What does John Heisz get wrong in his latest video about speaker measurements?

[Brian6751]

So the more eloquent designer has designed the better speaker?

None sense - one doesn’t need the anecdotes of a designer in any engineered product I know off. The product either passes or not regardless of the babble of the designer.

Yes it might be entertaining but adds nothing to the facts.

So, you see no value in getting the designers feedback on the measurements? Some of it may be anecdotal but I would like to hear their side, especially from those that supposedly used measurements in their design

 

[HarmonicTHD]

So, you see no value in getting the designers feedback on the measurements? Some of it may be anecdotal but I would like to hear their side, especially from those that supposedly used measurements in their design

KEF provides their design objectives in their white papers and the head of development is a member here. Same for Neumann … read the respective threads or ask them.

Actually Amir’s, Erin’s and the measurements of eg the above two manufacturers are identical.

 

[Brian6751]

KEF provides their design objectives in their white papers and the head of development is a member here. Same for Neumann … read the respective threads or ask them.

OK. I would like to see more of that including interviews. Im actually more interested in hearing from the designers of the speakers that don't measure how the community has determined they should.

 

[thegeton]

"...they sure wish they did."

Sweet spot FOMO is a real thing among audio and music nerds.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

OK. I would like to see more of that including interviews. Im actually more interested in hearing from the designers of the speakers that don't measure how the community has determined they should.

You will find plenty on YouTube lamenting how measurements don’t tell everything and their design is saving the world. … very predictable, boring and useless.

 

[Purité Audio]

OK. I would like to see more of that including interviews. Im actually more interested in hearing from the designers of the speakers that don't measure how the community has determined they should.

‘Why I decided to ‘design’ a poor sounding loudspeaker’ could be hilarious.
Keith

 

[fpitas]

‘Why I decided to ‘design’ a poor sounding loudspeaker’ could be hilarious.
Keith

There was that one speaker guy bragging he used violin wood so the speaker would have that tone.

 

[JayGilb]

Not so fast. There are many audio gear review sources that should be summarily dismissed but JH may not be one of them, imho.

I would posit that there is merit in actively challenging the likes of JH, as a public service.

 

[Brian6751]

You will find plenty on YouTube lamenting how measurements don’t tell everything and their design is saving the world. … very predictable, boring and useless.

In that format, yes. That is why I would like to see Amir or Erin actually interview them and expect real honest answers.

 

[fpitas]

In that format, yes. That is why I would like to see Amir or Erin actually interview them and expect real honest answers.

I doubt they know any science or engineering. So their answers, no matter how honest, may not be worth a lot.

 

[SSS]

Please name one speaker that measured poorly and sounded really good. Another way : which would you rather have, the Neumann KH150 or the Sony SSCS5? Rest assured, Amir is not wasting his time. His measurement set a standard that we can be confident in.

I did not mention bad measured speakers where I said f-response should be linear as possible and THD should be low. Everybody listening to speakers claiming to be perfect sound different what you can listen to at every hi-end audio show. So for Geithain and Wilson Audio which I heard recently, they sound different. Also other ones compared. And measurements even of good speakers show a lack of deep bass with different degrading slopes. Nobody can state that this does not make any difference in sound.

Please be so good as to name three.

Of course sound is subjective. But there is good and solid general agreement in this hobby of what sounds good and what sounds bad.

Funny, who met other ASR members in their home and compared speakers? So, where should a common sense come from? From measurements?

Fine factors influencing perceived sound quality: Step impulse response are sure different between speaker models which was also measured. But measurment does not really say how this changes the sound. Speaker cone instabilities. Magnetic field non uniformity in the driver depending on excursion, case resonances. This on dynamic speakers. For electrostats there are also specific factors influencing sound.

 

[Spocko]

Please be so good as to name three.

I can name two factors which are not counted in the measurments but definitely affect the preference for badly measuring speakers:

1. High frequency hearing loss due to age, damage, congenital birth defect, etc. Some Martin Logan electrostatic speakers are known to have elevated "highs" and during a recent sound comparison (MWAVE) between various bookshelf speakers (SVS, Arendal, ML, etc.) the SVS and ML came out on top. Was it a coincidence that I liked the ML the most? Was it a coincidence that most if not all listeners over the age of 55 preferred the ML as well? Without turning to EQ, it makes sense that the ML actually sounds more neutral when you're 65 than when you're 25. Measurements are great to compare speakers with each other, but are not the last word in whether or not you shoud buy a speaker. This is why all my speakers now have some sort of DSP/EQ built in so that I can tune them to my preference.
2. Your source (listening preference for 70's rock operas vs Nora Jones) also impacts a preference for speaker flaws. If all you listen to are bad mixes, and these are the CDs you bring with you to demo speakers at a hi fi store, you may end up buying speakers whose flaws offset and compensate for the flaws of your CDs aka two wrongs make a right!

Or you enjoy a slight mid-bass bump (don't we all?), and you audition a speakers with that bump and you're like WOW, that sounds great.

 

[fpitas]

The speaker compensating for high frequency hearing loss is a little questionable in some cases, namely me I definitely prefer a slight roll past 6kHz. I'm 69, I assume my high frequency hearing has followed the normal progression.

 

[Spocko]

The speaker compensating for high frequency hearing loss is a little questionable in some cases, namely me I definitely prefer a slight roll past 6kHz. I'm 69, I assume my high frequency hearing has followed the normal progression.

From Johns Hopkins article on presbycusis (age related hearing loss):
"One in 3 adults over age 65 has hearing loss...Most often, it affects the ability to hear high-pitched noises..."

You my friend are clearly the other two, so you are definitely following a normal progression. Also, beyond age related, it may also arise from: loud noise exposure over time (work, concerts, etc.), genetics and health conditions (diabetes, heart disease, etc.).

 

[Chrispy]

I have no idea how defo happened.

My favorite is when it is stated as "defiantly", which creates a whole different mental picture

 

[MarkS]

I can name two factors which are not counted in the measurments but definitely affect the preference for badly measuring speakers:

1. High frequency hearing loss due to age, damage, congenital birth defect, etc.

This doesn't make any sense to me. Last night I heard a fantastic live performance of Dvorak's String Quintet No. 2, Op. 77. Today I played a recording over my system. Why would I prefer exaggerated highs over the real thing with the exact same set of ears?

1. Your source (listening preference for 70's rock operas vs Nora Jones) also impacts a preference for speaker flaws.

And here I simply do not get the concept of judging speakers with produced, amplified, electrified, multi-track recorded music. There is no baseline of reality! How is anyone supposed to know what it should sound like?

 

[amirm]

And here I simply do not get the concept of judging speakers with produced, amplified, electrified, multi-track recorded music. There is no baseline of reality! How is anyone supposed to know what it should sound like?

Well you don't. But somehow, we all have an internal compass that says what is good tonality, and what is not when comparing a number of speakers against each other. Speakers that are neutral do well in such a test.

 

[Galliardist]

Please name one speaker that measured poorly and sounded really good. Another way : which would you rather have, the Neumann KH150 or the Sony SSCS5? Rest assured, Amir is not wasting his time. His measurement set a standard that we can be confident in.

You might want to look at the TuneTot review?

 

[Galliardist]

And here I simply do not get the concept of judging speakers with produced, amplified, electrified, multi-track recorded music. There is no baseline of reality! How is anyone supposed to know what it should sound like?

Here, we can take on again the history and development of musical instruments. Whether "real" or "synthesised", they take on qualities that allow them to work with each other, to fill large-ish halls by putting their energy where we can hear it, and to make a sound that we will appreciate. In other words, instruments have themselves adapted to our hearing, so we don't have to adapt to them. We can choose what works best for our ears, and that is already the most natural.

This excludes certain types of more extreme modern music, of course, as well as close up recordings of instruments like bagpipes and early wind instruments designed to be heard outdoors at a distance. It works for enough music, though.

 

[voodooless]

I can name two factors which are not counted in the measurments but definitely affect the preference for badly measuring speakers:

1. High frequency hearing loss due to age, damage, congenital birth defect, etc. Some Martin Logan electrostatic speakers are known to have elevated "highs" and during a recent sound comparison (MWAVE) between various bookshelf speakers (SVS, Arendal, ML, etc.) the SVS and ML came out on top. Was it a coincidence that I liked the ML the most? Was it a coincidence that most if not all listeners over the age of 55 preferred the ML as well?

Maybe, but can you prove it’s the elevated highs they liked? Why would 55+ like unnatural high frequency response? Yes, it’s as unnatural for them as for a 20-year old. They are listening with their ears all day long. What their hear is totally normal to them. They won’t remember hearing as a 20-year old. Unless you have serious hearing issues, this argument doesn’t make sense.

If the test wasn’t blind, the preference could have been due to any numbers of things, many of them would have nothing to do with the actual objective performance of the speakers.

Your source (listening preference for 70's rock operas vs Nora Jones) also impacts a preference for speaker flaws.

What has any of this got to to with speaker measurements? The source is whatever it is.. for that matter, the mood your in affects how you perceive sound.. so what? It not relevant to the objective performance of a speaker.