What do you look for the most in stereo loud speakers?

[Hear Here]

Wow...that is an incredible amount of utter horse poop. Any half-way decent amp, doesn't need any DSP.

Think more about what you say. If an amp has a peak or dip in its response curve and this is reflected in the measurements taken at the listening position, DSP can adjust for this. Yes or no?

It will adjust for speaker deficiences, but the amp too. DSP has no idea what causes peaks and dips (speakers, room or amp) - it merely tries to adjust the amp's output to compensate in such a way that the response at the listening position is flat.

 

[sergeauckland]

Think more about what you say. If an amp has a peak or dip in its response curve and this is reflected in the measurements taken at the listening position, DSP can adjust for this. Yes or no?

It will adjust for speaker deficiences, but the amp too. DSP has no idea what causes peaks and dips (speakers, room or amp) - it merely tries to adjust the amp's output to compensate in such a way that the response at the listening position is flat.

But no amp has a peak or dip in its response curve. All amplifiers are flat so DSP is used only to correct for the loudspeaker's in-room deficiencies, or the listener's preference.

S.

 

[JeremyFife]

Where's the "all of the above" choice? I don't think I would spend real money (more than a couple hundred) for a pair of speakers that lacked any one of those attributes. I might be able to identify sensitivity as my lowest priority on that list, but I'd pass any any speaker that, for example, distorted heavily when played really loudly, which possibly goes hand in hand with low sensitivity.

Of course, that's for my main system. For a desktop system, I might be able to pass up a few of the attributes (such as power handling), but I still don't think I could narrow it down to one that I require above all else.

Rick "necessary but not sufficient" Denney

What Rick said ... ^^

Also, unavoidably, aesthetics. If it looks like an orange Lego brick it ain't happening

 

[Gorgonzola]

I chose 'Spatial Performance'. To sure, good dispersion and flat frequency response are very important in achieving this. However sometimes overlooked is low distortion which, IMO, is at least as critical in achieving the "spatial performance" characteristic.

 

[Hear Here]

But no amp has a peak or dip in its response curve. All amplifiers are flat so DSP is used only to correct for the loudspeaker's in-room deficiencies, or the listener's preference.

S.

If you re-read my earlier posting, I was suggesting that DSP is useful to the DIY builder of speakers and amps, as they don't have the wherewithal to ensure their response if flat. DSP could be used to improve a DIY amp's response curve.

 

[sergeauckland]

If you re-read my earlier posting, I was suggesting that DSP is useful to the DIY builder of speakers and amps, as they don't have the wherewithal to ensure their response if flat. DSP could be used to improve a DIY amp's response curve.

But that's still nonsense, as no amplifier, DIY or otherwise, will have anything other than a flat response, so nothing needs improving. What amplifier have you ever found that doesn't have a flat response?

S.

 

[OldHvyMec]

What amplifier have you ever found that doesn't have a flat response?

One that needs repair.

Regards

 

[Alexei]

My last move made me realise how room-dependent speakers are. In my previous home where my listening distance was 3.2m, and me seated against rear wall, wide dispersion and extended bass were probably most important. Imaging was reasonable with almost any speaker there, but ‘hearing’ deep bass was more challenging and needed a lot of placement/seating compromises.
In my new apartment where listening distance is nearly 6m, again seated near rear wall, even LS50s produce sub-40Hz at satisfying (relative to mids) level when leveraging room gain. Speakers, large or small have enough bass for me here without subs required for music listening (for my tastes). I can’t go loud due to adjacent apartments anyway.
However, wide dispersion speakers like Lintons and previous 3-way FlrStands only give me a vague wash of lateral and almost no depth imaging. Absolutely nothing like holographic.
Controlled directivity, narrow dispersion speakers work better here for me and preserve more treble ‘dynamics’ like percussion at this listening distance. Get closer though and they sound harsh and thin.
The wider dispersion speakers sound much more pleasant up close.
So spatial/imaging and controlled directivity are most important to me ATM.

 

[gnarly]

I would consider that distortion though.

I'm glad you do! So do I and a fair sized group of others.

But the prevailing sentiment, by far the majority I think, does not consider it so.
They don't see phase as part of the frequency domain, or at least do not count it as something to be concerned with.
Check out Amir's and Toole's opinions on this.....
Tis why I listed it as a separate criteria...in deference to the majority.

 

[PristineSound]

Other: neutral FR

 

[PristineSound]

What is ‘spatial performance’?
Keith

Exactly what the (parentheses) states: soundstage width, imaging, a sense of depth perception, a sense of holography.

If you are looking for which measurements corresponds with which characteristics, I'll let others speak to it.

 

[Multicore]

View attachment 460077

ok. in which case i withdraw my vote. if cost is no constraint and all the graphs in Amir's measurements are tip top then all I'm concerned about is appearance.

i am curious about the result: ~50% go with sound-stage, imaging, and holograpy. whereas i have abandoned hope of ever understanding what those mean in this context.

btw, vote option 1 says "resonance of any kind, etc." conflicts with assumption 2 in OP.

 

[PristineSound]

i am curious about the result: ~50% go with sound-stage, imaging, and holograpy. whereas i have abandoned hope of ever understanding what those mean in this context.

Soundstage is how big, typically how wide, does the "stage" or the venue recreated by speakers feels. Usually that has to do with how wide the radiation pattern is.

Imaging is how precise and unblurred does the sound localization originate in a 1D, within the line of the 2 speaker plane. Often when the soundstage is too wide, imaging blurs. And when a pair of speakers are very well matched, imaging gets sharper.

Depth localization or distance perception is the perception of the distance you feel the sound is coming from the speaker, I have not seen an universal term to describe this phenomenon to the honest. But I suspect it's related to directivity width, controlled directivity, phase and timing.

There aren't any common or universal terms for "Holography" but in my interpretation is essentially the 3 above combined. Creating a sense of 3D sound image, often times the recording, often does phase manipulation, contributes to this.

I recommend other members to correct me if I misspeak.

 

[PristineSound]

For me, I am a world class sucker for spatial performance/characteristics. Assuming linear frequency response and a very well control directivity, spatial performance is what takes me to Nirvana, this assumes distortion of any kind is fairly well behaved.

 

[Arindal]

Voted for ´Spatial performance´ as this is in my understanding one of the qualities that sets apart an excellent system from one which is just playing fine, avoiding major flaws. Naturally, it is more important for recordings which are acoustically recorded, like classical and jazz.

Would have voted for two more which I would file under ´Others´:

- Transparency and subjective detail resolution of complex recordings like orchestral and choirs
- bass quality, particularly impulse response, ´grooving´ , ´kicking´ bass, being timing-wise in line with higher frequency bands

It is very interesting to see the results of this polling coming in, as it seemingly is getting very close to polls which I have seen years ago. Particularly regarding the importance of spatial performance. It is a certain contradiction to the priorities of many reviewers focussing mainly on aspects like on-axis frequency response, distortion, max SPL, lower cutoff frequency and alike. My understanding would be that people regard FR as something which you can easily correct with today's DSP capabilities, and aspects like max SPL, lower bass extension and alike are not really what count in home listening as you rarely can crank up your system in an average home environment.

 

[PristineSound]

Tone/timbre is a function of frequency response, primarily, and the condition of the poll is that smooth FR is taken as a given.

The secondary determinator of tone/timbre is distortion - So I voted low distortion as the most important of the options.

I agree and I want to add that timbre is made up of 3 components, attack, sustain and decay. So there is a time domain aspect to this. So phase distortion is also a type of distortion and plays a part.

Audiontionally I believe controlled directivity is also important, as dissimilar, reflected sound can also throw off the timbre.

 

[Arindal]

There aren't any common or universal terms for "Holography" but in my interpretation is essentially the 3 above combined.

I do not really like this term personally, as high end folks seem to associate something completely different with ´holographic´. Some like the illusion of phantom sources being localizable in the listening room ´just as if the musicians would be there´, detached from their own reverb on the recording or the reverb in the listening room dominating or being colorated. I consider this to be against the intension of the recording engineer.

 

[PristineSound]

I do not really like this term personally, as high end folks seem to associate something completely different with ´holographic´. Some like the illusion of phantom sources being localizable in the listening room ´just as if the musicians would be there´, detached from their own reverb on the recording or the reverb in the listening room dominating or being colorated. I consider this to be against the intension of the recording engineer.

I agree. The use of the term holography has a bad rep. But that is the best word, I can come up with to articulate what I have in mind.

 

[Arindal]

What is ‘spatial performance’?

- localization precision (phantom source width)
- localization stability
- presentation of reverb pattern from the recording as ambience
- tonal balance of reverb
- depth-of-field
- perceived proximity
- phantom sources being positioned in the ambience where you would expect them (or not)

 

[Purité Audio]

Imaging then.
Keith