• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. 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!

Worst measuring loudspeaker?

Mnyb

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
2,764
Likes
3,839
Location
Sweden, Västerås
But the subjective descriptions can tell the reader more. JA says male vocals will sound "colored" but that doesn't say in what way. Herb described the actual sonic effect of that coloration, both on vocals and on instruments in that range.

There IS information in (many) subjective reviews - even if lots of ASR folks don't care or go looking for it and prefer measurements.
Not really what Herbs descibing is not what I'm hearing there is no exact universal language that can convey this information with enough precision to make sense. the actual sonic effect can be different for different people ? not to mention acoustics speaker setup and program material who has greater influence than any good speakers should have and as the listening was not blind we also have to factor unknown biases .

Your listening experience is internal and we do not yet have brain to brain transfer of information.

If they listened blind comparing to a known reference that would make more sense to me then it would be only one lose end and no bias . and ofcourse in a known acceptable listening room who is the same every speaker review . not some random reviewers home . And you can ofcourse not compare to remembered experiences of past speaker listenings our brains does not work that way .

gross effect can ofcourse be somewhat trusted like " this speaker has no treble " vs fluff like " voices are slightly forward " that can be the setup or the recording .

You can do subjektive reviews but no one is even trying to do them in a good way ( repeatable for others controlled and blind )

besides speaker should perform objectively good imho no one not even golden eared reviewers have heard recording not yet made ? so they must perform to some standard that transcend the media .
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,316
Likes
12,266
Not really what Herbs descibing is not what I'm hearing there is no exact universal language that can convey this information with enough precision to make sense.

I disagree. Herb's description makes plenty of sense to me. I've heard similar in speakers with similar frequency profiles/resonances.

the actual sonic effect can be different for different people ? not to mention acoustics speaker setup and program material who has greater influence than any good speakers should have and as the listening was not blind we also have to factor unknown biases .

As I said, Herb has directly compared and described two different loudspeakers that I'm very familiar with, having heard both and owned both brands. And his description was like picking the words right out of my head: it was precisely the different sonic characteristics that I heard.

Now you could say it's just coincidence or imagination but you'd have to make that the more plausible explanation. Does this imply that none of us actually know what our speakers sound like? We really have no idea how some speakers we own today differ from the ones we just replaced? That goes down quite a rabbit hole.

Your listening experience is internal and we do not yet have brain to brain transfer of information.

This comes off as a flat refusal to acknowledge human beings can communicate through descriptive language.

If they listened blind comparing to a known reference that would make more sense to me then it would be only one lose end and no bias . and ofcourse in a known acceptable listening room who is the same every speaker review . not some random reviewers home .

Take someone close to you whose voice you obviously know well. Do you suddenly stop recognizing their voice when you walk in to different rooms? No? Why not?
Because as Floyd Toole points out we have evolved to "hear through" room acoustics to identify characteristics of a sound source. Our brains actually do quite a good job of filtering that source from reflections. It's not of course that acoustics don't have any effect on the sound of a voice, but the essential recognizable characteristics remain.

It's the same for loudspeakers. I mean you could take someone and stand them right in the corner of your room, facing the corner talking, and then yeah maybe their speech is going to become less intelligible. But...you don't do that, right? Likewise reviewers are generally reviewing speakers in the same listening room and so have experience both with how different loudspeakers sound in the room, and also where loudspeakers tend to sound their best in the reviewers room, and if they don't sound good they experiment with different speaker/listening positions. So they get a decent picture of how the speaker behaves.

When I audition loudspeakers at audio stores I play with speaker positioning, listener position, walk around them listening,etc, so I get a general idea of the behaviour of the speakers. I am NEVER surprised by the sound once the speaker ends up in my "totally different" room. If you are careful, you really can get an idea of some basic characteristics in a loudspeaker in different rooms. My Quad ESL 63s had the same fundamental characteristics that attracted me to them as when I heard them at my friend's house first in a teeny basement, or at a store.


And you can ofcourse not compare to remembered experiences of past speaker listenings our brains does not work that way .

It doesn't? How often are you forgetting the sound of family and friend's voices? Do you need to be hearing them every single day to recognize a voice? Or...do you have this thing called a "memory?" :)


gross effect can ofcourse be somewhat trusted like " this speaker has no treble " vs fluff like " voices are slightly forward " that can be the setup or the recording .

Or it can be identifying a true trait of a loudspeaker which has an emphasis, say, in the upper midrange. If a reviewer is familiar with a wide range of speakers, including neutral speakers, this can be identified. Just as audio mixers in the studios become familiar with identifying frequency dips or emphasis, and therefore where to apply EQ.

To be clear: I'm not saying you have no point at all. There are variables involved. I'm disputing the level of skepticism you seem to have taken on the subject.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:

CapMan

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 18, 2022
Messages
1,086
Likes
1,846
Location
London
It doesn't? How often are you forgetting the sound of family and friend's voices? Do you need to be hearing them every single day to recognize a voice? Or...do you have this thing called a "memory?
As yes our memory - never fooled, never unreliable, never wrong, never misleading or biased … that old thing ;)
 

CapMan

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 18, 2022
Messages
1,086
Likes
1,846
Location
London
As I said, Herb has directly compared and described two different loudspeakers that I'm very familiar with, having heard both and owned both brands. And his description was like picking the words right out of my head: it was precisely the different sonic characteristics that I heard.
It would be more compelling if you had independently written down your description of said speakers before reading his article and then compared his words to yours.

Maybe his words got inside your head, perhaps it was suggestion - who knows :)
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,316
Likes
12,266
As yes our memory - never fooled, never unreliable, never wrong, never misleading or biased … that old thing ;)

Or: Ah yes our memory - never accurate, never reliable, never right...that old thing ;)

Both are equally silly, right?

Of course I wasn't rejecting known issues with our memory and perception. My point was taking skepticism too far can also be an error.
 

CapMan

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 18, 2022
Messages
1,086
Likes
1,846
Location
London
Or: Ah yes our memory - never accurate, never reliable, never right...that old thing ;)

Both are equally silly, right?

Of course I wasn't rejecting known issues with our memory and perception. My point was taking skepticism too far can also be an error.
Not really IMHO, but I understand your perspective.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,316
Likes
12,266
It would be more compelling if you had independently written down your description of said speakers before reading his article and then compared his words to yours.

Maybe his words got inside your head, perhaps it was suggestion - who knows :)

I had already extensively auditioned the Harbeth and Joseph speakers before Herb's review, and owned Harbeths, so I read Herb's review already having formed my own impressions, and what I liked about each speaker. His succinct description of the difference between the speaker presentations got right to the essence of the differences I heard.
 

Chris Brunhaver

Active Member
Audio Company
Joined
Nov 16, 2021
Messages
133
Likes
622
Hi-Fi News Golden ear T-66View attachment 346735
Keith
This is an update to their Triton 2+, with the original triton 2 measured here (with some polar measurements and distortion shown).


It doesn't look like the high frequency balance has changed appreciably (though the peak in the treble has been shifted upwards slightly. They have also reduced a significant amount of the reflections/hash from the grille by using some felt.

I will say that the low frequency shape of Paul Miller's measurements looks rougher than the speaker actually is because he's getting crosstalk from the woofers when he measures the nearby passive radiators.

Here's an example of the difference John Atkinson measured between using a microphone to measure the PR versus an accelerometer (the accelerometer not having the measurement crosstalk issue)
 
OP
Purité Audio

Purité Audio

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Barrowmaster
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
9,157
Likes
12,406
Location
London
Probably not the worst but $50k, B&W 801 ‘signature’, I find it even uglier than the normal 801 which is 12k cheaper.
IMG_3514.jpeg
 
OP
Purité Audio

Purité Audio

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Barrowmaster
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
9,157
Likes
12,406
Location
London
John Bowers with B&W 800 from when they made decent loudspeakers.
Keith
IMG_3515.jpeg
 

PJ 1

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2021
Messages
66
Likes
42
Location
Virginia Beach
B&W 801 ‘signature’ £45k,
View attachment 321076


Keith
Some confirmation regarding the significant high frequency energy the B&W 801 D4 produces:


Good low end extension but man, for $50K I'd expect a smoother high end response. That would be seriously fatiguing over time. I'd also be curious what the off axis response would be and suspect limited ability to apply EQ. This makes my Perlisten S7t that much more of a bargain.
 

Ghostofmerlin

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 16, 2024
Messages
35
Likes
50
Kef R3 meta, courtesy of Hi-Fi News
View attachment 318455

Keith
This is interesting. I have both the R3s and the R 11 metas. I usually play music over my Sonos port, which truncates the signal at 20k, but also have a situation set up that I can, in theory, play the entire signal. I have no idea if it works, but I did notice that the dogs get all sorts of interested in the speakers and start milling around, acting weird, when I play non Sonos clipped music. :D
 

PJ 1

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2021
Messages
66
Likes
42
Location
Virginia Beach
This is interesting. I have both the R3s and the R 11 metas. I usually play music over my Sonos port, which truncates the signal at 20k, but also have a situation set up that I can, in theory, play the entire signal. I have no idea if it works, but I did notice that the dogs get all sorts of interested in the speakers and start milling around, acting weird, when I play non Sonos clipped music. :D
How do you like the R11 Metas? Good bass extension? (I'm certain a sub is still necessary for movies/music with a lot of low end content right?) Was shopping those and love the look and am wondering how the build quality is.
 

Ghostofmerlin

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 16, 2024
Messages
35
Likes
50
I like them. I have two subs, because I like music that is fairly bass heavy, but you might be able to get away without one, depending on your listening tastes. My room is also weird so I’m using Dirac. Build quality is nice, I have the walnut flavor.
 
OP
Purité Audio

Purité Audio

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Barrowmaster
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
9,157
Likes
12,406
Location
London
Gershman Grand Studio II ( one speaker on top of another inverted).
Must have seemed a good idea at the time.
Keith
IMG_3557.jpeg
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,895
Likes
16,896
Last edited:
OP
Purité Audio

Purité Audio

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Barrowmaster
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
9,157
Likes
12,406
Location
London
Apparently it was recently the manufacture’s 30th anniversary, that’s a sobering thought.
Keith
 
Top Bottom