Why evaluating the sound of a single speaker is essential

[DonH56]

Paperback is back in stock, at 25% off, though there is now one less available!

 

[JanL]

Sorry that the earlier editions of my book were not useful , but thank you for persevering.

For the 4th edition I reconfigured the data as shown here. The quality descriptions of the loudspeakers are related to the number of audible resonances - best being the most neutral sounding.
View attachment 448684

It makes it very evident that adding (simultaneously active) channels makes us less sensitive to resonant coloration in loudspeakers. Although only the mono ratings showed statistically significant differences, there are interesting trends to be observed. First, the "best" most neutral loudspeaker was highly rated in all comparisons. As channels were added the range of perceived sound qualities reduced, and the small differences between the sounds appeared to be differentiated more clearly, albeit not with statistical significance. More tests would have been required to obtain statistically significant differences with higher channel counts, but clearly the important point had been made. Clearly, hearing the differences is easier, and more sensitive when listening in mono, which is why it is the preferred technique.

This was a useful experiment, especially in that it showed persuasively that equalization of anechoic data can attenuate the audibility of resonances, and that equalization based on in-room measurements misses audible defects.

Sorry to bump up an old post in this thread, and this might have been brought up earlier, I just didn't read through all 42 pages.
Would you say that it's wise to not go for the objectively best speakers if one is putting together a multi channel system, in view of the results above? If even inferior speakers sound comparable to well engineered ones in a multi speaker setup, why spend more? If one plans to always have all the speakers on, even when listening to stereo, it makes sense to not overspend as the end effect will be subjectively comparable.

 

[Newman]

Sorry to bump up an old post in this thread, and this might have been brought up earlier, I just didn't read through all 42 pages.
Would you say that it's wise to not go for the objectively best speakers if one is putting together a multi channel system, in view of the results above? If even inferior speakers sound comparable to well engineered ones in a multi speaker setup, why spend more? If one plans to always have all the speakers on, even when listening to stereo, it makes sense to not overspend as the end effect will be subjectively comparable.

Here is a post with Dr Toole's thoughts on a similar question. Hope this helps.

cheers

 

[JanL]

Here is a post with Dr Toole's thoughts on a similar question. Hope this helps.

cheers

I saw a very similar answer from Dr Toole in another thread. He said, get 5 Revel bookshelves and 2 subs. But that Revel is a $1600.00 per piece and once there are five of them playing simultaneously, they are almost indistinguishable from five JBL LSR305 (if we are to believe the graphic) that cost $1000 all together. So why spend $8k on all great speakers?

 

[MarkS]

Get five Ascilab F6Bs speakers for $350 each. @amirm's conclusion: "Amazing what happens when you follow audio science and engineering to the max: you get a very reasonably priced, gorgeous speaker that is near perfect objectively."

 

[JanL]

Get five Ascilab F6Bs speakers for $350 each. @amirm's conclusion: "Amazing what happens when you follow audio science and engineering to the max: you get a very reasonably priced, gorgeous speaker that is near perfect objectively."

I get that these are well engineered speakers and would do great in a home theater setup. The original question is why bother with well engineered speakers if the fact is that five of them sound subjectively similar to a set of clearly inferior speakers that might cost much less. That's what the graphic in question conveyed.

 

[Jim Taylor]

I get that these are well engineered speakers and would do great in a home theater setup. The original question is why bother with well engineered speakers if the fact is that five of them sound subjectively similar to a set of clearly inferior speakers that might cost much less. That's what the graphic in question conveyed.

Whether the outlay of more money is worthwhile is a subjective evaluation, and as such is one that neither science nor logic can answer. Only you can answer it. For many people in this hobby, personal finances are the major consideration, and control many choices.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

if the fact is that five of them sound subjectively similar to a set of clearly inferior speakers that might cost much less.

If you can show that this is indeed the fact, many, many people will be greatly interested! It may be true, for sure! (although those ascilab prices are already so reasonable it's hard for me to imagine...)

 

[kyuu]

The graphic being referred to doesn't show that any old terribly performing speaker will sound just as good as a well-performing speaker in a multichannel setup. It merely shows that it's more difficult to discern flaws when you increase the channel count (hence why our host judges speakers in mono).

Importantly, you don't have to spend a lot of money for well-performing, neutral speakers. My system, for example, cost $350 each for the front LCR and they are excellent performers.

Also, you have to keep in mind that program material will sometimes be in stereo or even mono, you're not going to have content blasting on all channels all the time and the flaws will reveal themselves in those moments even if they are otherwise masked in multichannel content.

 

[JanL]

Whether the outlay of more money is worthwhile is a subjective evaluation, and as such is one that neither science nor logic can answer. Only you can answer it. For many people in this hobby, personal finances are the major consideration, and control many choices.

It's funny that no one wants to touch the original question. It was not about money per se. It was about the utility of a well engineered speaker in a multi channel setup. The money question is related, but not that important here. It could be the opposite for all I care. The objectively inferior speakers could be a Martin Logan and the superior speaker could be the Asci Lab F6b at a fraction of the price.
According to the graphic, the Martin Logan would sound every bit as good as the Asci Lab once they were used in a home theater situation with five or more playing at the same time, even though it's a speaker full of wild resonances.

 

[JanL]

If you can show that this is indeed the fact, many, many people will be greatly interested! It may be true, for sure! (although those ascilab prices are already so reasonable it's hard for me to imagine...)

That's what the graphic in question implies. The crappy speaker sounds comparable to the superior one, once there are multiple playing at the same time. It's not my claim, it's Harman research. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?attachments/448684/

 

[RexrothPigeon]

That's what the graphic in question implies. The crappy speaker sounds comparable to the superior one, once there are multiple playing at the same time. It's not my claim, it's Harman research. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?attachments/448684/

no, the graphic shows nothing about cost.

again, good sounding speakers (ascilab) are very affordable nowadays. If you can find cheaper ones that are just as satisfying in that multichannel arrangement (which you may be able to do! I'm not expressing skepticism, just asking to move from hypotheticals to reality!) then that is of high interest to all budget-minded consumers.

 

[JanL]

The graphic being referred to doesn't show that any old terribly performing speaker will sound just as good as a well-performing speaker in a multichannel setup. It merely shows that it's more difficult to discern flaws when you increase the channel count (hence why our host judges speakers in mono).

Importantly, you don't have to spend a lot of money for well-performing, neutral speakers. My system, for example, cost $350 each for the front LCR and they are excellent performers.

Also, you have to keep in mind that program material will sometimes be in stereo or even mono, you're not going to have content blasting on all channels all the time and the flaws will reveal themselves in those moments even if they are otherwise masked in multichannel content.

It's a distinction without a difference.
As to the content being in mono or stereo, I specifically wrote in my first post that the question is about using all speakers for all material, like many home theater receivers allow.

 

[Newman]

It's funny that no one wants to touch the original question.

Your question(s) were rhetorical, because you answered them yourself. 'Funny' indeed.

I provided additional related perspectives, since your questions were answered by your last sentence.

 

[JanL]

no, the graphic shows nothing about cost.

again, good sounding speakers (ascilab) are very affordable nowadays. If you can find cheaper ones that are just as satisfying in that multichannel arrangement (which you may be able to do! I'm not expressing skepticism, just asking to move from hypotheticals to reality!) then that is of high interest to all budget-minded consumers.

I wrote "crappy" not "cheap" in the post you quoted. Crappy could be more expensive than a well engineered one. This question is not primarily about saving money. It's about the findings of the research. Money savings are a potential side effect, but not the main purpose of the question.

 

[bmc0]

The original question is why bother with well engineered speakers if the fact is that five of them sound subjectively similar to a set of clearly inferior speakers that might cost much less. That's what the graphic in question conveyed.

Consider the fact that recordings often have at least some predominantly monophonic sounds, in which case you'll hear the crappy speakers for what they are.

 

[Newman]

Consider the fact that recordings often have at least some predominantly monophonic sounds, in which case you'll hear the crappy speakers for what they are.

Yes, and Toole has pointed this out in several posts and notes.

Cheers

 

[JanL]

in which case you'll hear the crappy speakers for what they are.

I think Dr Toole might disagree. But that's why I asked in the first place.

 

[kyuu]

It's a distinction without a difference.
As to the content being in mono or stereo, I specifically wrote in my first post that the question is about using all speakers for all material, like many home theater receivers allow.

It doesn't matter if you are using an up mixer, that doesn't mean you are going to have correlated material in all channels at all times that will mask the flaws 100% of the time.

But look, if you've decided to get 11 channels or whatever of some poorly performing speaker for whatever reason, have at it. It seems more like you have come to a predetermined conclusion about this that you are determined to defend than that you are actually seeking clarification at this point.

 

[bmc0]

I think Dr Toole might disagree.

I'm not so sure:

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.