Did we abandon science/any objective tests??

[whoaru99]

You mean that they use studio monitors or that they use them for the sake of accuracy?

What were you trying to imply with your reply to the post you quoted?

 

[whoaru99]

I would really like a definitive set of measurements that could predict what a given set of speakers will sound like.

Bascom King spent years measuring speakers at Audio magazine and attempted to correlate what he measured to what he heard.

Peter Aczel at The Audio Critic insisted that the time domain was preeminent and published pulse response tests as an indicator of which speakers would sound better. He selected the Tangent RS-2 over the Rogers LS3/5a because he had to tilt the Rogers way back to be able to align the LS3/5a in the time domain where the Tangent was acceptable without tilting. I remember him discounting the Snell Type A, which had ruler flat frequency response, because it would not pass his pulse tests.

We have horns, cones, domes, electrostats, planar magnetics, open baffle, full range, 2-way, 3-way, more-range and many other speaker/enclosure types.

Please.....give me a set of measurements that will define how all of these speakers will sound in whatever room they are placed, driven by whatever amp and fed by whatever source. It would save me a crapload of time.

Until we have this overarching set of measurements, I will trust my ears.

When I audition new speakers in my home, using a variety of amps and sources, I use one criteria: If I listen to more music, it is good. If I listen to less music, it is bad.

YMMV.....

Go to Harman's website and find Toole's scientific papers about speaker listening tests. In them you'll find information that identifies five or six parameters that correlated well with the ranking of speakers based on listener preference.

Since it is not known the exact acoustic nature of every room, to try to tie that in would be a fruitless effort. However, based on their testing, picking speakers that have the identified properties seems like a way to have a good chance of securing speakers that sound good. Of course, there will always be outlying preferences though so never is there one size fits all. But, again, according to their research, people aren't all that different in choosing whether speaker A, B, C, or D sounds better in the given setting.

 

[Superampman]

What were you trying to imply with your reply to the post you quoted?

Just that the base line from which preferences are determined are established initially by the sound engineer, and by extension, the studio monitor. It is after all used as a template. Probably not always but I assume typically? Some are quite often elevated to hi-fi duty. JBL comes to mind.

 

[valvenator]

:scratch2: hmmm, i wonder if speaker manufacturers who use the term monitor are trying to subtly imply that listening through their product will let you hear the music the same way as the studio engineer and producer did?
Of course that would be an almost impossible task considering how few people actually set up their listening space the same as a control booth in a recording studio, compounded by the fact that a recording goes through so much other processing before being released to us common listeners.

 

[loonze]

“It ain't ignorance that causes all the trouble in this
world. It's the things people know that ain't so.”
Edwin Armstrong (1890 - 1954) electrical engineer

 

[TubeHiFiNut]

Go to Harman's website and find Toole's scientific papers about speaker listening tests. In them you'll find information that identifies five or six parameters that correlated well with the ranking of speakers based on listener preference.

Since it is not known the exact acoustic nature of every room, to try to tie that in would be a fruitless effort. However, based on their testing, picking speakers that have the identified properties seems like a way to have a good chance of securing speakers that sound good. Of course, there will always be outlying preferences though so never is there one size fits all. But, again, according to their research, people aren't all that different in choosing whether speaker A, B, C, or D sounds better in the given setting.

Thank you for posting the Harman White Papers link. :thmbsp:

Yes, I am familiar with Toole and his excellent work over the years. He, and Bascom King, are the two individuals who, in my opinion, have probably come closer to identifying an objective set of measurements to help explain what a speaker sounds like than anyone else. But they are still not quite, again in my opinion, there.

An example is that the loudspeakers manufactured by the various companies under the Harman banner sound different. I presume that all of the Harman companies have access to the same testing protocols and data so either they are designing their speakers to sound different or something else is at play.

I still maintain that my ears will be the final arbiter of what is good and what is bad for me in my system(s) and rooms.

 

[whoaru99]

I still maintain that my ears will be the final arbiter of what is good and what is bad for me in my system(s) and rooms.

As will I and I'd wager pretty much everyone else on this forum too. However, I don't believe that was the point of this thread.

 

[musician2358]

This has not been the case with my gear. My Denton reissues DEFINITELY went through a break-in that last weeks (The bass got stronger/better, and the highs got smoother, and the sound opened up more and more. The same thing happened with my Grado RSII headphones. I hated the bass so-much at first that I switched earpads to try and punch things up, which did help due to the shape and being closer to my ears, but after living with them like that for months, I went back and tried the stock pads one more time (even though I had swapped back and forth repeatedly in the first week or two to no avail), and sure enough, the bass was just the way I wanted it, and the highs have DEFINITELY smoothed out. I remember vividly how bright and a tad overly-brilliant they were. Combine that with the weakish bass, and I certainly had my doubts, but now they're as close to perfect as I've heard so far in a pair of headphones.

And the used speakers I own all went through a RE-break-in of sorts (for reasons stated earlier, including softening old surrounds). That was obvious.

We also have psychological hearing responses where we adjust to what we are listening to over time, notice more details over time, etc. so that listening experience is a very unreliable indicator of evidence of break-in improvement, or lack thereof.

M2

 

[Superampman]

Here's a question I'd love an answer to. Why is it that I experience a more fully complete LF transient with higher power amps even though the smaller ones are up to the task? Even though I've matched the volume. Is it that the smaller one is in fact clipping and stated output spec is bs? Or is the smaller one just not able to produce it fast enough? It seems to be the case in general.

 

[whoaru99]

Without scoping the output of the smaller amp in the condition where said difference is noted, the "why" can only be speculation. The most likely cause, IMO, is the demand is larger than you think.

 

[JonVH]

Semi-rant follows:

I've been doing a lot of recent searching/research into new speakers, specifically those that might work well with a low power SET amp, specifically with a lot of what I'd call "boutique" makers. And I've come to a tentative conclusion that any objective-type info is sadly lacking. EVERYTHING, it seems, is totally hype...

...Thank you for allowing the opportunity to rant about the current state of audio where anybody with an internet connection/pretty web site can claim to make wonderful speakers (or any other component) and prove it simply by stating it to be the case.

There has been a great deal of audio perception research, and some speaker companies use it in their design. Little of it is available online or from the AES, as it's proprietary. What you will find online is often federal or jurisdictional funded research, where as private sector work is private. I no longer consider the AES a credible source of info, anyway, so maybe sources of private doctrine have similar sentiments. You can't get ahead by divulging your research openly. Actually, many companies in several sectors don't publish results or tests since they are private.

The thing is, when you get into boutique makers, they simply choose not to publish specifications because it would draw unwanted attention. Much of their own "extensive research" amounts to little more than market research, biased listening and improper design. Ignorance on their part looks better on them than admitting they don't know how to design.

 

[Zonker92]

JBL had done some research indicating that, by God, good specs actually translate into good sound to trained listeners.

I believe their testing involved trained and untrained listeners and the results were quite similar for all tested.

Yes, although I think the correlation was significantly higher for trained listeners.

To me, this says given the same exposure and despite the "we all hear things differently" mantra, people tend to pick similarly what represents good sound in any given situation.

I agree.

 

[spkrdtr]

As will I and I'd wager pretty much everyone else on this forum too. However, I don't believe that was the point of this thread.

:thmbsp:

 

[TubeHiFiNut]

As will I and I'd wager pretty much everyone else on this forum too. However, I don't believe that was the point of this thread.

Well.....I thought that the original post bemoaned the deltas between the marketing hype, what is measured and what is heard. Letting your ears be the final arbiter is certailnly in this wheelhouse.

If I am in error, I apologise to the originator of this thread.

 

[whoaru99]

The main point of the original post did not seem to be about discrepancy/correlation between marketing fluff and measurement, it was that for the most part only the fluff side existed in that case.

 

[stevantr]

I no longer consider the AES a credible source of info,

Why is that? AES seems to be pretty well based in science and don't have a market to hype to. Of course it is used as a marketing mouth for some manufacturers as all professional organizations are.

 

[Ken Boyd]

:scratch2: hmmm, i wonder if speaker manufacturers who use the term monitor are trying to subtly imply that listening through their product will let you hear the music the same way as the studio engineer and producer did?
Of course that would be an almost impossible task considering how few people actually set up their listening space the same as a control booth in a recording studio, compounded by the fact that a recording goes through so much other processing before being released to us common listeners.

I certainly hope not, Yamahas NS50 monitors were some of the most used studio monitors out there, and their not that good.

 

[TubeHiFiNut]

The main point of the original post did not seem to be about discrepancy/correlation between marketing fluff and measurement, it was that for the most part only the fluff side existed in that case.

Seems that both of us are inerpreting, differently, what someone else's meant in the original post.

Also seems like we are now splitting hairs, which I decline to continue to do. :nono:

 

[valvenator]

Yes, although I think the correlation was significantly higher for trained listeners.

Pardon me for saying this (and I know you weren't the first to use the phrase) but 'trained' listeners just makes me think of dogs, dolphins and elephants doing tricks they were programmed to do.
I think 'experienced listeners' would be a preferred choice of words.

 

[whoaru99]

Seems that both of us are inerpreting, differently, what someone else's meant in the original post.

Also seems like we are now splitting hairs, which I decline to continue to do.

Just trying to stick to the point. If that's splitting hairs, oh well.