What makes an "audiophile" speaker according to PS Audio's Mc Gowan

[CtheArgie]

There have been a few issues lately where people have jumped at McGowan. I think this one is interesting too. I don't intend this to be repetitive, but it follows on what @Amir is dong by measuring speakers. Enjoy! You have a woman jumping down his throat here.
https://www.psaudio.com/askpaul/what-makes-an-audiophile-speaker/

 

[q3cpma]

When people attack the tone before the content, you know it's time to say goodbye.

 

[Cbdb2]

And he dosnt believe Dr Tooles ( wonder how much education Paul has.) listening tests are worth anything. Hes a marketing shill.

 

[CtheArgie]

The lady is relentless!

 

[Promit]

We’ve gotta stop obsessing about Paul here. It’s not healthy. Put the channel on Do Not Recommend and let it go.

 

[Cbdb2]

Agreed. Most of the comments put him in his place anyway, love to see that.

 

[Cbdb2]

From his autobiography, who the f wants to read that?

"When I was a teenager, I was always running from something: the law, the Feds, the draft. Flight took me over the border to Tijuana for contraband, inside a county jail, into the hands of the Secret Service, onto the streets of Haight-Ashbury. I visited the armpit of Munich and the shame of bankruptcy court. I failed at just about everything I tried."

So if you want to design hi end audio forget EE, illegal activity is where you want to start.

 

[anmpr1]

From his autobiography...

Truly, a legend in his own mind.

 

[Midwest Blade]

I am becoming better at ignoring the audio world bs, the less we post and talk about it the better.

 

[Hipper]

This post does not show some ASR members in a good light. Surely we are not about slagging people off just for the sake of it.

It's true that Paul McGowan is far from perfect, but in this case he has done little wrong. He was asked a question and he tried to answer it. I thought in the time given his answer was reasonable. Regardless of measurements, you do have to listen to speakers yourself, and particularly in your own room, to decide what suits you. It is very much an individual choice. That's the outcome to take from this video.

I was surprised that , according to his text comments, he had not heard of Sean Olive. Olive is pretty important in the science of audio.

I can understand McGowan's issue with the results of Olive's & Toole's listening research. Whilst I obviously can't argue with them I find the results a bit uncomfortable as they seem to exclude some speakers types, notably panels, that are well liked by some (I might be wrong on this but wasn't the speaker that was least liked a Martin Logan unit?). It all seems to be about the liking or otherwise of side wall reflections and this appears to come down to taste - I don't like them for example.

Whilst it might be easy to argue about what DACs or amps are the best, no-one can tell anybody else which speakers will be most suitable for any individual.

 

[DSJR]

Loudspeakers is one thing where listening HAS to go hand in hand with computer modelling and then assembling the speaker with real world drivers and components. Fine tuning can be done by ear, painstakingly if the designer is anal about it, but using measurements to guide against any excesses/personal taste.

Have you noticed how many speakers have a slight response dip at the lower khz region? Two suggestions - a, to mask possible crossover issues in cheaper passive speakers and b, a conscious attempt to work with the Fletcher Munson sensitivity of our ears at those frequencies? Whatever, 'measurements' say these two approaches are deviations from flat, yet many speakers tested here are like this to a degree.

 

[Cbdb2]

When someone like Paul dishes Dr Tooles work, which he probably has never read or he would know who Sean Olive is, someone has to say something. Why? So that people who are new to audio dont buy into his ego centric opinions, and maybe look for some real research on the subject.

 

[Cbdb2]

Have you noticed how many speakers have a slight response dip at the lower khz region? Two suggestions - a, to mask possible crossover issues in cheaper passive speakers and b, a conscious attempt to work with the Fletcher Munson sensitivity of our ears at those frequencies? Whatever, 'measurements' say these two approaches are deviations from flat, yet many speakers tested here are like this to a degree.

Not buying the F-M curve thing. The people producing the music have that curve, which means they mix in more bass and cut the 4k so it sounds right. Why would they mix something that needs that kind of EQ, unless there speakers also have that dip.

 

[anmpr1]

This post does not show some ASR members in a good light. Surely we are not about slagging people off just for the sake of it.

Who is 'we'? Is ASR a collective, now? And what 'members' are not shown in 'a good light'?

Truth is, Paul is a snake-oil peddling huckster who deserves no pity. Your attempt to blame and shame those calling him out over it, as if 'they' are the problem for being unkind and petty, is misplaced and has the entire scene turned inside out.

As far as Paul taking the time to write an 'autobiography' (is he really that important a persona in the scheme of audio?)..., his wanna-be Hunter Thompson inspired gonzo lifestyle (how much of it is really 'in his own mind'?) deserves a thorough 'radical chic' critique (a la Tom Wolfe's take-down of Lenny Bernstein and the Panthers).

At the end of the day, if serious audiophiles laugh at Paul it's because he makes a mockery of serious audio practitioners.

Finally, this this is a forum for audiophiles. If the carnival barkers are shysters are not called out as they deserve, naive audiophiles might unwisely decide to spend hard earned dollars for idiocy. And that is certainly not a good thing.

 

[BradleyPNW]

This post does not show some ASR members in a good light. Surely we are not about slagging people off just for the sake of it.

It's true that Paul McGowan is far from perfect, but in this case he has done little wrong. He was asked a question and he tried to answer it. I thought in the time given his answer was reasonable. Regardless of measurements, you do have to listen to speakers yourself, and particularly in your own room, to decide what suits you. It is very much an individual choice. That's the outcome to take from this video.

I was surprised that , according to his text comments, he had not heard of Sean Olive. Olive is pretty important in the science of audio.

I can understand McGowan's issue with the results of Olive's & Toole's listening research. Whilst I obviously can't argue with them I find the results a bit uncomfortable as they seem to exclude some speakers types, notably panels, that are well liked by some (I might be wrong on this but wasn't the speaker that was least liked a Martin Logan unit?). It all seems to be about the liking or otherwise of side wall reflections and this appears to come down to taste - I don't like them for example.

Whilst it might be easy to argue about what DACs or amps are the best, no-one can tell anybody else which speakers will be most suitable for any individual.

Toole mentions panel speakers in chapter 4.10.1 Loudspeaker Directivity:

What about large-panel loudspeakers? Because directivity is determined​

by the wavelength relative to the size of the radiating surface, a large​

surface radiating the full audio bandwidth must become progressively more​

directional with increasing frequency. The limited displacement of​

electrostatic and electromagnetic panels requires that they be large in order​

to produce enough sound to be interesting.​

Earl Geddes used a large diameter cone speaker to intentionally beam frequencies in his Summa design.

Toole was explaining why speaker makers tend to build 2, 3-way speakers with progressively smaller diameters.

 

[anmpr1]

Toole mentions panel speakers in chapter 4.10.1 Loudspeaker Directivity:

What about large-panel loudspeakers? Because directivity is determined​

by the wavelength relative to the size of the radiating surface, a large​

surface radiating the full audio bandwidth must become progressively more​

directional with increasing frequency.​

​

However, there are ways to get around directionality in panels. Think of the Harold Beveridge electrostatic. The enclosure 'compressed' or squeezed the line source's front wave, funneling it into a 180 degree lens aperture which essentially 'spread' the panel's sound throughout the listening environment, irrespective of wavelength. Of course one could certainly argue against the practicality of such a design, and their point would be well taken. The Beveridge loudspeaker was the opposite of practical, for sure.

Here's the thing: if the idea of 'accuracy' is to follow the Klippel thing, then you are going to probably have to be dealing with small form factor two (or possibly three) way design. Once you start getting into larger boxes, very large driver spreads, or different loudspeaker types with multiple or even 'full range' drivers, it's going to become increasing difficult to maintain balanced measurements over the full range of the drivers, and the full range of radiating space.

That said, whether the small two-way speaker will ever sound as engaging as other designs is another matter altogether.

As far as Paul's video, he's talking in circles (not to mention what seems to be a scatological fixation). He says that measurements don't really matter. Then he corrects himself and says, "Well, yes, they matter, but only in things like whether the box is resonant, or whether it produces a lot of distortion, or its frequency response." OK. So what is it?

Next he says that an audiophile loudspeaker makes the speaker disappear, and makes you think that musicians are actually in your living room. I know of no loudspeaker that does that. He then calls that sort of 'standard' a 'dream'.

Really, Paul's all over the place. Maybe years of running drugs and guns, hiding from the Federales down in Mexico, and hanging with Owsley Stanley and Nicholas Sand has taken its toll? Tip for Paul: when Hunter Thompson realized he was no longer relevant he shot himself out of a canon.

But he is correct if I understand him, that loudspeakers are 'subjective' in the sense that they all sound different, so it does come down to a personal judgement on what is important. And that is how I understand the Harman thing--an attempt to find a measurement protocol that 'most' people will like.

 

[peanuts]

Next he says that an audiophile loudspeaker makes the speaker disappear, and makes you think that musicians are actually in your living room. I know of no loudspeaker that does that.

the LX521 can do that actually.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

But he is correct if I understand him, that loudspeakers are 'subjective' in the sense that they all sound different, so it does come down to a personal judgement on what is important. And that is how I understand the Harman thing--an attempt to find a measurement protocol that 'most' people will like.

Exactly. There's a million speakers out there and I can't audition them all in my living room. If I can start with a speaker that I know two-thirds of humanity will prefer, well that's a much better way to narrow my search down than watching audiophile reviews on youtube and hoping for the best.

 

[smallricey]

I'm not sure why is everyone getting worked up on this video.
He basically says to build a speaker, first thing is to eliminate cabinet resonance.
Then use both measurement and listening experience to complete the task.
He also points out that there are cases of bad measurements that would guarantee a bad product.
What if you have a good measurement with bad listening experience? Wouldn't you want to tweak it?

Have the measurement science been perfected?
That if a speaker fall under a certain curve it's going to be an absolutely the end game of speaker?

 

[anmpr1]

the LX521 can do that actually.

Others whose ears I trust have said as much. I have not heard his loudspeaker, but Siegfried Linkwitz spent his life working it out. If anyone could do it, he would be on my short list.

That said, if it can be done (making the loudspeaker 'disappear' and making you think an actual musician is in your living room), it can only be done on a small scale, with possibly a few musicians/instruments, and with exceptional recordings. That is not to criticize the loudspeaker--it's just the nature of music in the living room.

What most folks are looking for is not to have the musicians 'in your living room', but instead to create a small illusion of it. For example, you might accept John Coltrane's softer playing in your home, but when Pharoah Sanders opens up, it'll drive you out of the house. And forget a symphony orchestra in your living room--not going to happen.

Finally, the Linkwitz creation would not be a trivial matter for most audiophiles. It is not an 'off the shelf' option. I'm not saying that to criticize it. I'm just pointing our that it is not something one can buy, take out of the box, hook up to your amp, then kick back and go to sonic heaven.