Reviewing Speakers - Measurements and Listening Tests (Video)

[geickmei]

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

You say you want to test using single speaker because it makes tonality more obvious, but then you say you can equalize to make one sound like another or to correct problems. That means that frequency response is trivial because of the many DSP technologies. At the same time you don't talk at all about spatial response, which is the biggest variable among speakers and cannot be heard in single speaker comparisons. Explain.

 

[amirm]

You say you want to test using single speaker because it makes tonality more obvious, but then you say you can equalize to make one sound like another or to correct problems. That means that frequency response is trivial because of the many DSP technologies.

Not all ailments lend themselves to effective EQ. Nor does everyone have a data path for music that has an EQ for it. In my case, my music player has EQ but playing youtube, doesn't. EQ also requires digital headroom, taking away some gain/amplification. So all else being equal, you want a speaker without the need for EQ.

At the same time you don't talk at all about spatial response, which is the biggest variable among speakers and cannot be heard in single speaker comparisons. Explain.

Spatial effects by far are dominated by the content itself which is outside of the scope of audio gear review. Next in line is location and configuration of speakers in a room, not the speakers themselves. This aspect is not useful to comment on either as how I locate my speakers and the room I have is unique to my situation and unlikely to apply to anyone else.

Of course I can make up stuff about the soundstage as just about every reviewer does. But that is of zero value as it has no defensible foundation.

There is one aspect that is a direct function of the speaker and that is the off-axis response of the speaker. This is part and parcel of my reviews so there is coverage there.

 

[NTK]

At the same time you don't talk at all about spatial response, which is the biggest variable among speakers and cannot be heard in single speaker comparisons. Explain.

See attached PDF in this post.

'Why evaluating the sound of a single speaker is essential'

Mar 20, 2025

Note from staff: this content was move from another thread for better overall access and organization…

A forum member has just alerted me to this discussion, and my name is being circulated, so I have decided to add some clarification. The topic of sound quality is of fundamental importance, and stereo soundstage and imaging are undeniably key factors in our entertainment. However, the factors affecting all of these perceptual dimensions interact with each other, sometimes in destructive ways. Adding enormous complications is the fact that much of what matters to all factors...

• Floyd Toole

• 

 

[Palmer]

So you say. Without telling us what is in it, I have no interest in paying for it. For all I know, it could be what we already know (difference between wide and narrow dispersion) or some nonsense about uncontrolled listening test outcomes.

If your interest is in sharing knowledge, this is the place to do it. Take a lesson from Dr. Toole who routinely shares knowledge that is also in his book.

I am also not a fan of the setup of asking me a question and then answering it with your paid article. It is very uncool.

Have to agree, while some of us still work - we don't congregate here, to make money off it... My opinion, of course.

 

[Newman]

...I just bought the September 2025 issue so that I can read your article.

Hi Duke,

that article is called "An Image Model Theory for Stereophonic Sound, by Gary Eickmeier" (for the benefit of others reading this).

I'm quite interested in your short-form summary of its claims.

I'm also interested in your comments regarding its rigour. I think that Amir's statements in the second paragraph of post #122 are reflections of what researchers are saying, supported by experimental outcomes that have sufficient rigour to permit such claims.

(I am assuming it is only a 'theory' in the informal sense, ie "I have thought about something and I have a theory", and not a scientific theory. Let me know if you think it qualifies as the latter.)

cheers

 

[Suono]

Soundstage and spatiality are often confused and confused. While information is undoubtedly captured in the direct sound, spatiality also requires the ambient reflections of the listening room. The interaction between the quality of the speaker and the quality of the room will determine the quality of spatiality. The soundstage is always recreated even with sub-par speakers and even in a free field. Spatiality is not.

 

[Suono]

it would be enough to read Haas

 

[Suono]

In well-implemented stereo setups, the acoustic scene doesn't collapse when moving. I once happened to be next to one of the speakers and the Mutter was still there between the speakers and behind them!