Why evaluating the sound of a single speaker is essential

[Floyd Toole]

My follow up question for AI: It even came up with a recomended tracklist to use.

For most average listners making measurments is not possible if you have to bring it back to an average user who want to evelauate a speaker what do you advise.

You're right: most average users can’t make professional measurements or conduct blind tests with rotating platforms. But that doesn’t mean they can’t make trustworthy evaluations. There are simple, practical ways for a normal listener to get close to the truth about a speaker’s performance without needing lab gear.

---

Goal: Give the Average Listener a Reliable Way to Evaluate Speakers​

Here’s what I recommend—organized into steps anyone can follow, using only common sense and basic tools.

---

Step-by-Step Evaluation Guide (for the Average Listener)​

1. Start by Listening to Just One Speaker (Mono)​

• Why: This reveals tonal balance, clarity, and any obvious flaws like boxiness, harshness, or muddiness.
• How:
  • Place the speaker directly in front of you, tweeter at ear height.
  • Sit at a reasonable distance (~1.5 meters).
  • Play mono content (or stereo music with a strong centered vocal).
  • Use tracks with clear vocals, piano, and acoustic instruments.

---

2. Switch to Stereo Listening in Your Room​

• Set them up in a near-equilateral triangle.
• Toe-in the speakers slightly (aiming them toward your ears).
• Sit centered between them.

---

3. Use Familiar, Well-Recorded Tracks​

Stick to music you know well and that’s well-produced. Suggestions:

• “Don’t Know Why” – Norah Jones (vocal clarity, natural tone)
• “Hotel California” – Eagles (imaging, detail)
• “Keith Don’t Go” – Nils Lofgren (live feel, transients)
• “Take Five” – Dave Brubeck (instrument placement, cymbals)

---

️ 4. Listen at Different Volumes​

• Some speakers sound fine at low volume but fall apart when pushed.
• Others need volume to “wake up.”

---

5. Compare to a Reference​

If possible:

• Bring in a speaker you already know (even a cheap or old one).
• A/B switching—even manually—is very revealing.

---

6. Minimize the Room’s Influence​

If your room is very echoey:

• Put a rug between you and the speaker.
• Drape blankets over reflective surfaces temporarily.
• Move speakers away from walls (especially corners).
• Sit at least a meter from the rear wall.

You don’t need a treated studio—but reducing early reflections helps you hear the speaker, not the room.

---

What to Avoid​

• Judging speakers solely on bass: Bigger boom doesn’t mean better.
• Being fooled by volume: Louder often sounds better—use matched volume when comparing.
• Relying on marketing claims or watt ratings: Specs rarely tell you anything about sound quality.

---

Final Recommendation:​

If you're evaluating speakers in a store or during a home trial, ask yourself:

1. Can I listen to just one speaker in mono first?
2. Does it sound natural with vocals and acoustic instruments?
3. Can I pinpoint instrument positions when switching to stereo?
4. Do I feel like turning the music up—or off?
5. Can I listen for an hour without fatigue?

If a speaker passes these tests, it’s very likely a good one, even if you don't have lab measurements to back it up.

---

Would you like me to create a printable version of this checklist for in-store or home use?

I am gratified that there is still opportunity for human content - this is flawed. AI will eventually "read" my 4th edition I guess and learn something.

 

[RickS]

Seems parts of this thread have gone beyond the intended topic. Repetitive opinions are not productive. If you cannot find another appropriate thread but want to continue your discussion, please create your own thread. I can move your posts to the new thread as was done recently. Otherwise, if you persist, you may find your posts deleted or moved to another thread.

Other members deserve to be able to follow this thread without having to sift through frequent off topic posts. Am allowing a few days before I prune content here. Please review the Similar Threads below before creating new posts or threads.

Thanks for your consideration!

 

[restorer-john]

Seems parts of this thread have gone beyond the intended topic. Repetitive opinions are not productive. If you cannot find another appropriate thread but want to continue your discussion, please create your own thread. I can move your posts to the new thread as was done recently. Otherwise, if you persist, you may find your posts deleted or moved to another thread.

Other members deserve to be able to follow this thread without having to sift through frequent off topic posts. Am allowing a few days before I prune content here. Please review the Similar Threads below before creating new posts or threads.

Thanks for your consideration!

What are you talking about Rick? Be specific.

 

[Snarfie]

That is definitely wrong and I would recommend to stop reading A.I. comments on a complicated topic.

If you meant that that surfaces cause reflections, not speakers themselves you're probably right. But placing two speakers in different positions will as i understand excite more room modes, since each source couples differently to the room’s modal structure.

Produce more early reflection paths, simply because more rays are launched from more locations toward the surfaces/ listening place.

So more sources = more interactions with the room.

This isn’t complex audio science — it’s just geometry and wave behavior.
And no worries, I don’t only trust AI. I also trust textbooks, measurements, and listening.

 

[gnarly]

That is definitely wrong and I would recommend to stop reading A.I. comments on a complicated topic.

Pls let me circle back to that at the end of my post.......


First, let me say I've been enjoying your experience & takes on the stereo vs mono tonality discussion. I think they hold water.

Main reason for me is logic:
Let's say the audio world advances. Let's say what @Jaxx1138 described well in #419 no longer exists.
"The core issue is the lack of a standardized, calibrated monitoring environment including all equipment (loudspeakers and electronic that meet the defined" standards)."
That the circle of confusion is gonzo, and the issues he explains after that quote, all go away. What then?

I think when using such standardized / no issues recording studios and technicians, if mastering is done in stereo to be tonally neutral/pleasing, that should translate to listeners at home also finding stereo tonality neutral/pleasing.
Mono tonality however, will be comparatively brighter than stereo. Just the way it works, in all the myriad comparisons I've made.

So, in the new advanced audio world, if I evaluate a truly neutral speaker like the studio used, in mono.... it will probably sound a bit bright.
Which will lead me to choose a duller non-neutral speaker, leading me to be disappointed when I move to stereo. Damn it, lol.


This thread has helped me realize I am not a good candidate for assessing the center of tonality on speakers which set up and left alone. Because I don't leave them alone.
I tune large constant directivity speakers for flat to downward sloping response like most folks do. (with presets between flat and various degrees of linear downward slope.
But tonality is so important to me, I've devised a way to easily correct what I perceive as tonality aberrations, on a track-by-track basis.
It's much like live-sound, except that instead of adjusting the levels of instruments and vocals input channels into the mix, I adjust the levels of each individual driver output section. Speakers are typically 4-way unity/synergy horns & sub, so each 'way' including sub has its own level fader, all controlled by a master fader.

When I find a track I really like and want to extract all the goodness I can, those driver section faders do the trick. When I find a track that tonality is crazily off, the driver section sliders are invaluable. I picture the adjustments as countering, being the inverse of, the crazy imbalance heard in the recording studio, or the hearing imbalance in the technicians. The sub fader obviously gets the most work, given recording vagaries. HF & VHF are next. Mid and low seldom change. Says a lot about studio tonality distributions by frequency range, I think.

I really like the technique of separate faders per driver section.....much better than just using global EQs to adjust tonality. I find using regular IIR PEQ's can sometimes result in sonic weirdness which I ascribe to phase wonkiness. The crossovers in my multi-ways are all linear-phase and higher-order. Changes of +/- 10dB to any particular driver section typically spanning about 2 octaves or so, don't create any significant deviation from zero phase. It's pretty cool if I do say so myself. Alas I digress...

This thread also let me realize because I'm always dialing tonality to taste, I get to ignore the whole mono vs stereo tonality thingy. Tonality is so easy to get right (to my ears), it's nearly immaterial !
As a result, I've been able to spend my time with DIY focusing on clarity, though measurements and listening evaluations.
Making clarity the goal seems to be an easy audio listening evaluation, that is almost objective.... in that I can ask self how much of the vocals can I recite back; how many instruments can I clearly pick out.
Increased clarity also seems to automatically enhance the full set of desired properties of good audio ...like timbre, transient response, etc in mono.... and like soundstage, imaging, etc, in stereo.

Must say, when doing foundational work, measuring and listening evaluations....mono is the only way to compare, imo.
I see stereo results as simply a by-product of good mono-tuning.
If/when my listening evaluations of best mono achieved sound a little dull in stereo, i say fix the stereo globally, but certainly leave the mono layer of tuning alone.


Ok, circling back to the top:

That is definitely wrong and I would recommend to stop reading A.I. comments on a complicated topic.

Pls explain how additional speakers cannot possibly add more room modes or reflections??? Seems impossible to me..

 

[RickS]

What are you talking about Rick? Be specific.

No worries, most of those who are more involved have received private notices.

Was just trying to remind anyone else of the need to stay on topic and give them chance to discuss (preferably privately) before I take action. As I have with our PMs, I try to respect member privacy so will not be sharing publicly.

 

[NTK]

Two speakers in a room excite more room modes and early reflections than one speaker. This can subtly affect the tonal character, perceived spaciousness, and clarity.

That is definitely wrong and I would recommend to stop reading A.I. comments on a complicated topic.

Pls explain how additional speakers cannot possibly add more room modes or reflections??? Seems impossible to me..

It is simple to show. If you have the speaker in a room mode null, it doesn't/can't excite that room mode. Put another speaker somewhere else in the room that is not a null, the mode is now excited. Therefore, more speakers can excite more room modes.

 

[gnarly]

It is simple to show. If you have the speaker in a room mode null, it doesn't/can't excite that room mode. Put another speaker somewhere else in the room that is not a null, the mode is now excited. Therefore, more speakers can excite more room modes.

Thx, partially matches my understandings.
Question....... I know we can place a speaker in a room mode null where it doesn't excite that room mode. But that just speaks to one particular mode.
How do you place a speaker not to excite any room modes? If you can't, which I assume we cant, then it seems any additional speaker has to excite more modes.
What am I missing?

 

[NTK]

Thx, partially matches my understandings.
Question....... I know we can place a speaker in a room mode null where it doesn't excite that room mode. But that just speaks to one particular mode.
How do you place a speaker not to excite any room modes? If you can't, which I assume we cant, then it seems any additional speaker has to excite more modes.
What am I missing?

No, you can't not excite room modes for normal rooms. However, the sum is a complex sum, i.e. magnitude and phase. If 2 speakers are placed in locations where the room mode response has opposite polarity, they cancel out each other. So, it can get complicated and why MSO optimizations take a lot of CPU time.

 

[youngho]

Thx, partially matches my understandings.
Question....... I know we can place a speaker in a room mode null where it doesn't excite that room mode. But that just speaks to one particular mode.
How do you place a speaker not to excite any room modes? If you can't, which I assume we cant, then it seems any additional speaker has to excite more modes.
What am I missing?

By "more," I believe that you mean a greater number of. If you have a perfectly symmetric setup with respect to loudspeakers' distance to the ipsilateral boundaries, the second speaker may excite the same axial modes as the first. For example, consider the one versus two speakers at the same height with respect to vertical or floor-ceiling modes, and one versus two speakers at the same distance from the front and back wall with respect to length modes. For width or lateral modes, as @NTK points out, two speakers could potentially "cancel" odd-order modes assuming that the listener is in the median position, i.e. the node for these modes. However, the situation becomes more complicated with tangential and oblique modes, and a second speaker could be expected to excite different ones than the first, i.e. "more."

 

[gnarly]

No, you can't not excite room modes for normal rooms. However, the sum is a complex sum, i.e. magnitude and phase.

Yep, that fully matches my understanding.

By "more," I believe that you mean a greater number of.

Yes, that's what more meant to me.
I had an opportunity in the past to build a large audio room from ground up. Was able to specify interior dimensions to the inch, to optimize / spread out all the various mode types. Taught me how damn many modes there are !



We're all on the same page.

 

[Duke]

Effectively, is the mono evaluation relevant for the intended use case, namely casual listening worry free?

Yes, very much so, in my opinion. Ime the kinds of issues mono evaluation throws a spotlight on (resonances and other audible colorations) can cause listening fatigue over time, which can make you want to turn the system off even if it's only "casual listening".

To the extent that stereo listening is able to evaluate spatial quality better than mono listening (which I'm not sure everyone agrees is the case), imo that gets into attributes which arguably are not particularly relevant for "casual listening", but would be for "focused or intense listening" (<- for lack of a better term).

 

[amirm]

When it goes beyond "trust me," we can have something to talk about. This is not at all meant as a slight to you, but in my profession, if results aren't published with sufficient detail for analysis and replication, they don't exist.

There is published work on effect number of channels on listener discrimination at typical angles. See AES paper,
Comparison of Loudspeaker-Room
Equalization Preference for Multichannel,
Stereo, and Mono Reproductions: Are
Listeners More Discriminating in Mono?

Sean E. Olive, Sean M. Hess, and Allan Devantier

This was the room:

The result was we have posted before was that the less channels, the more listeners were aware of system tonality error:

I personally have evaluated probably 300 to 400 speakers this way. Unless i am testing a center speaker, I place it on the right or left where my normal speakers are and listen on-axis.

Really, it should be logical that if we want to evaluate the tonality of a speaker, we don't want a second one playing a different tune at the same time. Listening to one speaker removes distractions, allowing the listener to be better perform this already difficult job.

Let's also note that speaker evaluation is not about absolutes or 100% answers. It is about going from zero reliability of the testing (sighted, random stereo listening) to something that has a shot of being accurate. Ultimately this is a highly complex system that cannot ever be fully characterized in all cases and all situation. But such is life in many domains including medicine. Your doctor never 100% knows what is wrong with you but is able to make good educated guesses. This is where we are with speaker research.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

This was the room:

I don't know the date of this picture but that's my listening chair now!

 

[SIY]

There is published work on effect number of channels on listener discrimination at typical angles. See AES paper,
Comparison of Loudspeaker-Room
Equalization Preference for Multichannel,
Stereo, and Mono Reproductions: Are
Listeners More Discriminating in Mono?

Sean E. Olive, Sean M. Hess, and Allan Devantier

This was the room:
View attachment 456212

The result was we have posted before was that the less channels, the more listeners were aware of system tonality error:

I personally have evaluated probably 300 to 400 speakers this way. Unless i am testing a center speaker, I place it on the right or left where my normal speakers are and listen on-axis.

Really, it should be logical that if we want to evaluate the tonality of a speaker, we don't want a second one playing a different tune at the same time. Listening to one speaker removes distractions, allowing the listener to be better perform this already difficult job.

Let's also note that speaker evaluation is not about absolutes or 100% answers. It is about going from zero reliability of the testing (sighted, random stereo listening) to something that has a shot of being accurate. Ultimately this is a highly complex system that cannot ever be fully characterized in all cases and all situation. But such is life in many domains including medicine. Your doctor never 100% knows what is wrong with you but is able to make good educated guesses. This is where we are with speaker research.

I's been a few years since I read that paper- my recollection is that for mono, they used multiple speakers fed the same signal. Or is my memory failing me?

 

[audiofooled]

This reply from Dr. Toole may be relevant to this thread:

Blind Listening Test 2: Neumann KH 80 vs JBL 305p MkII vs Edifier R1280T vs RCF Arya Pro5

I am not a newbie in this field, but came for me to another conclusion. Indeed, sometimes it is better not to excite the room with too much low-frequency energy. I don't think you are a newbie, I just think you have never got the implementation of subwoofers right which is hard to get right...

audiosciencereview.com

 

[Floyd Toole]

I's been a few years since I read that paper- my recollection is that for mono, they used multiple speakers fed the same signal. Or is my memory failing me?

Mono means and meant: monophonic: one loudspeaker. Stereo was two. Multichannel was more than two

EDIT: some people interpret the "B" result as indicating that stereo and multichannel improved the perception of the loudspeaker - true, but it did so by masking the problems, so the speaker simply sounded less bad as more channels were added. The only statistically significant differences in those tests were the mono tests.

 

[amirm]

I's been a few years since I read that paper- my recollection is that for mono, they used multiple speakers fed the same signal. Or is my memory failing me?

As Dr. Toole noted, they refer to number of playback channels:

"The mean preference
rating for this treatment decreased significantly as the
number of playback channels was reduced from five
(surround) to one (mono). In general, the playback
mode had little effect on preferences among the PIR,
in situ and direct sound equalizations. Listeners
tended to be more discriminating between the
equalizations when the playback mode was mono,
and the least discriminating when the mode was
surround."

 

[amirm]

I don't know the date of this picture but that's my listening chair now!

I was wondering what happened to the one chair that was missing when I was there!!!

 

[sceptical1]

I am sure mono is good for something. Not for listening to music, that's for sure. If more channels obscure my impression of what I hear for the better I am all for it. Frankly, I am too old to wait around for everyone to agree what needs to be done for me to hear a live performance at home.