Why evaluating the sound of a single speaker is essential

[MattHooper]

Made even tougher by positioning and placement.
Would a 90 degree CW rotation (where the TV+speakers are moved to the wall w/the bookcase) make things less tough?
hypothetically....

Possibly if that were a move available to this person.

I’m still intrigued also by the idea that three channel was originally deemed superior to two channel in early testing years ago.
I still can’t help see serious challenges to the addition of a third channel to stereo in terms of adoption and execution of the idea among consumers. In so many set ups - including the photo - it seems like it would be difficult or impossible to put a centre channel in that wouldn’t be a sonic compromise. Much easier to get a coherent sound from two speakers versus an additional centre channel in many set ups.

 

[xanalog]

I’m still intrigued also by the idea that three channel was originally deemed superior to two channel in early testing years ago.

Wasn't the third channel (center?) originally conceived for better spoken (singing) voice intelligibility?

I am such a deplorable when it comes to speaker count. So much so that I recently down-graded to a pair of 10" concentrics, just to lower the driver count.
My deplorability is so acute that even the concept of throwing-in a few subwoofers to the brew befuddles me.

imo: What? You were too poor to afford a well engineered full-bandwidth set of floor-standers to begin with? Then, you figured a nip-and-a-tuck is gonna make everything more better?

 

[livinon2wheels]

"Proper" is impossible to define for a subjective test that depends upon the reviewer's room, taste, and so forth. Your room, taste in music, preferred EQ, etc. are not in general going to match the reviewer. There are plenty of subjective review sites; ASR focuses on objective measurements rarely provided elsewhere.


See above. Subjective reviews may not match how you would review the same speaker.


Of course, and there are many examples of this. We are less sensitive to distortion than many think, and a speaker's objective problems may be something you prefer, like over- or under-emphasized treble or bass that may complement your room's response or simply match your taste.

I would further argue, that the overall sound quality varies more from the contributions of the room than it does the quality of the speakers.

 

[livinon2wheels]

A nice attempt to add clarification, but there is more. The reduced ability to hear resonant colorations in loudspeakers when more than one channel is operating is true only when multiple channels are radiating simultaneously. It is the large-room spatial information in recordings (envelopment - the sense of being in a large space) that is the distraction, not just the fact that there are multiple sources of sound. Listening room reflections are highly correlated with the loudspeakers located in the room. Recorded "reflections" of real or synthesized spaces are abstract quantities having no relationship to the space the eyes see. But these perceptions are what make stereo and multichannel so pleasurable.

There is no "envelopment" in mono signals. But, mono signals exist in multichannel recordings whenever there is a hard-panned image. The most blatant example is the center channel in movies, which does most of the important work, delivering most dialog and much on-screen action sounds. Solo instruments also appear in single loudspeakers. These are monophonic listening opportunities and this is why, even though there is an overall degradation in one's ability to hear resonance colorations in loudspeakers in stereo and multichannel recordings, in the end, listeners still prefer the most neutral loudspeakers. Hence, the recommendation to identify neutral loudspeakers in mono listening - or by interpreting useful anechoic data - and then enjoy them in stereo and multichannel. The more channels there are, up to a point, the more persuasive is the sense of envelopment. The added channels can deliver the appropriate long delayed large room reflections from appropriate directions. This is why loudspeaker directivity matters less in multichannel systems than it does in stereo or mono.

Does this help?

Best explanation on this subject I have seen...and explains why a surround setup sounds as good as it does. Adding spatial cues that are largely absent in many stereo recordings is for me one of the best reasons for listening to music in some form of surround format. There are so many encoding/decoding schemes to choose from that for my own part its hard to choose sometimes what decoding codec to use if you don't know what the original scheme used in the recording happens to be. I don't stress over it, I just choose whatever format seems to support the overall recording best and kick back and enjoy.

 

[livinon2wheels]

I am not trying to"sell" the new edition. I am "selling" knowledge - and here it is free. I don't need the money from the book, and technical books don't earn much anyway - enough to buy some good wine occasionally.

And good wine is important

 

[Newman]

Can you explain why fast car is a science based choice?

I suppose I meant 'relatively', compared to so many music suggestions for evaluating speakers that are given because they seem to be nice recordings. In this case, the song Fast Car is recommended because in blind listening trials it gives an enhanced ability (more than most other music selections) to discern speaker problems that are also the type of speaker problem that blind listening trials say we are sensitive to and likely to downrate a speaker that has this type of problem.

 

[Floyd Toole]

I suppose I meant 'relatively', compared to so many music suggestions for evaluating speakers that are given because they seem to be nice recordings. In this case, the song Fast Car is recommended because in blind listening trials it gives an enhanced ability (more than most other music selections) to discern speaker problems that are also the type of speaker problem that blind listening trials say we are sensitive to and likely to downrate a speaker that has this type of problem.

Correct, and I will add something that many people who haven't read the papers or book don't realize: these tests were mulitple-loudspeaker (three or four at a time) direct comparison tests. The goal was to reveal differences (mainly revealing resonances) between the loudspeakers, not to evaluate absolute sound quality. As it turns out, the highest rated loudspeakers were those with the least audible resonances - i.e. the most neutral, timbrally transparent, which is identified in measurements as the flattest, smoothest frequency response, as is found in all electronics and the best microphones. This is not surprising.

In this context the most meritorious recordings were those that by virtue of their spectral content and/or time-domain characteristics were able to stimulate resonances in the loudspeakers. The recordings were just "test signals". Naturally all pleasure in the looped examples of music was lost, but we tried to use music that was not annoying.

A later Addition: when listening to music through the highly rated, neutral, loudspeakers, in stereo, and making judgments of perceived sound quality, the variable is the recording - the room and the loudspeakers are "constant factors". All the well known problems of stereo itself are present, and adaptation occurs, so it is a very different kind of evaluation. All that can be said is that if one hears unpleasant timbral qualities it is not because of the loudspeakers.

 

[Francis Vaughan]

Chiming in rather late to the party.
Something that occurred to me is whether we have reached the point where we could talk about a blameless loudspeaker. Clearly I'm stealing the term from Douglas Self, but in somewhat the same manner as Douglas defined what a blameless amplifier should be, how far might we be from reasonably talking about a blameless loudspeaker?

It does strike me that there are some very well engineered loudspeakers available that might be pretty close to this. (And to my continued consternation, a great many loudspeaker designs that seem to have their roots in the ideas and snake oil of half a century ago.)

Blameless seems pertinent here, as the mono listening tests are directed at eliciting one family of flaws that might otherwise be overlooked or masked. So mono listening becomes one of the hurdles for becoming blameless.

Just as amplifiers have different use cases, it is never enough for a loudspeaker to just be blameless. Use cases vary. So there are always additional requirements to be met, and a loudspeaker used outside of its intended use case may well fail to be blameless.

But just as a thought - could we reasonably tag at least some existing available loudspeakers as blameless? And might this be useful?
Or might the bar still be too high for anything current to reach?

 

[Heinrich]

Something that occurred to me is whether we have reached the point where we could talk about a blameless loudspeaker. ... roots in the ideas and snake oil of half a century ago. ... Use cases vary. So there are always additional requirements to be met, and a loudspeaker used outside of its intended use case may well fail to be blameless.

Some people still believe that a sound engineer works with their own loudspeakers, but then knows what it will sound like with completely different loudspeakers. It is said that the sound, the music, translates. People usually think that the sound can still be good even under poorer conditions if certain rules are observed. Is that a myth?

Incidentally, the current standard has been developed by means of listening tests whose sound material is characterised by the loudspeakers used in the studios. For the most part (Fast Car), the sound material has hardly any natural components, so there is also a strong dependence on the personal taste of the producers/consumers.

Well done! It is pure coincidence that a standard emerges from the averaging of the listening tests that demands ‘ideal’ technical characteristics. Linear, regular diffuse and so on.

That's all very well if everyone adheres to the standard. But that's not the case.

I once asked, if there was at least something like an equivalence between speakers, so that they can be interchanged (as a pair). People seem to refrain from giving definite answers. Still the Genelec and Neuman camps won't share their cuttlery.

 

[Francis Vaughan]

That's all very well if everyone adheres to the standard. But that's not the case.

I don't think this has anything to do with whether a speaker is blameless. This entire thread has been about whether a speaker has certain identifiable flaws. Blameless isn't intended as a standard. It is intended as a starting point.

(I've cut a longer response since it became off topic. The question of standards for reproduction is interesting, but not pertinent to this thread.)

 

[Floyd Toole]

Some people still believe that a sound engineer works with their own loudspeakers, but then knows what it will sound like with completely different loudspeakers. It is said that the sound, the music, translates. People usually think that the sound can still be good even under poorer conditions if certain rules are observed. Is that a myth?

I put some emphasis on the "translation" of the recorded art from the point of creation to the point of reproduction in the 4th edition. It is obvious that they cannot be exactly the same. There are no rigid standards that are adhered to in the recording industry, recording control rooms and loudspeakers cover a wide range of options. Home listening is even less controlled. The "music" - the tune, rhythm, lyrics, etc. can survive many severe insults in sound quality, bandwidth limitation, loudness limits, etc. but the "sound" itself is a different matter. My observation of the industry over many years is that there are many perspectives on what constitutes a successful "translation". Over the years the criteria have involved listening to car audio systems (pretty bad and variable in the past), table radios, audio consoles, portable electronics and headphones. Crappy little loudspeakers like the Auratone were used in many control rooms as "typical" references, and with extended bass the Yamaha NS-10M carried the ugly tradition on. Nowadays, everything has improved, and in many little active bluetooth speakers the prime limitations are bass extension and loudness - a vast improvement over the generic sounds of the past. Car audio is definitely better, especially in premium systems.

Having heard and measured many such systems over the years it is now evident that the goal for most audio systems is neutrality, but not all achieve it, failing in an infinite number of ways. The good news is that the average of many such systems is a remarkably flat frequency response. In short, it is no longer necessary to speculate what "average" sound quality is - it is neutral.

 

[Somafunk]

Something that occurred to me is whether we have reached the point where we could talk about a blameless loudspeaker.

Genelec 8361A would fit the bill for ”blameless loudspeaker + Amplifier” all in one,

8361A SAM™ Studio Monitor - Genelec.com

The flagship of The Ones range, the 8361A offers the most advanced acoustic performance of any studio monitor on the planet.

www.genelec.com

 

[goat76]

Some people still believe that a sound engineer works with their own loudspeakers, but then knows what it will sound like with completely different loudspeakers. It is said that the sound, the music, translates. People usually think that the sound can still be good even under poorer conditions if certain rules are observed. Is that a myth?

Translation is no myth.

There are many audiophiles who doesn't understand what good translation means. It's never about compromising the sound for the better full-range sound systems, it's about recognizing problems in the sound mix that isn't always apparent when listening to a full-range system.

A well-balanced midrange most often means that the sound mix will translate well to most audio systems, both limited-range systems as well as the best full-range systems. As most instruments share much of their frequency energy and overlap each other in that range, if everything in the mix is naturally heard and not completely mask each other, it will translate well to most systems.

A good translation = something that works equally good both ways.

 

[Purité Audio]

Why does the full-range system have to be compromised?
I would have thought recordings mixed/mastered on a transparent full range system and ( ideally) reproduced on a transparent full range system would be the idea.
Keith

 

[Heinrich]

I don't think this has anything to do with whether a speaker is blameless. This entire thread has been about whether a speaker has certain identifiable flaws. Blameless isn't intended as a standard. It is intended as a starting point.

Understood, there are many flaws in today‘s speaker left, simply because they are presumably identifiable. Not two pairs of speakers are equivalent. May be in the grand total preference they are, but still there are differences, that allow for an individual choice.

The connection to mono versus stereo testing is the question on how far would you go, how deeply the many differences, flaws as you say, can be investigated. We should recognize that ‚good sound‘ is predefined in the creator’s studio, which the playback can only adhere to. A standard is self referential, good. But to be logically sound, it shall be applicated. In short, a speaker cannot be evaluated regarding a standard (using preference as the metric) using test material that doesn‘t respect that standard? There‘s something that bites me.

btw, I appreciate standardization, really … it would have to handle equivalence, Genelec or Neumann ;-)

 

[amirm]

Translation is no myth.

Somehow though, testing in mono doesn't "translate" to stereo for some reason....

 

[Mark617]

Somehow though, testing in mono doesn't "translate" to stereo for some reason....

Likely when the Major Audio Luminaries are not aligned in their terminal lucidity...

 

[LesterNZ]

Here is the result of evaluations by Sean Olive in 1994,(Olive, S.E. (1994). “A Method for Training Listeners and Selecting Program Material for Listening Tests”, Audio Eng. Soc. 97th Convention, preprint 3893.) and as reported in Figure 3.15 in the 3rd edition of my book. This shows the success rate of listeners reporting hearing resonant flaws in loudspeakers. You will see poor correlation with entertainment value.


View attachment 448682

P15 above: Stan Getz TENOR sax & Kenny Barron, p

 

[Holmz]

That is a tough room.

The Ikea carpet is a nice touch.

 

[Francis Vaughan]

The connection to mono versus stereo testing is the question on how far would you go, how deeply the many differences, flaws as you say, can be investigated.

I think this is the crux of this thread. Differences are not in and of themselves flaws. That is the line where “how far you go” is drawn.
This now involves defining those differences that should not be included. Which requires application of knowledge of the subject. And, where it starts to become controversial, can reasonably include some measurements ahead of the listening test. The overall tonal balance may be sub-optimal in the room you listen in if the speaker is designed for a different environment. That should not be considered a flaw. That can be informed by a spinorama. It may be tweaked out by EQ, and the tests continue with the intent of finding flaws. That is arguably exactly what the single speaker testing should do. Level out confounding factors to improve the test’s discrimination.

So bad behaviour of the speaker, such as resonances, non-linear distortion, anomalies in directivity - they get caught in a single speaker test.
No matter what your use case, or preference for overall tonal balance, no speaker with such flaws can be blameless.

So Neumann versus Genelec? Both might be perfectly blameless. Neither is likely perfect. But within the constraints of the use case and physical limitations, a well engineered product can and should be free of flaws.

You become free to worry about questions of preference or translation without blaming the tools. Something that makes such questions much clearer and allows for actual progress.