Switching from Genelec 8361A to Palmer Orbit 11?

[Jiraya369]

Check out C8C's thread (A6B as well, it's the first thread where this audibility thresholds got under scrutiny) , read about what Amir perceived as audible distortion and then check out the charts to see their actual % at the given SPL.
Audible distortion does not distinguish subs from woofers, etc, is just there when it manifests itself as audible.

Unless you don't trust Amir's perception.
So...

why would I care about Amir's perception? All that matters is what I can or cant hear. Some can hear 0.1% distortion and i cant hear less than 3%, does it matter if I use that person's subjective feelings or would it matter if he used my feelings?

 

[amirm]

why would I care about Amir's perception? All that matters is what I can or cant hear.

Pretty sure you don't have the test tracks I have that bring out distortion in low bass region. Or experience hearing hundreds of speakers during sweeps. But you do you as the saying goes...

 

[Jiraya369]

Pretty sure you don't have the test tracks I have that bring out distortion in low bass region. Or experience hearing hundreds of speakers during sweeps. But you do you as the saying goes...

my point is, if your hearing is better than mine, does it matter if you hear something? That's the thing, you're using test tracks that bring out distortion in low regions, those are TEST tracks, does it matter for me in the end?

In order to evaluate a speaker, sure, but we're all purchasing stuff to listen to music at the end of the day. When real music is playing, those distortion of the sweeps dont matter too much as the whole spectrum is there so distortion gets masked, i find it easy to hear even 1% during sweeps but even 3% during music is super hard for me, audibility of things varies from person to person, track to track, speaker quality to speaker quality (where exactly the distortion lies in the speaker). So many variables.

At the end of the day if something is below 5% distortion at levels i listen to (not too loud, thus an easy bar for most gear), I'm happy. You test speakers and have a critical ear cus it's your job, im just here to not have ugly artifacts that ruin my listening like 50% distortion in the bass.

 

[dagfinn]

I'm gonna disagree with this strongly. One 7380a and glm are an excellent choice.

Mono will always be bad. 2x7370 is much better.

 

[Mort]

physics

And you are on ignore. Snarky unhelpful answers. I've seen you on Reddit too.

 

[amirm]

That's the thing, you're using test tracks that bring out distortion in low regions, those are TEST tracks, does it matter for me in the end?

My test tracks were selected on basis of sounding excellent as music. They are not test tones.

 

[Jiraya369]

My test tracks were selected on basis of sounding excellent as music. They are not test tones.

that's not my point, you said yourself that for example with the A6B, you only got it to completely nuke itself with your reference test track, excellent sounding or not that's just 1 track for you no?

Additionally, the point of audibility comes again, what you find audible could be imperceptible for someone and the level you find imperceptible someone could find easily audible, so subjective and reviews here are meaningless.

 

[amirm]

that's not my point, you said yourself that for example with the A6B, you only got it to completely nuke itself with your reference test track, excellent sounding or not that's just 1 track for you no?

That's not an exhaustive list. It is just what is in my playlist. That said, the specific track is rare, just not "1."

 

[amirm]

Additionally, the point of audibility comes again, what you find audible could be imperceptible for someone and the level you find imperceptible someone could find easily audible, so subjective and reviews here are meaningless.

Nope. That track creates such high level of audible distortion at elevated level that it is not listener dependent. Maybe I can tell the distort at lower level than others but once it really gets going, it is readily and easily audible.

 

[Jiraya369]

Nope. That track creates such high level of audible distortion at elevated level that it is not listener dependent. Maybe I can tell the distort at lower level than others but once it really gets going, it is readily and easily audible.

at elevated levels any speaker is gonna suck, how many people listen at the same volume as you lol

 

[b73i57dc3f]

Simple CEA's 2010 (not 2010B) accepted 30% THD

Only for the 2nd harmonic. For the 3rd harmonic, the threshold is -15 dB (18 %), which the C8C closely approaches at very low frequencies in Amir's 96 dB measurement (with the caveat that Amir's measurement is done in-room and with a sine sweep, so not directly comparable with CEA-2010 measurements).

 

[829]

Pretty sure you don't have the test tracks I have that bring out distortion in low bass region. Or experience hearing hundreds of speakers during sweeps. But you do you as the saying goes...

May I ask which tracks these are; is your playlist publicly available? Among the tracks I use for (bass response and room modes) testing are the following. Criteria for me to choose these tracks is of course deep bass availability but also high DR (non-loudness compressed material).


DR | Peak | RMS | Duration | Track:

DR12 | -0.18 dB | -19.05 dB | 8:47 | Evolutionary Toccata & Fugue in D Minor, BWV 565 - Cameron Carpenter

DR14 | -0.32 dB | -21.13 dB | 7:59 | A Heart Beats In Space (from 'Mission To Mars') - Ennio Morricone

DR18 | 0.00 dB | -20.78 dB | 9:15 | Tin Pan Alley (AKA Roughest Place in Town) - Steve Ray Vaughan

DR15 | 0.00 dB | -18.43 dB | 4:59 | Fast Car - Tracy Chapman

DR15 | -2.19 dB | -20.84 dB | 13:25 | The Race - Yello


[EDIT#2]

Actually, I would like to make a suggestion. Thankfully since at least a decade now, we are on the same page when it comes to measurements of audio gear and their interpretation (or at least, we should be). But when it comes to subjective analysis and descriptions, we are not.

Also when talking about the same song, different streaming platforms may offer different bit-rates (often lossy) and different masters (where re-masters often have compressed DR compared to the old originals; but sometimes surprise with the outcome).

To mitigate this, maybe a provider who actually allows to download and own music DRM-free would be willing to cooperate with ASR for an album which might become the industry-standard for listening tests? Maybe Qobuz? The rules could be:

1) Up to a max. of 30 selected tracks to be voted for out of their catalog; 5 selections (1/6th) fixed to @amirm - each following:

• Only real music; no test signals and no AI-generated songs
• 16 bit / 44.1 kHz (no Hi-Res nonsense)
• Should include some lossless normalization / ReplayGain metadata across the tracks; like in accordance with EBU R 128
• Download as FLAC and ALAC
• Strictly non-DR compressed material (check with ocenaudio etc.)
• Selection of: generally suited tracks / suited for cross-talk cancellation / binaural recordings (for headphones)

2) Of course such an album could not be free of charge due to licensing etc. but maybe it could be:

• Provided through ASR (no external login-requirement) to members who donated a min. total amount within the last x months or years; e.g. 20 USD (depending on the final tracks no.)
• Of course such service provider could include an appealing discount-code for these members, if they'd wish to benefit from that service further
• Maybe also allow direct links from the final published track list to their store, for people who prefer to buy single tracks (at a higher cost)

I would also value @mitchco's selection of test tracks! And somebody would need to design a label and write a booklet with information about the selected songs.

 

[829]

[Addendum]

One by @amirm referred bass test song is "Fading Sun" from Terje Isungset. Thank you for the information!

I have added screenshots of a quick analysis through MusicScope (was provided freely by XiVero), ocenaudio and foobar2000's optional component Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1 (old algorithm; and works with 32-bit version only).




[#2]


[#3]
Since I posted it here for a similar reason; following the 65k FFT of above mentioned Cameron Carpenter's "Evolutionary" Toccata And Fugue In D Minor, BWV 565.

 

[illusonic]

If you can set the frequency axis to logarithmic scaling this will help to see the actuall bass frequencies involved.

 

[illusonic]

The 4k FFT pretty much sums it up. Mostly mid to high frequency content with some spectrally detached "special effects" at 33Hz. As there are little/no harmonics in the low-frequency signal, distortion becomes much more audible than for normal songs.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

Looking at everything regarding the Palmer's the thing I'm trying to decide is whether they are superior or inferior to the ASCI A6b's. No question the A6b's have smoother directivity about 1000 hz and probably lower levels of THD, but aside from that how do they better the Orbit 11? The Orbits with their Cardioid dispersion from 1000 down to around 300 hz decisively better the Asci's and, in a smaller room that narrower dispersion means you will hear less of the room in that critical area which encompasses upper bass and much of the midrange. So maybe when that is taken into consideration, the Palmer may actually come out ahead. And certainly it may work better with Dirac ART (which I have access to), with Art covering frequencies at or below my room's Schroeder Frequency (around 200 hz) and the Palmer's cardioid covering everything above 300 hz. By contrast, ART used with the ASCI's will still have the inevitable widening of the 1000 hz and down frequency range even though ART would still correct below 200 hz.

Also the Palmer's appear to have acceptable levels of THD especially when paired with a sub and crossed over at 100 hz. And given that it's a three way, it may actually do better on IMD even though it's using a coaxial mid/tweeter unit.

And no question which is more affordable. Unfortunately, the Asci's went from $2900 Kef Ref 1/March Audio Sointuva beaters, to a $4000+ tariff burdened product which cost every bit as much as the Sointuva which has a much more Aesthetically pleasing cabinet with arguably a better tweeter as well. So, the question now is whether the Asci's may actually be bettered by peers (Sointuva) and a downmarket alternatuve (Palmer Orbit 11), or if it and perhaps it's lower priced models (C6b, F6b) still retain some inherent advantage.

And yes, one is definitely a mixing monitor and one not, but If I listen at 1.5 meters (and I do), I really don't much care what the original designed purpose of the speaker happened to be, but rather what I can make of it in my own system. What I care about is the sound quality when I hook it up in my smaller listening space, cross over at 100 hz to my dual SVS SB 2000 (each on placed within 2 ft of the main speaker), use Dirac ART to set up the crossover and room correction, and maybe on the 5.1 system bring my LS 50 Meta Surrounds and center in to help out.

Under these circumstances, I'm seriously wondering if the Palmers might be better than the A6bs for what I can do with them.

 

[Purité Audio]

Having both, I believe the Orbits need revision before I would purchase another pair.
Keith

 

[phoenixdogfan]

Having both, I believe the Orbits need revision before I would purchase another pair.
Keith

Is a revised version in the works?

 

[illusonic]

Having both, I believe the Orbits need revision before I would purchase another pair.
Keith

What exactly should be revised?

 

[tonyrob]

What exactly should be revised?

reduce hiss level for sure; better amp for tweeter, maybe woofer as well; higher power amp for sub; more DSP features, like room correction.