Loudspeakers that measure bad but sound good

[Vladimir]

Isn't learning and doing things by yourself part of any hobby?

Learning how to interpret basic measured data is lot cheaper than decades of swapping gear and learning by ear. Learn from graphs or learn from your mistakes. There is learning and self-education involved either way. Manufacturers don't publish detailed relevant specs for a reason.

 

[chebby]

Big -6dB dip at 5KHz. I assume this is where the crossover point is. (A bit high?)

Slight upper bass lift (nothing really pronounced).

Everything above what a typical middle-aged man can hear anyway is rolled off from 10KHz +.

 

[ID.]

Isn't learning and doing things by yourself part of any hobby?

Learning how to interpret basic measured data is lot cheaper than decades of swapping gear and learning by ear. Learn from graphs or learn from your mistakes. There is learning and self-education involved either way. Manufacturers don't publish detailed relevant specs for a reason.

For some, but not for most these days. I don't think most fit into your definition of an audiophile who would. For most it's just a means to an end. Buy the flash kit and enjoy one's tunes. I'm still not convinced that box swapping is necessarily down to people not achieving a flat frequency response, even though that is what hi fi should be about.

 

[Vladimir]

High Fidelity and Audiophiles are concepts from the 1950s.

My theory that people want neutrality and they get it wrong mostly because of their speakers, is constantly demonstrated for us with the largely predominant topics about bright/warm speakers and amps, even digital sources. Considering digital sources and amplifiers don't have coloration (excep for the input sensitivity trickery simulating it), we are left with the speakers to blame.

 

[drummerman]

Seriously you guys have unreasonable expectations/ideas in how you define hifi gear.

Especially when most tracks have all kinds of jiggary pokery added and taken away during the mixing / mastering stage.

From added reverb to phase shifts and so on.

Even on 'live' recordings.

I can understand where you're coming from.

But I'm currently listening to Never be the Same Again single mix by Melanie C.

For sure it's been over-produced. There's a certain amount of compression. And the bass has been pushed up in the mix.

But, a mediocre hi-fi system will make a hash of this track, whilst a good system will elevate it to a highly enjoyable work of art. With a nice tight punchy bass line. Melanie C plus her backing singers will sound as if they are standing in the room, singing directly to you. There's also the pleasantly sweet acoustic guitars and synths. It's a track that will grab your attention and get you tapping your feet - on a good system.

Two wrongs don't make a right. And I don't want any wrongs in the recording made worse by major wrongs in my hi-fi system.

 

[ID.]

Repeat after me - warm is good, bright is bad. Neutral with a flat frequency response is boring, soulless, cold and analytical.

Repeat this mantra whenever you feel dissatisfied with your kit and then go swap some boxes or cables.

 

[Deleted member 116933]

High Fidelity and Audiophiles are concepts from the 1950s.

My theory that people want neutrality and they get it wrong mostly because of their speakers, is constantly demonstrated for us with the largely predominant topics about bright/warm speakers and amps, even digital sources. Considering digital sources and amplifiers don't have coloration (excep for the input sensitivity trickery simulating it), we are left with the speakers to blame.

Interesting thread. But isn't it sometimes those imperfections that make a speaker.? If the speaker is to flat it becomes lifless IMO.

I would say your room has a bigger impact on the sound than speakers, whats the point of the speaker being flat if the room isn't.

Even the worst speaker can me made to sound some what good following the basics. And really in the modern house thats all you can expect.

But yes i get the point that you don't want unwanted artifacts introduced before you even start as it makes it far more differcult to begin with.

But general Jo's will never messure speakers like that with water fall graphs and what not to check for those imperfection.

I still think the listening method is the best way to go about it and thats fun for me. Going into the shops listening to the prefered brands talking to the sale men/women and looking at your purchase with pride know that you've done your upmost to bring you media to life thats the hobby! Hiif/Audiophile isn't just about the gear the graphs the knowing of what matches its the life style the knower of great music and the person that can bring that music to life! in what ever way possible

As you say an Audiophile is a concept from the 50's i think this now needs to be updated. I dont think you can pigeon hole an Audiophile any longer its now a much larger term. And Hifi is no longer a description. It stopped being that when it became a brand.

 

[Electro]

I am not sure about the technical details of my speakers such as FR response etc, but sometimes they sound warm and smooth, other times they sound cold, bright, ultra detailed and mega dynamic, on occasion they can sound a bit dull and lifeless , often a combination of all three !

They sound completely different with every recording played , even different tracks from the same Cd can vary dramatically in presentation !

To be honest I could not tell you what my speakers sound like because I don't remember ever hearing them . Is that good ? *smile*

 

[ID.]

I am not sure about the technical details of my speakers such as FR response etc, but sometimes they sound warm and smooth, other times they sound cold, bright, ultra detailed and mega dynamic, on occasion they can sound a bit dull and lifeless , often a combination of all three !

They sound completely different with every recording played , even different tracks from the same Cd can vary dramatically in presentation !

To be honest I could not tell you what my speakers sound like because I don't remember ever hearing them . Is that good ? *smile*

to be honest I've thought that too. Ive always thought it was good as I'm hearing what was recorded. If it's a warm track it sounds warm. If it's cold and sharp then that's how it sounds. When I've had speakers that lean in a certain direction, say warm, then the warm recordings sounded dull and it wasn't even necessarily good with sharper harsh recordings either.

Its a complete myth that flat, neutral speakers are boring. I find speakers sound flat and boring when the amp isn't up to the job. It's the dynamics, attack and bass control that go missing resulting in a dull sound.

 

[davedotco]

Speakers do not sound 'boring' because they measure flat but because of the techniques used (complex crossovers) to make them measure flat.

Choose the speaker with a response to fit the room size and you will not need 'treatment' to get a good sound.

If you want to choose with confidence learn a little about the subject, the 'plot' for the mission speaker shown above shows a couple of things quite clearly.

The slow decay at low freqencies is fairly typical of budget floorstanders, much better than some but resonances that hang around and move to higher frequencies as they decay will give an overly warm bass, some people like that. At the very least it tells you that these speakers are going to need space to maintain any quality of bass definition.

The 'ridge' around the 5khz region is probably the bass cone breaking up, the dip in the basic response curve may well be an attempt to minimise the effect of the breakup. The two narrow band 'ridges' at high frequencies are probably tweeter resonances, left in to give a little 'air' and 'space' to offset the gently falling resonce in the high treble.

The bass response alone would be enough for me to discount these speakers entirely, for my living room, no way could I give them the space needed to breath.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Vlad now post a graph of your speakers .....please and clarify what they are!

By the way what is this graph saying about these speakers are they good or bad?

They sound superb and image like....like really well.....and are very clear.

Thanks for the explanation Dave. That graph means nothing to me.....wait a second 'budget'?

These speakers when New cost a grand back in the day. In today's money you're looking at KEF rn-500's, Spendor A5's B&W CM8's...... Budget?.....Budget!!?....looks like you done gone and lost your mind......

Just to add a full frequency tone sweep is very smooth with no dropouts or anomalies.

And these boxes have a tiny port over a side firing woofer (becoming popular again with hi-end designs) on them they're more or less sealed boxes.

Provided you have a capable amp they're good......

 

[Vladimir]

Anechoic FR

In-room FR, untreated, typically furnished room.

Cumulative spectral-decay plot on tweeter axis, John Atkinson considers the ridges to happen due to reflections on the horn edges.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

So ok, what does that mean?

Is that a good or bad graph. (comparing to the 782 graph)

The bass starts lower but the graph is all over the place.

These speakers cost thousands so are these audiophile speakers the ones you are on about?

On paper which would you buy Vlad?

Same question to Dave......

 

[davedotco]

So ok, what does that mean?

Is that a good or bad graph. (comparing to the 782 graph)

The bass starts lower but the graph is all over the place.

These speakers cost thousands so are these audiophile speakers the ones you are on about?

On paper which would you buy Vlad?

Same question to Dave......

Both speakers need more space than I have, by a fair margin.

Big (ish) JBLs work best at a distance, for me anyway. Never met a floorstanding Mission I didnt hate.

 

[Vladimir]

The Harman Curve

"A flat in-room target response is clearly not the optimal target curve for room equalization. The preferred room corrections have a target response that has a downward slope with increasing frequency." - Dr. Sean Olive, Head of Acoustic Research at Harman International

Which is confirmation of research done in the 70's by Brüel & Kjær. "Optimum curve for Hi-Fi equipment. Measured in the actual listening room".

 

[nopiano]

I have returned after a while away, and this thread caught my eye. Generally, I've not considered frequency response to be a highly pertinent feature of better speakers. That said, I tend to prefer those with mainly good technical parameters that actually sound good too.

To illustrate, when I bought much of my gear fifteen plus years ago, I wasn't keen on the great measuring KEF and Spendor sound, which was often well received. You had to be fairly determined to find something better without spending a fortune.

What hasn't been mentioned I think is that 'hifi' means fidelity to the source, or at least it once did. It doesn't mean customising the sound to your ears or to compensate for some omission or defect. I say that because real instruments, say, a piano, or a string quartet, sound quite different in different venues. That will mostly be response differences. Even different seats in one venue will sound quite different. That's why, as dave said, other factors are more damaging than lumps in response that we can compensate for in our brains. But if the piano needs tuning... We can't not hear that!

 

[davedotco]

I have returned after a while away, and this thread caught my eye. Generally, I've not considered frequency response to be a highly pertinent feature of better speakers. That said, I tend to prefer those with mainly good technical parameters that actually sound good too.

To illustrate, when I bought much of my gear fifteen plus years ago, I wasn't keen on the great measuring KEF and Spendor sound, which was often well received. You had to be fairly determined to find something better without spending a fortune.

What hasn't been mentioned I think is that 'hifi' means fidelity to the source, or at least it once did. It doesn't mean customising the sound to your ears or to compensate for some omission or defect. I say that because real instruments, say, a piano, or a string quartet, sound quite different in different venues. That will mostly be response differences. Even different seats in one venue will sound quite different. That's why, as dave said, other factors are more damaging than lumps in response that we can compensate for in our brains. But if the piano needs tuning... We can't not hear that!

*i-m_so_happy*

I have often suggested that the differences (often very obvious ones) between competent speakers at a similar level is rather like changing seats in a concert hall, yes it will 'sound' different but if the performance is carp from one seat, it will be carp from the others too.

Play a decent recording of a real piano, does it sound real? Surely everyone has heard a real piano, it's really not hard to tell if it sounds real or not. How about an acoustic guitar, same logic, it's really pretty simple.

Flat requency response is not overidingly important, as I said earlier, transient response, dynamic compression etc all make a difference, far easier to hear than it is to measure.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Now the discussion is getting somewhere.

I agree with the last two post.

The track 'Diamonds' by Laura Mvula off the album 'Sing to the moon' starts with a solo piano and her vocals and sounds amazing.

The way it's recorded/mixed - you 'hear' the piano being played, not just notes the actual piano!

You hear the pedals, the keys being pressed - the sense of the piano players movement on the stool the ambience of the 'room' - stunning piece of mixing/recording - I cannot tell if the graphs say my speakers are rubbish or not but their design works regardless how they measure.

This topic is 'a distraction' to those who just want to enjoy their hifi.

 

[ID.]

Or it could help someone find the satisfaction they are seeking.

This forum is a distraction to those who just want to enjoy their hi fi. Some people enjoy the distraction.

 

[davedotco]

Now the discussion is getting somewhere.

I agree with the last two post.

The track 'Diamonds' by Laura Mvula off the album 'Sing to the moon' starts with a solo piano and her vocals and sounds amazing.

The way it's recorded/mixed - you 'hear' the piano being played, not just notes the actual piano!

You hear the pedals, the keys being pressed - the sense of the piano players movement on the stool the ambience of the 'room' - stunning piece of mixing/recording - I cannot tell if the graphs say my speakers are rubbish or not but their design works regardless how they measure.

This topic is 'a distraction' to those who just want to enjoy their hifi.

Are you serious?

There is no hope, none at all......*dash1*

 

[ID.]

Cheers. I'll check them out later once the screaming littlies are asleep.

 

[Vladimir]

I kicked off with FR as something very basic, but as we all pointed out, there are other things to look for.

Can a loudspeaker that doesn't measure flat FR (-/+3dB), measures significant cabinet resonances, port chuffing, break-up modes and resonances in drivers, time smearing from standing waves and cabinet diffractions, can it ever be good?

This is not hypothetical question. There are loudspeakers with high price tags and glorious reviews that measure badly in many areas. As I previously mentioned, especially indicative of this are the Vienna Acoustic's reviewed by Stereophile, where the subjective reviewer gives them high praises and John Atkinson poops on their performance in the Measurements section.

Two of my favorite videos on the topic:

Loudspeaker Measurements Explained, John Atkinson

Sound Reproduction – Art and Science/Opinions and Facts, Floyd Toole

 

[Covenanter]

I kicked off with FR as something very basic, but as we all pointed out, there are other things to look for.

Can a loudspeaker that doesn't measure flat FR (-/+3dB), measures significant cabinet resonances, port chuffing, break-up modes and resonances in drivers, time smearing from standing waves and cabinet diffractions, can it ever be good?

This is not hypothetical question. There are loudspeakers with high price tags and glorious reviews that measure badly in many areas. As I previously mentioned, especially indicative of this are the Vienna Acoustic's reviewed by Stereophile, where the subjective reviewer gives them high praises and John Atkinson poops on their performance in the Measurements section.

Two of my favorite videos on the topic:

Loudspeaker Measurements Explained, John Atkinson

Sound Reproduction – Art and Science/Opinions and Facts, Floyd Toole

Good stuff - not that the believers will accept it!

Chris

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Now the discussion is getting somewhere.

I agree with the last two post.

The track 'Diamonds' by Laura Mvula off the album 'Sing to the moon' starts with a solo piano and her vocals and sounds amazing.

The way it's recorded/mixed - you 'hear' the piano being played, not just notes the actual piano!

You hear the pedals, the keys being pressed - the sense of the piano players movement on the stool the ambience of the 'room' - stunning piece of mixing/recording - I cannot tell if the graphs say my speakers are rubbish or not but their design works regardless how they measure.

This topic is 'a distraction' to those who just want to enjoy their hifi.

Are you serious?

There is no hope, none at all......*dash1*

I am very serious, listen to the track on YouTube.

The CD version is stunning.

But expand Dave - why is this not possible with my speakers?

 

[Vladimir]

I am very serious, listen to the track on YouTube.

The CD version is stunning.

Except for the obnoxious amounts of echo/delay/hall reverb effect on her voice, the album is pretty good. Love the groove on the bass player.