Was this aimed at ASR?

[Robin L]

Dang, that looks horrible for a speaker that expensive. You can kinda tell the reviewer didn't love the sound, but he did a good job of not outright saying it.

" . . . This is a distinctive sounding speaker all right . . . "
The green "Highly Commended" logo means "Not this one".

 

[Jimbob54]

It's just typical for this type of magazines I think, they need to walk a thin line. Have a look at the review of these 60k$ speakers https://www.hifinews.com/content/raidho-d-21-loudspeaker.

You can practically hear the backspace getting hammered everytime he types "lumpy" then thinks better of it.

 

[Geert]

Dang, that looks horrible for a speaker that expensive. You can kinda tell the reviewer didn't love the sound, but he did a good job of not outright saying it.

The review wasn't that bad indeed as the reviewer managed to hear the flaws pointed out by the measurements. I don't expect otherwise, but I didn't see a lot of reviewers pulling that off.

 

[krabapple]

- in my personal experience, I do not prefer the same kind of speakers shown to be preferred on average for pleasure listening (I do for audio production though)

Interestingly (or not), Toole's review of the research finds somewhat the inverse of your preference: audio production pros tend NOT to prefer what the average listener does --i.e., loudspeakers that provide a sense of 'listener envelopment' -- for their work. For their work they prefer a dryer, more detailed sound.

 

[March Audio]

.
One point often made is that reviewers rarely review "bad" stuff. I've never had a particular problem with this because, well, why would I want to waste my time reviewing something I felt was bad?

FWIWFM - Don

Problem is that the reviewer wouldn't know a component was bad before listening to and measuring it. Do "bad" products not get published after review? If they were published surely that would still be helpful to consumers? Could stop someone making a bad purchase.

You do see subjectively praised products measure badly so there is a contradiction there. Whilst Less than SOT measurements may not necessarily lead to a bad listening experience, they should influence the final rating along with value for money. Speakers are more of a challenge but we have seen DACs here that are stupidly expensive that perform terribly compared to a $100 product. Yet we all know the former would get praised effusively in Stereophile and the latter ignored.

 

[krabapple]

Reading through the comments there, I am struck by this paragraph from Jim Austin:

View attachment 74085

The first part is incredible to me as a person with a PhD. How often does Jim Austin tolerate let alone take a back seat to a layman over his knowledge of science? I trust never.

Atkinson was trained in science too (though not at the graduate level).

Hmm, why does Stereophile go to the trouble to find these people who are scientists, but only kinda sorta, to run a magazine that's mainly about audio reproduction gear? I have to think they are trying to have it both ways.

It's a bit like combing through the ranks of PhD biologists to find the rare one who thinks evolution is nice and all but needs to *step aside* if it harshes on something that's more fun to believe..

Or maybe like St. Augustine...''Make me chaste , Lord...but not yet!"

 

[krabapple]

It MAY be that Toole tested preference and not accuracy. Nothing wrong with that. But, if they used a string quartet, for example, to test speaker preference, then bass response should not be part of the decision. If you incorporate music with bass, then they demonstrated that bass will impact the overall choice or preference.

I would want to repeat Toole's choices with music that had no bass and then show if his preference stands. Clearly, it can't. But then you would know what other factors drive people to prefer one speaker over the other. In the "regression model" that is preference, the "utility" provided by bass will overwhelm almost all other parameters. At least it seems that way!

Good heavens. Try reading the work, please, instead of hypothesizing about what the researchers might or might not have done. You might be surprised but you will definitely be better informed.

A lot of it is summarized in Toole's book, if you can't access the JAES articles.

 

[DonH56]

Problem is that the reviewer wouldn't know a component was bad before listening to and measuring it. Do "bad" products not get published after review? If they were published surely that would still be helpful to consumers? Could stop someone making a bad purchase.

You do see praised products measure badly so there is a contradiction there. Whilst Less than SOT measurements may not necessarily lead to a bad listening experience, they should influence the final rating along with value for money. Speakers are more of a challenge but we have seen DACs here that are stupidly expensive that perform terribly compared to a $100 product. Yet we all know the former would get praised effusively in Stereophile.

I'm willing to give the reviewers the benefit of the doubt on this one. They may have heard them at a show or elsewhere, or be familiar with other products from the manufacturer, or the product was highly praised by a friend, whatever. I agree "bad" reviews would be helpful to consumers but realistically the reviewers aren't interested in reviewing bad products and magazines would be wasting space better used for better products. That said, there have certainly been some "interesting" reviews lately, like the new Klipsch speakers and others discussed in this thread. Sometimes lineage and memories can lead one astray...

 

[amirm]

Hmm, why does Stereophile go to the trouble to find these people who are scientists, but only kinda sorta, to run a magazine that's mainly about audio reproduction gear? I have to think they are trying to have it both ways.

Yeh, I always found this puzzling. Are there not enough audio engineers and researchers who are also audiophiles to do reviews?

 

[March Audio]

It MAY be that Toole tested preference and not accuracy. Nothing wrong with that. But, if they used a string quartet, for example, to test speaker preference, then bass response should not be part of the decision. If you incorporate music with bass, then they demonstrated that bass will impact the overall choice or preference.

I would want to repeat Toole's choices with music that had no bass and then show if his preference stands. Clearly, it can't. But then you would know what other factors drive people to prefer one speaker over the other. In the "regression model" that is preference, the "utility" provided by bass will overwhelm almost all other parameters. At least it seems that way!

@b1daly shows exactly the problem here. Preference may not equate to accuracy..

IIRC the testing was split into small and large speakers, i.e. less and more low frequency response. The results showed they could predict the preference more accurately with the small speakers than the big speakers. 96% v 84% IIRC. So yes bass response is a large factor in peoples preferences. . However the results showed that they were bang on with the assertion that people prefer a flat anechoic response

 

[SIY]

Yeh, I always found this puzzling. Are there not enough audio engineers and researchers who are also audiophiles to do reviews?

That will not help sell ad space. Storytellers do.

 

[b1daly]

Interestingly (or not), Toole's review of the research finds somewhat the inverse of your preference: audio production pros tend NOT to prefer what the average listener does --i.e., loudspeakers that provide a sense of 'listener envelopment' -- for their work. For their work they prefer a dryer, more detailed sound.

That is my preference too. Rooms that are too live (like in a house) I find confusing because the reflected sound is such a part of the overall soundfield. I would not trust the speakers I like to listen to for work, though they come close.

Part of my current frustration is I got annoyed with working on speakers I don’t like the sound of, it seems like this shouldn’t be a thing.

 

[b1daly]

Are you sure about the model number? I can't find them on their site.

Not sure if you're using a console and mounting the Genelecs on top as most do, but console bounce terribly affects the midrange.

Sorry I meant 8040c. I think they are just one size up from the 8030s Amir just reviewed.

They are paired with a Genelec sub and generate a huge, detailed sound field.

They are setup on stands symmetrically around a computer workstation. We do have a console but it’s setup sideways and away from being a source of first reflection. There are still a lot of challenges dealing with speaker placement and how sound is represented at computer work position.

My main complaint with the sound of studio monitors is that they sound kind of ‘uncanny’ which I think in part is caused by them being so dense and inert.

This makes the sound sort of “float” in the air. It’s not clear where it is coming from, and the imaging is less anchored. It‘s unnatural for sound to be generated like this (‘disembodied’).

Speakers that have just a bit of cabinet vibration make easier to identify the source of the sound.

With physical source of the sound localized, it allows your head to move around while being able to keep track of the source. Moving your head changes the sound a lot, and keeping track of the source, which is innate, allows your brain to “back out” the relationship of source to head, so you know that the sound hasn’t changed, you just changed the position of your head.

(Headphones have similar issues with sounding uncanny because the whole soundfield moves with your head!)

I think this effect is exacerbated in the studio control room because first reflections are damped, which are another way we can localize a sound source.

This is not ideal, and represents a trade off. With the sound field being this kind of cloud, it can make certain critical tasks like balance levels harder. The benefit is that you get a clear picture of what is actually in your signal, not what the speaker cabinets or room sound like, which are sounds not in the signal.

Listening for fun, I just want to have a nice experience, and don’t care about these specific concerns.

Toole complains about stereo being a poor means to create a 3D image of another space, which it is. That is moot to me, because speakers generate an actual, first generation, 3D sound field in the listening space.

If you are trying to create a virtual representation of, let’s say, a violin playing in a room with stereo speakers, it’s very fussy and the image is unstable (kind of what I was describing above). But for the vast majority of commercial music, there is no 3D space to recreate. Producers manipulate the recording to create a soundfield for the listener.

Speakers that are localizable generate a stable sound field that you can move around in. True, you don’t get the effect of having a violin playing in your room, but producers create content for speakers, not to create some kind of ‘hologram’.

This is a current working hypothesis. My studio partner shares many of the issues I do with the sound of studio monitors, but outside of him I haven‘t come across discussion of this.

I find this less of an issue with modern pop music. In part this might be because most music is made on these types of monitors. Also a lot of it is electronic (digital) and I dont have as many referents for how this type of music should sound. I’m not sure.

 

[win]

One point often made is that reviewers rarely review "bad" stuff.

by definition, if they like everything then nothing is bad

 

[BDWoody]

Nevertheless I notice a lot of the members here are internals (engineers, scientists and audio pro's). They are not converted, for a lot of them this is a place to meet like minden people.

It may be easy to read it that way, since many of the regular, core members certainly are. It makes sense that they would be dealing with a lot of the questions, since often they are the *actual* experts. Beyond that couple/few dozen of ridiculously qualified people, there are over 10,000 members now, most of whom are happy to do a lot lot more reading than writing.

Often, a first post comes accompanied by apologies in advance for what they assume will be a 'dumb question,' and I bet a lot of folks never get beyond that intimidated feeling and just lurk.

Many of us just enjoy the high level of intellectual energy that flows through this place. I have zero background in electronics. I came here believing but not understanding the audio marketing world and I stay here as someone who has asked, read and learned enough to almost completely reject it.

I am here as the converted layman, and can relate to the sincere, but sincerely wrong people who come in every day and have their minds blown by the truth.

Word is spreading...and lots of non-techies around.

Also some very funny people on here...just sayin'.

 

[raindance]

Dang, that looks horrible for a speaker that expensive. You can kinda tell the reviewer didn't love the sound, but he did a good job of not outright saying it.

True! Have you heard of Scansonic? Supposedly they have "Raidho DNA", whatever the f... that means. They get the weirdest, most inconsistent reviews, but mostly it seems they're "boomy" until they "break in" which takes "really long".

 

[DonH56]

by definition, if they like everything then nothing is bad

Read the rest of the post; that is not at all what I asserted/speculated. I do not believe they like everything; I believe they do not want to spend their time reviewing things they do not like.

 

[richard12511]

True! Have you heard of Scansonic? Supposedly they have "Raidho DNA", whatever the f... that means. They get the weirdest, most inconsistent reviews, but mostly it seems they're "boomy" until they "break in" which takes "really long".

I haven't. Looking at their website, they do at least look similar.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Problem is that the reviewer wouldn't know a component was bad before listening to and measuring it.

Of course but due diligence should filter out the obvious.

Do "bad" products not get published after review?

Stereophile's policy is to publish a review for any product that is accepted for review.

by definition, if they like everything then nothing is bad

"They" is ambiguous in this statement. A review is the opinion of an individual writer, not a consensus or company policy.

 

[CDMC]

I am pointing out that the average user comes to the forum and see some speakers not recommended just because they are not so neutral, and they could buy another speaker just for that "panther" or conclusions, a lot of people do not go further than that in reading reviews...

Are you suggesting then that because people can’t bother to take the time to become informed about their purchase, Amir should change his standards? If someone wants to make a purchase based on a panther rating alone, there is nothing that can be done to get them to spend the time to become better informed. It doesn’t mean that Amir should modify his standards to cater to the lowest common denominator.