What's wrong with Redbook, really?

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,238
81
1,725
New York City
Well the last pair of clones I made I did sight unseen or heard based on the measurements. I am very happy with the results. Because the measurement set was so complete I could actually use them as a reference against my own measurements when I made my own pair. So the measurements can be very useful depending on how much information is divulged in them by the manufacturer


Rob:)

So why don't more speaker manufacturers do the same. Would seem to eliminate having to listen to a speaker then and result in more sales. In fact, could do away with the dealer and sell direct based on the measurements?
 

fas42

Addicted To Best
Jan 8, 2011
3,973
3
0
NSW Australia
Oh, dear ...

We're thrashing with them "objective measurements" again ...

Guess I'd better fire up that 70's Japanese SS amp with the 0.001% distortion out in the shed for my next round of listening then ...

Sorry, Mr Redbook, we'll get back to you eventually -- don't you worry your silvery head, now ...

Frank
 

Robh3606

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2010
1,484
473
1,155
Destiny
These are speakers by the same company, one for the home and one for the studios. Measurements are clearly not identical. So if one were to just look at measurements, what's better?

Well they are much closer than you think. They are both measured the same way. Take a look at the two measurement set's. One is labled the other not. The formats in the text are different but the information is there.

Rob:)
 

Attachments

  • LSR Key..jpg
    LSR Key..jpg
    47.8 KB · Views: 100
  • 1400%20Array%20pg%&.jpg
    1400%20Array%20pg%&.jpg
    73.8 KB · Views: 100

Robh3606

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2010
1,484
473
1,155
Destiny
Oh, dear ...

We're thrashing with them "objective measurements" again ...

Guess I'd better fire up that 70's Japanese SS amp with the 0.001% distortion out in the shed for my next round of listening then ...

Not that tired old reference again, we are looking at speakers here. If there is anyplace where measurements can be more useful it's here.

So why don't more speaker manufacturers do the same. Would seem to eliminate having to listen to a speaker then and result in more sales. In fact, could do away with the dealer and sell direct based on the measurements?

Well isn't it obvious? Why publish a measurement set when you have your buying public so brainwashed that they will beleive any advertising bunk and psedo science you marketing depatment can come up with.

Rob:)
 
Last edited:

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,319
1,429
1,820
Manila, Philippines
Well they are much closer than you think. They are both measured the same way. Take a look at the two measurement set's. One is labled the other not. The formats in the text are different but the information is there.

Rob:)

The Array looks a lot more jagged from 6kHz on up. Is this even something to worry about? One thing for sure is these are "flat" by "not really". I also noticed that they are measured at different reference dB. Would that alone make the comparison based on the charts less reliable?
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,238
81
1,725
New York City
The Array looks a lot more jagged from 6kHz on up. Is this even something to worry about? One thing for sure is these are "flat" by "not really". I also noticed that they are measured at different reference dB. Would that alone make the comparison based on the charts less reliable?

You can make anything look flat -or anyway you want -- depending on your sampling rate :)
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,238
81
1,725
New York City
Not that tired old reference again, we are looking at speakers hear. If there is anyplace where measurements can be more useful it's here.



Well isn't it obvious? Why publish a measurement set when you have your buying public so brainwashed that they will beleive any advertising bunk and psedo science you marketing depatment can come up with.

Rob:)

That's beginning to sound like the same argument given for why analog people didn't like digital. Dealers would jump on this if you could show that speaker measurements tell you everything you need to know. Would save them a hell of a lot of time selling. And time is money to them.

Could you please explain why measurements are predictive of how a speaker will sound but not for electronics? Actually that flies in the face of what leading measurement mags like Stereo Review have said.

Measurements are rarely cause effect. And as any scientist knows, there are often many explanations and possiblities for a given effect.
 

fas42

Addicted To Best
Jan 8, 2011
3,973
3
0
NSW Australia
You can make anything look flat -or anyway you want -- depending on your sampling rate :)
Yes, that's why this speaker measurement thing is bollocks! I saw a curve for a speaker that was the most jagged mess you could imagine, commented thus, and the response was "Well, you have to look at the 1/3 octave smoothed (??) curve to get the normal sort of graph; all speakers look as bad as this if you measure that precisely". It's all BS, of one form or another ...

Frank
 

Robh3606

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2010
1,484
473
1,155
Destiny
The Array looks a lot more jagged from 6kHz on up. Is this even something to worry about? One thing for sure is these are "flat" by "not really". I also noticed that they are measured at different reference dB. Would that alone make the comparison based on the charts less reliable?

Yes that's correct. Both speakers are 3 ways but the crossover points are different as is their type. The LSR is all dynamic while the Array 1400 is a Direct radiator with a horn mid and tweeter. The ripple you see in the Array is from the 8Khz crossover point between the tweeter and the Mid, this is compounded by the physical offset of the horns and the fact that they are not time coincident.

I f you look at a room averaged measurement they tend to even out attached is the Stereophile measurement averaged over a reviewers listening room.

The difference in reference dB is due to the sensitivity differences between the two systems. They are both measured at 1 watt 1 meter.

Rob:)
 

Attachments

  • 1400 Measurement..jpg
    1400 Measurement..jpg
    40.6 KB · Views: 90
Last edited:

Robh3606

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2010
1,484
473
1,155
Destiny
Hey! What do you guys play on them Genelec studio monitor speakers?

LPs, Open reel-to-reel tapes, or Redbook CDs?

I don't have Genelecs I have JBL's and listen to LP's CD's DVDA and SACD

Rob:)
 

Robh3606

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2010
1,484
473
1,155
Destiny
You can make anything look flat -or anyway you want -- depending on your sampling rate

Well not really, not if you are intellectually honest. All you need to know are what the test conditions are and in many cases you can repeat them quite readily. I have had people send me measurement files because they were having issues with a crossover. Using the same components and measuring using the same conditions I was able too duplicate their measurements.

I will agree that you can change them to look different such as changing the smoothing from 1/12 octave to 1/3. The 1/3 is going to look a lot better. That said if two different people measure the same speaker using the same reference point, distance, SPL, method sine/mls, gate times and smoothing they are repeatable. The fact that they are repeatable is what makes them useful.

It's all BS, of one form or another ...

So it's all BS?? Tell me how you are going to design and test anything and not use them. How are you going to know if your design is working as it should if you don't measure it?? If you really do design stuff without any kind of validation you will be stumbling for years to get it right'


Rob:)
 

fas42

Addicted To Best
Jan 8, 2011
3,973
3
0
NSW Australia
So it's all BS?? Tell me how you are going to design and test anything and not use them. How are you going to know if your design is working as it should if you don't measure it?? If you really do design stuff without any kind of validation you will be stumbling for years to get it right'


Rob:)
I was referring in the first instance that if you test a speaker, static frequency by static frequency, you end up with a curve that looks worse than anything in the Himalayas, yet everyone obsesses about the smoothness of that response!

In the second instance, once you go beyond a reasonable standard of performance of gear, the normal measurements tell one not that much useful for deciding whether one piece of kit is going to perform better than another piece of kit, in the key areas that really matter to audiophiles ...

Obviously, as a designer you do have get the fundamentals right, so from that point of view of course the measurements are important.

Frank
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,238
81
1,725
New York City

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,807
4,702
2,790
Portugal
I think we are missing an important point – the difference between consumer and pro targets. Pros use the speakers to produce recordings that should be played by consumers. They need to have very rigid standards to produce something that will have a deterministic frequency response balance, independent of the studio or equipment used conditions . F. Toole and many others, at Harman, did a fantastic work studying a way to achieve a good standardization using measurements.

However, consumers are not bond to this accurate balance. Harman studies have shown that under their conditions of study, listeners prefer speakers designed according to the same rules they use in their pro speakers, and manufacture speakers optimized according these rules (and some other aspects they seem not to be so proud in public…) Fine, they created a typical balance, people who like them will buy and be very happy with their purchase. Many other excellent speakers were also influenced by their studies.

Other manufacturers have different approaches, as they are not targeting to the production of tools that should sound all similar. Their priorities are different and they target at different users. They do not have the resources or desire to disseminate and/or use their findings in marketing, either because they lack the formal conditions to be exposed to public scrutiny, or because they want to keep secret of it to protected their intellectual property. Most of them accept that they target at the recreation of the reality and/or listener pleasure, a subject you can also find in the Toole book..

Measurements can be useful for consumers because they can know how far they are from the standards. However, as they do not tell all the story, and most probably will be misinterpreted by consumers, who can not properly weight all of them, should be taken with care. Long time ago, a good friend of mine became distributor for a short time of the excellent Dynaudio kits in my country. We built two pairs of the same speaker, the Gemini, one using a box made in corian, an expensive mineral loaded synthetic material and the other using MDF. All braces and dimensions were exactly the same. They sounded so different, that everyone would swear they had very different frequency responses in the treble and bass frequencies. But simple measurements would not tell the difference.
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,238
81
1,725
New York City
I think we are missing an important point – the difference between consumer and pro targets. Pros use the speakers to produce recordings that should be played by consumers. They need to have very rigid standards to produce something that will have a deterministic frequency response balance, independent of the studio or equipment used conditions . F. Toole and many others, at Harman, did a fantastic work studying a way to achieve a good standardization using measurements.

However, consumers are not bond to this accurate balance. Harman studies have shown that under their conditions of study, listeners prefer speakers designed according to the same rules they use in their pro speakers, and manufacture speakers optimized according these rules (and some other aspects they seem not to be so proud in public…) Fine, they created a typical balance, people who like them will buy and be very happy with their purchase. Many other excellent speakers were also influenced by their studies.

Other manufacturers have different approaches, as they are not targeting to the production of tools that should sound all similar. Their priorities are different and they target at different users. They do not have the resources or desire to disseminate and/or use their findings in marketing, either because they lack the formal conditions to be exposed to public scrutiny, or because they want to keep secret of it to protected their intellectual property. Most of them accept that they target at the recreation of the reality and/or listener pleasure, a subject you can also find in the Toole book..

Measurements can be useful for consumers because they can know how far they are from the standards. However, as they do not tell all the story, and most probably will be misinterpreted by consumers, who can not properly weight all of them, should be taken with care. Long time ago, a good friend of mine became distributor for a short time of the excellent Dynaudio kits in my country. We built two pairs of the same speaker, the Gemini, one using a box made in corian, an expensive mineral loaded synthetic material and the other using MDF. All braces and dimensions were exactly the same. They sounded so different, that everyone would swear they had very different frequency responses in the treble and bass frequencies. But simple measurements would not tell the difference.

I was waiting for you to post something like this eg. two products have the same measurements and sound different!
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,807
4,702
2,790
Portugal
I was waiting for you to post something like this eg. two products have the same measurements and sound different!

I am sure delayed resonance techniques would separate them, but one thing is finding they measure differently, the other is correlating it with sound quality or even ranking sound quality from measurements.
 

fas42

Addicted To Best
Jan 8, 2011
3,973
3
0
NSW Australia
We built two pairs of the same speaker, the Gemini, one using a box made in corian, an expensive mineral loaded synthetic material and the other using MDF. All braces and dimensions were exactly the same. They sounded so different, that everyone would swear they had very different frequency responses in the treble and bass frequencies. But simple measurements would not tell the difference.
I'm not the slightest bit surprised: the spectrum of low level harmonics would be dramatically different between the two, even if the drivers were 100% identical. Of course that sort of thing is never part of the measurement regime, but is the very thing that is most important, what the ears pick up instantly ...

Frank
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
I think we are missing an important point – the difference between consumer and pro targets. Pros use the speakers to produce recordings that should be played by consumers. They need to have very rigid standards to produce something that will have a deterministic frequency response balance, independent of the studio or equipment used conditions . F. Toole and many others, at Harman, did a fantastic work studying a way to achieve a good standardization using measurements.

However, consumers are not bond to this accurate balance. Harman studies have shown that under their conditions of study, listeners prefer speakers designed according to the same rules they use in their pro speakers, and manufacture speakers optimized according these rules (and some other aspects they seem not to be so proud in public…) Fine, they created a typical balance, people who like them will buy and be very happy with their purchase. Many other excellent speakers were also influenced by their studies.

Other manufacturers have different approaches, as they are not targeting to the production of tools that should sound all similar. Their priorities are different and they target at different users. They do not have the resources or desire to disseminate and/or use their findings in marketing, either because they lack the formal conditions to be exposed to public scrutiny, or because they want to keep secret of it to protected their intellectual property. Most of them accept that they target at the recreation of the reality and/or listener pleasure, a subject you can also find in the Toole book..

Measurements can be useful for consumers because they can know how far they are from the standards. However, as they do not tell all the story, and most probably will be misinterpreted by consumers, who can not properly weight all of them, should be taken with care. Long time ago, a good friend of mine became distributor for a short time of the excellent Dynaudio kits in my country. We built two pairs of the same speaker, the Gemini, one using a box made in corian, an expensive mineral loaded synthetic material and the other using MDF. All braces and dimensions were exactly the same. They sounded so different, that everyone would swear they had very different frequency responses in the treble and bass frequencies. But simple measurements would not tell the difference.

Micro I agree on most counts. I wish all studio monitors were aimed at the same standards, that would make for more consistent recordings. But in too many cases, even monitors (especially in the semi-pro market) are tailored to taste, and marketing departments. And of course there is nothing to disagree with in your evaluation of consumer speakers. Many of them are not designed for absolute accuracy, but for a sound that the designer and his target audience find pleasing. There is nothing in the world wrong with this but our inability to admit it. We seem to have this overwhelming drive to believe that what we like is the most accurate, or, faced with data to the contrary, the most natural reproduction. We should just let it go and enjoy what we enjoy. I didn't come to active monitors by reading measurements, I came to them over a long path leading away from one kind of sound and toward another that I liked better. That journey just happened to lead me to active monitors. If it had led me to booming vintage Altecs, I'd hope I would have the confidence to like them in spite of their lack of pure fidelity instead of in denial of it.

Regarding the Corian and MDF versions of the kit speakers; you needed better measurements.

Tim
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
I am sure delayed resonance techniques would separate them, but one thing is finding they measure differently, the other is correlating it with sound quality or even ranking sound quality from measurements.

Of course you can correlate sound to measurements. Given good enough measurements and enough experience, you can predict sound with measurements. Speaker designers do it all the time whether they admit it to their public or not. Can you rank quality from measurements? You can tell an awful lot about
from good measurements, but that may not be the quality you're looking for.

Tim
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing