Worst measuring loudspeaker?

[MattHooper]

You like anchovies and pineapple, in fixed amounts that you cannot change, on your pizza and everything else that comes out of the oven, without exception, all the time?

Sometimes.

 

[kyuu]

Speakers are not in any way, shape, or form like food. If you must make a bad analogy, the content is the pizza. Speakers are more like the oven you use to bake the pizza.

 

[MattHooper]

Speakers are not in any way, shape, or form like food.

Not so fast!

If you must make a bad analogy, the content is the pizza. Speakers are more like the oven you use to bake the pizza.

I’m making the analogies for the point I want to make. You can make your own analogies about the point you want to make.

My point was that some ASR members will look at the measurements of a Devore speaker and recoil at the idea of having to listen to one, just as somebody who recoils from the taste of anchovies would be put off eating a pizza with anchovies. That’s all.

Now, if you excuse me, it’s time for dinner…

 

[John Atkinson]

That one has nothing on this one, Volti something or other

Thank you for posting the links to Stereophile's measurements of these speakers.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

[Purité Audio]

I was always curious to hear Super Nines.
I’d still like to hear them. I suspect I’d find certain aspects I could enjoy given my experience with other Devore speakers.

I was able to briefly audition the larger Gibbon X model, the big brother of these.
They had some compelling aspects to the sound in the tracks I heard, but I found the bass, at least in the room I auditioned in, to sound sort of overripe, plodding and detached from the rest of the frequencies.

Devore speakers are like anchovies on pizza (for anchovy haters) for some here. But I enjoy anchovies on pizza. (as well as pineapple.)

More like finding mouse excrement, on your pizza.
Keith

 

[MattHooper]

More like finding mouse excrement, on your pizza.
Keith

^^^ see what I mean?

 

[MarkS]

Thank you for posting the links to Stereophile's measurements of these speakers.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

You're welcome, I'm aware that you (rightly!) want those citing links, that was my main reason for posting.

And I'm also eagerly anticipating your post-full-retirement tell-all memoir in which we finally get to learn what you really think about all these crappy speakers that you've measured over the decades.

 

[MarkS]

More like finding mouse excrement, on your pizza.

We got speakers named after monkeys here! Can we at least get the animal puns right???

 

[dfuller]

This response is so confusing, did they do the mid to tweeter filter wrong on purpose or something? Does anyone at wilson even understand what a crossover filter is or does?

Considering Wilson is one of those companies with a real obsession with shallow crossover filters for """""time alignment""""" - and also manage to have diffraction off the cabinet edge, quite badly - I'm going to say they are barking up the wrong tree as most of these uber-high-end speaker brands are. Time alignment, ironless motors, yadda yadda, all fancy sounding stuff on market copy that has basically no benefit because the frequency and off-axis response is just fucked.

 

[DanielT]

Here we go again. That is, another Wilson speaker. This time measurements of Wilson Audio Specialties Sabrina V:

Price: $28,500/pair, in standard finishes.

Wilson Audio Specialties Sabrina V loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com

The technical evolution of the Sabrina V over its forebear, the SabrinaX, can be gleaned by comparing a few key performance indicators. For example, the newcomer still achieves a higher sensitivity than the 87dB specification at 88.9dB despite being slightly less sensitive than the 'X (89.6dB...

stereophile.com

 

[Draki]

Midrange polarity inverted by accident? Can't think of anything else made conscientiously.....

 

[MattHooper]

Here we go again. That is, another Wilson speaker. This time measurements of Wilson Audio Specialties Sabrina V:

Price: $28,500/pair, in standard finishes.
View attachment 500179View attachment 500180

Wilson Audio Specialties Sabrina V loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com

The technical evolution of the Sabrina V over its forebear, the SabrinaX, can be gleaned by comparing a few key performance indicators. For example, the newcomer still achieves a higher sensitivity than the 87dB specification at 88.9dB despite being slightly less sensitive than the 'X (89.6dB...

stereophile.com

It really is fascinating. That a loudspeaker company can be at it for so long and be creating cost no object loudspeakers… and still get measurements like that.

I can’t remember Wilson comments about the bad measurements that show up in Stereophile, but I’d still be curious as to how they justify them. Are they not measuring at all at their facilities? When they see these measurements, are they thinking “ yes that’s what we are going for.” Or do they just think that the measurements don’t really correspond to what they think they are hearing?

 

[Salt]

Midrange polarity inverted by accident? Can't think of anything else made conscientiously.....

Yes, that's the first thought, and this FR are seen widely in highly priced speakers ...

 

[DanielT]

It really is fascinating. That a loudspeaker company can be at it for so long and be creating cost no object loudspeakers… and still get measurements like that.

I can’t remember Wilson comments about the bad measurements that show up in Stereophile, but I’d still be curious as to how they justify them. Are they not measuring at all at their facilities? When they see these measurements, are they thinking “ yes that’s what we are going for.” Or do they just think that the measurements don’t really correspond to what they think they are hearing?

The only thing I could think of to justify or explain these measurement results on different Wilson models is IF they measure the same, same type of wonky FR that is. Then they are deliberately designed to have a Wilson FR, signature FR or whatever you would call it.But I don't think that's the case.
OR, do all, or several of their models have that dip around 3 kHz perhaps? Or dip around crossover frequency?
IF that is the case, I do not consider it a signature sound but a signature error design.


Plus if they did not state incorrect information about dB swings regarding FR in their technical specifications.But that doesn't seem to be true :
Wilson Audio Specialties Sabrina V:
Frequency Response
27 Hz – 24 kHz +/- 3 dB Room Average Response [RAR]

+/- 7 dB would have been more accurate.

Wilson Audio | Sabrina V

 

[MKR]

Wow, what a train wreck. At this point Wilson must be intentional with this FR, house curve. Absolutely horrific. This FR matches my experience for the most part … every time I have heard Wilson speakers I can literally only stand them for few seconds before running from the room

 

[MattHooper]

Wow, what a train wreck. At this point Wilson must be intentional with this FR, house curve. Absolutely horrific. This FR matches my experience for the most part … every time I have heard Wilson speakers I can literally only stand them for few seconds before running from the room

Also… and I recognize barely anybody else here cares about this… I have found the quality even of the subjective assessments in Stereophile to have declined. I’ve been going back and reading a fair amount of old Stereophile reviews, and some of the “old guard” reviewers seems more interested in and sensitive to reporting frequency response characteristics. At least in general terms, such a frequency response would seem more likely to show up in the subjective description as well to some degree. (Kal and JA still do this thankfully in their subjective portions - try to note if any frequency response deviations stick out obviously, and the effect on recordings).

This review exhibits some of what drives me a bit nuts, in terms of poor description. Spend paragraphs talking about a particular album and track they listen to (I’m really not here to learn about your musical tastes in detail!), spend more time describing characteristics of the recording, and then end with something like “The speaker acquitted itself admirably with this track.” Yeesh.

 

[MKR]

Also… and I recognize barely anybody else here cares about this… I have found the quality even of the subjective assessments in Stereophile to have declined. I’ve been going back and reading a fair amount of old Stereophile reviews, and some of the “old guard” reviewers seems more interested in and sensitive to reporting frequency response characteristics. At least in general terms, such a frequency response would seem more likely to show up in the subjective description as well to some degree. (Kal and JA still do this thankfully in their subjective portions - try to note if any frequency response deviations stick out obviously, and the effect on recordings).

This review exhibits some of what drives me a bit nuts, in terms of poor description. Spend paragraphs talking about a particular album and track they listen to (I’m really not here to learn about your musical tastes in detail!), spend more time describing characteristics of the recording, and then end with something like “The speaker acquitted itself admirably with this track.” Yeesh.

Agreed on all counts!

 

[Mnyb]

Also… and I recognize barely anybody else here cares about this… I have found the quality even of the subjective assessments in Stereophile to have declined. I’ve been going back and reading a fair amount of old Stereophile reviews, and some of the “old guard” reviewers seems more interested in and sensitive to reporting frequency response characteristics. At least in general terms, such a frequency response would seem more likely to show up in the subjective description as well to some degree. (Kal and JA still do this thankfully in their subjective portions - try to note if any frequency response deviations stick out obviously, and the effect on recordings).

This review exhibits some of what drives me a bit nuts, in terms of poor description. Spend paragraphs talking about a particular album and track they listen to (I’m really not here to learn about your musical tastes in detail!), spend more time describing characteristics of the recording, and then end with something like “The speaker acquitted itself admirably with this track.” Yeesh.

I don’t think thier readers understand the concept of fr response anymore, the competence of audiophiles has been equally downhill for some decades .

I have a pet peeve here , some reviewers describe speakers as bass midrange and treble, because that’s how speakers where built it’s a bit circular. In the old bad days you could make out the contribution of each driver . A good modern speaker can be more of unison whole thing , you can’t easily make out how many ”ways” it is by listening . But still the subjective description follows that format .

Some thinks HIFI is an additive process you add more ” good sound ” by adding more expensive components and consequently you build speakers by adding bass and treble etc

 

[garyrc]

Or do they just think that the measurements don’t really correspond to what they think they are hearing?

This may be it. If it sounds good to them, compared to other contenders in their room, why not? Others (B&W) have recently opted for relatively non-linear frequency response curves.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

This may be it. If it sounds good to them, compared to other contenders in their room, why not? Others (B&W) have recently opted for relatively non-linear frequency response curves.

If so, there's nothing wrong with it at all. The problem is when they think their own subjective (sighted) preference has any merit outside the confines of their own heads, and, well, we see this here all the time (and of course it's the norm almost everywhere else audio is discussed).