Hi !
I apologize right away if this topic has already been debated ad nauseam
But in the world of audio reviews I see that measurements have less and less space than subjective listening
Not only that ... the few who try to find a correlation between laboratory measurements and performance are rather mistreated and the comments are even mocking
Instead, I was struck, in a positive way, by this statement that can be found in this review
https://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/99dun4/index.html
"DAL firmly believes that a full set of credible measurements, made by qualified engineering staff using state-of-the-art equipment and facilities, can reliably predict the potential of a loudspeaker to accurately reproduce the complex sounds of music."—Dunlavy Audio labs
It is known that immediately afterwards the journalist adds a lot to create some doubt and confusion
"Yet it must be said that, no matter how good the theory, how impeccable the designer's credentials, and how impressive the measurements, a speaker may still disappoint in subjective terms. The proof, as always, is in the listening"
Another interesting interview here https://www.stereophile.com/interviews/163
"John Dunlavy: Oh, no. Listening comes later. Because if you stop to think about it, no loudspeaker can sound more accurate than it measures. It may sound worse, or it may sound sweeter, prettier, but if we're talking about absolute accuracy—the ability of the speaker to reproduce as perfectly as possible whatever's fed to it—such a system can never sound more accurate than it first measures. So we try to get the greatest accuracy we can achieve from measurements. Then we begin doing what some people might call "voicing," because the best set of measurements are still open to interpretation."
I tend to believe to Mr Dunlavy
And you ?
Kind regards, gino
I apologize right away if this topic has already been debated ad nauseam
But in the world of audio reviews I see that measurements have less and less space than subjective listening
Not only that ... the few who try to find a correlation between laboratory measurements and performance are rather mistreated and the comments are even mocking
Instead, I was struck, in a positive way, by this statement that can be found in this review
https://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/99dun4/index.html
"DAL firmly believes that a full set of credible measurements, made by qualified engineering staff using state-of-the-art equipment and facilities, can reliably predict the potential of a loudspeaker to accurately reproduce the complex sounds of music."—Dunlavy Audio labs
It is known that immediately afterwards the journalist adds a lot to create some doubt and confusion
"Yet it must be said that, no matter how good the theory, how impeccable the designer's credentials, and how impressive the measurements, a speaker may still disappoint in subjective terms. The proof, as always, is in the listening"
Another interesting interview here https://www.stereophile.com/interviews/163
"John Dunlavy: Oh, no. Listening comes later. Because if you stop to think about it, no loudspeaker can sound more accurate than it measures. It may sound worse, or it may sound sweeter, prettier, but if we're talking about absolute accuracy—the ability of the speaker to reproduce as perfectly as possible whatever's fed to it—such a system can never sound more accurate than it first measures. So we try to get the greatest accuracy we can achieve from measurements. Then we begin doing what some people might call "voicing," because the best set of measurements are still open to interpretation."
I tend to believe to Mr Dunlavy
And you ?
Kind regards, gino
I think the question is a little too open and needs qualification. I mean yes, after measuring you voice the speaker.. but global equalisation is on a different level than crossover measurements.
The uncertainty seems to begin when the 'voicing' process starts to encompass making up for anything that doesn't sound right, like acoustic problems with the speaker that weren't identified during the measurements.. or problems the speaker has in general with rooms.
John Dunlavey has a design philosophy that differs a little from mine. I don't agree with everything he does. I believe some of those things would show up as differences in measurements. It all makes the suggestion, that...
Generally speaking it may not always be easy to understand what matters in a measurement that you find in the wild.. although sometimes the measurement limitations are obvious and sometimes measurements have little meaning, even if described otherwise.
The uncertainty seems to begin when the 'voicing' process starts to encompass making up for anything that doesn't sound right, like acoustic problems with the speaker that weren't identified during the measurements.. or problems the speaker has in general with rooms.
John Dunlavey has a design philosophy that differs a little from mine. I don't agree with everything he does. I believe some of those things would show up as differences in measurements. It all makes the suggestion, that...
Generally speaking it may not always be easy to understand what matters in a measurement that you find in the wild.. although sometimes the measurement limitations are obvious and sometimes measurements have little meaning, even if described otherwise.
Last edited:
Hi thank you very much for your valuable advice First of all I'm not a rational person because I'm stimulated/intrigued and a lot by irrational things
But i know that is very bad Intelligence is stimulated only by science and not by voodoo to give an example
But speaking more down to earth I was following a discussion of a technician who promises through the upgrade in particular of the crossovers to improve the performance of almost any commercial loudspeaker on the market He says that they are almost always slaved to a budget so parts, for instance, are cheap and not that good And i can easily agree on this of course There must be a marging at the end
In addition to changing the values of the components and also adding others, the type also changes.
For example, he states that flat coils wound in air (very expensive) are much superior inductor than solid coppper wires wound on an iron core (much cheaper)
I also asked how he establishes superiority and in the end he left me unanswered But he said that no measurement can show this superiority
Well, I'm having a really really hard time accepting this
If an inductor of a certain type is superior than another of the same value but a different type, it must absolutely be seen to some extent by measuring it.
For example the response to an impulse or distortion measurement, impedance vs Hz, i do not know
I think they want to leave room for subjectivity to keep their hands free
A graph, figures, plots leave little room to imagination
But i know that is very bad Intelligence is stimulated only by science and not by voodoo to give an example
But speaking more down to earth I was following a discussion of a technician who promises through the upgrade in particular of the crossovers to improve the performance of almost any commercial loudspeaker on the market He says that they are almost always slaved to a budget so parts, for instance, are cheap and not that good And i can easily agree on this of course There must be a marging at the end
In addition to changing the values of the components and also adding others, the type also changes.
For example, he states that flat coils wound in air (very expensive) are much superior inductor than solid coppper wires wound on an iron core (much cheaper)
I also asked how he establishes superiority and in the end he left me unanswered But he said that no measurement can show this superiority
Well, I'm having a really really hard time accepting this
If an inductor of a certain type is superior than another of the same value but a different type, it must absolutely be seen to some extent by measuring it.
For example the response to an impulse or distortion measurement, impedance vs Hz, i do not know
I think they want to leave room for subjectivity to keep their hands free
A graph, figures, plots leave little room to imagination
Last edited:
In the case of air-wound versus solid-core inductors, there is a measurable difference in that the air-wound takes a lot more current to saturate.
The distortion caused by saturation might or might not be easy on the ear. Creative sound recordists and musicians pay big bucks for gear that uses transformers rather than silicon, finding the distortions highly delightful.
The distortion caused by saturation might or might not be easy on the ear. Creative sound recordists and musicians pay big bucks for gear that uses transformers rather than silicon, finding the distortions highly delightful.
Hi thanks a lot. I wonder why the guy did not tell me this.
You know what really scares me about inductors ? how they distort some test signals like square waves ... crazy
I saw once a square wave test of a complex passive xover .... OMG
are you speaking of signal coupling transformers maybe ?
I agree with this if you are varying the circuit according to measurements... If you are talking about changing parts for the same value then it is not the same thing.
You can measure nonlinear distortion. It is not very audible at these lower orders and you can use iron cores. It could be if you don't make the right choices of specification.
Yes, everything from Neve desks to Pultec equalisers to Fender/Marshall/Ampeg amps are stuffed with them. You can't do rock&roll without iron and copper 🙂
Extremely interesting topic, open to an endless discussion.🙂
IMHO standard audio measurements (and I do them for living) are missing two very important points:
1) We do not measure devices in the working conditions they are used.
2) We still do not have a "human weighting" for the results.
There are progress in both points; but no standards yet.
IMHO standard audio measurements (and I do them for living) are missing two very important points:
1) We do not measure devices in the working conditions they are used.
2) We still do not have a "human weighting" for the results.
There are progress in both points; but no standards yet.
"But in the world of audio reviews I see that measurements have less and less space than subjective listening..."
Audio got it's wish, and much to my surprise, I see that many people consider a "stereo system" a crowning part of home decor. People even buy record players. On purpose. New ones.
That is where the market is at. And audio reviews. Lifestyle reviewing. Martha Stewart Listens.
20 or 30 so years ago, the market was male tech gadget types, and measurements were part of the package. Before that, 40 to 50 years ago, practical people only bought by measurements. People who wanted a lifestyle just bought a console, not a real stereo.
The DIY community is an entirely different world. Two hobbies in one. Much cheaper. Same lifestyle. Music.
Audio got it's wish, and much to my surprise, I see that many people consider a "stereo system" a crowning part of home decor. People even buy record players. On purpose. New ones.
That is where the market is at. And audio reviews. Lifestyle reviewing. Martha Stewart Listens.
20 or 30 so years ago, the market was male tech gadget types, and measurements were part of the package. Before that, 40 to 50 years ago, practical people only bought by measurements. People who wanted a lifestyle just bought a console, not a real stereo.
The DIY community is an entirely different world. Two hobbies in one. Much cheaper. Same lifestyle. Music.
i would start from the basic elements that are parts A crossover is an array of parts and comes after
I understand that inductors oppose to a change in the current flowing ?
And as a twist of fate an inductor can be found where it can make most damage ... in series with the bass woofer
And the more expensive the better
My guess is that for instance a SW test will discriminate the better coils from the worse coil There must be a measurements because it is physics
i also think that in most cases the benefit of having super expensive foil coils is overestimated And that decent quality parts can be had for reasonable prices
And i am sure that the actual design of the circuit is muc more important
I was shocked to see how a SW signal was warped by a xover ... i know SW is not a musical signal ... but it is a very telling test signal
I do not know for sure by my guess is that electronic xover warp a SW much much less ? is this important to consider ?
Yes, it is important.
No, the filters are the same.
It is a good test signal... but how is it warped? What effect is it showing?
Hi thank you for your very valuable reply
Regarding point 1) usually amps are tested with a pure resistive load While a speaker as a load is quite different from a pure resistive load It is a complex load with L and C and R varying with the frequency
In the best scenario the measurements should be carried out with the speaker connected ?
And i am talking only about the matching amp to speakers Room influence adds complexity
Human weigthing is impossible to evaluate because of its subjectivity I like measurements because they are objective They are a matter of fact and not a matter of sensation
There is an evidence of the importance of measurements from the quantity of money that manufacturers put in lab equipment
But i see a more concerning phenomenon ... i see often TV debates between a scientist and an influencer whose main task is to make fun of the scientist
I think it is planned in some ways Maybe science is annoying ?
Don't only consider loading (which of course is important), also consider how test signals are sourced. An AP has a trafo-isolated generator which isn't representative of a real-world source component.
i cannot believe this ... i am quite sure an active filter passes a SW better than a passive one
i was looking at this page here for instance http://speakerdesignworks.com/Maverick_6.html
Moreover i remember and advert from Wilmslow Audio where they were promoting their passive xovers showing a uncommon nice response to SW they said differently from the vast majority of the commercial competitors
So my guess is that the SW response of a normal speaker is not that good I do not know what this practically means by the way
In general i like when what comes out is very similar to what enters in ... i know i am trivial here
Last edited:
Hi yes ! i think that the WAF is more decisive of what we think
A friend of mine had a big pairs of JBL monitors Since his girlfriend has joined him he has switched to a nice looking but wimpy towers
I see. I think the important parameters to get a wife acceptance are look and sizes compared to the room size of course
The smaller the room the smaller must be the speakers When i see some Japanese audio lovers with huge monitors placed in small rooms i wonder if they are all single ... for sure they must love music at realistic full range level
You mean square wave? Sorry, earlier I thought you meant sine wave.
Ok, a square wave shows that phase has little variation. It is OK to have some variation. You won't hear a small amount, but the square wave can stop looking like a square before then.
I am sorry, but this is obviously absolute false and meaningless argument if THAT is the goal with measurements.
Measurements are just there to rectify things, to get data to build from or to verify data.
Hopefully to get some kind of correlation or at least find a method to be able to compare things.
Nothing more, nothing less.
The point is that to many companies try to hide behind it unfortunately.
I have never heard a speaker that "measured good" sounded totally horrible.
But I have seen many speakers that sounded bad as well as measured bad.
I am not talking about a nuance in taste here btw!
What I do find fascinating is how resilient humans are when it comes down to sound and audio.
Or in other words, how so called "experts" fall flat on their faces when things are being blind tested.
fyi, saying that a speaker measures "good" is a very over simplification and that is even a understatement.
The sentence "sound more accurate than it first measures" is therefore a meaningless statement.
Measurements don't have an opinion, measurements are just raw data, that can be either bad or good.
ALL depends on context and in some cases even on something called "target audience" (to use a fancy name).
But the whole idea of "perfect reproduction" is a total unrealistic non-existing dream, which is already starting at the speakers from the mixing guy but MOSTLY the ears of the guy who does the end-mixing.
In some cases the mix or recording quality is very poor for example.
It's most definitely NOT a good representation how certain instruments or things sound in reality.
It most certainly does not have ANYTHING to do with "absolute accuracy".
Hi thanks a lot This is the evidence that the ear is much less sensitive than an instrument Personally i like distortion measurements a lot
Very few manufacturers provide distortion figures for their drivers at various SPLs. And i guess for a reason ... eye does not see heart does not hurt
Speaking of woofers the very good ones at distortion are incidentally also the more expensive
Always bearing in mind that a square wave is something you'll never find in nature...