- Joined
- Jun 19, 2018
- Messages
- 6,652
- Likes
- 9,399
So I'm not on the "take the sound byte version of Sean Olive's research and run with it as if it applies to everyone" track, as many seem want to do.
...and I hope it's clear that I'm not, either?
So I'm not on the "take the sound byte version of Sean Olive's research and run with it as if it applies to everyone" track, as many seem want to do.
The listeners in the study were mostly people with professional experience in audio, some "trained" by Harman and other not. This is obviously a major shortcoming of the study.
Could you elaborate on this? The 2013 study found that, when presented with a speaker that had been equalised to not be flat, listeners EQ'd it themselves so that it was flat (from 250Hz upwards).
Firstly, I would not expect a player in the market to share which speakers were studied, as it would potentially open them up to the risk of litigation.
Secondly, the original studies were clear on the fact that the non-neutral speakers in the study had other issues, as you put it. This is not some hidden piece of information that was only revealed post facto.
Phase is really audible. Not to the extent it's distorted but easily audible. The imaging and shape of sound stage changes. When using linear phase filter to change eq feels like the sound doesn't change in some way while minimum phase is much more responsive and change the sound stage accordingly. I also tried to use a minimum phase cascaded by a linear phase filter to correct the phase itself without changing magnitude response. It's easily audible.Other studies have failed to find this is audible in the magnitude in which it is present in conventional speakers, except insofar as it effects amplitude response.
In isolation from that, it's either negligible or completely irrelevant.
The largest body of research that's been done on this topic pretty clearly contradicts that statement, though.
You understand superlatives in grammar, right? "he didn't say almost flat" he said "the flattest."
I have heard people say that before. IANAL, but the claim seems more of a loyalty defense of Olive to me. My guess is that it's more of (a) they didn't want to advertise the neutral speakers in the study that did well that were not Harman or (b) the problems with the selection set were worse than they let on.
It's been so long since I looked at that paper, and I no longer have access. Can you quote the relevant portion about the speaker issues?
Define flat. -1 dB or so at 20 kHz is disturbingly common.how many DACs don't have a flat FR?
Please demonstrate how the 2004 study is larger than the BBC study of 1958 and all the research built on that study.
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1958-31.pdf
Thanks.
Phase is really audible. Not to the extent it's distorted but easily audible. The imaging and shape of sound stage changes. When using linear phase filter to change eq feels like the sound doesn't change in some way while minimum phase is much more responsive and change the sound stage accordingly. I also tried to use a minimum phase cascaded by a linear phase filter to correct the phase itself without changing magnitude response. It's easily audible.
Define flat. -1 dB or so at 20 kHz is disturbingly common.
It can be a lot worse too. Case in point, the Dragonfly Cobalt:really? I had no idea there was that much variation.
I thought we were being friendly and constructive here; I interpret this question as snide. Can we agree to be respectful please?
In answer to your question, no pair of speakers can achieve anything like the preferred in-room response without equalisation, whether flat or not, because primarily the room and not the speakers determine the in-room response below 300-500Hz. So the flattest speakers do not perform worse than less flat speakers in this region (neither flat nor non-flat speakers are the primary determinants of the response).
If there is no advantage to a speaker's being non-flat in this region, and non-flat speakers perform worse than the flattest speakers in other regions, then yes, the flattest speakers perform best.***
I'm not sure which specific paper you're referring to, as there were a number of them. In this 2003 paper, which to my knowledge marked Olive's first serious foray into this enterprise, the authors state:
"A sample of 13 loudspeakers was selected from the 23 different models reviewed in the August 2001 edition of Consumer Reports... The speakers are coded as S1 through S13 since the brand and model numbers are not relevant to this study... The selection included samples from the top, middle and bottom ranks of CU’s test scores priced from $100 to $450 a pair. All are 2-way bookshelf models except S9, which uses a single driver."
In part two of the same study in 2004, they state the following:
"The selection of 70 loudspeakers was based on the competitive samples purchased for performance benchmarking tests performed for each new JBL, Infinity and Revel model. The price range of samples varied from $100 to $25,000 per pair and includes models from 22 different brands from 7 different countries: United States, Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Denmark and Japan. The loudspeakers included designs that incorporated horns and more traditional designs configured as 1-way to 4-ways. Some used waveguides, while others did not. The sample also included four professional 2-way active models referred to as “near-field” monitors. The vast majority of the speakers were forward-facing driver designs, with one electrostatic dipole sample."
Secondly, the original studies were clear on the fact that the non-neutral speakers in the study had other issues, as you put it. This is not some hidden piece of information that was only revealed post facto.
So I asked if you can quote the relevant information that makes that clear, that the non-neutral speakers have those issues, as I do not have access to the research. Where in that study does it say that the non-neutral speakers had those issues. I'm not seeing it in that text above that you quoted. Or, if someone can provide a link to that 2004 study that is not behind a paywall, I would be glad to take a look at it.
So now you seem to be saying no speaker can be said to sound better than the other because of room interaction. I guess we'll have to disagree here.
https://mega.nz/#!B0x3wBiL!66EhpwMeFanaAmakGUZK-kpL7h6C0NNrvnM3TKGrOw4I can't access the article (not paying $33).
"A sample of 13 loudspeakers was selected from the 23 different models reviewed in the August 2001 edition of Consumer Reports... The speakers are coded as S1 through S13 since the brand and model numbers are not relevant to this study... The selection included samples from the top, middle and bottom ranks of CU’s test scores priced from $100 to $450 a pair. All are 2-way bookshelf models except S9, which uses a single driver."
"The selection of 70 loudspeakers was based on the competitive samples purchased for performance benchmarking tests performed for each new JBL, Infinity and Revel model. The price range of samples varied from $100 to $25,000 per pair and includes models from 22 different brands from 7 different countries: United States, Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Denmark and Japan. The loudspeakers included designs that incorporated horns and more traditional designs configured as 1-way to 4-ways. Some used waveguides, while others did not. The sample also included four professional 2-way active models referred to as “near-field” monitors. The vast majority of the speakers were forward-facing driver designs, with one electrostatic dipole sample."
See bolded passges. The study is written for professionals in the industry, not the ignorant. To anyone with any knowledge of loudspeaker design, it would be abundantly clear that the sample included many speakers with "issues".
Yeah. I'm not ignorant. I can see that the quoted explanation does not provide evidence that the test was not biased towards neutral speakers. It does not state that the distribution included non-neutral speakers that were comparable in quality of design other than the difference in frequency response.
So I would be curious to see the paper for that 2004 study if someone knows of a link.
Let's see the complete study with full detail.
Without that level of openness, his ideas are interesting but of no objective value.