• 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!

Why evaluating the sound of a single speaker is essential

This is the front cover of the text book authored by the instructor.
From Chapter 1 of that book:

"Mono sound reproduction creates
some restrictions for a recording engineer, but it is often
this type of system that loudspeaker manufacturers use for
subjective evaluation and testing of their products
."

:)

He also goes on to say that mixes need to bet tested in mono as a lot of listening on smart speakers, phones and such are this way these days.
 
From Chapter 1 of that book:

"Mono sound reproduction creates
some restrictions for a recording engineer, but it is often
this type of system that loudspeaker manufacturers use for
subjective evaluation and testing of their products
."

:)

He also goes on to say that mixes need to bet tested in mono as a lot of listening on smart speakers, phones and such are this way these days.
I first started trying to learn about mixing in the late 90s and "check for mono compatibility" has been a point of advice for a long time before that, too. Smart speakers and such have kept it maybe more relevant than it should be... but I guess I can say even literal children know that this is an important part of the mix / master process. :D
 
I wonder what the airplane industry would say if someone said that wings should be tested one without the other.
They are tested one a time. The final airplane is tested as a unit because it works as a unit with very high dependency on the rest of the components. Your speakers work independent of each other much like the tires in your car. Pretty sure the final testing of each tire at the factory doesn't involve hooking them all up four at a time to test...
 
They are tested one a time. The final airplane is tested as a unit because it works as a unit with very high dependency on the rest of the components. Your speakers work independent of each other much like the tires in your car. Pretty sure the final testing of each tire at the factory doesn't involve hooking them all up four at a time to test...

you took advantage of my bad wording lol.
We are the final users of speakers. We need to test them in action, like American Airlines wants to see the plane flying...not a single wing in the wind canal.
 
As long as you realize your testing is not critical and is not likely to reveal fundamental problems with the speaker, you of course can test in stereo.

For those of us who do reviews, we need to produce more reliable results and to me, there is no question this is done with a) mono and b) EQ testing. I will produce nothing but fiction when it comes to stereo effect as heaven knows, my setup is not going to be the same as yours.
 
As long as you realize your testing is not critical and is not likely to reveal fundamental problems with the speaker, you of course can test in stereo.

For those of us who do reviews, we need to produce more reliable results and to me, there is no question this is done with a) mono and b) EQ testing. I will produce nothing but fiction when it comes to stereo effect as heaven knows, my setup is not going to be the same as yours.
I would also suggest we have more variation amongst ourselves when stereo is entered into the equation. We have different physical geometries of our heads and different response in our two ears. I know for a fact that my ears are not perfectly balanced and this affects my stereophonic perception.
 
Amir’s count of speakers is over 300 and most of that is within the last few years. Trust that you have measured plenty too but let’s try to focus on how to work better together. Thanks!
I wrote "the speaker" to point out that I was talking about one particular speaker, though the story probably applies to other floor standing multi-ways with separate drivers and equal excess group delay due to slope orders, and massive diffraction due to conventional 1" dome without a wave guide in rectangular baffle. Same kind of effect has been noticed also with 3-way having coaxial M+T with exceptionally bad excess group delay due to slope orders, but that was not verified with test record specialized to reveal splitting and moving of phantom images especially in stereo.
So my guess amirm has never measured or listened in mono that particular model. It's also probable that the problem will not be revealed at actual/final magnitude if listening is done in mono only. I still hope you all can live with the possibility that world is not so simple and strict that some of us try to force us to believe. Infinite ban is very welcome in case that is not allowed on this forum.
 
I still hope you all can live with the possibility that world is not so simple and strict that some of us try to force us to believe.
Seems like the plot is completely lost. The whole point of what I have argued here and forever is that speaker evaluation is never definitive. That you have to live with some amount of ambiguity. As such, pointing out that this and that corner case is not covered by current protocols is silly. Of course we have no tools to give us 100% answers for anything when it comes to speakers. Even if we correctly identify the perfect speaker, someone listens to it with their content and thinks it is too bright, too bassey, etc.

You made a perfect example of this, pointing out some fantastical scenario around diffraction that gets detected in stereo listening tests and not mono. Even if this were real -- and you have not shown it to be the case at all -- it doesn't mean anything. So we don't have that covered. So what? You go and cover that if that warms your cockles. Meanwhile, I am here to generate reliable information about how a speaker performs. I do that with state of the art measurement gear that follows research of what people will likely like. I listen then for easy things like distortion in bass/SPL capability and try to characterize tonality errors. Such testing is incredibly easier in mono. Research says this. And i say thins after testing 300+ speakers.

And if you are interested in upping your skills in finding artifacts in speakers, you too need to start evaluating them one speaker at a time.

Infinite ban is very welcome in case that is not allowed on this forum.
What is not allowed in this forum is whining, complaining and creating FUD without adding anything of substance to the conversation. If post after post is just words with no data, no references to research, and done so in rude manner, it will indeed result in that outcome. So you choose.
 
How about 40 members here accepting post #1 and dropping the denials? That would be a good place to go now.
Seriously.
Who doesn't accept post #1 to begin with? The outcome of mentioned tests is not at such scrutinized. Then in post #1 a speculation is made, what the reason for the outcome might be. That's still 'science' of course, but debateable. I'm leaning towards another reasoning along some lines Dr Guenther Theile draw into the blue. (He's also an academic with a ph/d, many prices, well reknown, but denialed on this board.)

To come to terms with sound engineers, mixers, producers and not the least all those people in the acceptance board of a production. Consider this little experiment:

Get hands on an illustrious team of sound/mix/recording engineers. They won't be educated (anymore) in terms of high fidelity (because they know the truth, so they think), no 'training' available.
Let them bring their own recordings.
Let them re-mix these over the speakers under test.

And only for convenience, what were the questions?
Would they only use linear equalization, and to what extend?
Does it correlate with linear deviations of the speaker under test (DUT) in comparison to the speaker originally used for the mix?
Would it even correlate to deviations of the DUT versus the 'ideal'?

For cross check, let them do the same with recordings made by the other guys.
Questions are obvious, or should I for the sake of science?
 
I wonder what the airplane industry would say if someone said that wings should be tested one without the other.
the walk of a robot should be tested with one leg only

Very bad "analogies". Apples and split-halves-oranges.
One loudspeaker can reproduce music, airplane with only one wing can't fly. Ditto for one-legged robot.
 
Thread housekeeping is complete and the more off-topic posts are now in this thread:

 
Last edited:
it's a good counter, but I don't agree. While one loudspeaker can reproduce sound, it can't reproduce music....at least not stereo music.

A single speaker can reproduce music, perhaps not to your standards but then we could argue your stereo standards do not reproduce audio to immersive/atmos music standards
 
Last edited:
Reading through this ,
The whole point of what I have argued here and forever is that speaker evaluation is never definitive. That you have to live with some amount of ambiguity.
This often seems to get lost , falling victim to rabid one upmanship and gotcha like back and forth .

Its would appear entirely logical, to trim the potential variables between test environment and consumer listening space . Even if that means we cut out one speaker and do some mono listening, which in itself is logical and seems steeped in research that says it dosnt compromise the evaluation priorities while also being actively beneficial.

So one has the ' speaker reviews' , a great place to start narrowing down ones choices but one should listen and or measure in ones own room to make ones own final choice .

Nothing being suggested here removes that requirement! Nor will it critically alter somebody's top 5 speakers to try, based on Amirm's reviews , as far as I can tell . ,, so what's the point of all the back and forth.

Seems like an excise in pure whataboutery to me .
 
Funny...
I recently played around two very similar speakers (variations of the same model, comparable FR curve, etc., different cabinet material...devellopement) in mono L vs R, with the same physical posotion exchange etc...
one of them could subjectively be preferred...:
"more lack back", a little euphonious...
but in stereo, it's ultimately the slightly more rigorous in stereo that turns out to be the most interesting... and yet I imagine that many had to choose, would have valued the other pair with just this test/ comparaison...
;-)
(This is somewhat related to the topic of demo discs that work with just about everything... and test discs that "put things to shame"... The test with a speaker risks highlighting a subjective aspect (hard to describe)... but which won't be as relevant in stereo ;-) )
 
Last edited:
Would summing the music to mono be best for mono listening / testing, or is the idea just to use one of the stereo L/R channels?
 
Would summing the music to mono be best for mono listening / testing, or is the idea just to use one of the stereo L/R channels?

Welcome to ASR!

This is discussed earlier in this thread. The short answer depends on the recording. For the most part, listening to summed mono is fine. For speaker evaluation, working with reference music or pink noise is best. Amir listens to one channel of the stereo mix but has curated his selections (so potential negative mix-down issues are avoided).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom