Not even close. Just think of the path lengths!Not perfectly, of course.
It's a start.However, having spatially distributed speakers must do a better job than a pair of speakers in front of us.
Not even close. Just think of the path lengths!Not perfectly, of course.
It's a start.However, having spatially distributed speakers must do a better job than a pair of speakers in front of us.
Simple - 9.8.7 using Trinmov Altitude 32, L-R is using digital our (bypassing trinnov DAC) - Linn Klimax Organik. I use tonally matched LCR - MartinLogan Renaissance and Illusion, all run by purifi 1et9040ba amps. My subs are arranged in Double Bass Array configuration. Re Electrostats - i just like the sound,
Not even close. Just think of the path lengths!
It's a start.
It is not about blindly following or approving a Spinorama rating, but to my knowledge, it is the most effective means available to assess good design and, in any case, to distinguish it from a flawed model in broad terms. However, if we play with semantics, indeed, it may not be the best way to distinguish good from excellent. Perhaps this methodology will be revised in the future, but given the current state of knowledge, it is the least bad option available. So yes, perhaps in a 'purist' and uncompromising approach, the methodology would have flaws. I would have liked to know them in detail to improve my limited knowledge.I can't speak for Bjorn, but part of the issue I see is that it sums vertical and horizontal off axis behavior. Vertical as a whole is much less important outside of height adjustment but summing it can give a false impression of an error.
Beyond that, I find that speakers that become suddenly directional can sound kind of funky - better to have it smoothly transition from omnidirectional radiation to forward monopole.
For clarity in the discussion, I think two separate matters deserve attention.It is not about blindly following or approving a Spinorama rating, but to my knowledge, it is the most effective means available to assess good design and, in any case, to distinguish it from a flawed model in broad terms. However, if we play with semantics, indeed, it may not be the best way to distinguish good from excellent. Perhaps this methodology will be revised in the future, but given the current state of knowledge, it is the least bad option available. So yes, perhaps in a 'purist' and uncompromising approach, the methodology would have flaws. I would have liked to know them in detail to improve my limited knowledge.
I think there must be some other attributes or perhaps a deeper way of evaluating spin data than the spin "score". The reason I say this, is having heard a few different Revel/JBL designs the upper models seem to be clearly better when you hear them. Now this wasn't done blind or all at once. In some cases two of them were available for direct comparison. Harman has said they do testing and make sure what they release is better if it costs more and is better than the main competitors on price.To me the things to debate are:
- what does a great spinorama look like
- do great speakers have attributes that cannot be inferred directly from data in the spinorama
I would like to know, but then it is possible Harman doesn't know. Maybe they get really close and do listening tests and some win vs other choices for reasons they don't know.- and if so, what are these other attributes
One of the key differences of larger and more expensive Revel speakers is they possess controlled directivity down to lower frequencies. Related, larger speakers can also have narrower directivity across a swath of the spectrum compared to smaller speakers.I think there must be some other attributes or perhaps a deeper way of evaluating spin data than the spin "score". The reason I say this, is having heard a few different Revel/JBL designs the upper models seem to be clearly better when you hear them. Now this wasn't done blind or all at once. In some cases two of them were available for direct comparison. Harman has said they do testing and make sure what they release is better if it costs more and is better than the main competitors on price.
The reason I think there are other factors or ways to better interpret spin data is some of the upper models we have spin data that look to be a little less good than middling models. But listening indicates those upper models are better speakers.
I would like to know, but then it is possible Harman doesn't know. Maybe they get really close and do listening tests and some win vs other choices for reasons they don't know.
I would really like for Harman to do some shootouts and release the results with their best listening panels using the Revel 328Be, the top Genelec, top Neumann, maybe a Dutch and Dutch along with a top KEF. I don't know if there is any incentive for them to do that.
I also think people underestimate, and give short shrift to just how good the low priced Revel floorstanders are. Those are some excellent speakers. The old canard about punches way above their price class does apply to them. A lot of people who buy in or above the price of those would do themselves a big favor if they would just purchase those. It rather validates how effective well designed speakers using good spin data can be without costing a ton of money.
I’ve heard many excellent surround systems (and I include my own), I’ve yet to experience sound as coherent tonally, spatially, and in terms of imaging precision within soundstage, as I get from my two channel set ups. Which makes me especially curious how you’ve set up your L/C/R speakers, especially.
I think you need to broaden your horizon in regards to "what is music" and how it is recorded. Multichannel music is an artform, of which you seem to be unaware.It's just me but I completely disagree. Surround is never ever how a music performance is heard. And I love hearing a studio recorded performance without all the noise etc in a live performance.
I get why some prefer it for movie FX (I don't, seems silly when I have a flat screen in front of me and zero visual immersion), but for music absolutely not. Would ruin any resemblance to classical or jazz performances that most certainly don't benefit from FX.
I have had my mind blown by good stereo setups far more than any surround system I have ever heard. Then again, music is my priority.
Is it just by accident that your three paragraphs above start with the Spinorama, then switch to Score, then switch back to Spinorama?For clarity in the discussion, I think two separate matters deserve attention.
The first is the representation of the spinorama. As far as I know, it is one of the best ways to represent how a speaker behaves in terms of frequency response and directionality simultaneously. It is easy to interpret and contains a ton of information about a speakers behavior. I truly believe it contains most of the information about how a speaker sounds with the exception of distortion.
The second is how one should assess the quality of a speaker’s performance. The preference score is convenient and helpful for this. But it’s just a single scalar value. Two speakers that sound very different can have the same score! It’s also based upon a specific approach to speaker design that is not the only useful approach (though it is the most universally accepted).
To me the things to debate are:
- what does a great spinorama look like
- do great speakers have attributes that cannot be inferred directly from data in the spinorama
- and if so, what are these other attributes
Not really. It is a 5.3 system.Kal, I’m sure you’ve described your surround set up before, but I’m curious about it. Do you have any photos or descriptions links to your current surround set up?
It’s not an accident, it is the point I am making. People are saying spinorama interchangeably as both a presentation of data and a scoring rubric. A spinorama is only the first thing.Is it just by accident that your three paragraphs above start with the Spinorama, then switch to Score, then switch back to Spinorama?
Because, of course, none of the things you say about the Score in the middle paragraph would be true of the Spinorama.
The creator of the Score, Dr Olive, has no illusions as to its usefulness. If you want to discuss preference at a more sophisticated level, use the Spinorama.
The attributes to read off the Spinorama include, for the direct-arriving frequency response, levelness of frequency response, smoothness of frequency response, extension of frequency response towards 20 Hz and 20 kHz, absence of signs of resonances. For the off-axis response, smoothness again, proximity to the direct-sound response, and where the directivity does rise, do so smoothly. The 'other attributes' you ask for are distortion and SPL capability.
Toole's book is a great resource for a deeper understanding of the basis for the above.
For clarity in the discussion, I think two separate matters deserve attention.
The first is the representation of the spinorama. As far as I know, it is one of the best ways to represent how a speaker behaves in terms of frequency response and directionality simultaneously. It is easy to interpret and contains a ton of information about a speakers behavior. I truly believe it contains most of the information about how a speaker sounds with the exception of distortion.
The second is how one should assess the quality of a speaker’s performance. The preference score is convenient and helpful for this. But it’s just a single scalar value. Two speakers that sound very different can have the same score! It’s also based upon a specific approach to speaker design that is not the only useful approach (though it is the most universally accepted).
To me the things to debate are:
- what does a great spinorama look like
- do great speakers have attributes that cannot be inferred directly from data in the spinorama
- and if so, what are these other attributes
Those are specifications of cars not measurements. Most speaker companies give the specs but not any measurements.Spinorama presents useful OBJECTIVE measurements as opposed to subjective opinion. This may or may not be useful, depending on what you are trying to determine from such measurements. While I agree with a recent comment that this is getting "off topic" it does go to the heart of what is the point about a "worst measuring" loudspeaker. Although there is a likely better thread regarding Spinorama's usefulness. Here is my take:
Here are OBJECTIVE measurements of 3 cars. Which car would I prefer to drive?
View attachment 408921
If I gave you all of those, could you then tell me which car I would prefer to drive?...but how about a third party give us acceleration, braking, engine lag, standing start, rolling start, cornering, interior sound level, real world fuel economy, driving range, visibility, infotainment features and ease of use, safety features and are they intuitive, warranty etc...
Probably, if there was research showing what most people prefer. Of course there are outliers.If I gave you all of those, could you then tell me which car I would prefer to drive?
Cars are also often driven by some irrational aspects. I have never ever bought a car based on data alone. Design has to vibe with me. Performance aspects too.If I gave you all of those, could you then tell me which car I would prefer to drive?
Lot of that is on your preference and needs. Do you prefer sports cars or do you travel a lot and crave comfort. Do you have children or are you single. Do you live where roads are poorly maintained. If I know that, there is something in the specs you listed to give me a good idea even though you intentionally left out some useful data. Which means your point is not well made.If I gave you all of those, could you then tell me which car I would prefer to drive?