anyone? why ask anyone?
when Zaph and Dr Geddes have adressed!
therefore they make the best loudspeakers
don't think, don't bother, just buy
best,
graaf
hehehe I think it very interesting that the two quotes are from two people with IMO VERY different views on what is important 
If I were to go on zaphs tests of my chosen midbass drivers (the morel MW144), I should have thrown them out before I started! However the fact that they are used in some very reputable and expensive commercial speakers (and the fact my ears tell me that they are fine) makes me very pleased I had not read zaph's tests of them before I purchased. Zaph and I actually had a conversation about them in this thread His measurements and mine bore absolutely no resemblance, mine were pretty close to factory specs, whereas his were most definitely not!!.
Edit: and I would also say that the measurements cannot tell you the whole story, afterall I do not believe the measurements we make are measuring the true ability of a speaker to reproduce multiple different possibly conflicting sounds all at the same time and produce an image that sounds realistic. Unless someone develops a test that can do that I don't believe that any tests can tell you the full story
I would think that the various intermodulations that could occur with the reproduction of real music would be far more complex than any form of impulse response, chirp, warble tone or sine wave could hope to measure.
Tony.
If I were to go on zaphs tests of my chosen midbass drivers (the morel MW144), I should have thrown them out before I started! However the fact that they are used in some very reputable and expensive commercial speakers (and the fact my ears tell me that they are fine) makes me very pleased I had not read zaph's tests of them before I purchased. Zaph and I actually had a conversation about them in this thread His measurements and mine bore absolutely no resemblance, mine were pretty close to factory specs, whereas his were most definitely not!!.
Edit: and I would also say that the measurements cannot tell you the whole story, afterall I do not believe the measurements we make are measuring the true ability of a speaker to reproduce multiple different possibly conflicting sounds all at the same time and produce an image that sounds realistic. Unless someone develops a test that can do that I don't believe that any tests can tell you the full story
I would think that the various intermodulations that could occur with the reproduction of real music would be far more complex than any form of impulse response, chirp, warble tone or sine wave could hope to measure.
Tony.
Last edited:
hehehe I think it very interesting that the two quotes are from two people with IMO VERY different views on what is important
I think that the question of what is relevant measurement/interpretation ultimately follows the question of what I like or how I like it (for example I like it loud), especially when someone is self-declared hi-fi enthusiast
in my opinion there is a method of objectivization of all this, of finding correlation between subjective impressions and measurements graphs and any kind of objectivity that is beyond what we statistically like
I mean the method of controlled comparative (with different audio chains and with real sound sources) listening tests with participants statistically selected from consumer target group (Dr Toole's style) in a selection of standarized listening rooms
because I seriously believe that as Linkwitz put it unbiased listeners have no difficulty recognizing (more) accurate sound reproduction
Edit: and I would also say that the measurements cannot tell you the whole story, afterall I do not believe the measurements we make are measuring the true ability of a speaker to reproduce multiple different possibly conflicting sounds all at the same time and produce an image that sounds realistic. Unless someone develops a test that can do that I don't believe that any tests can tell you the full story
I would think that the various intermodulations that could occur with the reproduction of real music would be far more complex than any form of impulse response, chirp, warble tone or sine wave could hope to measure.
I agree
to overcome such problems Weber Rehde conducted His own measurements for example what He called comparative harmonics measurements of real musical sounds vs reproduced
then - how about using spectrograms of real music samples vs reproduced?
Spectrogram - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
best regards,
graaf
ps.
image attached is from a historical book by Hartley and it shows an example of a problem that seems to be overlooked nowadays
Attachments
Edit: and I would also say that the measurements cannot tell you the whole story, afterall I do not believe the measurements we make are measuring the true ability of a speaker to reproduce multiple different possibly conflicting sounds all at the same time and produce an image that sounds realistic. Unless someone develops a test that can do that I don't believe that any tests can tell you the full story
Tony.
I tend to disagree. However, I can see why you might say that.
Testing is one the hardest aspect of the project and few of us have the resources or the knowledge to test effectively. Given the shortcomings we encounter it doesn't surprise me that you can't depend on the results.
That doesn't mean that a loudspeaker's attributes are not testable or that the "nuances" you propose are not quantifiable.
The biggest problem I have with listening tests are that they are not quantifiable. You can't pin a quanta on to some subjective feeling and your ears and perception change over time. Just look at the way people (and experts) describe what they hear with terms like warmth, raspy, muddy, colored, etc. They are very subjective ratings.
My original question that prompted Earls response. I see some people saying it can all be measured yet so far no recommended measurement set has been forth coming.
The idea is to be able to compare 2 speakers and by looking at the measurements be able to see which one would be superior as far as dynamic/power compression and imaging. Now this is using the standard tools we have like Clio, Arta, Holm Impulse ect.
Rob
There is Joseph D'Appolito's "Testing Loudspeakers" book from Audio Amateur Press. I've read thru it and Joe gives a lot of detail about the process - formulas and charts galore. However, what's lacking big time is how to interpret the measurements.
That's like getting the perfect ingredient list for the perfect recipe and no instructions on how to prepare it (e.g. order of addition, how much of each, cooking method, time, etc...). You get the picture (I hope).
That's like getting the perfect ingredient list for the perfect recipe and no instructions on how to prepare it (e.g. order of addition, how much of each, cooking method, time, etc...). You get the picture (I hope).
The first (power compression) is pretty easy to measure and is done routinely by every competent driver and speaker manufacturer.
Imaging is a different matter- it's the "illusion" part, a trick your brain plays on you. There IS no-one standing between your speakers, singing. That quality is going to be ranked differently by different people- for example, my wife has very asymmetrical hearing between left and right, I don't, so my speakers don't image that well for her, yet they image superbly for me. So do they have good imaging or not?
The separate issue are the things that cause the illusion, and as has been pointed out, those are also easy to measure.
I have asymmetrical hearing between left and right, as verified when I found most of the time the whole sound stage would shift slightly to one side. After I concentrated more during listening, I actually discovered instruments in different spectrum ranges would vary in imaging depending on what is being played. Once I discovered that, total imaging improved a bit for me.
Thats completely ridiculous and an insult to my years of research into loudspeakers where I DIDN'T sell anything. Let us not forget that I have been studying Acoustics for 40 years, but only selling loudspeakers for 5. Does this then completely invalidates everything that I did for the previous 35 years? Ridiculous - and if this is the way this thread is going to go then I'll not be joining it.
No Arguments here Loren, but I suspect that it will be possible to find two completely different speakers which measure almost identically but which will (and maybe not to all) sound completely different on certain types of music.
Why is it that people say things like "this speaker is more suited to classical, or this speaker is more suited to Rock". Yes this is a subjective comment, but maybe they do sound "bad" on a particular genre.
I have my own theory, as to why different people will have very different prefferences when listening to a bunch of speakers, and it has less to do with what the speakers do well, and more to do with what they don't do well. Everyones hearing is different (as SY has pointed out), and my proposition is that different people are more or less sensitive to the different "errors" that any particular loudspeaker might have. Whether they be frequency response aberrations, phase errors, distortion, compression or what have you. So whilst it might be possible to measure all of these things, the results are going to mean different things to different people, depending on which particular thing it is that they are more sensitive to.
Therefore I would say that there is no one set of measurements that can tell whether *every* individual will prefer one speaker over another. If you know what measurements are imporatant to you then you can use that do design a speaker that sounds right to you, but it might not sound right to someone else
Obviously if you could produce the perfect transducer that had no errors of any sort whatsover, and the perfect microphone, recording, playback and amplifier, THEN you might have a bit of a chance that you might be able to make something that sounds like the real deal, however then you have to start thinking about the spacing of the persons ears on their head and where the microphones are placed Just my opinion of course and not based on any evidence of any kind whatsoever
Tony.
I would like to challenge you to produce measurements of that set of conditions.
I doubt you would ever come up with two speakers that sound different having the same measurements. Heck, I will say its impossible for it to happen.
Measurements include CSDs, IMD, Polar Response, etc.
I think you just do not realize how many measurements exist and how many ways the can be interpeted.
Guys like Geddes and Zaph have given so much free time and data to this hobby that I find it extremely funny (well said and insulting) when some unknown questions them without any data whatsoever. They had NOTHING to gain from all those years providing research and data, NOTHING!!
Suggestion, never question experts with data to back them up without some data of your own
Obviously not, because those who DO have the evidence conclude otherwise:Just my opinion of course and not based on any evidence of any kind whatsoever
1) Measured under controlled conditions, listeners are surprisingly uniform in their preferences - to a large extent, we all hear and like the same.
2) Technical measurements correlate very highly with listener preferences.
3) "Rock" and "Classical" speakers measure very differently, each being specialized to artificially enhance their respective genre.
http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20100506/5270.pdf
Notwithstanding the above, there's still an *** for every seat....
Last edited:
I second that thought. When people have spent years in a proffession, there normally are lots that we can learn from....
Suggestion, never question experts with data to back them up without some data of your own
That paper dates a while back. If anyone would do a research today, I would suggest adding CSD plots. One thing that we can find is that even if there is a droop in the FR, if the decay is long, then we do not perceive that droop as significant.Obviously not, because those who DO have the evidence conclude otherwise:
1) Measured under controlled conditions, listeners are surprisingly uniform in their preferences - to a large extent, we all hear and like the same.
2) Technical measurements correlate very highly with listener preferences.
3) "Rock" and "Classical" speakers measure very differently, each being specialized to artificially enhance their respective genre.
http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20100506/5270.pdf
Notwithstanding the above, there's still an *** for every seat....
Rob, here's a basic explanation:
Efficiency, Power Compression & Max SPL — Reviews and News from Audioholics
Most often, manufacturers use a Klippel system to measure power compression and nonlinearity. Here's a link to some of the capabilities of the system:
Klippel GmbH - Download
Audibility Of Distortion - How it works
Your specific question:
http://www.klippel.de/download/bin\AN12-Amplitude Compression.pdf
And an example:
HTML Report - Klippel GmbH
Efficiency, Power Compression & Max SPL — Reviews and News from Audioholics
Most often, manufacturers use a Klippel system to measure power compression and nonlinearity. Here's a link to some of the capabilities of the system:
Klippel GmbH - Download
Audibility Of Distortion - How it works
Your specific question:
http://www.klippel.de/download/bin\AN12-Amplitude Compression.pdf
And an example:
HTML Report - Klippel GmbH
I have a basic question for the guys that have and use measurement set-ups.
Asside from defining what a meaninful set of measuremets are what do you look at now?? We can use that as a starting point.
I look at the on axis frequency response at a couple of measurement distances. I also like to look at multiple measurements in the Listening Window and then average them. I use MLS Sine and Stepped Sine. Usually do both and MLS and a Sine and compare them for similarity for each measurement.
Look at the CSD, ETC, Step Response.
Have not done polars will one of these days.
Rob
Asside from defining what a meaninful set of measuremets are what do you look at now?? We can use that as a starting point.
I look at the on axis frequency response at a couple of measurement distances. I also like to look at multiple measurements in the Listening Window and then average them. I use MLS Sine and Stepped Sine. Usually do both and MLS and a Sine and compare them for similarity for each measurement.
Look at the CSD, ETC, Step Response.
Have not done polars will one of these days.
Rob
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.