Speaker Testing: why mono is better

[tvrgeek]

Something to take up space in the review?

Just because we have one measure, does not mean it tells everything or anything. Your DI only maters if you are in open space and walking around the speaker. It means very little to me sitting in my chair in my living room. For one obvious reason, do you have a tested "best" pattern? Where do the di-pole, bi-pole, or omni fans fit into that? Just data, not a control. If a PA speaker, I can make an evaluation to some extent. Be it a horn or column I might have an idea how it will behave across a deep room. Irreverent in my living room.

What makes you think my hearing follows the Harman curve? Why do I think it may not. Neither of us know.

Is that Kipple as in "useless collection of junk" ( Phillip Dick) or the name of a German company oft applied to a Bode plot tilted by the Peter Walker curve for a subjective in-room target?

 

[Art of sound]

lets say you're hypothesis is true. klippel messed up somewhere. take a subset of klippel measured speakers from amir's and erin's list or other users with klippel and see if you can place them in your room and measure in your own way that you found works in your room for all the speakers you tested. post the methodology and the data so others can refute the hypothesis or corroborate it. I have no qualms in changing my opinion.
Scientific journal's require peer review because that is the standard. the main idea of science is to question. general conclusions and universal truths are far few and come far later. In fact Einstein believed the only universal truth that will last the test of time is 2nd law of thermodynamics and everything else will fall.

 

[amirm]

Just because we have one measure, does not mean it tells everything or anything. Your DI only maters if you are in open space and walking around the speaker. It means very little to me sitting in my chair in my living room.

That is the general DI. The early window DI shown in the main spin graph tells you the index for loudest early reflections. It may not fully mimic everyone's room but directionally, pun intended, is useful.

 

[tvrgeek]

Useful. Yes. Every bit if data, epically when done consistently is useful, but that does not go back to the question of this thread or the dubious assumptions made by Harmon used against your methodology.

The biggest problem is we have no agreed on target!


Art, which Kipple?

 

[Art of sound]

Useful. Yes. Every bit if data, epically when done consistently is useful, but that does not go back to the question of this thread or the dubious assumptions made by Harmon used against your methodology.

The biggest problem is we have no agreed on target!


Art, which Kipple?

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Todd-Welti/publication/332210798_A_Statistical_Model_that_Predicts_Listeners%27_Preference_Ratings_of_Around-Ear_and_On-Ear_Headphones/links/5d125eff92851cf4404c1dcc/A-Statistical-Model-that-Predicts-Listeners-Preference-Ratings-of-Around-Ear-and-On-Ear-Headphones.pdf

the only study all this relies on is cited around 50 times.
maybe private research is not being published by bose, apple, etc. This happens in the medical field where its difficult to enforce regulation in case of copying.

Mono is better maybe but how much better? is it worth knowing if most people listen in stereo or do room acoustics effect the experience much more than psychoacoustics. are these valid questions or they don't matter for the general populous so we'll never know. i am hopeful for better audio given the IoT boom and sure hope they do better with DAC's built into the end products as i don't want to deal with the analog realm and EMI etc.

 

[Art of sound]

do targets matter ? i don't know. i got kz crn, Sennheiser hd560s, akg k361 and tried them. I like them with and without EQ.
I also like non compliant 'ikko OH10' with and without EQ. not like i can get used to any sound given enough time. I'm picky but I know that most people around me usually are a lot more flexible so I don't mind separating myself from my recommendations on most days as i know things are better when curated for you but there also needs to be a baseline which is very rarely harmful.

Wrt to target preferences that's all i got. That's why most forums measure and compare to a generally agreed curve otherwise its one vs another. when you remove control's it comes down to even more variable superficial ties. Most reviewers themselves EQ after identifying these measurements so having a control helps them as well.

 

[ROOSKIE]

To much back and forth between headphones and speakers.
@Art of sound you linked to a headphone study but are also talking about loudspeaker DI and Klipple.
Where are you here?

 

[Art of sound]

To much back and forth between headphones and speakers.
@Art of sound you linked to a headphone study but are also talking about loudspeaker DI and Klipple.
Where are you here?

To much back and forth between headphones and speakers.
@Art of sound you linked to a headphone study but are also talking about loudspeaker DI and Klipple.
Where are you here?

link works. something is weird though. when you click from google scholar it does a better job removing the first page which the url name indicates.

 

[ROOSKIE]

link works. something is weird though. when you click from google scholar it does a better job removing the first page which the url name indicates.

Ah, I see I had to scroll. Down. Yes Olive, he conducted 2 major loudspeaker studies that were made public. The results of both are similar.
That said other tests were conducted by Toole and others.
DI is important as the 1st reflections are such a massive part of what one perceives as the initial sound.
They combine with direct sound and actually in most spaces contribute more to what you perceive as the "initial sound", than the actual direct sound.
If the DI is poor then the reflected sounds can deeply change what is perceived as the speakers sound Q.
Off topic for mono listening threads but you question the value of good DI.
Read Toole's book. Great stuff.

 

[amirm]

Useful. Yes. Every bit if data, epically when done consistently is useful, but that does not go back to the question of this thread or the dubious assumptions made by Harmon used against your methodology.

There is nothing dubious about it. And research predates Harman by decades.

 

[krabapple]

There is nothing dubious about it. And research predates Harman by decades.

People who aren't familiar with the best research, but are all too willing to consider it 'dubious' anyway....Helloo internets!

 

[Art of sound]

Stereo imaging basics well explained.
I bought a laser measurement tool after watching this last year. Its helpful if your desk isn't centered and you move a lot.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01CG97GR2/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

[tuga]

From chapter 7:

In monophonic tests, (10, including Toole and possibly Olive) listeners reported large differences in both sound quality and spatial quality.
However, in stereo listening most of the differences disappeared in these data that average ratings for all programs.
The two highly rated loudspeakers kept their high sound quality ratings, but the loudspeaker with low spatial ratings in mono became competitive in stereo.
This was a puzzle, because it had been assumed that it was stereo that would reveal the relative merits in terms of imaging and space.

 

[dasdoing]

From chapter 7:

In monophonic tests, (10, including Toole and possibly Olive) listeners reported large differences in both sound quality and spatial quality.
However, in stereo listening most of the differences disappeared in these data that average ratings for all programs.
The two highly rated loudspeakers kept their high sound quality ratings, but the loudspeaker with low spatial ratings in mono became competitive in stereo.
This was a puzzle, because it had been assumed that it was stereo that would reveal the relative merits in terms of imaging and space.

I don't get it. there is no space when listening in mono

 

[beagleman]

From chapter 7:

In monophonic tests, (10, including Toole and possibly Olive) listeners reported large differences in both sound quality and spatial quality.
However, in stereo listening most of the differences disappeared in these data that average ratings for all programs.
The two highly rated loudspeakers kept their high sound quality ratings, but the loudspeaker with low spatial ratings in mono became competitive in stereo.
This was a puzzle, because it had been assumed that it was stereo that would reveal the relative merits in terms of imaging and space.

I always use Mono, when comparing 2 speakers, only as it simplifies what I hear, and it is far easier to focus on one sound, when switching back and forth, even between 2 EQ settings to see if an improvement was truly made.

 

[Art of sound]

I always use Mono, when comparing 2 speakers, only as it simplifies what I hear, and it is far easier to focus on one sound, when switching back and forth, even between 2 EQ settings to see if an improvement was truly made.

perfectly exemplifies the logic i had when i first entered asr's forum. Mono might be better but its not a real world performance metric. for monitors that are sold individually this test is accurate.

mono is better but doing only mono is not a real world assessment so Einstein was right all along. not everything can be measured and not everything measured matters.

 

[danadam]

so Einstein was right all along. not everything can be measured and not everything measured matters.

Probably not Einstein: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/26/everything-counts-einstein/

[...]
In conclusion, the attachment of this quotation to Einstein is tenuous. There is no evidence that he crafted it, and the evidence that he wrote it on a blackboard is weak.

QI believes that the preponderance of currently available information indicates that William Bruce Cameron combined two phrases to create the adage. He also seems to have coined at least one of the two phrases that were combined. In addition, current evidence suggests that the full two-part adage was created after the death of Einstein.

 

[Art of sound]

Probably not Einstein: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/26/everything-counts-einstein/

He must have said it. The logic sounds accurate as his prediction of the nuclear weapons and measurements that are too tiny during his lifetime that he could not foresee. he had reason so he had respect for philosophy and people like tagore and spinoza.
In any case. argument from authority is a logical fallacy. i only said it to blend in.
science does combat logical fallacies and things need to be replicated. sure hope in my lifetime cea2034 ratings will be published by manufacturers and more individual contributors. some info is very useful even for non aficionado's.

Too bad Toole couldn't get it done.

 

[ahofer]

I don't get it. there is no space when listening in mono

The O.P. video deals with this point thoroughly in the first ten minutes.

 

[tuga]

I don't get it. there is no space when listening in mono

It seems as though "spatial quality" in mono correlates with wide directivity.

In my view, for stereo listeners "spatial quality" is not a useful metric.