Reviewing Speakers - Measurements and Listening Tests (Video)

[SS55]

View attachment 148492

Interesting. What would make a speaker sound soft and pleasant? If I had to guess it would have to do something with 1khz to 5khz response or resonance?

 

[Kvalsvoll]

If a review is to give true and comparable information about the sound from a speaker, this has to be done by analysis of measurements - presenting a number or simple picture, that represents the sound. Unfortunately, this does not exist today.

But that does not mean it can not be done. Part from spl capacity, everything is in the frequency response measurement, provided this measurement has sufficient information - resolution, all sound radiated in all directions. It is just a matter of being able to process this information, to be able to visualize it much simpler.

Tonality, frequency balance is just one aspect, and even this is affected by the total radiation pattern, which means defects in frequency response may not always be possible to fix with eq.

Spatial properties attributed to the speaker as sound source can all be determined by looking at this frequency response measurement of sound radiated in all directions.

Spatial is closely related to clarity. Clarity can also be determined from this same measurement set.

Transient response - same. Does a snare sound realistic? Does it have tactile, physical impact? This can be measured.

But reviews with no measurements, only a story of the reviewers impression of the product, can also have value - as a story to read. Even if it obviously can not be a comparable and accurate presentation of the sound. And there will be huge variation - both in presentation style and quality.

Speaking of clarity - there are established metrics for this property. If you look in REW, there is a window named "Clarity". Look up what those metrics are made from, in the REW help.

Here is a picture of this "Clarity" - same speaker, in 2 different rooms. This illustrates just one of many problems with subjective listening evaluation - a reviewer listening in the 1. room will get a very different impression from this speaker, from someone listening in the 2. room:

 

[richard12511]

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

Really well said. I've seen this argument so many times(even from Toole), and it's never made sense to me. The same could be said about tonality. Tonality is mostly determined by the recording itself also, but we shouldn't ignore that different speakers still give different tonality for the same recording. Likewise, different speakers do image differently when all other variables are held constant, and it undoubtedly effects preference. Also, that preference seems to differ between mono/stereo(the speaker preference order changed from mono to stereo), unlike tonality(as much). Toole himself has even said that wider dispersion is advantaged more as the number of channels decrease.

 

[Duke]

I've seen this argument so many times(even from Toole), and it's never made sense to me. The same could be said about tonality. Tonality is mostly determined by the recording itself also, but we shouldn't ignore that different speakers still give different tonality for the same recording.

Yes!!

Toole himself has even said that wider dispersion is advantaged more as the number of channels decrease.

I didn't realize he'd said that, but one obvious implication is that going from two channels down to one channel favors wide dispersion speakers.

 

[richard12511]

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.

I agree, but that's also the exact point that @MattHooper is making. Why should we trust Amir's subjective descriptions of speakers? If anything, I'd argue that his impressions are even more biased than the other good reviewers. I don't think he has a brand bias, but I think seeing measurements before hand biases what he hears more than brand bias does for many reviewers.

 

[richard12511]

Yes!!



I didn't realize he'd said that, but one obvious implication is that going from two channels down to one channel favors wide dispersion speakers.

He says it in the opposite direction ~"wider dispersion becomes less advantageous as the number of channels increases". I don't think we have sufficient data to conclude one way or the other. The one often cited study showed that one speakers "spatial" rating jumped drastically, and even changed the order. It didn't change the overall order, but that's also(imo) because the other speakers were so much better tonally. The problem with that study in my eyes is that it didn't isolate the dispersion width variable. The narrow dispersion speaker also happened to be much worse tonally.

I think I need to see a study with truly SOTA speakers where the only variable is the dispersion width. If that study showed that preference holds for everyone all the time, that would convince me. For example, take a Beolab 90. Pit the Omni mode against the narrow mode in both mono and stereo. My hunch - based on my own experiences(even blind) - is that the omni(or even wide) mode would win the mono shootout, but the narrow would win the stereo or multi-channel shootout. If the wide/omni modes win both, that would probably convince me(personally).

 

[Newman]

I agree, but that's also the exact point that @MattHooper is making. Why should we trust Amir's subjective descriptions of speakers? If anything, I'd argue that his impressions are even more biased than the other good reviewers. I don't think he has a brand bias, but I think seeing measurements before hand biases what he hears more than brand bias does for many reviewers.

Partly because Amir is extremely clear and self-limiting about what specific areas of speaker sound he feels qualified to talk about subjectively. He has described the controlled testing that he has passed, and what specific areas of speaker performance he therefore feels he can speak about subjectively.

If he crosses that boundary and goes subjectively further without qualifying his statements, then I would be critical of him. And nobody is perfect, I bet he has occasionally done exactly that. Big deal: I get the impression that Amir sees his objective testing work and his education work as vastly more important and significant in terms of contribution than his very short subjective impressions, notably about loudspeakers only and not the electronics.

I think that taking him to task over this is actually a debating tactic, by subjectivists who want to get a foot in the door. They want to get him to concede an inch and therefore take a mile and say it‘s open slather, it’s okay to comment subjectively on this and that and everything, in any way you like.

Matt Hooper has written endless thousands of words defending Herb Reichert and the like’s writings as being high-quality reviewing, when in fact they are nothing but self-indulgent lyrical poetic nonsense, and have no relevance to any repeatable experience that anybody would have, unless readers allow his writings to inject in their own minds similar confirmation biases. Remember, Reichert et al want free licence to comment on electronics with near-perfect measurements. And as having influence over the same subjective qualities as speakers, with equal lyricism.

Then for MH to invoke Toole in support of his position, on some specific point, when Toole’s big-picture view on uncontrolled ‘sighted’ listening is crystal clear and the opposite of his own, struck me as sheer opportunism. Let’s get him to admit that Toole is right about sighted listening (backed by more than enough evidence, BTW), but good luck getting that to happen, because that will make him wrong and make Amir right about generic sighted listening too.

 

[amirm]

Why should we trust Amir's subjective descriptions of speakers? If anything, I'd argue that his impressions are even more biased than the other good reviewers.

So you didn't watch the video? Because this is precisely what I addressed in there.

And who are the "good reviewers" and what made them good?

 

[Kal Rubinson]

For example, take a Beolab 90. Pit the Omni mode against the narrow mode in both mono and stereo. My hunch - based on my own experiences(even blind) - is that the omni(or even wide) mode would win the mono shootout, but the narrow would win the stereo or multi-channel shootout. If the wide/omni modes win both, that would probably convince me(personally).

I am sorry that I never tried to listen to the Beolab 90 as a mono speaker while I had the pair but, in stereo configuration, the differences among the mode settings were quite distinct.
"I used Wide mode mostly to demonstrate to myself and to others just how remarkable the BeoLab 90s could sound in Narrow mode, in which I did all of my critical listening. For its part, Omni mode is, well, party mode. I'll say no more about that............................."

 

[bravomail]

Members here are no stranger to the battle between trusting measurements versus listening tests as performed by reviewers at large. It is a difficult topic to try to address in text so a while ago I decided to create a presentation and video for it.

Thx, Amir!
Is there any way to add impulse response mesurements to speaker routine?
And, I know it is too much to ask, but teardowns are also very helpful, with reviewing crossover implementation details, and (gasp!) any problems with internal sound insulation materials, or lack of them. I guess for teardowns - we should go for regular members help.
I've seen recently reviews of Jamo bookshelf and tower speakers and they lack any sound deadening, they lack internal panels between tweeter and woofer etc.
Or if we take ELAC B6 - people on forums were complaining that internal sound insulation was misplaced or disconnected and would create internal standing sound waves or resonances, which I think you noted at 160Hz, "Stereophile" got at 180Hz, and other folks found at 55Hz.
Teardown will also reveal a woofer design - with or without central hole in magnetic back, many people prefer to have a hole (for better bass?), and also like having some holes in the diffusor to relieve air pressure and give more dynamic.
Etc etc.

 

[Art of sound]

Members here are no stranger to the battle between trusting measurements versus listening tests as performed by reviewers at large. It is a difficult topic to try to address in text so a while ago I decided to create a presentation and video for it. It was a harder job than I thought but finally managed to create a cohesive presentation based on research. I go through the formal research on how listening tests are performed and correlated with measurements.

It is a long, 1+ hour presentation but hopefully you find it worthwhile to set aside that much time to watch it (or speed it up).

Research papers:
https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=9822 "
A Survey Study of In-Situ Stereo and Multi-Channel Monitoring Conditions

https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12206
Differences in Performance and Preference of Trained versus Untrained Listeners in Loudspeaker Tests: A Case Study

This paper has only 9 citations. (in situ....). I recently got a mono amplifier and hooked up splitters driving both speakers until my second amplifier showed up a week later.
The logic of analyzing one speaker carefully is sound IMO but why test it >85db when they sell it in pairs.
However the second paper has over 100 citations so i presume it has some traction and backing within the community, i found one trained listener on youtube, hans bheekhuzen

 

[Katji]

^^^You mean Hans Beekhuyzen. Trained bullshitter, too, apparently.

 

[Snarfie]

This paper has only 9 citations. (in situ....). I recently got a mono amplifier and hooked up splitters driving both speakers until my second amplifier showed up a week later.
The logic of analyzing one speaker carefully is sound IMO but why test it >85db when they sell it in pairs.
However the second paper has over 100 citations so i presume it has some traction and backing within the community, i found one trained listener on youtube, hans bheekhuzen

For what it's worth do a search on Beekhuyzen here on ASR.

 

[Newman]

^^^You mean Hans Beekhuyzen. Trained bullshitter, too, apparently.

I don’t recognise the name. What does he do that is objectionable?

 

[Katji]

^^^Audiophile Youtube reviewer...and as per previous reply, search - you'll get way more than you would want to read.

 

[Art of sound]

For what it's worth do a search on Beekhuyzen here on ASR.

Do you want my take on Hans? ideally i should be giving it to him on his channel, if it wasn't for his closed minded moderator.

 

[Snarfie]

Do you want my take on Hans? ideally i should be giving it to him on his channel, if it wasn't for his closed minded moderator.

I had the same experience but do know he sufferd from a brain injury that let his hand treamour uncontrolled an who knows more discomfort like mentale issiues . He just got a brain operation to get ride of the treamours. Despite his close minded reaction i realy hope hé gets well.

 

[Art of sound]

I had the same experience but do know he sufferd from a brain injury that let his hand treamour uncontrolled an who knows more discomfort like mentale issiues . He just got a brain operation to get ride of the treamours. Despite his close minded reaction i realy hope hé gets well.

Maybe its just the damn youtube algorithm obsessively removing all forms of criticism. This makes it harder for people to judge creators and easier for businesses to flourish at the expense of entertainment without knowledge.

He seems to be doing well based on the frequency of his work. I got some good advice from him last year on audio hygiene, power supplies but those were very old videos.
The best EMI advice i received is from Electroboom channel. I can't test other than checking the PS noise hum on my amplifiers with various cables, Power supplies but i don't recommend spending more than 15% of your budget towards EMI.

 

[Snarfie]

Maybe its just the damn youtube algorithm obsessively removing all forms of criticism. This makes it harder for people to judge creators and easier for businesses to flourish at the expense of entertainment without knowledge.

He seems to be doing well based on the frequency of his work. I got some good advice from him last year on audio hygiene, power supplies but those were very old videos.
The best EMI advice i received is from Electroboom channel. I can't test other than checking the PS noise hum on my amplifiers with various cables, Power supplies but i don't recommend spending more than 15% of your budget towards EMI.

Amirm did some reviews on PS found this for a whopping $4,700. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s/equitech-1-5rq-balanced-power-review.24948/

 

[Art of sound]

Only if spatial effects are there to cause you take your eye off the ball of tonality.

Amirm did some reviews on PS found this for a whopping $4,700. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s/equitech-1-5rq-balanced-power-review.24948/

Yeah. I think testing power equipment depends on the amplifier. Id like to see FFT test done on a budget amplifier.
Its just how i think