Why evaluating the sound of a single speaker is essential

[Newman]

So why does no one ever take the next logical step?

Which is: speaker sound quality is irrelevant.

If it really is nearly impossible to tell by extended listening to a single pair of speakers whether they are "good" or not, then just buy the cheapest. You won't hear the difference after a month, according to these claims.

Or if the visual impression of speakers really does overwhelm the sonic impression (as those who say sighted listening is useless would assert), then we should all be buying speakers based on looks alone, and ignoring sonics.

Are you, PhD in Physics at Stanford and all, satisfied with the answers and other relevant discussion that followed your post?

Because you have a habit on ASR of blanking audio science that doesn't suit your personal biases and preconceptions. Not sure if it's because you nurse a hierarchy of sciences that places audio science, especially the perceptual aspects, way down the ladder below hard physics, or just a bit of a blind spot.

I take your question above to be sarcasm, because it's too obvious that, just for starters, the cheapest speakers won't even play deep bass, and furthermore, nobody has claimed that adaptation makes everything sound the same. It just describes our tendency to 'settle'.... but only as long as we avoid comparisons. As soon as the aspirational audiophile who has adapted to his (or her) cheapest speakers encounters superb speakers it won't take him (or her) two seconds to exclaim "oh gawd my speakers are sh*t". Then when he (etc) returns home how do you think that is going to play out? Knowing for certain how poor one's speakers are will have built cognitive bias against them that will wrestle with the (gradually returning) adaptation, and cognitive bias tends to win out. Our audiophile will maintain the opinion his speakers are sh*t even as he re-adapts. It won't end well for his cheapest speakers.

The fact that Matt fell for your comment and mistook it for a powerful argument, .... oh well. We've gotten used to that.

 

[MarkS]

I take your question above to be sarcasm, because it's too obvious that, just for starters, the cheapest speakers won't even play deep bass

So you agree with me that sighted listening of a speaker, even without AB comparing it to another speaker, is enough to judge its quality, in at least some cases.

That's something you have never before admitted.

 

[ObiWanKenobi]

Note from staff: this content was move from another thread for better overall access and organization…

A forum member has just alerted me to this discussion, and my name is being circulated, so I have decided to add some clarification. The topic of sound quality is of fundamental importance, and stereo soundstage and imaging are undeniably key factors in our entertainment. However, the factors affecting all of these perceptual dimensions interact with each other, sometimes in destructive ways. Adding enormous complications is the fact that much of what matters to all factors, especially soundstage and imaging is determined by recordings. Stereo is a directionally and spatially deprived format, and since its inception listeners have sought to "fill in the blanks" with imaginative loudspeaker designs, electronic processing, and audio jewelry of various kinds. There is no "hardware" solution, no "perfect" loudspeaker or wire or amplifier that will suddenly bring "reality" to the listening room. But, audio forum activity indicates no end of trying. In this context, the notion of evaluating loudspeakers in mono sounds ludicrous - or is it?

The manuscript of the 4th edition of my book is now with the publisher, anticipating publication around September. In it this subject is, I would like to think, exhaustively examined and explained, using scientific evidence. Long story short, human listeners are increasingly less sensitive to sound quality degradations in loudspeakers as the channel count is increased from one to two and two to five. The overall result of adding channels is more spatial and directional information, which can be highly entertaining, but the end result is that the binaural hearing system has difficulty separating the spatial cues in the recordings, from the spatial cues in the listening room. Increasing channel count increases the persuasion of the recorded space. As a result listeners are unable to discern timbral errors caused by resonances in loudspeakers with the same sensitivity as in mono/single-loudspeaker comparisons.

The reality is that most stereo and multichannel recordings include isolated, hard-panned, sound images providing instances when the true character of the loudspeakers can be heard. In simple stereo recordings instruments often appear in left and right loudspeakers - mono. All phantom images are double mono. This explains why loudspeakers that win monophonic comparison tests always win stereo and multichannel tests, The reverse is not always true. So, to determine how good your loudspeakers are, do comparison listening tests in mono. Then, if they are good, impress your friends in stereo and multichannel - but choose the recordings carefully: they are a major determinant of what is heard.

Here is something I wrote a couple of years ago - it is long but still not the complete story, as it is currently understood.

If you're Vincent van Gogh you don't need two speakers

 

[Travis]

You are right. And I will add, for the nth time, because of small rooms bass is unique to every listening situation and it accounts for about 30% of our overall impression - for some even more. It will ALWAYS need attention before one can say that one is evaluating the "speaker".

I guess that’s the answer to my question. Because A comparison needs to happen in the room the speakers will go in — a consumer should make a comparison before a final selection. This, because bass accounts for the 30% of the overall impression of the speaker and is room dependent. My hypothetical included an unrealistic parameter, the 3 models to be compared will very unlikely have similar bass response, and this is a key reason to do comparison, it’s all about the bass (or at least 30% or more). That’s my big take away.

I’m assuming the comparison, to the extent possible should be blind, level matched, and preferably 3 different models/brands.

Also assuming, comparison should be one model vs another model, in mono (speaker A in one channel, speaker B in other channel, and an A/B switch to go back and forth for consumer to do a comparison in a manner they are comfortable with. Then C/A (move any speaker already compared to other side) then B/C. All unknown and blind to listener.

Travis

 

[MattHooper]

I just want to highlight this comment because it illustrates something I've been thinking about lately.

Placebo effect in audio is not just common, but very convincing.

You're knowledgeable about audio and you knew a server isn't supposed to change the sound. But you went to the trouble of doing a blind test anyway because you couldn't just dismiss what you heard so easily. And, eventually the placebo effect went away. But for a while, I guess it seemed quite real.

I would caution anyone reading this thread inclined to say "I know what I heard" to think about this. Of course you heard it! When you hear something due to placebo effect, there's no clue that tells you it's not real. You heard what you heard. But @MattHooper is a professional who works with audio and was fooled (for a bit) by placebo. You, dear reader, are not immune!

Neither are other professionals who work with audio... maybe even ones who review stuff on youtube or in magazines... ones that proudly let their ears lead the way and never question what they hear?

This is why we need measurements and blind tests! People hear all kinds of things, and we want to nail down WHY they heard them.

Yes, exactly totally agree!

This is one reason I like Amir’s print and video reviews of dubious audio products like expensive cables. Not only does he show that any audible difference is implausible, he also points out that even knowing this and being a professional himself, when he swaps the items in sighted conditions he will tend to perceive a difference as well. As he points out, this is just a feature of how our brains work when we are listening for differences.

(As for my successful blind tests: I don’t still have the Meridian/Sony/Museatex gear, but if I did, it would’ve been interesting to send them to Amir to measure to see if anything was up there. The Mietner DAC also seem to have distinct Sonic properties that I easily identified in blind testing. I know Museatex engineer Ed Meitner has some idiosyncratic ideas about how to design for digital sound.
And I suppose it’s possible that Meridian did something in the digital or analogue output to slightly colour the sound. I don’t know.
But given what I perceived and the results of my blind test, if I had to place my money, it would be on the Sony unit measuring standard, transparent and neutral, and perhaps the other two “high end” units measuring off somewhere).

Actually, that brings up a question related to mono listening!

We’ve been given reasons why mono listening - to a single speaker - is more sensitive for detecting colorations in the loudspeaker itself.

Does it follow from this that mono listening (single speaker) might be more sensitive for evaluating possible alterations in the source itself? For instance, if there was a very subtle tonal variation between a tube amplifier versus a solid-state amplifier, or of the type I described between the Meridian and the other CDP (or maybe even differences in codecs) could listening via a single speaker be more sensitive for picking that up? (but maybe that’s a job for listening with stereo headphones)

The thing is one of the characteristics I perceived, especially between the Museatex and Meridian, was a slightly diffuse sense of imaging on the Museatex vs the very focused solid images on the Meridian. If that was the case, I don’t know if that could be as obvious in mono, listening (?)

 

[kemmler3D]

Does it follow from this that mono listening (single speaker) might be more sensitive for evaluating possible alterations in the source itself? For instance, if there was a very subtle tonal variation between a tube amplifier versus a solid-state amplifier, or of the type I described between the Meridian and the other CDP (or maybe even differences in codecs) could listening via a single speaker be more sensitive for picking that up? (but maybe that’s a job for listening with stereo headphones)

The thing is one of the characteristics I perceived, especially between the Museatex and Meridian, was a slightly diffuse sense of imaging on the Museatex vs the very focused solid images on the Meridian. If that was the case, I don’t know if that could be as obvious in mono, listening (?)

If you want my off-the-cuff opinion I'd say mono listening would probably make it easier to hear distortion and tonal colorations, but there are certain things that might only show up in stereo. In the case of apparent changes in imaging, I wonder if maybe there was something going on with crosstalk or channel-specific phase distortion happening to throw off the image...

If something like that is happening you will never know based on mono...

 

[RickS]

Last warning to stay on topic or take more personal topics to another thread.

Thanks for your consideration!

 

[Thomas Savage]

Last warning to stay on topic or talk personal topics to another thread.

Thanks for your cinsideration!

You should know i patented deliberate spelling mistakes as a method of gathering sympathy for the moderator...

In my case is was to keep the illusion ' I was either drunk or inept' , members were kind and appreciate the honesty .. some felt sorry for me and behaved. Others saw the genius in the deception..

Who knows..

Iv loved and feel blessed to have read this thread , let's keep that integrity, respect our privileged access to audio luminaries!

 

[RickS]

You should know i patented deliberate spelling mistakes as a method of gathering sympathy for the moderator...

In my case is was to keep the illusion ' I was either drunk or inept' , members were kind and appreciate the honesty .. some felt sorry for me and behaved. Others saw the genius in the deception..

Who knows..

Iv loved and feel blessed to have read this thread , let's keep that integrity, respect our privileged access to audio luminaries!

Lol, will remember your genius. Unfortunately, in my case is usually just poor typing skills.

 

[RickS]

To be clear, as moderator, I would rather not delete any member posts. That said, there can be better places for them. I want to give the member some control, if they want to create their own thread, they can. There already is a more general sister thread for this one, and is more likely will move some posts here to it.

It is this one… https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...kers-with-major-audio-luminaries.62951/unread

If your post is not about single speaker evaluation, please consider posting on the general thread in the future. Thanks!

 

[amirm]

Drawing conclusions such as ´listeners in mono tests had higher discrimination ratings for specific audible flaws tested, so preference results of all mono tests are automatically applicable under stereo and multichannel conditions as well´ is in my understanding much more unreliable stretch than any uncontrolled or non-blind testing.

What nonsense. The research is a proper study. Uncontrolled testing is nothing. It is something to be ignored automatically.

Multiple research studies have shown the advantage of mono over stereo. Reasons have been explained. You not wanting to accept it means you don't want to learn. You haven't presented a single study of your own to dispute this research. Making nonsense comparisons just shows how much you understand and value proper audio research.

Move on to other threads as you are not bringing an ounce of information to this topic.

 

[Arindal]

The research is a proper study.

A proper study to answer ´are mono test results valid for stereo?´ with testing isolated properties of speakers has not been conducted till date. Comparing discrimination ratings with a limited number of speakers all offering multiple, different flaws at the same time, would not really answer this question.

Multiple research studies have shown the advantage of mono over stereo.

Could you link to an independent documented study to support your claim, focussing on preference ratings (not discrimination) while involving typical aspects of stereo reproduction, conducted in the last 20 years, please?

So no training in detecting speaker tonality errors. I suggest ignoring their advice, lest you want the classical blind leading the blind.

Not only training in reliably detecting tonality errors, but blind testing such abilities as a part of their university education.

 

[Mnyb]

With that logic every speaker must be evaluated in every possible channel count , that’s does not make sense ? If it’s a good speaker it’s god in 2 ,2.1 ,3 ,3.1 ,5.1 ,7.1 etc etc is it not ?

 

[Arindal]

With that logic every speaker must be evaluated in every possible channel count , that’s does not make sense ?

I did not imply that. My guess would be, separated tests in mono and stereo would be sufficient in order to have a valid result for real source localization formats and phantom localization formats. Any other potential configuration is based on either of these principles or a combination thereof.

 

[olieb]

I did not imply that. My guess would be, separated tests in mono and stereo would be sufficient in order to have a valid result for real source localization formats and phantom localization formats. Any other potential configuration is based on either of these principles or a combination thereof.

But do you happen to have independent documented study to support your claim, focussed on the validity of stereo preference ratings for the evaluation of multichannel Atmos systems, conducted in the last 20 years, please?

BTW stereo is based on mono in a much more fundamental way than 7.1.4 is based on stereo.
The basic function of a speaker is to transform one channel of electrical signal to sound. This is what mono is. Everything builds on it.
To evaluate this fundamental function of a speaker it seems appropriate to listen in mono.
Amir did say it quite convincingly in this quote.

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.

 

[RickS]

Some features such as tonality/coloration/resonances can be evaluated in mono, but those three words are not synonymous with "everything". Dr. Toole and his loyal parrots have not talked much else, but interpretations have slipped wider than perhaps intended. So lets quickly repeat what has been claimed. And keep in mind that "everything" is greater blob than the most easily heard and significant feature in speaker comparisons:

Hi Kimmo!

Hope all is well.

So, are you proposing some call to action with regard to this post? btw, there is a more general speaker discussion in this thread:

A Broad Discussion of Speakers with Major Audio Luminaries

It is resonances that are mainly responsible for lack of neutrality in loudspeakers, so the first task for competent speaker designers is to minimize them. After that spectral balance and directivity control need to be attended to. The industry standard measurement method, used by Amir, which...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[kimmosto]

Hope all is well.

Pretty well thanks. Cataract just operated from "oculus dexter", and long summer holidays starting soon.

So, are you proposing some call to action with regard to this post?

Probably not. It looks that limited view to reality is forced here. Questioning, striving for improvement, and more open-minded thinking will not happen as long as the leader decides who to believe and who to ignore. I thought these were part of the "scientific method," but who am I to say...

 

[RickS]

Pretty well thanks. Cataract just operated from "oculus dexter", and long summer holidays starting soon.

Good to know you will be seeing better and get to enjoy the view. I had done at an early age and still find it amazing after decades of extreme nearsightedness. Enjoy!

As for the rest of your post, feel free to PM to discuss.

 

[MattHooper]

Anyway, back to mono listening…

Generally speaking, a well designed speaker with low or inaudible resonances, will allow hard panned mono sources to still seem to float free of the speaker.

Among my reference tracks are ones that have a voice, for instance, a male voice, hard panned to one speaker. And I have found such tracks to also get a perspective on how well a speaker “ disappears” as an apparent sound source.

I owned the Thiel 3.7 speakers and the slightly smaller cheaper version, the Thiel 2.7s, together for about a year at least. And I was constantly comparing their performance on the same tracks, trying to decide which one to keep.

I found that on the hardpanned male vocal the flagship 3.7 seemed to disappear a bit more in terms of the vocal seeming to float completely free of the cabinet like the speaker wasn’t there. The 2.7 model didn’t do this quite as well, there was a little bit more of a “ coming out of the speaker” presentation. And this also seemed to translate into stereo performance, where the imaging and sound staging of the 3.7 was more reliably evenly spread across the width of the speakers. Whereas the 2.7 sound staging with the same tracks could sometimes be slightly more “U-shaped” - in other words, the sound slightly pulling more towards the speakers as it moves towards the sides of the sound stage.

It could be then that there is a level of colouration in the 2.7s missing in the 3.7.

The speakers use the same basic design and use the same coaxial mid range.

One perhaps major difference is that the front baffle on which the drivers were affixed and head dome of the 3.7 were made of thick aluminum. Whereas the 2.7 used some cost cutting MDF instead.

Could this be the culprit? Maybe some added audible vibration in the 2.7?

Also: my MBL omnis effortlessly floated that hard panned voice free of the speaker.
But I guess in that case, it might be a bit more difficult to determine why it did so.
For instance, with the MBL Omni mid and tweeter drivers, there is no box to resonate as they are in free space.
It could be conceivable that the Omni speaker drivers themselves could’ve had enough resonance to affect vocals and make them stick to the speaker. Though again per perceptually, this wasn’t the case.
On the other hand, the Omni interacts with the room more arriving some spaciousness from room reflections as well, and so the floating free of the speaker could be due to that.

Seems a little bit hard to untangle exactly what attributes are responsible for the “ floating free of the speaker” presentation of the hardpan vocals, at least in the informal listening in my room.

Just using on this stuff for anybody to comment.

 

[JPA]

Anyway, back to mono listening…

Generally speaking, a well designed speaker with low or inaudible resonances, will allow hard panned mono sources to still seem to float free of the speaker.

Among my reference tracks are ones that have a voice, for instance, a male voice, hard panned to one speaker. And I have found such tracks to also get a perspective on how well a speaker “ disappears” as an apparent sound source.

I owned the Thiel 3.7 speakers and the slightly smaller cheaper version, the Thiel 2.7s, together for about a year at least. And I was constantly comparing their performance on the same tracks, trying to decide which one to keep.

I found that on the hardpanned male vocal the flagship 3.7 seemed to disappear a bit more in terms of the vocal seeming to float completely free of the cabinet like the speaker wasn’t there. The 2.7 model didn’t do this quite as well, there was a little bit more of a “ coming out of the speaker” presentation. And this also seemed to translate into stereo performance, where the imaging and sound staging of the 3.7 was more reliably evenly spread across the width of the speakers. Whereas the 2.7 sound staging with the same tracks could sometimes be slightly more “U-shaped” - in other words, the sound slightly pulling more towards the speakers as it moves towards the sides of the sound stage.

It could be then that there is a level of colouration in the 2.7s missing in the 3.7.

The speakers use the same basic design and use the same coaxial mid range.

One perhaps major difference is that the front baffle on which the drivers were affixed and head dome of the 3.7 were made of thick aluminum. Whereas the 2.7 used some cost cutting MDF instead.

Could this be the culprit? Maybe some added audible vibration in the 2.7?

Also: my MBL omnis effortlessly floated that hard panned voice free of the speaker.
But I guess in that case, it might be a bit more difficult to determine why it did so.
For instance, with the MBL Omni mid and tweeter drivers, there is no box to resonate as they are in free space.
It could be conceivable that the Omni speaker drivers themselves could’ve had enough resonance to affect vocals and make them stick to the speaker. Though again per perceptually, this wasn’t the case.
On the other hand, the Omni interacts with the room more arriving some spaciousness from room reflections as well, and so the floating free of the speaker could be due to that.

Seems a little bit hard to untangle exactly what attributes are responsible for the “ floating free of the speaker” presentation of the hardpan vocals, at least in the informal listening in my room.

Just using on this stuff for anybody to comment.

Are you really pecking these novellas out on an iPhone? If so, I have equal amounts of admiration and antipathy towards you.