Do Speakers That Measure Great Always Sound Great

[tonmeister2008]

It's possible that the tin-eared reviewer has a room that compensates inversely for irregularities in FR of a given speaker, so it then sounds perfect....

Just take Valin's room as an example...

Lee

The room and placement of the speaker/listener could compensate for some problems in a loudspeaker -- but mostly low frequency ones. To fix off-axis problems above 200-300 Hz you need place thick absorption on the surfaces to attenuate the colored reflected sounds produced by the loudspeaker. And you have a greatly reduced sweet spot for the direct sound.

Years ago, a popular room design trend in the recording control rooms was the Live-End-Dead-End (LEDE) room. it was anechoic at the front where the stereo speakers were located. A popular monitor put in these rooms was known to have horrible off-axis response. So the room made a bad loudspeaker sound better. Today there are environmentally better and cheaper solutions than just turning bad sound into heat: buy a good loudspeaker.

 

[Gregadd]

I always found them to be lifeless and flat much like the personality of their designer. I always wondered if the designer had actually listened to it or just satisfied himself that they were 'technically correct."

 

[MylesBAstor]

I always found them to be lifeless and flat much like the personality of their designer. I always wondered if the designer had actually listened to it or just satisfied himself that they were 'technically correct."

I heard a LEDE room at the home of Barney Pisha years ago. The less said the better.

 

[tonmeister2008]

I always found them to be lifeless and flat much like the personality of their designer. I always wondered if the designer had actually listened to it or just satisfied himself that they were 'technically correct."

Yes, I agree the LEDE rooms sounded bizarre and unnatural. Moreover, the designers made claims about the room's performance (a reflection free zone followed by a reflection 15-20 msec later which they called a "Haas kicker" that supposedly extended the precedence effect) that were completely bogus and driven by a misunderstanding of the Haas effect versus the precedence effect.

 

[DonH50]

My room is fairly deadened... With bipolar speakers I prefer a damped wall behind as it really cleans up the imaging. In a smallish room I damp the back wall as well, and place absorbers to catch the early reflections. That leaves the front wall and a few feet in front of the speakers damped, along with part of the back wall. Open walls and ceiling between leave a bit of reflection/reverb to keep some "life" in the sound. With conventional speakers, I would (and have) use far less damping on the front wall.

 

[terryj]

I'd like to throw a curveball into play.

It seems that (at least with loudspeakers...when auditioned blind!) there is a general consensus on what sounds good or does not, and what measurements tend to predict those preferences. I'm not exactly sure what the 0.86 represents, but I can confidently say that there will always be outliers...there must always be two ends of the bell curve.

Whether that is because one was a boiler maker for all his working life, or some other cause!

It's possible, simply because they seem to swim against the stream, that some of these outliers are the most vocal on the net haha.

Anyway, this is my question. Threads like this seem to come from one angle only, 'what measurements are we missing that may explain why auditioning does not back up existing measurements?'

(Just whilst it popped into my head, and his name has already appeared here, Geddes is adamant and certain that with good polar measurements he can reliably predict exactly how any loudspeaker will sound. Whether that is totally true or contains an element of bluster I don't know, but at least when it comes to speakers he feels measurements are adequate.)

It seems to me that there is ONE place to look at when asking 'where are the missing measurements?', and to my knowledge has never seemed to come up.

The individual in question.

Ok, Sean may make sure his subject are of normal hearing, but what about the rest of us in audio land?? How many of us have ever had a complete and accurate hearing test?

Surely that would impinge on what sounds good or not to us??

What about much much more subtle things. (crappy example, i hate cinnamon, you may love it, that type of thing) How sensitive am I personally to 3rd harmonic distortion in an amp?? (making it up as i type) Does that sensitivity change when I add in an element of 7th harmonic??

In other words, what is MY Personal Preference Profile??

A bit like those medical discs people can wear around their neck, tells the hospital what he is allergic to, what he is sensitive to, the personal difference he has to everyone else, and that is important.

What are ours in audio??

Maybe that is why some people love valves and cannot abide ss, same with digital vs analog. Maybe the guys who cannot listen to cd for more than five minutes have an extreme sensitivity to jitter?? (again just making it up for arguments sake) Where as me, 'what the hell is jitter, and please don't edumacate me to it as it doesn't bother me at the moment'.

There may be very broad brush investigations that have been done into 'general human hearing perception', allows us to know about integration times, haas intervals yada yada (sounding as if I know something when I don't), but NONE of us have our own PPP which tells US exactly what our hearing and perceptions are.

It's not life and death, so of course something like this would never be available as a service from a healthcare provider, but it seems to me to be something of a missing link, and possibly one that could go a long way in explaining many of these old tired audio arguments we see....over...and ....over.

 

[amirm]

Terry, if I may sum up your points, you are actually making two statements:

1. What if there are inaccuracies/distortion that people like? We have good evidence of this being true -- at least I do. Take a speaker that has no bass below say, 80Hz and boost its low-end above that some and people will express a preference for this. This is how SRS TruBass works by the way. I think tubes fall in the same category too. I never express my own preference for tube sound as it being more accurate but being more pleasant to listen. Another example is people liking SACD of something recorded in PCM originally. Surely liking the SACD version of the native PCM means one likes the processing/change that occurred there.

2. What if someone can hear distortion others cannot? This is absolutely true. Fewer people are capable of this than think though . This point unlike #1 above, does not disprove Sean's theory. That is, even if you can't hear an improvement in a distortion product, you are not going to have a preference for that distortion. In other words, I don't see how you can invert this argument and have it be true.

 

[JackD201]

In my comparatively limited experience, speakers that measure well usually sound as good as what comes before it in the chain. There seems to be more divergent tastes when it comes to amplification and how the chosen loudspeakers live off of the quality and quantity of amplification supplied.

 

[jtinn]

Good question!

I would say that speakers that measure well do not always sound good. However, I would also state that generally speakers that measure poorly usually do not sound good either.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I never express my own preference for tube sound as it being more accurate but being more pleasant to listen.

Amir,

I have to exception to this point. I think this is an antiquated view of older tube amplifiers. It does not appy to current SOTA tube amplifiers such as conrad-johnson, ARC, VAC, VTL, etc.

 

[Gregadd]

Amir,

I have to exception to this point. I think this is an antiquated view of older tube amplifiers. It does not appy to current SOTA tube amplifiers such as conrad-johnson, ARC, VAC, VTL, etc.

I think that applies more to the el 34. The 6550 is more neutral.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Only if you're measuring the right things.

P

 

[Gregadd]

I'm not talking about measurements. I'm talking about what I hear.

 

[terryj]

Terry, if I may sum up your points, you are actually making two statements:

1. What if there are inaccuracies/distortion that people like? We have good evidence of this being true -- at least I do. Take a speaker that has no bass below say, 80Hz and boost its low-end above that some and people will express a preference for this. This is how SRS TruBass works by the way. I think tubes fall in the same category too. I never express my own preference for tube sound as it being more accurate but being more pleasant to listen. Another example is people liking SACD of something recorded in PCM originally. Surely liking the SACD version of the native PCM means one likes the processing/change that occurred there.

2. What if someone can hear distortion others cannot? This is absolutely true. Fewer people are capable of this than think though . This point unlike #1 above, does not disprove Sean's theory. That is, even if you can't hear an improvement in a distortion product, you are not going to have a preference for that distortion. In other words, I don't see how you can invert this argument and have it be true.

yeah Amir, kind of like that.

I guess in a nutshell what I am saying is rather than trying to find the missing OBJECTIVE measurement, we need to have a better idea of what our missing SUBJECTIVE measurements are.

Most of us have never had any sort of subjective measurement, even as simple as our natural hearing FR. Yet, here we are, demanding better or different measurements to be found/applied to the gear.

Maybe Ethan is right, all we need are the four measurements???

Then, if we had out own PPP metric to cross check against, we may very well find a much closer correlation between what the measurements tell us and what we like to hear subjectively.

Rule out that speaker because we can see *that* in the measurements, rule this one in because we see *this*.

I have a very different shortlist...based on existing measurements.....than you do because MY PPP metric has been measured and is different from yours. Both however are known. Whereas currently they are not.

Now we know why one guy cannot stand groove distortion in vinyl, the other guy cannot abide jitter. Again, making it up as I type for illustration purposes only.

I don't accept for a minute this idea that 'science has a pretty good handle on the physical universe...except for when it comes to hi end audio'.

You mean there is something unknown about the simple problem of sending an audio signal thru ten feet of wire?? Cmon.

We are still picking up and decoding signals from pioneer. (maybe not now, dunno, but you get the idea)

But it seems to me that a lot of audiophiles are in some way in love with the 'mystical', it would be a shame and a loss to them for that to disappear.

BUT, there could be very real and true reasons why HE prefers X, and I prefer Y. It could very well have nothing to do with 'incomplete objective measurements', or 'factors as yet unknown to science' (which is the one that opens the door to mysticism), and leads a few into Peter Belt territory.

Why is it so bizarre to ponder that these questions might be easily resolved by looking at personal preferences?? It has never been done. It could be a blind alley too, just throwing it out there.

One mans idea of perfume could be another's stench. But we sure as hell CAN measure the scent, if you follow.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I'm not talking about measurements. I'm talking about what I hear.

That was an answer to the thread title.

P

 

[amirm]

Amir,

I have to exception to this point.

You are taking exceptions to how *I* perceive the value of Tubes???

I think this is an antiquated view of older tube amplifiers. It does not appy to current SOTA tube amplifiers such as conrad-johnson, ARC, VAC, VTL, etc.

If I compared SOTA tube and transistor amps, they will have equal specs as far as distortion?

 

[Old Listener]

what has always frosted my butt is the constant flaming on forums about any and all types of gear, speakers etc where unilaterally the comment is made "if it measures bad, I aint buying it let alone even wanting to audition it"

I hope this doesn't add to your butt frosting. I have practical reasons for checking the specs and reading reviews to narrow my field of choices:

- Forty years ago, I spent a lot of time in stereo stores listening to gear. That seems a boring waste of time to me now.
- Some dealers are painfully incompetent in setting up PC based playback.
- The dealer network is pretty thin now so I can't even find a local dealer for some stuff.
- I'm a buy-and-hold consumer rather than a day trader. I want to use everything at my disposal to get my purchases right.
- Some products are not available locally. I might have a 30 day return privilege but I'd rather get it right.

I don't insert these opinions in forum discussions very often.

Bill

 

[MylesBAstor]

You are taking exceptions to how *I* perceive the value of Tubes???


If I compared SOTA tube and transistor amps, they will have equal specs as far as distortion?

No I'm talking about listening to the quality of the bass. In fact, I'll put my cj ART amps against leading ss amps. Yeah, a Krell might a have "tighter" low end but it's also overdamped.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

what has always frosted my butt is the constant flaming on forums about any and all types of gear, speakers etc where unilaterally the comment is made "if it measures bad, I aint buying it let alone even wanting to audition it"

I spend too much time on the internet (ask my wife...) and I can't recall having ever seen that particular point made.

P

 

[Steve Williams]

It was a familiar mantra at several other fora. Perhaps you don't hang out there