Worst measuring loudspeaker?

[MattHooper]

Not even close. Just think of the path lengths!

It's a start.

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?

 

[fredoamigo]

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.

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.

 

[dshreter]

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.

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

 

[Blumlein 88]

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 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.

- and if so, what are these other attributes

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.

 

[dshreter]

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.

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.

This seems to be one of the differentiating qualities of larger speakers beyond the frequency response and SPL handling, that might make these sound better than something like a KEF R3 with a beautiful spin.

 

[jhaider]

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.

You use a center channel that’s not identical to your left and right speakers, right? Fix that and see what happens.

 

[dagfinn]

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.

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.

This music is written for the venue and it's particular acoustic properties. You can hear it in 2 channel in the YT clip.

Tomba sonora (2L-155-SABD) Stemmeklang

Tomba sonora is a site-specific musical project for the Emanuel Vigeland mausoleum where composer Kristin Bolstad, addressing the perception that silence is a precondition for sound, exploits to the full the mausoleum’s extra-ordinary acoustic milieu. Broad swathes of sound experiment with...

www.2l.no

And how about this piece, also written for the ensemble and venue, the Trondheim Nidaros Cathedral, Nidarosdomen and its girls choire. Recorded in 9 channel Auro 3D.

The fact is that the layout of the cathedral dictates the experience of the music and configuration of recording setup. A multichannel system can take you - me - there to a much greater extent than stereo.

As I said, this is an artform, not a system competition.

 

[mcdn]

@MattHooper I love how measured and balanced you are, but at some point things are just broken. You mention MBLs and other speakers with clearly different design criteria to the standard "drivers in a box" design that can get a good score here. I agree they shouldn't be held to that standard. But Borrensen speakers aren't omni, or active, or cardioid, or interesting in any way other than being expensive. They are badly designed speakers that look nice, marketed to rich people who may never even listen to them. That's fine and there's a place for it, but we here should call them out for what they are.

 

[Newman]

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

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.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

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?

Not really. It is a 5.3 system.
Speakers: I use 3 KEF Blade 2 Meta for L/C/R each driven by a bridged Benchmark AHB2. I use a (pair of) KEF LS60 for SL/SR. There are subs in each of the three corners of the room, 2 x KEF KC92 and 1 x SVS SB-2000Pro.
Electronics: All (almost all) playback is from files stored on a remote NAS, organized and played via local WinPC+Jriver+DiracLive-ART and output to the speakers via a Merging Hapi II with 8 channels of EAS/EBU input/output and 16 channels of D/A from Merging DA8P cards.
Connections: WinPC+Jriver to NAS via LAN. WinPC+Jriver to Hapi via Ravenna. Hapi to L/C/R and subs is balanced analog via CAT6. Hapi to LS60 is AES/EBU via CAT6.
Room arrangement: L/R Blades are 8.5' apart. Blade to listening chair is 11'. All three face forward without any toe-in. LS60s are on side walls about 2' behind listening chair.
Listening room: 24' L × 14' W × 8' H. Mix of hard and soft furniture. Cieling, floor and most walls are plaster over reinforced concrete. Floor covering is new oak flooring over a resilient base and a silk/wool carpet with padding. Large membrane bass traps are built into each front corner. Sidewalls lateral to L/R speakers have 2" thick, 2' wide floor-to-ceiling OC 705 panels. Front wall above traps has large triple-pane windows variably covered by solar shades. Rear of room opens into 2 smaller (10' × 7' and 12' × 8') rooms.

Key point is the use of discrete, uncompressed multichannel recordings with up to DXD resolution although everything is downsampled to 24/192 for DL-ART processing. This means that, even for stereo playback, all speakers/subs are active.

 

[dshreter]

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.

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.

 

[Ktacos]

Thread still going off topic.

 

[a4eaudio]

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

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?

 

[JustJones]

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

Those are specifications of cars not measurements. Most speaker companies give the specs but not any measurements.
Not really apples to apples 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...

 

[a4eaudio]

...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...

If I gave you all of those, could you then tell me which car I would prefer to drive?

 

[JustJones]

If I gave you all of those, could you then tell me which car I would prefer to drive?

Probably, if there was research showing what most people prefer. Of course there are outliers.

 

[pablolie]

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.

 

[Blumlein 88]

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.

In terms of speakers it is like me not knowing if you live in an apartment with a small listening room, or need to worry about disturbing those around you, or if you live in a house with a big listening room. Or if you need to use an attic with odd dimensions. Or domestic tranquility requires you to have something unobtrusive.

 

[MattHooper]

You use a center channel that’s not identical to your left and right speakers, right? Fix that and see what happens.

I’ve tried it. Being a total Home Theatre geek (almost 16,000 posts on the AVS forum - if you think I’m chatty here!) I did a lot of experimentation when designing by Home Theatre system.
At first I was hoping to combine two channel listening with the Home Theatre system, so I tried various combinations of the two channel floor speakers I liked with different centre channels. There was just no way to truly optimize the type of performance I wanted for two channel they would also optimize for my Home Theatre surround system. So I decided to make them two different systems and that worked out really well.

My L/R surround speakers are Hales Transcendence 1 monitors. Since I was seeking coherence, I bought 2 pairs, so that I could try using the same three monitors for left centre right. It sounded coherent, but when I tracked down the Hales Transcendence centre channel, which is a proper centre channel design and made to mesh with those loudspeakers, I found the sound more satisfactory, maybe even more coherent. So that’s what I’ve used ever since. I’ve had some home theater, installers, and geeks at my house who’ve told me my system produces the most coherent bubble of sound they’ve heard for surround sound, in someone’s Home Theatre system. So I think I did pretty well. I absolutely love how it worked out.

 

[MattHooper]

@MattHooper I love how measured and balanced you are, but at some point things are just broken. You mention MBLs and other speakers with clearly different design criteria to the standard "drivers in a box" design that can get a good score here. I agree they shouldn't be held to that standard. But Borrensen speakers aren't omni, or active, or cardioid, or interesting in any way other than being expensive. They are badly designed speakers that look nice, marketed to rich people who may never even listen to them. That's fine and there's a place for it, but we here should call them out for what they are.

I think I’ll just say, quibbles aside, I agree