Reviewing Speakers - Measurements and Listening Tests (Video)

[Duke]

...for stereo, the nature of the recordings is the overriding factor in spatial ratings, and “the essential ingredients of ‘imaging’ are in the recordings.” Not the speakers.

Imo the dominant role the recording itself plays in spatial quality does not absolve the speakers of their role.

if you have got the sound quality rating sorted, spatial won’t be much different (so why bother?)

"Why bother" trying to make something better is a judgment call. One's allegiance to the conventional wisdom of the day plays a role:

"If you assume things are true by convention, which is actually what most people do, then it's difficult to gain insight into how things might be bettered." - Elon Musk

 

[PeteL]

Fortunately, I never said ‘sound quality preference’.

Re your Toole reference, like you say, his conclusion was that sound quality and spatial quality ratings have a strong tendency to track each other — so IMO if you have got the sound quality rating sorted, spatial won’t be much different (so why bother?). He also concluded that for stereo, the nature of the recordings is the overriding factor in spatial ratings, and “the essential ingredients of ‘imaging’ are in the recordings.” Not the speakers.

I tend to agree with this, even tough I haven’t read Toole’s theory. speaker are about reproduction. Soundstage is created at the mix and to a lesser extent at the recording. It’s not a stretch that a speaker that reproduce with higher fidelity, will deliver the soundstage better. Stereo image isn’t just about panning, there is depth to a mix too, a width, and a height. speakers that won’t give you the subtleties, like reverb tails, like stuff that happens way back, like the subtle difference in tonality in microphone placements, etc. That’s what soundstage is about. they are all subtleties that you miss when your speaker has a blur to it. So yeah. The better speaker, should give you a better image, there isn’t something magic when you put two together and speaker designers have one aim: To reproduce the audio content coming to it. Imaging is a byproduct of this.

 

[MattHooper]

He also concluded that for stereo, the nature of the recordings is the overriding factor in spatial ratings, and “the essential ingredients of ‘imaging’ are in the recordings.” Not the speakers.

But that would be true about much of a recording, would it not?

The timbre, dynamics, tonal balance etc are also wildly variable between recordings and thus the "essential ingredients" of those aspects are also in the recordings, not the speakers. And yet that doesn't seem to stop the reviewer from analyzing those attributes. Because, of course, even though recordings vary wildly in such regards, you can still notice and talk about how different speakers will *tend* to present the sound relative to another speaker. I therefore don't see the problem, at least on the reason stated above, that differing characteristics in how a stereo pair of speakers present imaging etc can't be noted and reported. (I know that, yes, there are variables involved that mono listening doesn't have to deal with, but again, when speakers have different enough characteristics in how they present imaging/soundstaging, you can note those differences even though, just like timbre/tonal balance, recordings themselves vary greatly).

 

[magicscreen]

Thank you Amir! So I cannot use blind test myself because I am not trained (enough).

 

[Newman]

And yet that doesn't seem to stop the reviewer from analyzing those attributes.

To their eternal discredit…and attributing much of it to the speakers.

Because, of course, even though recordings vary wildly in such regards, you can still notice and talk about how different speakers will *tend* to present the sound relative to another speaker.

Yes…to the full extent of their delusional powers of observation in ‘sighted’ listening conditions.

The whole point.

 

[amirm]

Yes, plenty of speakers image and soundstage and do a magic trick. But it can take more effort to approach what those speakers just seem to do effortlessly, with very little fiddling with set up. That was the case in every room I ever heard those speakers, big, medium, small, they stuck out as more easily "disappearing" and imaging more completely than most other speakers.

They don't disappear. They always produce this diffused soundfield regardless of whether the content calls for it or not. Or any relationship with the original recording for that matter which most definitely was not produced with such speakers and effects.

 

[amirm]

Thank you Amir! So I cannot use blind test myself because I am not trained (enough).

As I explained in the video, it is very hard. Best to use measurements and EQ tools to better learn the tonality of the speaker and optimize it to your liking as well.

 

[MattHooper]

Re: reviewers giving subjective descriptions of timbre, dynamics, tonal balance:

To their eternal discredit…and attributing much of it to the speakers.

Amirm gives subjective impressions of those attributes. To be clear: are you saying in doing so this is to his "eternal discredit?"

If you don't think that Amirm discredits himself by giving subjective descriptions of timbre/tonal balance/dynamics in his listening tests, then you should get my point: "even though recordings vary wildly in such regards, you can still notice and talk about how different speakers will *tend* to present the sound relative to another speaker."

Yes…to the full extent of their delusional powers of observation in ‘sighted’ listening conditions.

The whole point.

Amirm listens in "sighted" conditions as well. Are you ok with that?

(I am. Strictly speaking, he's not being scientifically rigorous in such cases. But I think his listening reports can be additional information to the technical review).

 

[MattHooper]

They don't disappear.

Yes. They do.

I'm putting what they do in to descriptive language. They seem to "disappear" as the direct sound source for the musical images, "float" images free of the speaker very easily, rather than sound gloming in to the speaker area, or sounding like it's coming "from a speaker box."

You may be using the term "disappear" in some other way, but I've already explained how I'm using the term, and it describes my experience with those speakers. (And that of many other people).

They always produce this diffused soundfield regardless of whether the content calls for it or not. Or any relationship with the original recording for that matter which most definitely was not produced with such speakers and effects.

Disagree. They produce quite discreet, distinct imaging, especially the Audio Physic and Waveform speakers, where there is very distinct variation between recordings. It's not just wildly diffuse. (The MBL omnis...yes those can be accused of creating a more diffuse image in rooms with greater reflectivity, though in my room as I reduced reflectivity they became more focused like the other speakers. But the point still remains whether the room was more reflective, or less reflective, the MBLs STILL had the quality of "disappearing" as apparent sound sources, no "
coming from a speaker" sense to the sound).

 

[amirm]

Yes. They do.

I'm putting what they do in to descriptive language. They seem to "disappear" as the direct sound source for the musical images, "float" images free of the speaker very easily, rather than sound gloming in to the speaker area, or sounding like it's coming "from a speaker box."

You may be using the term "disappear" in some other way, but I've already described how I'm using the term, and it's describes my experience with those speakers. (And that of many other people).

I have listened to them countless times. You are confusing omni diffused sound with heavily abused reviewer term "disappear."

 

[amirm]

Disagree. They produce quite discreet, distinct imaging, especially the Audio Physic and Waveform speakers, where there is very distinct variation between recordings. It's not just wildly diffuse. (The MBL omnis...yes those can be accused of creating a more diffuse image in rooms with greater reflectivity, though in my room as I reduced reflectivity they became more focused like the other speakers. But the point still remains whether the room was more reflective, or less reflective, the MBLs STILL had the quality of "disappearing" as apparent sound sources, no "
coming from a speaker" sense to the sound).

And this is what is wrong with subjectivist reviews. A bunch of words and insistence that you are right. No proof point. No reliable data. Nothing but "I know this and you better believe me." Well, I have listened to them and you are wrong. Now what?

This is why this kind of language needs to be excluded from any professional review. Sadly, most of the high end speaker reviews are consumed by such random wording.

 

[MattHooper]

I have listened to them countless times. You are confusing omni diffused sound with heavily abused reviewer term "disappear."

I'm not confusing anything.

I'm using the term "disappear" with the specific meaning I gave it (and which many reviewers and audiophiles also give the term).

Even Floyd Toole has, in previous posts IIRC, mentioned this quality for speakers: essentially that when a speaker exhibits low coloration/resonances, the sound seems to be less stuck in or coming from the speaker, even in mono, even in blind tests. It can even have "distance" from the speaker location if it's in the recording, where a lesser speaker may NOT display that same type of imaging. And this tends to predict similar behavior in the stereo sound.

It's frustrating, Amirm, because you seem to keep leaping to conclusions that I MUST be defending the indefensible if, god forbid, I, or other audiophiles, or any subjective reviewer has ever noticed and reported these things too and use subjective language to describe it!

And this is what is wrong with subjectivist reviews. A bunch of words and insistence that you are right. No proof point.

Well, you just made your own claim: "They don't disappear."

Can you explain to me why I should accept your claim that the 3 speakers mentioned, Audio Physic, Waveform and MBL do not "disappear" in the sense I described?

They always produce this diffused soundfield regardless of whether the content calls for it or not. Or any relationship with the original recording for that matter which most definitely was not produced with such speakers and effects."

What is your evidence for this claim, regarding the 3 speakers I mentioned?

This is why this kind of language needs to be excluded from any professional review.

But you use all sorts of subjective descriptive language in your review. I quoted a whole bunch to you last time we went round on this.
Are you going to give up your attempts to put how a speaker sounded to you in to language? Why bother if we have measurements, right?

Why should anyone accept your descriptions that music through any speaker sounded "warm" or "unexciting" or "unengaging" or that you heard qualities like "looseness" or "strain" or "pleasant" or "boomy" or any of your other attempts to put sound in to words? The measurements don't tell us to accept those subjective words as accurate. That can only come via intersubjective agreement between listeners. E.g. we both hear a certain character to the sound and agree that the word "warmth" or "boomy" seems to somehow capture the impression it leaves us, even if what causes this impression can be directly tied to certain measurements, that's going to be the case.

If you allow yourself to engage in such descriptions from sighted listening, I don't see how you can wave off when others try to put what they hear in to similar descriptive language. Humans try to put their sense experiences in to words. They aren't doing science with such descriptions; neither are you.

Please keep in mind, I'm not arguing against your reviews, or your use of descriptive language in the sighted tests. Far from it! I'm simply trying to understand how you can be so dismissive of and allergic to practically anyone else's attempt to describe sound while indulging in subjective descriptions yourself, in your own reviews.

 

[Newman]

Re: reviewers giving subjective descriptions of timbre, dynamics, tonal balance:



Amirm gives subjective impressions of those attributes. To be clear: are you saying in doing so this is to his "eternal discredit?".

As you know perfectly well, my comments are about ‘imaging’ qualities. So you are moving the goalposts to pointscore — which is to your eternal discredit.

 

[amirm]

I'm using the term "disappear" with the specific meaning I gave it (and which many reviewers and audiophiles also give the term).

Ah, the term that audiophiles and reviewers use. That makes it valid. What do we need audio research and engineering. We just follow said reviewers and audiophiles.

Well guess what? My Revel Salon 2s also disappear. As soon as I play music, I can't see them anymore. The disappear so well sometimes that I have had to train my dogs to find them! They are that good at the disappearing act! Prove me wrong.

 

[Newman]

Even Floyd Toole has, in previous posts IIRC, mentioned

OK if you are going to reference Toole, then I want you to acknowledge his overwhelming evidence and incontrovertible opinion that uncontrolled ‘sighted’ listening…you know, that thing that you defend to the ends of the world with 10,000’s of words… is a minefield of illusion and self-delusion and mis attribution…and absolutely no way to evaluate loudspeakers.

Let’s get to the core stuff where you are being irrational, instead of cherry-picking and point-scoring.

 

[don'ttrustauthority]

People deploy two speakers. What they hear as far as imaging is by far dependent on the content. Have an instrument hard panned to left and then right. What controls that imaging? Speaker or content? Answer of course is content.


I will do whatever makes the best sense and stereo testing does not. I have two speakers at times but even then I don't use both. Why would I want to heavily dilute my impression of the fidelity and engineering of the sound by testing a combo? Who says anything I hear as far as imaging applies to you? Even if you have identical room, you would have to listen to identical music for it to connect to your experience.

I'm not suggesting you do. I'm saying the two methods have different goals.

 

[don'ttrustauthority]

Thinking out loud, I think you need a specific control room with certain properties on the reflective surfaces.
Second, you need content created in that room with certain set of speakers showing best case imaging (pinpoint accuracy in blind tests).
Third you roll in different speakers and see how they impact that imaging.

This relationship with the room and content makes it a hard problem to solve.

Why not do a study where we take subjectively spatial speakers and analyze your data and see if we find a relationship?

 

[Spocko]

As to a speaker's "spatial abilities" (about which we are presuming "imaging/soundstaging" etc)...

I disagree that a listener's report about listening to a stereo pair are without any value or transferable to what others may hear in other rooms.

For instance, off the top of my head, some speakers from Audio Physic (e.g. Virgo 2, Scorpio that I've had), Waveform Mach speakers (egg shaped mid/tweeter modules) or MBL Omnis...these speakers do have certain imaging/soundstaging characteristics that are pretty consistant. That is, they really "disappear" as apparent sound sources, in an effortless way. In other words, images sound "out of the box" to the degree that even hard panned sounds, voices, instruments don't seem to be "stuck in the speaker" but rather just float in the same area of the speaker, in a detached way, as if the speaker isn't producing the sound.

Yes, plenty of speakers image and soundstage and do a magic trick. But it can take more effort to approach what those speakers just seem to do effortlessly, with very little fiddling with set up. That was the case in every room I ever heard those speakers, big, medium, small, they stuck out as more easily "disappearing" and imaging more completely than most other speakers. That's also what people would remark about when they heard them in my place.

Whereas something like the Devore O (wide body 2-way) have, I find, a rightly earned reputation for being more difficult to get depth and precise imaging. They are known for casting more of a "wall of sound" with big thick sonic images, more diffuse and less pinpoint, and a bit "stuck in the speaker" compared to the types of designs I mentioned earlier. Or compared to Devores more traditional slender floor standing speakers, which just seem to effortlessly "disappear" and image with great depth and specificity....which is exactly what many people cite for why they went with the slender Devores after comparing to the wider versions...and it's exactly what I have heard in those speakers in several different set ups and rooms.

Another off the top of my head: I found Thiel speakers to have a really consistent quality about their imaging - a particularly precise focus and density to the imaging. Whenever I'd directly compare them to other brands in the same room, the other speakers imaged and soundstaged too, but compared to the Thiel they had a vague, swimmy, see-through diffuse quality. As if the sonic information for each instrument had been spread out a bit and blurry by a lack of focus. The same tracks on the Thiels was like dialing in optics to a sharper focus, like they took all the information associated with an instrument in the soundstage and focused it to a tighter, "denser" more palpable sound source in the soundstage. I had for instance Harbeth speakers and no matter how I set them up in my room, they could never achieve the depth and imaging precision of the Thiels.

That's one reason I've kept coming back to Thiel speakers over the years because I've found that quality very fleeting in other designs, and...again...it was something I heard pretty consistently, over time, in different show rooms, audiophile homes, and having owned several in my own room.

Once again...is all this to a scientific level of reliability? Nah. We've been here before. But I can't agree that the imaging/soundstaging quality of a pair of speakers can't be usefully reported on, at least in some cases. Or that a speaker's particular tendencies in stereo imaging can't be discerned in different set ups or rooms. That's just not my experience.

OK now you’re taking reviews beyond existing measurements. For example the Beolab 20 has DSP to generate an amazing sound space but some complain its tonal character is off somehow. So If you prioritize spatial ability above tonal neutrality then we are at an impasse because the consistent tonal character embodied in the frequency curve and directivity measurements are of little importance to you.
IMO amazing spatial effects cannot save an overly bright speaker whereas a speaker with no sound quality flaws will at worst lack amazing sound staging so may be boring but not offensive.
Edit: And maybe it’s this last point we are debating? We want something interesting, unique and not boring because we take for granted that all speakers are engineered to be neutral at the start. BTW I do personally love the diversity of sound from vastly different speaker designs

 

[Duke]

We want something interesting, unique and not boring because we take for granted that all speakers are engineered to be neutral at the start. BTW I do personally love the diversity of sound from vastly different speaker designs

Yes, we DO want and love "interesting, unique, and not boring", as well as "diversity of sound". Unfortunately few of us have even a minimal collection of "vastly different speaker designs" (unless you happen to own Beolab 90's).

But what if there was a way to enjoy a "diversity of sound" WITHOUT having to change speakers?

Imo that "diversity of sound" is ALREADY PRESENT on our recordings, and lies in the vast diversity of SPATIAL characteristics from one album to the next, and often from one track to the next within the same album.

So to the extent that a speaker (or more realistically speaker + room + setup) allows the spatial characteristics which are already ON THE RECORDING to dominate over the playback room's inherent "small room signature", we may enjoy a delicious and natural-sounding "diversity of sound" which makes listening to music much more interesting and engaging. With eyes closed, every listening session becomes a series of virtual trips into the spaces on the recordings, whether said "spaces" be real or engineered or both.

Imo this is a DIFFERENT spatial quality paradigm from what can be adequately evaluated in a single-speaker audition. I have NOTHING against single-speaker auditions (blind or sighted) for the things they do well, but imo this is not one of them.

 

[Spocko]

Yes, we DO want and love "interesting, unique, and not boring", as well as "diversity of sound". Unfortunately few of us have even a minimal collection of "vastly different speaker designs" (unless you happen to own Beolab 90's).

But what if there was a way to enjoy a "diversity of sound" WITHOUT having to change speakers?

Imo that "diversity of sound" is ALREADY PRESENT on our recordings, and lies in the vast diversity of SPATIAL characteristics from one album to the next, and often from one track to the next within the same album.

So to the extent that a speaker (or more realistically speaker + room + setup) allows the spatial characteristics which are already ON THE RECORDING to dominate over the playback room's inherent "small room signature", we may enjoy a delicious and natural-sounding "diversity of sound" which makes listening to music much more interesting and engaging. With eyes closed, every listening session becomes a series of virtual trips into the spaces on the recordings, whether said "spaces" be real or engineered or both.

Imo this is a DIFFERENT spatial quality paradigm from what can be adequately evaluated in a single-speaker audition. I have NOTHING against single-speaker auditions (blind or sighted) for the things they do well, but imo this is not one of them.

Actually, the single speaker audition is only to subjectively verify the frequency tonal characteristics shown in the measurements. What would be of greater value to you and me, those of us wishing to hear all the spatial cues in a recording is the directivity measurements and dispersion characteristics of the speaker, which is indeed measured by @amirm ! A speaker with consistent directivity means that all the details in the recording will be properly transduced into the room at all frequencies.