|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
184.166.19.58
In Reply to: RE: Zu Soul Supreme sensitivity posted by Dave_K on May 27, 2017 at 08:43:40
Dave_K
..........."International standard for measuring loudspeakers."
There is supposed to be an international standard, but not all loudspeaker manufacturers adhere to international standards for one reason or another, nor do all reviewers adhere to these standards. It appears to me that Atkinson doesn't test for sensitivity according to these international standards so isn't it true that only speakers measured with the same Atkinson method can be compared to each other?
"Measuring equipment is supposed to be professionally calibrated............"
But do we know if everyone using this equipment is making use of "professionally calibrated" measuring equipment and how is this standard enforced?
"Most loudspeaker manufacturers............."
Who are these manufacturers? And which manufacturers do not use these methods? Please be specific, after all you're the one who posted this claim!
And finally, why doesn't every component that measures the same sound the same? How many times do components that do not measure well get glowing reviews from professional reviewers? Could it be that measurements don't tell the real story? Could it be that some measuring methods are flawed and/or could the actual measuring equipment be defective or improperly calibrated? Or do the measurement gurus actually know what to measure and how to measure for it? Julian Hirsch comes immediately to mind.
I withhold judgement on every component until I've heard it in a "normal" listening environment. I can't seem to make myself listen to measurements. I listen to music, not measurements, and I know what sounds good (to me) and what doesn't. And some of it measures well, but some of it doesn't ;-)
Cheers,
SB
Follow Ups:
Go troll someone else.
I've never seen two speakers that measure the same. It's impossible to measure everything you would need to fully characterize the sound of a loudspeaker. And it's rare to come close. Yet loudspeakers are the one component in the audio chain where I can look at a good set of measurements and have a pretty good idea whether I'm going to have a generally favorable or unfavorable listening experience. If you don't find them helpful then it's your loss.
Dave_K
So I respectfully asked you to elaborate on some of the statements that you've made in this thread and your answer is to accuse me of being a troll. You invite me to "go troll someone else". Wow, you're brave! I don't really believe that you'd respond in such a fashion if we were having this conversation face to face.
I did not insult you, but you feel it necessary to toss an insult into the debate rather than providing a civil answer. Any time you make a post on a public forum you should expect to be questioned or asked for an explanation - instead you resort to name calling, you cowardly POS.
I was attempting to get a few answers on a subject that, by reading the varying opinions presented by other Inmates posting on this thread, could be called controversial. Instead, all I received from you in response is an insult.
Two can play at that game. You don't deserve a polite response from me, so go fuck yourself. I'll not respond to you again, as I don't have the patience to deal with your kind.
SB
"Why doesn't every component that measures the same sound the same?"If one is willing to delve into the details, it would be extremely unlikely to find two different loudspeakers that really do measure the same in every area that matters.
"Could it be that measurements don't tell the real story?"
A comprehensive suite of loudspeaker measurements, correctly analyzed and interpreted, can do an excellent job of predicting subjective preference.
If you aren't familiar with the work of Floyd Toole on the subject of loudspeaker acoustics and psychoacoustics, click on the link below and sit back while he explains what he discovered during a lifetime of research.
(I do not necessarily agree with every single one of Toole's conclusions, and you probably won't either, but imo familiarity with his work is foundational if you are going to discuss the methods, merits and deficiencies of loudspeaker measurements.)
Duke
Me being a dealer makes you leery?? It gets worse... I'm a manufacturer too.
Edits: 05/29/17
I enjoyed the fact at 32:40 that when he put the speaker nearest the corner the measurement got better. :)
at 1:03:40
The methodology used is not dipole-friendly, and is even less dipole-panel/box-woofer-hybrid-friendly. Let me explain:One of the main benefits of a dipole speaker is its spectrally-correct backwave energy that, with proper setup, arrives at the listening position after a time delay of ballpark 10 milliseconds or more (this figure corresponding with positioning the speakers about 5 feet in front of the wall). My understanding is that the area behind the speakers in the Harman listening room is absorptive, so dipoles get no benefit from their backwave energy.
Also, the spectral balance of a woofer/panel hybrid like the Martin Logan is dependent to a large extent on listening distance. This is because you have a point-source-approximating woofer combined with a line-source-approximating panel. Sound pressure level falls off by 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point source, but only by 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source. This is not just theoretical - it happens in the real world, I measured it in my living room on SoundLab Dynastats (which are conceptually very similar to the Martin Logans). Now you might say that this is a design flaw of the configuration, and I suppose it is, but it also means that, in order to see what a woofer/panel hybrid has to offer, you gotta pay attention to getting the setup right.
Kinda like evaluating Audio Note speakers on high stands set way out in the middle of the room... that setup would not show what they have to offer. Even moreso with improperly set up dipole/woofer hybrids.
So I really do not think the Martin Logans were given a fair chance to show what they could do. And it's too unwieldy to completely change the test procedure for "special case" speakers like these, so I don't know of a practical solution, but I'm a little surprised that Toole et al apparently failed to understand their specialized setup requirements. Or maybe they do understand them, but figure no one else does, and so they continue to use the Martin Logans as an example of good correlation between objective measurements and subjective preference. Which they are in this case.
And I think THAT was Toole's main point, rather than "stats suck" or something like that.
Duke
Me being a dealer makes you leery?? It gets worse... I'm a manufacturer too.
Edits: 05/30/17 05/30/17 05/30/17
I agree with what you're saying but what I see is a guy working for a company and he is there to sell speakers for the brand he works for. He called the ML a "bad design" without specifically calling the brand name out we all know what it is. Of course any speaker that is designed for a room interaction will measure poorly when not measured appropriately.
I understand what you are saying with panels needing extra special attention but the same review outfits doing measurements always measure panels that look horrible on the plots and then say "but they sound great so ignore the horrific measured results" in other words the measurements suck but give me the benefit of the doubt and trust my ears. Well no you can't have it both ways. But they pick and choose which speakers to make excuses for. Then go out of your way and measure a panel properly. Get the appropriate measuring tools.
Then all these great measuring speakers in the same magazines that tout "this is great measured performance" and the reviewers who auditioned and perhaps reviewed those very suped up white papered speakers proceed to buy a speaker like the DeVore, Audio Note, a panel or a Horn that virtually run to the opposite side of the great measuring spectrum.
I can read the Harman papers - watch the video and then I go out to one of the places that professionally set these kinds of speakers up. I spend the time actually listening hard to these speakers. Revel Ultima Salon 2, top of the line Harman made current JBLs, Paradigm S8, PSB Imagine. Scratch my head and think - where did the lifeblood of the music go?
Then I listen to some butt ugly looking enormous monstrosity of a horn system run by those bad measuring tube amps and it's so on another level it's ridiculous. It's why a long time back I was interested in your very own Prisma horns - horns have a tactile lifelike scale to them. Perfect maybe not but not everything comes down to frequency plots and resonances - HE jumps out of the box usually anyway and escapes the box sound - which is why my KEF LS-50 sounds far more boxy shut in and resonancy than my AN E.
And here's the thing - perhaps it's a United States thing that I don't quite get - and JA probably understands because of his Chinese wall references between advertising and the editor. But if a company that SELLS stereo equipment hires an engineer who gets paid from said company conducts a test - produces a paper and then gee whiz - all our speakers under this test indicate that our $1000 speaker is better than the rest selling at $10,000 - however possibly true that might be - those premises and results are a conflict of interest. The guy selling you the widget is the guy conducting the science and the guy telling you his is best (or implies it real real hard). Chinese Wall?
I understand that in the United States - science is now fake news and that Philip Morris claiming that cigarettes are perfectly safe (and now apparently lead and asbestos are just fine too) - Big Tobacco have real bought and paid for scientists with degrees and white papers too that absolutely indicate that cigarettes are perfectly safe. They ran this counter science create doubt machine for 5 decades. They are doing it again with a similar issue that will kill people, but let's not go there. That doubt machine has been going since Carl Sagan.
As you noted yourself - the MLs were not given a fair chance due to their type of design. Now a company selling $1500 standmounts and their own $20k speakers hardly want to go above and beyond the call to be "fair" to a competing product like Martin Logan now do they? Of course not - they want the OTHER speaker to look bad and fail the test miserably. See they suck and we're superior.
The entire premise is faulty - people want the best sound - that is total crap. Bose sells more speakers than the top 5 audiophile approved speaker makers COMBINED. And these speakers often measure and even sound abysmal and they continue to sell above and beyond everyone else! So Toole claiming people will be mad if their speaker doesn't measure flat is absolutely ridiculous. Right out of marketing advert 101 but because he seems like your favorite grandpa everyone just accepts the premise.
Ask dealers - I know several and they tell me that more than 90% of everyone who walks in knows what they want before listening. They often don't trust the dealers so don't listen to any suggestions. And that's high end dealers.
When someone goes to a big box chain in Canada to buy Toole approved Paradigm and PSB speakers - there is no place to properly audition any of this stuff - sound quality is not on the agenda AT ALL in those places.
So the dealer probably trots out reviews and the white papers. See most people in our test choose this speaker because of this graph - see the pretty graph - looks neat don't it. 98% of them have no clue what they are actually looking at and don't know a watt from WhatsApp, but it is "scientific" and since you can't hear them properly anyway - well it's probably good - the review was nice. Here's my CC.
Anyway - conflict of interest is very very clear here. I tip my hat though because big companies do this snow better than Santa.
I've learned things, imo very valuable things, from Toole and/or others' research that he renders accessible in his writings. Want to learn what matters most in speaker design? As you juggle the inevitable tradeoffs, want to know where you can compromise and get away with it? Do you have what might be a "better idea" and want to take into account relevant acoustic and psychoacoustic principles as you evolve your idea? Want to know where there might still be room for improvement in that magnificent butt-ugly horn monstrosity you mentioned?In situations like the horn monstrosity, you don't need Toole to validate what your ears tell you, but in most cases Toole will tell you WHY your ears reach the conclusions they do. When he doesn't, then the reasons probably lie in an area he has not delved into. For instance, on another forum, he told me that more research is needed in the area of thermal modulation - it is often much worse than we assume. He mentioned measuring a three-way system and finding that its midrange driver was compressing normal peaks by about 7 dB(!). Our horn monstrosity may not be perfect, but it probably doesn't have this problem.
Unfortunately I lack the energy to respond to your post point by point, and besides I would rather not get into an internet squabble with someone I respect.
Duke
Me being a dealer makes you leery?? It gets worse... I'm a manufacturer too.
Edits: 05/30/17 05/30/17
Hi I didn't mean to suggest that everything he says is BS - not at all most of it isn't but let's say I agree with your point here "When he doesn't, then the reasons probably lie in an area he has not delved into. For instance, on another forum, he told me that more research is needed in the area of thermal modulation."
So... we disagree, but there's enough common ground that we can both stand on it? Done!
Thank you for such an agreeable disagreement!
Duke
Me being a dealer makes you leery?? It gets worse... I'm a manufacturer too.
Definitely good sir - now if only politicians could agreeably disagree on certain things and move on to stuff they agree on.
Yeah I know, but I keep trying to be an optimist and not crush the idealism too much.
Are you going to CAS in July (28-30)? If so let me know as I'll be covering part of it - I will miss the 28th as I'll be in Las Vegas.
I won't be at the Capital Audio Show, sorry. Nearly all of my energy has been going into prosound projects lately - some musical instrument speaker cabinets, and some studio speaker designs.
Duke
Me being a dealer makes you leery?? It gets worse... I'm a manufacturer too.
RGA ,America sell it's fake science to Canadians, who then migrate and spread their cognitive dissonce with a dosh of AN bias .
Regards
Edits: 05/30/17
Which of Toole's conclusions do you disagree with, and why?
This is a real question, not a troll. I want to hear from manufacturers with experience like yourself.
"Which of Toole's conclusions do you disagree with, and why?"
One of the conclusions Toole apparently draws from his data is, wide dispersion speakers are the way to go if that wide dispersion is highly uniform, such that the reflections are spectrally correct or nearly so.
The only problem I see with this is, you end up with a lot of early reflections, which can impose coloration and degrade clarity. Of course you also get a lot of beneficial later-arriving reflections, which enhance timbral richness and impart a sense of being immersed in the soundfield of the recording. The good outweighs the bad, so wide and uniform dispersion is good, but is there an even better way?
I believe there is. I believe we'd be better off with less energy in the early reflections, as long as we still have a lot of spectrally-correct energy in the later ones. This can be accomplished in several different ways, and multi-channel is not required. Let me know if you'd like a couple of examples.
This is conceptually similar to what has been found to work well in concert halls. Acoustician David Griesinger investigated the difference between a "really good" seat in a concert hall, and a seat that's not so good. Here is what sets them apart:
In a really good seat, you have two distinct energy streams (we don't hear them as "distinct", but they can be described that way): First, you have a clear stream of direct sound. And then you also have a clear stream of reverberant sound. And the key is, there is a time delay in between the two. In fact he found that, in general, the earlier the reflections arrive, the more they degrade the clarity.
So I prefer approaches that are more in harmony with what has been found to work well in a concert hall.
Perhaps my disagreement with Toole is a quibble within a quibble, but it has led me in different directions than the ones normally pursued by Harman companies.
Duke
Me being a dealer makes you leery?? It gets worse... I'm a manufacturer too.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: