Worst measuring loudspeaker?

[MattHooper]

Disagree - those baubles are low-fidelity gear, for the reasons outlined above, and the same reasons the latest-greatest $800 integrated DAC/amp with 150dB SINAD but no modern signal processing is low fidelity kit that merits a headless panther at best.

Well, if you’re going to make up convenient definitions for “ low Fidelity” …

We both know that those items are not low Fidelity in the traditional sense, nor even as that term is used here when measuring gear.
Traditionally speaking in terms of electronics, fidelity relates to whether the electronics are passing on the signal without audibly altering it. Which is most likely with that pre-amplifier and DAC.

So I think you were stretching terms here to try and hang onto your case.

Alas, the reviewer uses the perfectly good AVR preouts in the neurotic audiophool snob manner: not directly into the amp as would make sense, but into an intermediary fancy-brand but low-fi and basic bauble that can only add noise into the signal chain for no sane reason.

He only uses the AVR for watching movies which is why it’s hooked up that way.

In his normal 2 channel listening the “ basic bauble” preamp (to use your strange term) isn’t going to be adding any noise.

I already gave the reason he doesn’t use room correction for his reviews.

And in his normal listening he doesn’t care to use room correction. Nor do I.

Oh my god, we must be “ insane.”

My point was just that the reviewer loses credibility by bending over backwards to commit incredibly dumb snob shit to text. That's all.

It’s not “ incredibly dumb shit.”
For his own purposes, he enjoys the build quality/looks and simplicity of two channel gear like a nice preamp, vs the cheap looking/feeling and often more complexity you get with an AVR. Nothing wrong with that. His set ups usually sound excellent.

And as I’ve said, he doesn’t want to review loud speakers using room correction, which is why he went to pains to alert the reader he was reviewing the loudspeaker as is and not corrected. And like I’ve said, a a review doesn’t necessarily need to employ room correction, any more than auditioning allowed speaker requires room correction, in order to be informative.


But don’t let me get in the way of your disdain for subjective reviewers. Even if they produce a reasonable review of a product, you’ll be able to find something to place them beneath contempt. Par for the course here.

 

[jhaider]

Well, if you’re going to make up convenient definitions for “ low Fidelity” …

I’m using the definition I have always used - and the one that makes sense: most accurate rendition of the source material in place.

Here’s another example showing the consistency of approach over time, along with clear evidence showing why lesser approaches are inherently low-fi.
“ Second, in-room response in the modal region (roughly 50Hz – 400Hz) is abysmal for all three speakers. Even worse, there are large differences between each speaker! Blame the unfortunate realities of small room acoustics, not Tannoy. That is why “correcting the room” so improves tonality and realism on high quality speakers, and why I consider room correction necessary for high-fidelity sound.”

Tannoy Revolution XT 8F Floor-Standing Speakers Review - HomeTheaterHifi.com

Tannoy’s Revolution XT 8F introduces Tannoy’s first new Dual Concentric driver in a quarter century, the “Omnimagnet,” in a full-range 2.5-way tower

hometheaterhifi.com

It’s not “ incredibly dumb shit.”

In my view, bending over backwards to declare you wouldn’t even listen using the superior equipment on and connected is clearly “incredibly dumb shit.”

For his own purposes, he enjoys the build quality/looks and simplicity of two channel gear like a nice preamp, vs the cheap looking/feeling and often more complexity you get with an AVR.

Invalid. Both are in place and in some use per the written text. Also really what “complexity” is there in real use: you have a power button, an input selector, and a volume control. Yes, set-up with care for fidelity takes some small amount of work. Modern tools take much of that out, a classic “95/5” solution.

But don’t let me get in the way of your disdain for subjective reviewers.

I don’t think about them nearly enough to “disdain” them. Yes, sometimes incredibly dumb shit comes into view (I’ve never heard of this fellow before, or to my knowledge read anything he previously wrote) and there’s a reaction. That happened here, through you baby-birding the incredibly dumb shit into a thread.

 

[kharan]

If we include the aforementioned Wilsons in this thread, then the thread has lost all meaning.

If we measured all existing speakers, the Watt Puppies would not be in the in the bottom quarter of worst measurements.

If we restricted to all speakers sold as hi-fi speakers for domestic use, the Watt Puppies still wouldn't figure in that bottom quarter.

If we restricted further to all speakers sold as hi-fi speakers for domestic use above $10k, they still wouldn't be in that bottom quarter. In fact considering the number of exotic designs in that price range, I suspect they wouldn't even be in the bottom third. The frequency response of the Watt Puppies is fairly average for the segment.

It's even well above average if we included all hi-fi speakers. -6 dB at 40 Hz isn't great, but it is something most speakers don't achieve once we include all the cheaper options.

If worst measuring simply means not measuring like Revel, Genelec or Kef, well that's 99% of all speakers, this is not deserving of the superlative worst.

 

[MattHooper]

I’m using the definition I have always used - and the one that makes sense: most accurate rendition of the source material in place.

That’s fine. I certainly don’t see any problem with specifying that is how you use the term.
But on the usual concept of Fidelity, that equipment is not lower Fidelity.

In my view, bending over backwards to declare you wouldn’t even listen using the superior equipment on and connected is clearly “incredibly dumb shit.”

This is an unnecessarily specious characterization of what he wrote.

He said he used the ARC simply for measuring the speaker and was making sure the reader knew he was not using it to room correct the loudspeaker. He was emphasizing that in case it wasn’t clear his review pertained to the loudspeaker as it sounded on its own without room correction.

That’s being clear to the audience not “ dumb shit.”

Invalid. Both are in place and in some use per the written text.

How does that make it invalid?

If he has a nice preamp in his system, then he gets to enjoy the looks, aesthetics and performance of that piece of gear.

In my racks I have my AV amplifier but also my tube amplifiers and my tube amplifier.
I really enjoy the looks of my two channel equipment, and really don’t like the looks of any of my AV gear.

AV receivers are normally more complicated to set up, program, etc.

In no way am I arguing against the wisdom of the approach you take. I think it’s obviously eminently sensible. And I agree, it’s perfectly reasonable to think of fidelity in terms of what the listener hears from the listen position, in which case room correction can get you further, or get you there easier in some cases.

I’m only pushing back on the “ my way or the highway” version of this, in which I find the implication about the futility of reviews, not down to your standards to be somewhat overblown.

I fully understand why you would not seek out a review like this.

That happened here, through you baby-birding the incredibly dumb shit into a thread.

Charming.

I posted the review because I found it relevant to the discussion of the smaller X3.
During the earlier discussion of the X3 I’d mentioned that my friend identified similar issues and characteristics in the larger X6. Which seems to show a trend in how they are designing loudspeakers. And since his review finally was posted on soundstage and it also included measurements showing the same type of suck out, I thought that would be helpful and relevant too.

But, this reviewer does not pass your purity tests… and for you it’s all about the “ incredibly dumb shit” and ignoring any relevance , insulting me for even posting it here, demonstrating your superiority.

Again, this is really the type of sneering attitude towards gear or people who do not pass some ASR member’s approval which has turned some otherwise interested onlookers off of this forum. (As I am told regularly in private messages and on other forums, even when I’m defending ASR. Some of the criticisms of ASR are certainly bullshit and ignorant, but occasionally they have merit IMO).

 

[Old_School_Brad]

If we include the aforementioned Wilsons in this thread, then the thread has lost all meaning.

If we measured all existing speakers, the Watt Puppies would not be in the in the bottom quarter of worst measurements.

If we restricted to all speakers sold as hi-fi speakers for domestic use, the Watt Puppies still wouldn't figure in that bottom quarter.

If we restricted further to all speakers sold as hi-fi speakers for domestic use above $10k, they still wouldn't be in that bottom quarter. In fact considering the number of exotic designs in that price range, I suspect they wouldn't even be in the bottom third. The frequency response of the Watt Puppies is fairly average for the segment.

It's even well above average if we included all hi-fi speakers. -6 dB at 40 Hz isn't great, but it is something most speakers don't achieve once we include all the cheaper options.

If worst measuring simply means not measuring like Revel, Genelec or Kef, well that's 99% of all speakers, this is not deserving of the superlative worst.

I completely agree with your perspective.

This thread seems to have shifted from sharing poorly measuring speakers toward discussion and mocking subjectively expensive speakers that aren't ruler-flat from 20–20,000 Hz.

I believe this adds little value to the topic. For instance, one could critique the design of Genelec as subjectively unattractive or point out KEF's limited high SPL capability, but such commentary would also stray from the main topic, especially since cost wasn’t mentioned in the original post.

Perhaps it would be more productive to create a new thread for this this specific subjective value debate further, such as "Worst Measuring Speaker Linearity per Dollar."

 

[Ktacos]

This thread seems to have shifted from sharing poorly measuring speakers toward discussion and mocking subjectively expensive speakers that aren't ruler-flat from 20–20,000 Hz.

No it hasn't, it's basically just this one Wilson speaker that has people all butthurt about it not belonging.

I believe this adds little value to the topic. For instance, one could critique the design of Genelec as subjectively unattractive or point out KEF's limited high SPL capability,

You're free to do just that, see how it goes, watch as people laugh at your premise because those speakers present excellent performance and a cost that tends to be more sane and practical. Those companies have been making pretty good to amazing stuff for most of their existence, Wilson has been making junk for a lot of theirs.

Perhaps it would be more productive to create a new thread for this this specific subjective value debate further, such as "Worst Measuring Speaker Linearity per Dollar."

What about just getting over it and moving on? The speaker is in the thread, some people are just going to have to deal with that fact. Come next week it will be forgotten anyway, buried away by new posts. It's really not a big deal and doesn't warrant a new thread.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

No it hasn't, it's basically just this one Wilson speaker that has people all butthurt about it not belonging.

You're free to do just that, see how it goes, watch as people laugh at you because those speakers present excellent performance and a cost that tends to be more sane and practical. Those companies have been making pretty good to amazing stuff for most of their existence, Wilson has been making junk for a lot of theirs.

What about just getting over it and moving on?

There is nothing more that needs to be said about the Wilson speaker. Time to move on folks.

I'm not the one bringing price into the discussion. I was following this thread just fine until it got sidetracked with subjective opinions and feelings about price and performance. If anyone should start a new thread, it would be those wanting to discuss "linearity per dollar."

Price is inherently subjective. While linearity and frequency response are important, there's so much more to a speaker than just those metrics. However, since cost and frequency response are the most easily accessible data points, it's tempting to focus on them and form opinions based solely on that.

From what I understand, this thread was intended to highlight extreme cases of poorly measuring speakers. The Wilson speaker in question doesn't fall into that category, as noted by several contributors, including a respected professional speaker manufacturer @sigbergaudio .
That should make it clear who needs to move on from this and let the thread refocus.

 

[jhaider]

This is an unnecessarily specious characterization of what he wrote.

He said he used the ARC simply for measuring the speaker and was making sure the reader knew he was not using it to room correct the loudspeaker. He was emphasizing that in case it wasn’t clear his review pertained to the loudspeaker as it sounded on its own without room correction.

You should re-read the text you quoted. Apparently the lowly and old Anthem MRX 300 is only for "watching movies," and he is "far, far from critical regarding home-theater sound quality." Classic ignorant audiophool snob sneers at modern equipment.

It is incredibly dumb shit because, just like many AVRs or AVPs made in the past dozen years, that MRX 300 is superior as a stereo preamp to the basic audiophool bauble he plugs it into. Even if the AVR/P has a lower SINAD (no guarantee!) the other features result in higher real fidelity.

How does that make it invalid?

Do I really need to explain how incredibly dumb it is to assert "he enjoys the build quality/looks and simplicity of two channel gear like a nice preamp" when
1) The AVR is clearly already there, so the build quality/looks is moot.
2) He is amplifying complexity rather than embracing simplicity by injecting the superfluous box, and using two signal chains and control mechanisms for one purpose (playback of sound through a given set of loudspeakers). Simplicity (assuming separate amps) would be sources -> processor -> amp(s).

If he has a nice preamp in his system, then he gets to enjoy the looks, aesthetics and performance of that piece of gear.

I'm sure the fellow has "nice cables" too, lol.

I am genuinely at a loss to ascertain what could be "nice" about any basic 2.0 channel analog preamp, aside from the casework it comes in. I was curious about that so I looked up the brand, which I had never heard of. Their casework doesn't look particularly distinguished. Just basic black boxes. I mean, I could see someone wanting McIntosh or Rowland or D'Agnostino etc., or something with exposed tubes, just because they look cool. But these are just basic black boxes. Yawn.

Aside from the aesthetics of the box itself, an analog 2.0 channel preamp is just switch for inputs and system volume control. Maybe in 1985, it was elite to have channels that stayed in balance across all volume levels, low crosstalk, low noise, etc. (Which I am assuming without evidence this particular one does!) Today that performance exists in SOCs that are cheap enough to use in $50 DACs from the usual suspects, and few-hundred-dollar AVRs.

AV receivers are normally more complicated to set up, program, etc.

Moot, when the thing is already hooked up and in use.

Again, this is really the type of sneering attitude towards gear or people who do not pass some ASR member’s approval which has turned some otherwise interested onlookers off of this forum.

You need to re-read the original review excerpt that you posted to see who's sneering. It's not me. I'm calling out that sneering for the incredibly dumb shit it is, and pointing out that said sneering seems to be coming from a hollow place of snobbery-addled ignorance.

 

[dfuller]

Wilson is not a brand I consider to be worth considering just based on price.

The performance of the speaker we're going back and forth on is mediocre. Not exceptionally bad, but not exactly good either.

 

[Ktacos]

Price is inherently subjective.

The price is 50k, your perception doesn't change that.

If you mean price to performance is subjective, that's not true either. Take a KH150 for instance, excellent performance through the entire spectrum, 1750 each. Wilson has average performance, 50k. It's an objectively worse value.

I'm gonna hop out of the thread and come back when this all passes, good luck to anyone staying.

 

[sigbergaudio]

What I find problematic is that we're dumbing down this hobby (that's actually what it is) from several perspectives, aren't we supposed to be a little more sophisticated on this forum?

A) Measurements are infinitely more than on-axis response, and even when we have a full spinorama we can't tell everything about a speaker just by looking at the measurements. Most people can't even understand most of what IS available through the spinorama.

B) The hifi hobby is infinitely more than just the objective sound for most people who enjoy it. That your approach to the hobby is sound and sound alone, doesn't invalidate others perspective of enjoying build quality, aesthetics and story telling. It doesn't make them stupid or inferior. Some are even more focused on enjoying their favorite music, perhaps with a glass of wine. Maybe they have tube amplifiers, and some weird, expensive speaker. And a living room that would never be adequately filled with sound by 95% of what is reviewed and raved about here on ASR.

Personally I would never even consider buying Wilson because I find their visual design to be very far from my own liking. Those I've heard have also been underwhelming. Not horrible, but the combination of sound and looks doesn't rock my boat.

Personally I also would never even consider buying Genelec or Neuman for much the same reasons. I don't care for the looks and I don't care for the sound.

And interestingly, the frequency response from that Stereophile interview (or a similar one of a Genelec speaker) couldn't have told me this for either of them.

If we are so objective and science based, shouldn't we be curious about why people like speakers that are not necessarily ruler flat, instead of just dismissing it as stupid people? Could it be they have other qualities, that a 1,000USD Genelec monitor does not? How will we ever find out without that curiosity?

 

[Old_School_Brad]

View attachment 423887

The price is 50k, your perception doesn't change that.

If you mean price to performance is subjective, that's not true either. Take a KH150 for instance, excellent performance through the entire spectrum, 1750 each. Wilson has average performance, 50k. It's an objectively worse value.

I'm gonna hop out of the thread and come back when this all passes, good luck to anyone staying.

There’s no such thing as an objectively inferior value; that’s simply your perspective based upon a single metric. I’m confident we can find some Wilson owners who would argue it’s the best speaker in the world for them, proving that value is subjective.

 

[Purité Audio]

The thread was never meant to be a definitive ‘these are the worst speakers ever made’ although I do enjoy spectacularly poor measurements particularly when they are coupled to an exorbitant price.
I can’t see how you can separate the performance from the price, the Watt\Puppy are mediocre at best and cost £45k ( forty five thousand pounds).
Would anyone if they understood loudspeakers measurements ( rather than be beguiled by marketing or the salesman ) really buy these?
Keith

 

[Old_School_Brad]

The thread was never meant to be a definitive ‘these are the worst speakers ever made’ although I do enjoy spectacularly poor measurements particularly when they are coupled to an exorbitant price.
I can’t see how you can separate the performance from the price, the Watt\Puppy are mediocre at best and cost £45k ( forty five thousand pounds).
Would anyone if they understood loudspeakers measurements ( rather than be beguiled by marketing or the salesman ) really buy these?
Keith

Once again, the premise that measurements are the sole deciding factor in purchasing speakers may not be accurate. For instance, brands like Wilson and Bowers & Wilkins have found success despite not being flat as a Genelec. The idea that measurements dictate purchasing choices likely only resonates with a limited segment of audiophiles. And rightly so, if I may add, as factors like appearance, build quality, country of origin, warranty, and aftersales service are also crucial considerations, especially when the cost is relatively high for the customer.

 

[Purité Audio]

The majority have no little idea of what a good loudspeaker sounds like, marketing always wins out.
Keith

 

[Old_School_Brad]

The majority have no little idea of what a good loudspeaker sounds like, marketing always wins out.
Keith

Yes, but can we really blame the majority?

When I first encountered a set of speaker measurements many years ago, I had no idea what to focus on. Even when I was shown where to look, I couldn’t tell if what I was seeing was good, bad, or mediocre. And even when someone told me it was good, it always came with an “it depends.” Now, after years of experience with a wide range of speakers offering various qualities, I’ve reached a point where I can look at measurements, assess whether they’re good, bad, or mediocre, and roughly imagine how they might sound in my room.

I’m fully aware that I (and you) are part of a very small minority of audiophiles. And I still don’t know half as much as you and @sigbergaudio , and some of the other resident experts do.

 

[Mart68]

In the market segment these are aimed at the price tag alone will inspire confidence that these must be a superlative loudspeaker.

All purchases will be via a high end dealer who will only have limited selection of speakers to audition, probably most will be worse than the Wilson. Easy to see how a wealthy punter would pick the Wilson to take home.

Difficult load too so don't forget to open up the wallet again for 'suitable' amplification.

JBL 4367 would kill them and stamp on their grave at one third the cost.

 

[Purité Audio]

Completely, I remember a retailer telling me that the first question he asks a new potential customer is what is their budget.
Even if he sold a better measuring and sounding product ( which he did at the time) they would not even be mentioned.
Proper salesman.
Keith

 

[Mart68]

Completely, I remember a retailer telling me that the first question he asks a new potential customer is what is their budget.
Even if he sold a better measuring and sounding product ( which he did at the time) they would not even be mentioned.
Proper salesman.
Keith

Indeed, anyone can take an order. To sell something that the customer doesn't want at a price they don't want to pay, that's when you need a salesman. Ah, it used to be my day job

A high end dealer once said to me 'My customers want to be told what to buy.'

Someone on a forum the other day saying they had a call from their dealer 'I have some cables here that I really think you should come and have a listen to'.

It's a lot like in 'Glengarry Glenross' - 'You get a call 'I have these properties that I would like for you to see.' What does that mean? What do you want it to mean?'

 

[copperblue]

This has devolved into a wealth envy thread really.
A beer or two in, at my hypothetical rich friend's place, I bet those Wilsons would sound really bloody good, partnered with appropriately hefty amplification of course.
Win-win, I get to drink my buddy's beer and he gets to bask in the thrill of ownership.
Personally, I'd acquire a pair of 4367s and be done with it, it's not a hanging offence, etcetera.