SVS Ultra Bookshelf Speaker Review

[CDMC]

The thing is that there's simple method that can be applied to avoid few biaises.

This is supposed to be a science oriented forum.

Subjective impression are not mandatory.

First, it was never claimed that Amir's subjective impressions were mandatory. Last I checked, people were free to choose whether or not they read and/or accept his subjective impressions (or maybe I just didn't see the blood oath in the terms and conditions when I joined the site that I was required to treat Amir's impression as gospel).

Second, your statement that "this is supposed to be a science oriented forum" seems to be saying that subjective impressions have no place in science. This couldn't not be further from the truth. A large amount of science is based on subjective impressions. Look no further than drug studies, take something like ibuprofen. To establish if it helps with headaches, scientists are dependent on the subjects subjective reporting of how and if they felt an improvement in their headache after taking the drug. The important science comes into play in conducting a proper double blind study with some participants receiving a placebo and some receiving the drug being tested. Without the subjective impressions, you have no idea if the drug works on headaches, without a proper double blind study, you have no idea if the effects are psychosomatic or real.

Here, Amir is trying to correlate his subjective impressions of a speaker with its measurements. John Atkinson has been doing a similar thing at Stereophile for decades. Amir is limited in his ability to have multiple listeners give their blind subjective impressions, so the best data we get is his subjective impression. Now, I am sure if people really stepped up and donated a few million dollars, Amir would be able to quit his day job and perform blind comparisons with groups of people to help develop a statistically valid body of evidence with correlations between the measured and perceived sound of speakers. Until such time as this happens, I think we should be thankful for what we have. I for one would rather take one data point than no data points.

 

[Matthew J Poes]

Maybe the ringing at 1.5kHz and around 5kHz, which looks like real ringing as I don't see any peaks at Time 0.

EDIT: @thewas_ beat me to it.
--------------
If SVS had made the crossover steeper, maybe it wouldn't have this issue.

Either way, not what I expected by looking at the Spinorama.

I think you are mis-using the term ringing here. Ringing is the extended decay of sound, sure, but in a minimum phase system is associated with peaks in the response at time 0. What you see here is very likely to be noise in the system or room rather than speaker.

if you see long decays like that and it’s showing non-minimum phase behavior in an anechoic measurement of a speaker, I would question the measurement before the speaker. That would make no sense.

 

[MZKM]

I think you are mis-using the term ringing here. Ringing is the extended decay of sound, sure, but in a minimum phase system is associated with peaks in the response at time 0. What you see here is very likely to be noise in the system or room rather than speaker.

if you see long decays like that and it’s showing non-minimum phase behavior in an anechoic measurement of a speaker, I would question the measurement before the speaker. That would make no sense.

Hmm, interesting. Then I wonder where the perceived brightness is coming from, that basically leaves the hump in response ~1kHz, but that should have been easy to EQ out.

BTW, were you able to speaker to Olive yet and discuss my questions regarding frequency bands?

 

[Matthew J Poes]

My experience with all SVS speakers strongly matches @amirm in that the speakers have a colored sound that emphasizes the bass and yet is painfully bright. I’ve never been a fan. Our own measurements of the speakers have shown the same issues of an elevated treble and excess energy in sensitive areas of the spectrum.

the directivity mismatch is pronounced and is mostly clearly shown in the directivity plots and the like. It’s a problem you will face any time you try to match a 6.5” woofer to a typical 1” dome tweeter with no waveguide. All 6.5” woofers will begin to narrow in their directivity long before you can safely cross the tweeter and this causes the problem seen. It’s such a common design for a speaker and it can’t be done well in my opinion. In my opinion you either need to add a sizeable waveguide or switch to a 3-way with a woofer or that size or larger.

 

[patate91]

First, it was never claimed that Amir's subjective impressions were mandatory. Last I checked, people were free to choose whether or not they read and/or accept his subjective impressions (or maybe I just didn't see the blood oath in the terms and conditions when I joined the site that I was required to treat Amir's impression as gospel).

Second, your statement that "this is supposed to be a science oriented forum" seems to be saying that subjective impressions have no place in science. This couldn't not be further from the truth. A large amount of science is based on subjective impressions. Look no further than drug studies, take something like ibuprofen. To establish if it helps with headaches, scientists are dependent on the subjects subjective reporting of how and if they felt an improvement in their headache after taking the drug. The important science comes into play in conducting a proper double blind study with some participants receiving a placebo and some receiving the drug being tested. Without the subjective impressions, you have no idea if the drug works on headaches, without a proper double blind study, you have no idea if the effects are psychosomatic or real.

Here, Amir is trying to correlate his subjective impressions of a speaker with its measurements. John Atkinson has been doing a similar thing at Stereophile for decades. Amir is limited in his ability to have multiple listeners give their blind subjective impressions, so the best data we get is his subjective impression. Now, I am sure if people really stepped up and donated a few million dollars, Amir would be able to quit his day job and perform blind comparisons with groups of people to help develop a statistically valid body of evidence with correlations between the measured and perceived sound of speakers. Until such time as this happens, I think we should be thankful for what we have. I for one would rather take one data point than no data points.

First point subjective impression is unavoidable since there's the panther right on the first pages. And people comment about it below the review. All readers are subject to biaises too.

Second people subjectiv impressions are important. But the scientist's impresssion that are conducting the study needs to be avoided. The scientific method is a big part in taking care of this. (Note that impressions are often the base of studies).

Yes he's trying to correlate but, has a couple of people pointed out in a couple of reviews it doesn't, and no satisfactory explanations have been provided.

 

[Matthew J Poes]

Hmm, interesting. Then I wonder where the perceived brightness is coming from, that basically leaves the hump in response ~1kHz, but that should have been easy to EQ out.

BTW, were you able to speaker to Olive yet and discuss my questions regarding frequency bands?

The treble is elevated on that speaker and I’ve never found it to be able to be eqed. I think the elevated treble in the listening window and the directivity mismatch might be the culprits.

I think he never answered that specific question either. I need to revisit that myself with him. I was discussing Harman lawyers with him so it may have been lost in a more involved conversation. Anyway, we should take this conversation private.

 

[amirm]

Yes he's trying to correlate but, has a couple of people pointed out in a couple of reviews it doesn't, and no satisfactory explanations have been provided.

This is the Internet. You expect people with no direct experience in this field, most of the time not having even read or understood the research to agree with people who have?

You are forgetting that people who post have their own agenda. Quoting them as evidence is not wise. If you want to disagree with your doctor, you best quote other doctors, not lay people on the Internet.

I have provided plenty of evidence as have others why you can't take a single value Olive score as bible. Across larger set of speakers, the correlation slipped to 86% so you need to accept 24% of the time Harman listeners not agreeing with the score. And as it happens, that is my correlation score right now.

Remember once more: Harman itself does NOT use this scoring method. The work was abandoned as was seamingly the research.

 

[patate91]

This is the Internet. You expect people with no direct experience in this field, most of the time not having even read or understood the research to agree with people who have?

You are forgetting that people who post have their own agenda. Quoting them as evidence is not wise. If you want to disagree with your doctor, you best quote other doctors, not lay people on the Internet.

I have provided plenty of evidence as have others why you can't take a single value Olive score as bible. Across larger set of speakers, the correlation slipped to 86% so you need to accept 24% of the time Harman listeners not agreeing with the score. And as it happens, that is my correlation score right now.

Remember once more: Harman itself does NOT use this scoring method. The work was abandoned as was seamingly the research.

Sure I agree with almost everything toi say.

But as far as I know toi are not a "doctor", sure you are a trained listener, but that's it.

And there's people on Internet that have expertise and darn good arguments and position.

 

[CDMC]

First point subjective impression is unavoidable since there's the panther right on the first pages. And people comment about it below the review. All readers are subject to biaises too.

Second people subjectiv impressions are important. But the scientist's impresssion that are conducting the study needs to be avoided. The scientific method is a big part in taking care of this. (Note that impressions are often the base of studies).

Yes he's trying to correlate but, has a couple of people pointed out in a couple of reviews it doesn't, and no satisfactory explanations have been provided.

Are you saying that because he gives a subjective impression that it so taints you that you then cannot use the objective data? If that is the case, how are you able to get any useful information about audio equipment, as virtually every other source is solely subjective?

The fact that Amir has not provided "satisfactory explanations" as to his subjective impressions versus the measurements doesn't invalidate his impressions. They are what they are. Developing proper scientific explanations would take years and millions of dollars and even then would likely not be fully conclusive. Wait, that is what Toole/Olive have been doing for decades, and even they don't claim to have all the answers, rather instead, they have found they can reasonably predict what most people will like.

Everyone's subjective impressions are exactly that, subjective and subject to the conditions that exist when they observe and the person's own biases. A perfect example is the WOW1 test. Amir's conclusion was: "Bass was muted, muffled and overall fidelity just wrong." I have a pair of WOW1s for my desktop. In my listening, I didn't observe the bass was muted or muffled, or the overall fidelity was just wrong. What I did observe was the bass was fine (but then they are up against a wall and corner, so get additional loading), they sounded very clean (nearfield listening levels put them at about 74db average when turned up with peaks of less than 90db), but the lower midrange was a bit recessed which made the top end sound a bit bright.

Whose subjective impressions are correct? Mine or Amir's? I believe both are correct, we listened to the speakers in far different settings. In my case, when I measure the WOW1s in my nearfield listening position, I find their bass rolls off starting at 45hz due to their positioning, but that suckout in the 500-1000hz range makes them sound a bit bright. At the end of the day, I found that I like the Salk Surrounds better, which measure better in my nearfield setup (and ironically, Jim from Salk told me would fit my preferences better when I ordered the WOW1s, I should have listened).

 

[amirm]

But as far as I know toi are not a "doctor", sure you are a trained listener, but that's it.

No, I am a doctor. I managed the entire division at Microsoft responsible for develop of audio technologies among others. I trained myself to hear small impairments in audio and became our top listener when it came to testing of our audio technologies. I have post countless double blind tests showing that I can easily ear artifacts that most people would not be able to whatsoever. I have provided some examples in this very thread.

Importantly, my job depended on being right when it came to listening tests. As was the fortunes of the company and my teams. Just the way your doctor is situated.

In this area, I am exceptionally familiar with the research and know the people behind them personally. My first exposure to it came from Dr. Toole himself. I have taken Harman training tests and increased my abilities in this area as I reported earlier.

I don't consider myself a research but neither is your doctor. I know how to listen carefully in ways that most people don't know. The skill requires tons of training across countless trials but professionally and informally.

It is the nature of subjective testing that one can't always be right. That's why we perform objective measurements. But for the most part, we, the industry, relies on trained listeners for bulk of its product development. This is why Harman has trained listeners. It is not just for research work.

 

[hardisj]

No, I am a doctor. I managed the entire division at Microsoft responsible for develop of audio technologies among others. I trained myself to hear small impairments in audio and became our top listener when it came to testing of our audio technologies. I have post countless double blind tests showing that I can easily ear artifacts that most people would not be able to whatsoever. I have provided some examples in this very thread.

Importantly, my job depended on being right when it came to listening tests. As was the fortunes of the company and my teams. Just the way your doctor is situated.

In this area, I am exceptionally familiar with the research and know the people behind them personally. My first exposure to it came from Dr. Toole himself. I have taken Harman training tests and increased my abilities in this area as I reported earlier.

I don't consider myself a research but neither is your doctor. I know how to listen carefully in ways that most people don't know. The skill requires tons of training across countless trials but professionally and informally.

It is the nature of subjective testing that one can't always be right. That's why we perform objective measurements. But for the most part, we, the industry, relies on trained listeners for bulk of its product development. This is why Harman has trained listeners. It is not just for research work.

That's all good and well.

But the real question is: How good is the panther's hearing? Is he a doctor?

*attempt at bringing some humor to this thread*

 

[ex audiophile]

That's all good and well.

But the real question is: How good is the panther's hearing? Is he a doctor?

*attempt at bringing some humor to this thread*

I can't believe this is still going on re Amir's testing. I don't know how he holds his tongue.

1. All trained professionals assess the objective data and then make conclusions, based on the data and on their personal training and experience. It happens millions of times/day. If you don't like the opinion that your physician or dentist or engineering staff have come to you are always free to seek out another opinion. You are free to review the data and come to your own conclusions.
2. When your only job seems to be to criticize a person who has devoted countless hours to helping audio enthusiasts better understand the equipment they are buying, and what to listen for, I would expect you to specify your own credentials, and let us know how many hours/years you have freely devoted to helping others in the hobby.
3. You might also look up the words appreciation and gratitude, that is the response most of us have for what is being offered for free on this site. If you don't like the conclusions drawn here, or the collegial attitude, you are free, no... you are strongly encouraged to look elsewhere. I can think of several sites where you'd fit right in.
oops, this was meant for
patate91
sorry erin

 

[Shike]

if you see long decays like that and it’s showing non-minimum phase behavior in an anechoic measurement of a speaker, I would question the measurement before the speaker. That would make no sense.

The NFS should effectively act like anechoic, so if what you say is true then the measurements should be suspect? I find that pretty doubtful - it should show up on other waterfalls too if that's the case right?

 

[whazzup]

It’s unfortunate Amir’s credentials are frequently under fire. It could be that unlike widely recognised jobs like ‘medical doctors’ or ‘tennis players’, people just don’t think about or get exposed to specialist work performed in specific industries, say odor tester or Pantone color experts.

 

[MZKM]

The NFS should effectively act like anechoic, so if what you say is true then the measurements should be suspect? I find that pretty doubtful - it should show up on other waterfalls too if that's the case right?

The NFS is only for the Spinorama/heat map measurements, so the room does play a role in the waterfall.

 

[patate91]

No, I am a doctor. I managed the entire division at Microsoft responsible for develop of audio technologies among others. I trained myself to hear small impairments in audio and became our top listener when it came to testing of our audio technologies. I have post countless double blind tests showing that I can easily ear artifacts that most people would not be able to whatsoever. I have provided some examples in this very thread.

Importantly, my job depended on being right when it came to listening tests. As was the fortunes of the company and my teams. Just the way your doctor is situated.

In this area, I am exceptionally familiar with the research and know the people behind them personally. My first exposure to it came from Dr. Toole himself. I have taken Harman training tests and increased my abilities in this area as I reported earlier.

I don't consider myself a research but neither is your doctor. I know how to listen carefully in ways that most people don't know. The skill requires tons of training across countless trials but professionally and informally.

It is the nature of subjective testing that one can't always be right. That's why we perform objective measurements. But for the most part, we, the industry, relies on trained listeners for bulk of its product development. This is why Harman has trained listeners. It is not just for research work.

As a doctor you seems to take a lot of shortcut in your expertise field. For I undertood in the last exchange we had is that you are following the industry standards. As a manager I understand this.

But following industry standards is not science. Being a manager and a trained listener doesn't make you a neuro science expert, if you think otherwise maybe you affected by the Dunning-Kruger effect.

For now I think we won't agree, because again you are not doing science, and I thought wrongly that toi were. I think a lot of people are ok with that, it annoyed me, but it's ok, that's my problem.

 

[patate91]

I don't know if it's "universal" or a USA thing but every comments or critique are called an attack?
There's no war, violence, fight or such things as attacks.

 

[F1308]

In a nutshell: after a scientific analysis, it was determined the soup was based on water, tomato, bread, onion, salt, pepper, vinegar and some bubbles of air.
Viscosity and density were reported as a top secret, not being revealed.
Temperature at testing headquarters was 23 Celsius. Pressure was 907 hPa.
Serving temperature was 33 Celsius. Spoons and plates were kept at reported ambient temperature.

Many people liked it very much, asking for another handle.
And many other people didn't enjoy it at all.

Easy, isn't it?

 

[preload]

But following industry standards is not science. Being a manager and a trained listener doesn't make you a neuro science expert, if you think otherwise maybe you affected by the Dunning-Kruger effect.

For now I think we won't agree, because again you are not doing science, and I thought wrongly that toi were. I think a lot of people are ok with that, it annoyed me, but it's ok, that's my problem.

In a twist of irony, I was actually going to comment that in reading your responses here, I'm not entirely convinced that you, yourself, understand "science," and that the Dunning-Kruger effect is what may be preventing you from realizing it.

 

[patate91]

In a twist of irony, I was actually going to comment that in reading your responses here, I'm not entirely convinced that you, yourself, understand "science," and that the Dunning-Kruger effect is what may be preventing you from realizing it.

Yes sure, I can be wrong, and I'll be glad that you point me my mistake. We can do it with private message or in another thread.