Depends over what bandwidth. 1dB over a wide bandwidth could be audible.
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
What's your vote for where the Law of Diminishing returns starts for tower speakers?
- Thread starter 2Sunny
- Start date
OP
2Sunny
Active Member
- Thread Starter
- #102
Please don't take this personally. I ask just want to better understand where you get the 1 dB number, and I completely understand that Google AI isn't always correct, but . . .
Google says humans can't perceive anything less than 3dB. What information leads you to believe humans can hear a 1 dB difference is sound.
In any case, the question of when you don't think it's worth spending X more money to get Y better (whatever it is) comes up all the time. My niece didn't think it was worth spending more money on sound then her crappy mini soundbar. For cars; the bigger model with the big engine or not, those extra features that are offered in exclusive packages.
All the time in everyday life. Yesterday I bought these called basic:
...because I didn't see any point in buying more expensive ones. It doesn't add much more to me or my ears.
All the time in everyday life. Yesterday I bought these called basic:
...because I didn't see any point in buying more expensive ones. It doesn't add much more to me or my ears.
OP
2Sunny
Active Member
- Thread Starter
- #104
Based on this information I found it looks like the 3dB threshold is the peak human sensitivity at the area where humans are most sensitive, but the human ear is much less sensitive to sounds above and below that range of roughly 2kHz to 5kHz. Maybe I'm interpreting the data wrong?!
Here's a short thread on it. Like most things it depends, bandwidth, what you’re listening to , test tones or music, type of music, dialog in movies etc..
Audibility of changes in volume
I discussed with someone wether a peak of 2db, Q of 2 at 800hz for example would be audible when discussing frequency response. I argued that a lot of things happen in music in this area, but he told me that his education said that changes below 3db would not be audible and I would not pass a...
audiosciencereview.com
It is mushy, lol. I am curious where your experience has put you regarding how much you spend on towers to gain the incremental improvements in sound quality you value?
thewas
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 8,228
- Likes
- 23,119
Please don't take this also personally but Google is not a good source for such specialised topics, as he said correctly the 1 dB or even a bit less(!) can be audible if the signal is wide enough, it is easy to test yourself with some pink noise and a PC tool like EQ Apo.
Source: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...lity-of-changes-in-volume.38040/#post-1339536
3dB is a pretty significant difference. Put some music on for a couple of minutes then increase the volume by 3dB - it's obviously louder - not by a massive amount but it's not hard to detect - that's because you're increasing the level right across the audible bandwidth.
Now dial in 3db at 1 KHz on your PEQ, highest Q so as narrow a bandwidth as possible - now it's really hard to tell if it made any difference.
simple answers to complex questions - are always wrong
a4eaudio
Senior Member
I'm pretty sure 3dB is the level that people can EASILY identify a difference. There is an online test somewhere and I think a large % of the subjects can identify a 0.5dB change. That may be a test tone rather than music though, I don't remember the details.
0.1dB accuracy is recommended for blind listening tests - not that it will be consciously noticed as it won't but given it's across the whole bandwidth higher than that is still considered to be potentially skewering the results.
OP
2Sunny
Active Member
- Thread Starter
- #111
I found the site I think. My hearing is going as I get older as I can only detect 3dB, but I absolutely believe others can hear a lower number for sure. BUT, this does make me doubt that when playing music loud a person could detect a 3 dB difference in say cymbal crashes put out by one speakers peak versus anothers flat response.
Happily for me this means I can use speakers of lesser quality 'cuz I cain't tell the diff, but you poe folks with freakishly good ears have to pony up the big bucks 'cuz you be hearin' every detail
dB hearing difference test
A volume difference of one decibel is normal.
I think we would likely all agree that there is a significant difference between saying:
"I find no personal value in spending more than $2k for a pair of tower speakers as the additional sound quality is not worth it to me"
versus saying
"you get zero sound quality increase by spending more than $2k for a pair of tower speakers".
Both of these things have been stated here in this thread (at the $2k price point or at other price points). The first one is easy to understand and affirm... we all have our price/value equation for purchases. However, the second statement is very problematic for me with speakers in a way it isn't with cables or even Dacs.
This forum is great for exposing snake oil; one of the few places this is done for the audiophile. But.... do you agree that the second statement above is actually calling out every single speaker manufacturer with a range of ascendingly priced speakers as selling snake oil, more or less? And if that is a correct assertion about that second statement, how many of us agree with that sentiment?
I may have missed it but I have never seen Kef, Genelac, B&W, Revel, Martin Logan etc claim that all you get are nicer looking boxes as you spend more money. They describe their higher end products as superior in more than just aesthetics; they are the best they can do or are a higher range with superior sound. Some may be more forthright in saying that the differences are clearly incremental as you spend more. I have heard speaker designers admit that; I mentioned earlier how a lead guy at Perlisten said about their R7T and S7T... you get more volume but the other sound quality differences are relatively small for your significant extra $. Think of all the Harman based research references here on this site... and yet Harman makes some pretty expensive tower speakers. Was it snake oil the marketing guys forced upon the speaker designers? Did Amir fall for it when buying Salon2s? Did he just love the fancy box? Or were the Salon 2s state of the art and they offered better sound quality than spending $2k (10% as much)?
I don't believe it is all snake oil (or just better aesthetics) regarding tower speakers above a price like $2k. That doesn't mean that all expensive speakers are better than lower priced speakers. It doesn't mean you can't get maybe 80% of the sound quality by spending perhaps only 10% as much as the next guy. And there may be a ceiling to $ spent and sound quality received. Some here have offered up $ amounts like $20k or $30k as the range where you really do not get any better sound at all. I don't know what the number is but I don't think it is as low as $2k. If it is, pretty much the entire speaker industry has an integrity problem including a number of well loved brands here at ASR.
"I find no personal value in spending more than $2k for a pair of tower speakers as the additional sound quality is not worth it to me"
versus saying
"you get zero sound quality increase by spending more than $2k for a pair of tower speakers".
Both of these things have been stated here in this thread (at the $2k price point or at other price points). The first one is easy to understand and affirm... we all have our price/value equation for purchases. However, the second statement is very problematic for me with speakers in a way it isn't with cables or even Dacs.
This forum is great for exposing snake oil; one of the few places this is done for the audiophile. But.... do you agree that the second statement above is actually calling out every single speaker manufacturer with a range of ascendingly priced speakers as selling snake oil, more or less? And if that is a correct assertion about that second statement, how many of us agree with that sentiment?
I may have missed it but I have never seen Kef, Genelac, B&W, Revel, Martin Logan etc claim that all you get are nicer looking boxes as you spend more money. They describe their higher end products as superior in more than just aesthetics; they are the best they can do or are a higher range with superior sound. Some may be more forthright in saying that the differences are clearly incremental as you spend more. I have heard speaker designers admit that; I mentioned earlier how a lead guy at Perlisten said about their R7T and S7T... you get more volume but the other sound quality differences are relatively small for your significant extra $. Think of all the Harman based research references here on this site... and yet Harman makes some pretty expensive tower speakers. Was it snake oil the marketing guys forced upon the speaker designers? Did Amir fall for it when buying Salon2s? Did he just love the fancy box? Or were the Salon 2s state of the art and they offered better sound quality than spending $2k (10% as much)?
I don't believe it is all snake oil (or just better aesthetics) regarding tower speakers above a price like $2k. That doesn't mean that all expensive speakers are better than lower priced speakers. It doesn't mean you can't get maybe 80% of the sound quality by spending perhaps only 10% as much as the next guy. And there may be a ceiling to $ spent and sound quality received. Some here have offered up $ amounts like $20k or $30k as the range where you really do not get any better sound at all. I don't know what the number is but I don't think it is as low as $2k. If it is, pretty much the entire speaker industry has an integrity problem including a number of well loved brands here at ASR.
RobL
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2021
- Messages
- 1,029
- Likes
- 1,781
I’m 58…at 0.2dB I can no longer differentiate, but that’s just listening through my airpods.I found the site I think. My hearing is going as I get older as I can only detect 3dB, but I absolutely believe others can hear a lower number for sure. BUT, this does make me doubt that when playing music loud a person could detect a 3 dB difference in say cymbal crashes put out by one speakers peak versus anothers flat response.
Happily for me this means I can use speakers of lesser quality 'cuz I cain't tell the diff, but you poe folks with freakishly good ears have to pony up the big bucks 'cuz you be hearin' every detail
dB hearing difference test
Last edited:
1dB is enough for me. But "flat" is a joke, because the step is audible as an impulse anyway; signal theory. And the feedback after each trial doesn't make much sense either.
Otherwsise, are you satisfied with the discussion of the original topic, is it a fun question as somebody pointed out?
Waht are you aiming for, you're on a shopping tour?
a4eaudio
Senior Member
Another very cool resource... There is a downloadable program, something like "Harman - Learning to Listen". It is an old Beta release, so a little glitchy. It has some default tracks but you can load your own songs and it tests hearing peaks and dips (and some other things). It will start out with broad 3dB peaks that you will likely easily hear. Then moves toward narrower and smaller peaks and dips.
Harman How to Listen
A blog for users of the listener training software application "How to Listen."
harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com
OP
2Sunny
Active Member
- Thread Starter
- #118
I apologize for the long winded reply
In a very ignorant state I started a week ago with the assumption that what @traind hoped was not true actually was true - speaker manufacturers are selling snake oil. Further I believed then and still believe now that there are speakers out there for about $1k that are so good that in a blind test audiophiles would pick them over much more expensive speakers. For discussions sake I'll call that the Point of Diminishing Return at which one thinks spending more won't achieve audible difference. Now that idea can be refined in a multitude of ways, but that was my general idea, and I started a poll to see what folks here thought. Along the way I've come to see 2 things. First the vast majority of audiophiles put the number much higher than I did, and so I'm more than willing to believe I was and am wrong, but I would love to "hear" that for myself. Second, I bought a $900 pair of used Revel F36 tower speakers and was blown away by how much better they were at recreating music in my living room that sounded real (see this thread for more Mind Blown).
So now to your question. At first I just was curious what others here thought was the PODR at which there would be no further meaningful and audible sound improvement from spending more money, but now that I have seen how dramatic a change there was going from Klipsch RP-280Fs to Revel Concerta2 F36s, I'm curious to test speakers in a much higher price bracket to see if I can hear any difference because given what I think I understand about speaker data I see it as highly unlikely that I will hear a difference given how flat the ON AXIS graph is for a F36. I think it probably represents quality sound reproduction high enough that I will not hear any difference in sound. At least that's how I interpret the graphs I'm looking at.
Importantly as I have mentioned before in other threads this for me has become an academic interest. I'm not trying to improve my home theater and I never ever ever listen to music on my system. I did so recently just because I believe it is the best way for me to test sound quality in my living room. So at this point I'd like to find a pair of tower speakers in the $5-6k range to see if I can hear a difference from my Revel F36s, not because I want to improve my listening at home, but just to see if I agree with the majority that one DOES have to spend more than $1k to get the best sound. Currently I'm leaning towards Ascend Acoustics ELX Ribbon towers as being worth a try.
Here's an example of a data comparison that to me says I will hear no difference. The Revel F36 graph is just as flat as the Salon graph. I assume that means that the F36 recreates a song with the same accuracy as the Salon the only difference would be how loud one gets and how wide the dispersion is, but aside from that I would expect the sound to be identical for me sitting in the MLP with a "normal" volume. Anyways, I'm curious as heck to find out for myself. Of course, none of this should matter to anyone other than me as my personal ability to hear and my situation overall are obviously unique to me, but I most definitely am enjoying how much I'm learning from this discussion.
For starters, that graph is only showing you the direct sound on-axis. Most of what you hear in a typical room is reflected sound, and speakers can behave dramatically differently in this area, both from other speakers and from their own on-axis response.
Also, the Salon 2 is going to output significantly more bass. That alone will help it sound much different than the F36. Of course, well integrated subs would help to close that gap.
a4eaudio
Senior Member
I would guess you are likely correct, with a few caveats.
Like mj30250 states above...low frequency extension makes a big difference in overall sound quality. And not a coincidence, loud, low distortion, low frequency output requires larger, more expensive drivers. Thus, one of the primary determinants of the increase in costs from a 2-way bookshelf, a slim tower with dual 6-1/2 woofers, a tower with a 10" woofer and a tower with dual 10" Purifi woofers.
But you are also constraining yourself to get your result by default a little bit by listening at a "normal volume". The other thing that costs more money is higher SPL capability. Those who want realistic orchestra levels (ignoring the debate about how this isn't realistic on speaker anyways) will specify very high SPL capabilities to 20dB peaks while already at a relatively loud level.
Low frequency extension, at low distortion, and high total SPL capability increase costs and the price an audiophile is willing to pay. If you only listen to music that doesn't require low-frequencies and don't listen loud, then there are a LOT of speakers you will be indifferent to.
