tuga
Major Contributor
My comment was in the context of single-speaker evaluation. More channels are potentially better than mono.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Speaker Testing: why mono is better
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
My comment was in the context of single-speaker evaluation. More channels are potentially better than mono.
Must I refer you again to then exact chapter you quoted?
Art of sound
Active Member
I watched it before starting his book. apparently he was a contractor until 2006. This video is from 2015? he did what he could for the industry and i am very pleased with his reasoning skills that is exemplified in the video and his book.
i rescind that statement. because i just checked the jbl pro product brochures and they do have bandwidth vs frequency and DI graphs. I am happy that these are being published. I hope this becomes more standard and not just in the pro market. This has been practically simplified by toole in his presentation. That's more than enough data for most people if someone ever makes a score based on these points and averages them like how consumer reports do for their cars.
[I got the stage A130 after amir's data on smooth DI and his subjective 7.4 w subwoofer which trumped everything in that price range and i am happy with them. since then, erin has measured them and they have a bunch of issues and i can't recommend them. if a consumer asks me what to buy and mentions bose as an example i can't recommend a speaker under 500 as well as a reasonable 2.1 channel amplifier and it just makes me sad]
until that point arrives, i am going to recommend the sonos brand.
Last edited:
tuga
Major Contributor
What do you mean by "fine details"?
Are you referring to more detail (less smoothing) in the frequency response plot?
Because a frequency response correlates first and foremost with tonal balance, not "detail".
It is misguided to believe that a frequency response plot, or even a Spinorama, will provide sufficient information to characterise the performance of a loudspeaker.
Art of sound
Active Member
Not sure. 1/20 octave indicated more detail in listeners preferences?
Loudspeaker preferences do correlate to the harman curve. although there is missing or non measurable data at the moment on why?
That's what i took away.
human perception is still a mystery on the larger front.
i can detect a room temperature when it crosses 73-74F @50-60RH as it becomes uneasy for me.
I looked up and noticed that the TRPV4 sensor is not tied to skin and its range starts at 80F. does that mean we are yet to find this in the gene pool or the data is more variable than measured and my CNS is very sensitive as well. i don't know but i am curious
HarmonicTHD
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2022
- Messages
- 3,326
- Likes
- 4,895
I am not Amir obviously.
But this might get you going
Critical (Best) Music Tracks for Speaker and Room EQ Testing
I post the list of tracks Harman uses after literally decades of research to detect fidelity of speakers and room Auto Equalizers in another thread but thought it deserves its own thread. I have had the fortunate luck of sitting through a couple of their blind tests and can attest to the...
www.audiosciencereview.com
OP
- Thread Starter
- #548
I post my playlist here but can't find it myself.
maybe someone else has it.
I post my playlist here but can't find it myself.
A search shows it listed several places, here is one: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...f-the-art-headphone.25920/page-37#post-890181
I discovered the stereo trap about eight years ago. I realized that "the beauty of stereo" fools my ears and steals my attention, so that my focus is unknowingly shifted to how it sounds instead of what and how is being played. Since then, I have only listened downmixed to mono. I only have stereo in headphones and even this using binaural DSP.
Many of those I know do the same. Most are musicians or former musicians. The crowd of people who go back to mono for everyday listening is growing all the time.
Many of those I know do the same. Most are musicians or former musicians. The crowd of people who go back to mono for everyday listening is growing all the time.
Last edited:
bennybbbx
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Left speaker is measure in stereo triangle position with minidsp ears measure head. my speakers are rotate 30 degreee inside in test to point to measure head. not easy to explain. maybe this help to understand http://www.hifi-forum.de/bild/wsstereo-stereodreieck_17080.html
for speaker in middle measure i rotate the minidsp ears measure head around 30 degree so the auricle ear is in 90 degree angle straight to tweeter and measure left speaker. distance stay same the auricle or outer ear (dont know best english word for this) have same distance and position and only diffrent angle to speaker.
there can see above 1.3 khz there is no high boost. seem that the target curves that are suggest for reduce high freq are only need for stereo triangle. I also test rotate the speaker outside or inside with same measure head angle. this do not change the results. I expect diffrence too, so i do the tests repeat several times results stay same
this is also important to know, because i always wonder in the past wy my speakers sound always so much diffrent to my marshal guitar amp mono speaker(when i measure and correct to be same linear from usable range of a guitar speaker).
The target curves the audio experts suggest help only a little because as can see in the measure there is no rising soft slope. it increase suddenly at 1.5 khz aroud 2.5 db and this stay until 9 khz around 2.5 db
maybe when use the correct auricle compensation for stereo triangle as target curve then stereo can sound better even with omnidirectional room correction measurements
for speaker in middle measure i rotate the minidsp ears measure head around 30 degree so the auricle ear is in 90 degree angle straight to tweeter and measure left speaker. distance stay same the auricle or outer ear (dont know best english word for this) have same distance and position and only diffrent angle to speaker.
there can see above 1.3 khz there is no high boost. seem that the target curves that are suggest for reduce high freq are only need for stereo triangle. I also test rotate the speaker outside or inside with same measure head angle. this do not change the results. I expect diffrence too, so i do the tests repeat several times results stay same
this is also important to know, because i always wonder in the past wy my speakers sound always so much diffrent to my marshal guitar amp mono speaker(when i measure and correct to be same linear from usable range of a guitar speaker).
The target curves the audio experts suggest help only a little because as can see in the measure there is no rising soft slope. it increase suddenly at 1.5 khz aroud 2.5 db and this stay until 9 khz around 2.5 db
maybe when use the correct auricle compensation for stereo triangle as target curve then stereo can sound better even with omnidirectional room correction measurements
OP
- Thread Starter
- #552
The did one better. They tested from mono all the way to 5 channels:
Comparison of Loudspeaker-Room Equalization Preference for Multichannel, Stereo, and Mono Reproductions: Are Listeners More Discriminating in Mono?
Sean E. Olive1 , Sean M. Hess1 , and Allan Devantier1 1 Harman International, Northridge, CA, 91329, USA
"In this experiment, a panel of trained listeners gave comparative preference ratings for three different loudspeaker equalizations based on anechoic and in situ measurements evaluated in a semi-reflective room, using three multichannel music recordings reproduced in surround, stereo, and mono. These equalizations were compared to the unequalized loudspeaker. The results are summarized as follows: all three equalizations were equally preferred over the unequalized system. The differences in preference ratings increased as the number of playback channels was reduced from 5 channels (surround) to 1 (mono)."
Look at how much worse the "No EQ" rates were in mono (blue) vs stereo (red) vs surround (black).
I have this one I think is a copy of your playlist: (Links for Apple, Tidal, Qobuz, Spotify and Amazon Music services)I post my playlist here but can't find it myself.
ASR Critical Music Tracks for Speaker & Room Testing
Listen to ASR Critical Music Tracks for Speaker & Room Testing on TIDAL
Spotify playlist
Open Qobuz
open.qobuz.com
Last edited:
Full JAES library ref is here
When you say mono vs stereo, do you mean 1 speaker playing in mono rather than 2 speakers playing stereo then the same 2 speakers playing mono? I think the latter would be an interesting comparison too if that was not the case!
HarmonicTHD
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2022
- Messages
- 3,326
- Likes
- 4,895
The Harman preference tests involved 1 speaker playing (in mono) for the good reason stated above.
Yes, the suckage of "No EQ" in mono really stands out, showing that, in mono, the ear is especially sensitive to the kinds of errors EQ can correct.
Another take-away is that surround is almost immune to the kinds of errors EQ corrects, as the preference ratings for surround are almost the same for all four EQ (or non-EQ) cases. Of course none of this is really "new information" to those who follow this site, but that graph makes the point very... um... graphically.
Last edited:
And yet, there is a huge timbre difference when listening to a mono pink noise signal from a mono speaker vs. the same mono signal from stereo speaker
I am looking for a controlled experiment where the listeners have used EQ to adjust the stereo setup being as close to the mono speaker setup. Is there such?
Perhaps, at short wavelengths, the outputs of the stereo speakers combine at the listening position in semi-random phase, and then as the wavelengths get longer (as we go down in frequency) the outputs of the stereo speakers gradually transition to combining approximately in-phase, thus "warming up" the perceived timbre relative to the mono case.
I question the ability of mono listening to adequately evaluate spatial quality, but forty years ago as an enthusiastic amateur I observed that ears-only crossover design (I had no test equipment) arrived at better and faster results using mono rather than stereo evaluation.
Last edited:
Horizontal angle from head to speaker also affect perceived tonality, because ears also have directivity, like speakers and mics. Just listen to pink noise, then rotate head say 30 degrees, frequency response clearly changes. So a stereo speaker at L or R position, typically 30 degrees, will not sound the same as a center speaker at 0 degrees right in front.
Similar threads
