tend to underestimate the (literal) impact of bass. They also have a slight midrange dip around 1-2 kHz, so the R1 Meta which arguably is a hair too far in the other direction might have a bit of midrange "honkiness" in comparison.

The R3s are tuned for placement close to a back wall, while the R1 Metas can be used freestanding without any issues. An adjustment of room EQ will be required when swapping from one to the other.

I run a pair of Rythmik subs, both with the R3’s and the Reference 1 Meta’s. My signal goes through Dirac, with both speakers. The bass is better, even with the subs, though I think I did a better job of optimizing this go round. And I ran a completely new Dirac calibration for the new speakers. I’m a huge believer in Klippel, have read Toole, and would not buy speakers without having data.

 

[Holmz]

I run a pair of Rythmik subs, both with the R3’s and the Reference 1 Meta’s. My signal goes through Dirac, with both speakers. The bass is better, even with the subs, though I think I did a better job of optimizing this go round. And I ran a completely new Dirac calibration for the new speakers. I’m a huge believer in Klippel, have read Toole, and would not buy speakers without having data.

Ok - but how well do the measurements comport with reality for you?

Personally, I certainly have found narrower dispersion speakers to work in more rooms than wider dipersion ones, but then again… a lot of rooms sorta sucked.

 

[krabapple]

View attachment 399491
Let me guess: The R1 Metas have quite a bit more bass and less mid-treble brightness? People tend to underestimate the (literal) impact of bass. They also have a slight midrange dip around 1-2 kHz, so the R1 Meta which arguably is a hair too far in the other direction might have a bit of midrange "honkiness" in comparison.

The R3s are tuned for placement close to a back wall, while the R1 Metas can be used freestanding without any issues. An adjustment of room EQ will be required when swapping from one to the other.

Thanks. IOW mglobe seems not to have properly predicted "what you would expect from FR" .


(In a two-way comparison a difference plot for each measurement might be even simpler to interpret, though maybe harder to generate)