What makes a speaker boring or exciting ? and can it be measured?

[Heinrich]

Also I agree it would be cool if someone proposed a cogent objective theory.

Yes I sold it
Haven't replaced it yet
Thinking about KH150 or obviously Genelec
KH310 is too expensive for me

Regarding the theory, who would be the "someone" willing to invest the mental capabilities? Not that I have such, but my latest observation is, that the conversation has two strands. First, technical explanations taking everthing into the equation to formulate even remote hypothesises. Second, a talk on yesterday's and less recent purchases, with extended explanations of the subjective motivation in scientific terms. That's common for many threads of this sort.

The second strand makes me wonder in this case in particular. What if "boring" describes the urge to change the gear, but not finding any other reason to do so? Think of test recordings and critical listening. If the speaker's too good both of which are wasted. Both center on an evaluation, but what if it is done and no significnat flaw is found? What next?

 

[Hear Here]

Can I suggest a totally non-technical definition of "Exciting" and "boring" in a hi-fi context?

If music is delivered in a manner such that we are tempted to turn up the volume, it could be thought of as "exciting".

If music is delivered in a manner such that we are tempted to turn down the volume and leave it as background music, it could be thought of a "boring".

That's how I went about whittling down my many amps to choose one that complemented my exciting speakers. The boring ones were quickly moved on.

No scientific gobbledegook - just how the music makes us feel - and isn't that really all that matters?

 

[Jim Taylor]

... - just how the music makes us feel - and isn't that really all that matters?

In the first place, you've hit upon the basic flaw in your premise. THE ONLY THING WE ALL HAVE IN COMMON IS THE MUSIC! Everything else can be changed.

The "boring" speaker in this room can become the "exciting" speaker in another room ... a factor you haven't addressed.
The "boring" speaker at lower SPL can become the "exciting" speaker at higher SPL ... a factor you haven't addressed.
The "boring" music for one person is the "exciting" music for another person ... a factor you haven't addressed.
A speaker that is "boring" at 3 meters can be a speaker that is "exciting" at 1 meter ... a factor you haven't addressed.
A speaker that is "exciting" with the SET tube amp you had can be "boring" when driven by a neutral solid-state amp ... an issue you noticed but did not address.

In the second place: regarding the Avantgarde speakers, you said in post #34 that "These exhibited their "exciting" nature even before I'd heard them! Sounds bizarre but my excitement was first generated by the Stereophile review of these speakers"
I have never heard of a more blatant case of confirmation bias in my life. You hadn't even listened to the speakers, and you knew they were "exciting"?

Your definition of "exciting" and "boring" has nothing to do with the music, nothing to do with the amplifier, and nothing to do with the speaker. Your idea of ""boring" or "exciting" is totally and exclusively a mental prejudgement on your part, fed by your biases and assumptions.

This is another factor you haven't addressed, and the importance of which you have not acknowledged. Your total disregard for human bias has led you to proclaim, "... and isn't that all that really matters?" as a cover for (and bulwark against) a dispassionate science-based analysis of your situation.

It would be best that you read these and digest the scope of their effects:

List of cognitive biases - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2041669515607153

Edit: I wonder how many other people, members or not, read through this thread to find information and don't realize that they have given short shrift to the same prejudices and biases?

 

[Heinrich]

I finally took the plunge and looked up, and looked into the YT video. Minute 03:19, an arbitrary find: a misconception of a port's properties, 07:00 beryllium ..., minute 8:50 crossover fear. All this is sourced from the standard audiophool literature, glossy to very dusty.

5 pages, won't feed this thread no more ;-) See my post #81 and #68 for real science. It's a bit scary.

 

[MRC01]

Can I suggest a totally non-technical definition of "Exciting" and "boring" in a hi-fi context?

If music is delivered in a manner such that we are tempted to turn up the volume, it could be thought of as "exciting".

If music is delivered in a manner such that we are tempted to turn down the volume and leave it as background music, it could be thought of a "boring".

Perhaps the opposite.

The "exciting" sound commonly has more bass & treble, like a "V" shaped EQ. Due to the shape of the Fletcher-Munson curve, this already sounds "loud" perceptually even at moderate volumes. So one feels it's already loud, no need to turn it up.

Conversely for the "boring" sound, one feels the need to turn up the volume to hear more of the full spectrum, the attenuated lows and highs.

The problem is the terms "exciting" and "boring" are so vague they can mean anything. They refer to how the music makes one feel, not about how the music itself actually sounds.

 

[mj30250]

Boring or exciting aren't terms I'd be inclined to apply to a speaker - it's for the music to be one or the other, whatever some YouTube clickbait might otherwise imply. Now, as for determining whether a speaker can accurately reproduce said music, whether boring or exciting or otherwise, I think there may be a standard set of measurements that can help...

 

[rdenney]

Regarding the theory, who would be the "someone" willing to invest the mental capabilities? Not that I have such, but my latest observation is, that the conversation has two strands. First, technical explanations taking everthing into the equation to formulate even remote hypothesises. Second, a talk on yesterday's and less recent purchases, with extended explanations of the subjective motivation in scientific terms. That's common for many threads of this sort.

The second strand makes me wonder in this case in particular. What if "boring" describes the urge to change the gear, but not finding any other reason to do so? Think of test recordings and critical listening. If the speaker's too good both of which are wasted. Both center on an evaluation, but what if it is done and no significnat flaw is found? What next?

Build a new system in a different room, of course.

I’ve always traded around equipment, but I like vintage stuff and I have zero expectation of any aural improvement. I also have other curatorial objectives.

But that, of course, is not the same use of “boring” as in the opening post. The usage in this thread has the expectation of an aural difference baked in.

Rick “admitting that finding new gear that sounds state-of-the-art has become a little boring, if that’s the only measure” Denney

 

[gnarly]

That certainly one way to do it.

I find that sheer brawn in terms of dynamic impact and low frequency response isn’t required to do this though.

I hope you didn't get the impression I was advocating solely for sheer brawn to create excitement.
As much of my post was about the need for a foundation of unclipped/uncompressed response throughout the entire spectrum, that remains linearly so for all transients.

I’ve demoed so many of my systems through the decades to visitors, most who were not audiophiles, and I find they also respond to aspects like clarity, vividness, detail, staging and imaging, and a generally rich, tonally authentic sound quality. It very often evokes “ that sounds so real!” Most people have no idea how much more realistic sound reproduction can be (even if not fully realistic).

Me too. So many demos of my various home audio systems and room setups...over so many years.
And same thing, I've received many enthusiastic responses from guests about the sound.... as you describe.


Nowadays, with my higher SPL capable systems that evoke exact the same type enthusiastic responses at low to moderate listening levels re clarity, imaging, soundstage, timbre, etc etc, ......Well........the degree of delight and enthusiasm i witness when volume is turned up increases dramatically.
As in shit-eating grins are the norm today,....



Fwiw, The best way to tell if guests are honestly excited by our rigs that I've found, is to turn it over to them.
Give them the wheel to choose their tracks and volume;....and let them take the system for a drive.
The longer they want to play another track / play with the volume, kinds says it all imo.

 

[rdenney]

When I first reconstituted my main system a few years ago, the first music I put on it was “Old And In The Way,” a classic bluegrass live album of the 70’s teen generation in and near Appalachia. I knew that bit of old vinyl would sell the money I’d spent to my wife better than any other—these were the anthems of her youth. I cranked it up. Sure enough, she immediately came dancing into the room and we enjoyed it together.

That was pretty exciting, though I’m not sure that’s the excitement the OP was referencing.

The speakers were 1977 Advent NLA’s that I had bought new while in college. I later discovered that the surrounds were rotted (but not yet crumbling) and one tweeter was damaged. The amp was a robust B&K 125.2 and the turntable a bottom-of-the-line belt-driven Technics that I had also bought new in 1977, with an inexpensive Grado cartridge. The preamp was an SAE P102. I mention that to highlight that excitement and presumptions of fidelity can be far removed from one another.

Another story: I had a system back in the day with the Advents and a 200-watt Spectro Acoustics amp. That system could be pretty exciting. When that amp blew up (again) I installed a Carver commercial amp of more modest output (and with the expectation of higher input voltages). Excitement level was not the same. I replaced the Carver with a cheap and less-than-wonderful Samson 250-watt PA amp. Excitement returned.

I asked an audio consultant about that. He said, “sometimes, you just need more power.”

That makes me suspect (again) the unexciting speakers are simply less efficient, and the electronics aren’t making up for the difference without clipping or compressing. (Or, the reviewer isn’t cranking it up as needed to match output, or the speakers are being overdriven when he tries to.) The subject speakers are, after all, small.

Rick “Hoffman’s Iron Law is still true” Denney

 

[MaxBuck]

I listen primarily to jazz and classical music. Yet I found that the best way to differentiate among speakers when I was shopping was listening to "Owner of a Lonely Heart." It's an extremely dynamic piece that highlights any muddiness and excessive resonances. The reason I chose KEF R11s is that they reproduced that song more cleanly than any other speakers we listened to. Full disclosure: we didn't listen to any Genelec, Neumann, Dutch & Dutch or Mesanovic speakers; we did, however, hear Revel, B&W, Focal, Martin Logan and Paradigm models that were similarly priced to the R11s. Bottom line is that the KEFs were so clean and therefore exciting with this piece.

I will say that the Paradigms were also very clean. But they also were extremely bright, which would quickly become tiring.

I'm not at all a trained listener, and I'm therefore aware my interpretations aren't broadly useful.

 

[terryforsythe]

I finally took the plunge and looked up, and looked into the YT video. Minute 03:19, an arbitrary find: a misconception of a port's properties, 07:00 beryllium ..., minute 8:50 crossover fear. All this is sourced from the standard audiophool literature, glossy to very dusty.

Also, at 4:07 he calls the midrange a "3 inch tweeter".

 

[bigLP]

I am going to make a real simple observation.
The OP wanted to know if boring(and its inverse excitement)can be measured.
How about sensitivity? I believe volume is probably part of the boring/exciting equation.
Colloquially that has seemed the case to me, though it doesn't endure over time.
Occam's razor?

 

[gnarly]

I am going to make a real simple observation.
The OP wanted to know if boring(and its inverse excitement)can be measured.
How about sensitivity? I believe volume is probably part of the boring/exciting equation.
Colloquially that has seemed the case to me, though it doesn't endure over time.
Occam's razor?

I think it can be measured. It's the same measurements we get on ASR and from Erin, with a few more thrown in.

In addition to thermal compression measurements we currently get, I think there is a need for peak limiting/compression that we don't currently get.
Thermal tells us when average SPL sags. We need to know how well our systems stay linear for transient peaks as well.
Push a few numbers given speaker sensitivity, power handling, and amp wattage...and it's easy to see peaks are a problem with most home systems.
I think most folks can see a need for peak-type measurements.

And personally, I find time and phase alignment adds a great deal to a sense of more real sounding...more real being more exciting.
So I'd add phase traces into the measurement pie.

I know many might disagree there, but I'm not really willing to listen to them so much haha ...until I know they have at least achieved unclipped/uncompressed average & peak SPL throughout the entire spectrum, and at a decent friggin SPL level.. Lol

Yep, Sensitivity is obviously a part of achieving a more realistic SPL.
And so is power handing, and keeping excursion within moderate operating bounds for linear output and lower distortion.

 

[MattHooper]

Rick “admitting that finding new gear that sounds state-of-the-art has become a little boring, if that’s the only measure” Denney

Same.

I do appreciate state of the art. It’s one reason why I bought my Benchmark LA4 pre-amplifier, to share the space on my rack with my CJ tube preamp.

If somebody just wants the most accurate playback, then there’s plenty of black boxes for sale that will do that, whether it’s DACs, amplifiers pre-amplifiers…

So somebody may just want to set up a system like that, then they are done.

But if you somebody who is intrigued by audio gear and likes to play with different types of gear, the commoditization of performance can be a little bit boring in that respect.

Where do you go with solid state amplifiers if once you’ve heard one neutral solid amp you’ve heard them all? Same with a preamp or a DAC?**

For folks like me, it was fun to discover old school stuff like tube amplifiers, and realize
“ oh there’s more to be explored there…” with even a little bit of bespoke fiddling available for the gear. Same with vinyl and turntables.
I bought a Benchmark DAC and it just sits in my rack reliably doing what it does forever more. It’s in the background. My turntable my tube amps, my vinyl that’s in the foreground. It’s more fun to pay attention to.

**(some audiophiles just moved their tweaking tendencies onto things like DSP/Room correction)

 

[terryforsythe]

In addition to thermal compression measurements we currently get, I think there is a need for peak limiting/compression that we don't currently get.

Here is what Erin states about his Response Linearity measurements:

"The below graphic indicates just how much SPL is lost (compression) or gained (enhancement; usually due to distortion) when the speaker is played at higher output volumes instantly via a 2.7 second logarithmic sine sweep referenced to 76dB at 1 meter. The signals are played consecutively without any additional stimulus applied. Then normalized against the 76dB result.

The tests are conducted in this fashion:

1. 76dB at 1 meter (baseline; black)
2. 86dB at 1 meter (red)
3. 96dB at 1 meter (blue)
4. 102dB at 1 meter (purple)

The purpose of this test is to illustrate how much (if at all) the output changes as a speaker’s components temperature increases (i.e., voice coils, crossover components) instantaneously."

From my perspective, this test covers what we need pretty well. There always will be a temperature increase when increasing the power to the speaker. Perhaps he could do a faster sweep with less data points to reduce the temperature increase, but I don't know whether his Klippel is able to do so.

Moreover, not only does Erin's test illustrate how much the output changes as a speaker’s components temperature increases, the results also will be affected by other driver non-linearities that are current and/or excursion dependent. This also shows up in the harmonic distortion graphs.

Finally, pushing the drivers to too high of SPL risks damaging the drivers. I think the limit he typically uses, 102dB, makes a lot of sense. Every driver will have its own level of peak compression, but whether typical consumer speakers can be driven to that level without damage is questionable.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

Here is what Erin states about his Response Linearity measurements:

"The below graphic indicates just how much SPL is lost (compression) or gained (enhancement; usually due to distortion) when the speaker is played at higher output volumes instantly via a 2.7 second logarithmic sine sweep referenced to 76dB at 1 meter. The signals are played consecutively without any additional stimulus applied. Then normalized against the 76dB result.

The tests are conducted in this fashion:

1. 76dB at 1 meter (baseline; black)
2. 86dB at 1 meter (red)
3. 96dB at 1 meter (blue)
4. 102dB at 1 meter (purple)

The purpose of this test is to illustrate how much (if at all) the output changes as a speaker’s components temperature increases (i.e., voice coils, crossover components) instantaneously."

From my perspective, this test covers what we need pretty well. There always will be a temperature increase when increasing the power to the speaker. Perhaps he could do a faster sweep with less data points to reduce the temperature increase, but I don't know whether his Klippel is able to do so.

Moreover, not only does Erin's test illustrate how much the output changes as a speaker’s components temperature increases, the results also will be affected by other driver non-linearities that are current and/or excursion dependent. This also shows up in the harmonic distortion graphs.

Finally, pushing the drivers to too high of SPL risks damaging the drivers. I think the limit he typically uses, 102dB, makes a lot of sense. Every driver will have its own level of peak compression, but whether typical consumer speakers can be driven to that level without damage is questionable.

It's a great test. And it's really interesting to see the very different behaviours.

 

[bigLP]

I think it can be measured. It's the same measurements we get on ASR and from Erin, with a few more thrown in.

In addition to thermal compression measurements we currently get, I think there is a need for peak limiting/compression that we don't currently get.
Thermal tells us when average SPL sags. We need to know how well our systems stay linear for transient peaks as well.
Push a few numbers given speaker sensitivity, power handling, and amp wattage...and it's easy to see peaks are a problem with most home systems.
I think most folks can see a need for peak-type measurements.

And personally, I find time and phase alignment adds a great deal to a sense of more real sounding...more real being more exciting.
So I'd add phase traces into the measurement pie.

I know many might disagree there, but I'm not really willing to listen to them so much haha ...until I know they have at least achieved unclipped/uncompressed average & peak SPL throughout the entire spectrum, and at a decent friggin SPL level.. Lol

Yep, Sensitivity is obviously a part of achieving a more realistic SPL.
And so is power handing, and keeping excursion within moderate operating bounds for linear output and lower distortion.

Are peaks, compression and some of those other things related to speaker "dynamics'. . That is more word salad maybe, can we define and measure dynamics? Compare the voltage differences in the output of the amp speak terminals, vs what it is right before it hits the cone(I dont know if that is possible). That would have something to do with boring or excitement maybe. Is there a measurement or something that can figure how fast a signal moves through the motor assembly and crossover? Do some speakers sap more energy(voltage or current) from the signal than others?

The other thing I would throw out there is imaging. I know that is signal, speaker and room dependent. I can remember loving totem arros back in the 90s. Sound seemed to come from all over the room. It was unnatural, but exciting.
I find this topic interesting, but feel it may be more about psychoacoustics than anything else. Perception and how we process it can be a funny thing.
Possibly my lack of technical knowledge prevents me from considering it in a better way too.

 

[Snarfie]

Got sometimes the impression that some listeners don't have a idea how a instrument should sound Fender Telecaster versus Stratocaster Steinway versus Bösendorfer a brushes high-hat etc etc or for that matter don't have a clue how good or bad ( compared with a pro studio controll room where their cd or vinyl is masterd) there acoustics is but have an outspoken opinion how a audio system should sound .
Also stereo balanced left right placement could influence a lot. If i doudt my stereo placement i use reference music that suits me like Nora Jones sings dead center on Don't no Why basicly on al tracks on the Come a Way with Me album. When the needed gear is bought balanced an acoustics is taken care of you have for many years a exciting system that is not boring besides playing bad recorded/masterd music.

 

[gnarly]

Here is what Erin states about his Response Linearity measurements:

"The below graphic indicates just how much SPL is lost (compression) or gained (enhancement; usually due to distortion) when the speaker is played at higher output volumes instantly via a 2.7 second logarithmic sine sweep referenced to 76dB at 1 meter. The signals are played consecutively without any additional stimulus applied. Then normalized against the 76dB result.

The tests are conducted in this fashion:

1. 76dB at 1 meter (baseline; black)
2. 86dB at 1 meter (red)
3. 96dB at 1 meter (blue)
4. 102dB at 1 meter (purple)

The purpose of this test is to illustrate how much (if at all) the output changes as a speaker’s components temperature increases (i.e., voice coils, crossover components) instantaneously."

From my perspective, this test covers what we need pretty well. There always will be a temperature increase when increasing the power to the speaker. Perhaps he could do a faster sweep with less data points to reduce the temperature increase, but I don't know whether his Klippel is able to do so.

Moreover, not only does Erin's test illustrate how much the output changes as a speaker’s components temperature increases, the results also will be affected by other driver non-linearities that are current and/or excursion dependent. This also shows up in the harmonic distortion graphs.

Finally, pushing the drivers to too high of SPL risks damaging the drivers. I think the limit he typically uses, 102dB, makes a lot of sense. Every driver will have its own level of peak compression, but whether typical consumer speakers can be driven to that level without damage is questionable.

Here's the thing. Those sine sweeps measure the onset of short term thermal compression.
That limits how high you can take average SPL before some frequency range of the speaker starts to sag measured via average SPL.
Tonality gets effected, along with about every other audio characteristic. It's the onset of severely compromised audio, if one want SPL into thermal compression drive levels.

But those sine sweeps don't tell us anything about the speaker systems ability to produced short term peaks above the average sine-sweep level used.

Each sine sweep level. 76, 86, 96, 102dB.......needs to be able to produce peaks above its average level.
+18dB is a commonly quoted goal for peak vs average headroom.
Take Erin's 102dB sweep. We want that 102dB average drive level to be able to handle +18dB peaks without compressing or clipping.

Very short term transients are unlikely to initiate thermal compression, but they very often can't be reproduced due to insufficient driver excursion or insufficient amplifier power.

Peaks simply cannot be tested with sine sweeps .........they have too long a duration.
I've learned how to test for peak SPL linearity using very short wavelet tone bursts. It's an arduous and slow process, but after a while you learn it's always the low end of each drivers' section where limits set in.

I can easily say my experience is, ......when +18dB is truly available above average SPL, a number of SQ improvements occur.
And that it's a hell of a lot harder to achieve that clean headroom than commonly realized....especially when trying to reach SPL levels at the top end of a speakers SPL capability range (prior to thermal compression)

 

[AnalogSteph]

I can easily say my experience is, ......when +18dB is truly available above average SPL, a number of SQ improvements occur.
And that it's a hell of a lot harder to achieve that clean headroom than commonly realized....especially when trying to reach SPL levels at the top end of a speakers SPL capability range (prior to thermal compression)

Makes sense. When shooting for 85 dB SPL average (1 m anechoic or equivalent), that means a requirement for 103 dB peaks... still quite attainable. If you want 5 dB more, things get a fair bit harder already.

I've been glad for my preference of rather below average listening levels (as much as 10 dB) and nearfield setups time and time again. Last time I tried to annoy my O110s in hopes of eliciting audible IMD, my ears were waving the white flag first....