Loudspeakers that measure bad but sound good

[ID.]

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".

getting back on track, I thought this was interesting. Sounds like a strong argument against using studio monitors tuned for a flat response in an untreated listening room. So potentially my monitors, made for a flat response in a treated room, could perform worse in a living room than something with the Harmon curve.

The speakers should measure flat, but the in-room response should have that mild downward slope for pleasant listening with most people. Accent on pleasant and preference by most people in done research. There is no place for anything but 180 degree flat for studio work or if you want to hear 100% without coloration. That mild slope produces less fatigue IIRC. However, live music produces fatigue, so again, pleasant and realistic don't always fall on common ground.

Thanks for clarifying.

I find live music to be quite bright often. Vocals in particular often have much more on the plosives, etc. than most people would be prepared to accept listening at home.

Rdit: sibilant is the word I was searching for.

 

[ID.]

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".

getting back on track, I thought this was interesting. Sounds like a strong argument against using studio monitors tuned for a flat response in an untreated listening room. So potentially my monitors, made for a flat response in a treated room, could perform worse in a living room than something with the Harmon curve.

Morning ID.

Don't worry, you will not have any issues.....

Cheers. I wasn't worried as I'm enjoying my kit and they sound very clear, detailed and balanced, but always interested in theoretical downsides or upsides, especially as I've chosen this option by ear rather than really looking at measurements.

 

[davedotco]

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".

getting back on track, I thought this was interesting. Sounds like a strong argument against using studio monitors tuned for a flat response in an untreated listening room. So potentially my monitors, made for a flat response in a treated room, could perform worse in a living room than something with the Harmon curve.

Morning ID.

Don't worry, you will not have any issues.....*good*

There are two factors at work here, firstly there is the issue of room gain, speakers produce more bass in a room (treated or not) than in anechoic conditions. Measured anechoically, bass response falls progressively under 500hz but reflections within the listening room will even this out. Saying that a speaker has a flat response without stating the conditions does not always mean very much. Essentially, in your case, the further you are from your speakers the more you approximate to the Harman curve you get.

Secondly your speakers come from top manufacturers, they know the score when it comes to inexpensive (relatively speaking) monitors and balance them appropriately.

You also need to remember that few 'audiophiles' have much exposure to 'live' music, the Harman curve is designed to pander to the 'audiophile' notions of smoothness, lack of fatigue etc, etc.

If, like me, you value the clarity and precision of pro-monitors, the transient response, control and lack of compression are the factors that really matter. This gives a sense of 'reality' that is rare in conventional hi-fi at roughly comparable prices.

 

[davedotco]

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".

getting back on track, I thought this was interesting. Sounds like a strong argument against using studio monitors tuned for a flat response in an untreated listening room. So potentially my monitors, made for a flat response in a treated room, could perform worse in a living room than something with the Harmon curve.

The speakers should measure flat, but the in-room response should have that mild downward slope for pleasant listening with most people. Accent on pleasant and preference by most people in done research. There is no place for anything but 180 degree flat for studio work or if you want to hear 100% without coloration. That mild slope produces less fatigue IIRC. However, live music produces fatigue, so again, pleasant and realistic don't always fall on common ground.

Thanks for clarifying.

I find live music to be quite bright often. Vocals in particular often have much more on the plosives, etc. than most people would be prepared to accept listening at home.

Rdit: sibilant is the word I was searching for.

You need to distinquish between 'live' sound and amplified sound, sibilence is primarily a function of poor mic technique from the singer and/or technical issues.

Live brass, unamplified, can take the top off your head at 30 ft, 'audiophiles' would not like it, it's 'harsh'.

 

[Native_bon]

Who came to the conclusion what flat should measure or sound like? An article I read recently states that the concept of tuning A to 440HZ was introduced in 1939 by BSI (British Standards Institute) It also states there was a conspiracy theory to put people on edge during the second world war, hence the 440 Hz. Going futher to say 432Hz would be a more flater & enjoyable way to listen to music, once you get use to it, it's like taking the red or green pill. If you dare to take the red pill being 432Hz you may never go back to listening at 440Hz. This can be achieved by placing software on the signal path.

Well, we made the rules. Rules are meant to be broken.*preved*

 

[davedotco]

Who came to the conclusion what flat should measure or sound like? An article I read recently states that the concept of tuning A to 440HZ was introduced in 1939 by BSI (British Standards Institute) It also states there was a conspiracy theory to put people on edge during the second world war, hence the 440 Hz. Going futher to say 432Hz would be a more flater & enjoyable way to listen to music, once you get use to it, it's like taking the red or green pill. If you dare to take the red pill being 432Hz you may never go back to listening at 440Hz. This can be achieved by placing software on the signal path.

Well, we made the rules. Rules are meant to be broken.*preved*

The tuning debate is an interesting one, but how does that relate to the amplitude response of loudspeakers?

 

[Native_bon]

Who came to the conclusion what flat should measure or sound like? An article I read recently states that the concept of tuning A to 440HZ was introduced in 1939 by BSI (British Standards Institute) It also states there was a conspiracy theory to put people on edge during the second world war, hence the 440 Hz. Going futher to say 432Hz would be a more flater & enjoyable way to listen to music, once you get use to it, it's like taking the red or green pill. If you dare to take the red pill being 432Hz you may never go back to listening at 440Hz. This can be achieved by placing software on the signal path.

Well, we made the rules. Rules are meant to be broken.*preved*

The tuning debate is an interesting one, but how does that relate to the amplitude response of loudspeakers?

If things are wrong from the word go, speaker manufacturers may have to compensate for it in tunning their speakers to have a particular sound or the right sound?

 

[Vladimir]

Studios fix sibilants with de-essers.

 

[davedotco]

Who came to the conclusion what flat should measure or sound like? An article I read recently states that the concept of tuning A to 440HZ was introduced in 1939 by BSI (British Standards Institute) It also states there was a conspiracy theory to put people on edge during the second world war, hence the 440 Hz. Going futher to say 432Hz would be a more flater & enjoyable way to listen to music, once you get use to it, it's like taking the red or green pill. If you dare to take the red pill being 432Hz you may never go back to listening at 440Hz. This can be achieved by placing software on the signal path.

Well, we made the rules. Rules are meant to be broken.*preved*

The tuning debate is an interesting one, but how does that relate to the amplitude response of loudspeakers?

If things are wrong from the word go, speaker manufacturers may have to compensate for it in tunning their speakers to have a particular sound or the right sound?

Do explain how changing the amplitude resonse of a replay speaker compensates for a change of tuning regime,

I'm all ears....*scratch_one-s_head*

 

[Vladimir]

Pitch inflation
During historical periods when instrumental music rose in prominence (relative to the voice), there was a continuous tendency for pitch levels to rise. This "pitch inflation" seemed largely a product of instrumentalists competing with each other, each attempting to produce a brighter, more "brilliant", sound than that of their rivals. (In string instruments, this is not all acoustic illusion: when tuned up, they actually sound objectively brighter because the higher string tension results in larger amplitudes for the harmonics.) This tendency was also prevalent with wind instrument manufacturers, who crafted their instruments to play generally at a higher pitch than those made by the same craftsmen years earlier.

On at least two occasions, pitch inflation had become so severe that reform became needed. At the beginning of the 17th century, Michael Praetorius reported in his encyclopedic Syntagma musicum[/i] that pitch levels had become so high that singers were experiencing severe throat strain and lutenists and viol players were complaining of snapped strings.

I've read complaints for years on audio forums how modern speakers are becoming more and more bright, with ear piercing harshness. I've heard same amount of complaints of the opposite, modern speakers being dull and lifeless boom and tizz boxes. Inflation/deflation...

What happens when you turn up a cheap boom and tizz floorstander? It turns from dull to harsh due to driver breakups and cabinet resonances. One has to adjust the volume for a sweet middle ground where it's loud enough and with just the right amount of distortion to make it sound live and rich with midrange details (artifacts). Damn Fletcher-Munson curse.

 

[Native_bon]

Pitch inflation

During historical periods when instrumental music rose in prominence (relative to the voice), there was a continuous tendency for pitch levels to rise. This "pitch inflation" seemed largely a product of instrumentalists competing with each other, each attempting to produce a brighter, more "brilliant", sound than that of their rivals. (In string instruments, this is not all acoustic illusion: when tuned up, they actually sound objectively brighter because the higher string tension results in larger amplitudes for the harmonics.) This tendency was also prevalent with wind instrument manufacturers, who crafted their instruments to play generally at a higher pitch than those made by the same craftsmen years earlier.

I've read complaints for years on audio forums how modern speakers are becoming more and more bright, with ear piercing harshness. I've heard same amount of complaints of the opposite, modern speakers being dull and lifeless boom and tizz boxes. Inflation/deflation...

What happens when you turn up a cheap boom and tizz floorstander? It turns from dull to harsh due to driver breakups and cabinet resonances. One has to adjust the volume for a sweet middle ground where it's loud enough and with just the right amount of distortion to make it sound live and rich with midrange details (artifacts). Damn Fletcher-Munson curse.

Now this is the problem I have with most speakers out there. Find them a bit shouty & over bearing when turned up to a particular level. Also room size & acoustics will play a big part I suppose.

 

[Jota180]

And the track would lose so much if recorded flat.

We aren't discussing how things should be recorded or produced, but I understand your point. As long as something sounds good to you personally, then it is high fidelity to you, and that is all that matters. Every teenager with Kicker subs in his room agrees with you.

The point is music is not recorded/mastered flat the whole point of a speaker is not to flatten a 'recording' to give an accurate rendition of a piano or acoustic guitars, it's to just present the music.

You want to dictate to others what's a good speaker.....

The graphs of those high end speakers look rubbish they're all over the place with dips and troughs..... Yet they cost a fortune.

The mission look like the ideal speaker looking at the smoothness of its graph by comparison.

I don't care for graphs but it looks like there is more coloration in hi-end speakers, probably less accuracy but in the real world they'd no doubt trounce the Mission 782se.

Hi-fidelity is what it is - what is the point you are trying to make?

You neither have the faintest idea of the recording process, nor do you understand the meaning of the words 'High Fidelity'.

Artists go to considerable lengths to get the sound that they want on their finished product, High Fidelity equipment simply attempts to reproduce it.

Unlike h-fi, which is now a generic term for any kind of home audio, High Fidelity has a meaning, once summed up by Peter Walker as "the closest approach to the original sound".

It gives us an objective standard to evaluate equipment, the closer it gets to the original sound, the better it is, simple.

You are not expected or required to like the results, that is not the point.

Are you sure artists go to any lengths at all other than going into the studio to play their piece? The mastering engineer has to fiddle with the recording to produce a different sound depending on what format it's for like CD, vinyl, radio and it's likely most artists have been and gone by the time this person is doing his thing.

Another thing mentioned earlier by someone else. About the "realistic" piano. How do you know when there's many varieties of piano and all sound unique. Unless you've been there and heard the artist playing that exact piano you can't say what you're hearing through your speaker is very accurate representation of it. In any case, even if you had heard the piano in real life, unless your hifi is right next to you and you can play that track a split second after hearing the live piano A/B style it's a fact that your audio memory of that piano will not be accurate. Yeah it'll sound like 'a' piano, but that piano? So your speaker may have a flat response but does that mean it's accurate at reproducing all the components of sound?

People generally aren't going to get measured flat responses in their rooms. Measurments of speakers not done in anechoic conditions, what worth are they to you and your room? Ultimately people should buy speakers based on suitablitiy for the room they're going in, how loud they like to play music and the price. Looks comes into it too. At the end of the day, if you're happy with the sound and find yourself playing your music a lot then that's what matters to you.

 

[Jota180]

http://www.thestrad.com/cpt-latests/blind-tested-soloists-unable-to-tell-stradivarius-violins-from-modern-instruments/

 

[lindsayt]

Jota, on the piano thing, you don't need to have heard that particular piano to know if a hi-fi system is reproducing it accurately or not.

That's because there are so many audio systems that are not good at reproducing pianos. The most common fault being that they sound like an audio system reproducing a piano. This is due to the size and nature of distortions (in the broadest sense of the term) that so many audio systems add to the recording.

This is the sort of thing that is best explained by a comparative demo of 2 hi-fi systems. One good at reproducing pianos and one relatively poor.

And it's not just down to differences in frequency response. It's down to a relative lack of distortion - in the broadest sense of the term.

By the way, did you know that pianos are harder for hi-fi systems to reproduce than saxophones? It's because saxophones give a more steady state signal. Whilst pianos are more transient based with complex decays.

 

[davedotco]

And the track would lose so much if recorded flat.

We aren't discussing how things should be recorded or produced, but I understand your point. As long as something sounds good to you personally, then it is high fidelity to you, and that is all that matters. Every teenager with Kicker subs in his room agrees with you.

The point is music is not recorded/mastered flat the whole point of a speaker is not to flatten a 'recording' to give an accurate rendition of a piano or acoustic guitars, it's to just present the music.

You want to dictate to others what's a good speaker.....

The graphs of those high end speakers look rubbish they're all over the place with dips and troughs..... Yet they cost a fortune.

The mission look like the ideal speaker looking at the smoothness of its graph by comparison.

I don't care for graphs but it looks like there is more coloration in hi-end speakers, probably less accuracy but in the real world they'd no doubt trounce the Mission 782se.

Hi-fidelity is what it is - what is the point you are trying to make?

You neither have the faintest idea of the recording process, nor do you understand the meaning of the words 'High Fidelity'.

Artists go to considerable lengths to get the sound that they want on their finished product, High Fidelity equipment simply attempts to reproduce it.

Unlike h-fi, which is now a generic term for any kind of home audio, High Fidelity has a meaning, once summed up by Peter Walker as "the closest approach to the original sound".

It gives us an objective standard to evaluate equipment, the closer it gets to the original sound, the better it is, simple.

You are not expected or required to like the results, that is not the point.

Are you sure artists go to any lengths at all other than going into the studio to play their piece? The mastering engineer has to fiddle with the recording to produce a different sound depending on what format it's for like CD, vinyl, radio and it's likely most artists have been and gone by the time this person is doing his thing.

Another thing mentioned earlier by someone else. About the "realistic" piano. How do you know when there's many varieties of piano and all sound unique. Unless you've been there and heard the artist playing that exact piano you can't say what you're hearing through your speaker is very accurate representation of it. In any case, even if you had heard the piano in real life, unless your hifi is right next to you and you can play that track a split second after hearing the live piano A/B style it's a fact that your audio memory of that piano will not be accurate. Yeah it'll sound like 'a' piano, but that piano? So your speaker may have a flat response but does that mean it's accurate at reproducing all the components of sound?

People generally aren't going to get measured flat responses in their rooms. Measurments of speakers not done in anechoic conditions, what worth are they to you and your room? Ultimately people should buy speakers based on suitablitiy for the room they're going in, how loud they like to play music and the price. Looks comes into it too. At the end of the day, if you're happy with the sound and find yourself playing your music a lot then that's what matters to you.

I am tempted to say that you are comparing modern pop pap with actual music and though I really shouldn't, I have.

This is not really about peoples tastes, I can't talk, I spend a couple of hours yesterday morning pottering around the house to Jesus and Mary Chain Psycocandy and Darklands, definately not to everyones (anyones?) taste.

Once again this comes down to definitions, if you are interested in high fidelity reproduction than thare are some things that are pretty much absolute and these are best assessed by playing real intruments, hopefully instruments that the listener has actually heard for real, hence the suggestion for piano. This is about product evaluation, not, at this stage, necessarily about the kind of music you prefer.

Once you step away from modern pop with its 'loudness wars' compression, autotune vocals and 'grot box' mixes there is a remarkable amount of time and effort put into the way a recording sounds and it shows. Use some of these recordings to set a baseline standard, to find out just how good and 'accurate' your setup is. Audio memory may well be short lived, but the brain is pretty complex and a very good judge of what is real and what is not.

 

[Vladimir]

https://youtu.be/zrpUDuUtxPM?t=27m52s

 

[Vladimir]

Exactly because you don't know how that piano in the studio sounds, you can't fine tune your system playing the game of synergy. But if your system is neutral, without coloration, without distortion, you can be sure it is reproducing that piano recording pretty darn good. You simply have to trust the microphones and the producer for capturing that piano accurately, and put effort in making your system add less to the original captured sound.

Now the room. You say it's pointless having a neutral system if the room adds to the final heard FR. I hope you will give that Floyd Toole video a look. Research shows that a well behaved loudspeaker measuring well on and off-axis in an anechoic chamber, will still be well behaved in your typical listening room. Testing different room geometries on trained listeners, Harman came to the conclusion people recognize a good loudspeaker system, the room being minor factor which the human brain processes out. Now of course good room geometry, furnishing and loudspeaker positioning help with getting a better final in-room response, but essentially if the speaker is well designed (well behaved on-axis, off-axis, sound power), it will be much more immune to it's environment.

I've heard a lot of fishing stories how great loudspeakers sound worse than an LG boombox in untreated rooms and with bad positioning, but I personally have yet to hear a good loudspeaker sounding bad in any room. Toole for this reason mentioned the KEF 105.2 example. A loudspeaker that measured great on-axis in an anechoic chamber, came to sound poor or mediocre in normal rooms simply because it measured badly off-axis. So it wasn't that great of a design in the first place.

 

[Native_bon]

Exactly because you don't know how that piano in the studio sounds, you can't fine tune your system playing the game of synergy. But if your system is neutral, without coloration, without distortion, you can be sure it is reproducing that piano recording pretty darn good. You simply have to trust the microphones and the producer for capturing that piano accurately, and put effort in making your system add less to the original captured sound.

Now the room. You say it's pointless having a neutral system if the room adds to the final heard FR. I hope you will give that Floyd Toole video a look. Research shows that a well behaved loudspeaker measuring well on and off-axis in an anechoic chamber, will still be well behaved in your typical listening room. Testing different room geometries on trained listeners, Harman came to the conclusion people recognize a good loudspeaker system, the room being minor factor which the human brain processes out. Now of course good room geometry, furnishing and loudspeaker positioning help with getting a better final in-room response, but essentially if the speaker is well designed (well behaved on-axis, off-axis, sound power), it will be much more immune to it's environment.

I've heard a lot of fishing stories how great loudspeakers sound worse than an LG boombox in untreated rooms and with bad positioning, but I personally have yet to hear a good loudspeaker sounding bad in any room. Toole for this reason mentioned the KEF 105.2 example. A loudspeaker that measured great on-axis in an anechoic chamber, came to sound poor or mediocre in normal rooms simply because it measured badly off-axis. So it wasn't that great of a design in the first place.

Well said. I still think setting up at home should be part of sales of hifi by the retailer.

 

[Vladimir]

We don't need/want to hear the actual piano in the recording room or concert hall, but the sound coming off the master recording.
I can fine tune my hi-fi to flatter a poorly recorded/produced piano, making it sound more lifelike, but that sonic character will also be embedded in other music I play. Ideally I want that horrid piano be reproduced horridly, as faitfull to the final master recording.
How do I know if my hi-fi reproduces a faithful presentation of the master? I can't. I can only rely on measurements and manufacturers engineering skills.
From that perspective, if I own loudspeakers that play a 1kHz tone as a jaggedy portray of the Himalayas, how am I to expect it to play a faithful reproduction of the master recording?

 

[Reijer]

A few years ago I went with my wife to De Doelen in Rotterdam, we live in Dordrecht. There played the Rotterdam Philharmonic with choir (all boys) and solist the music from The Hobbit part III. Above the players, before the great organ, was a great screen where the movie simultaneously was projected in HD. It was a great evening.

There I get interested in HiFi. 'My' new system should reproduce that intense, clear, wide, open and when played loud, almost painfull to my ears (in a good way) music I heared and see that evening. So thats my quest.

I agree that speakers should be as neutral as possible and in synergy with the rest of the hifichain to reproduce the music the way the conductor/producer wants it.

 

[nopiano]

I agree with that, R, aiming for a facsimile of the 'real thing'. Of course, it is easy to be disheartened if attempting a full orchestra, choir and organ in full cry, as this will tax the best systems. And, in many homes, neighbours and other family members will mean that anything approaching actual levels is problematic.

For most folks, I think that a system that provides a reduced scale of a live performance, but with the essential balance, placement and ambience intact can be very satisfying. When you have the dynamic range capability (recording and system) and the opportunity to raise the levels a bit, it needs to 'change up a gear' effortlessly and without sounder rougher.

What struck me most when I first heard a pretty hi-end system (Oracle tt, Audio Research amps and Sonus faber speakers) was how the woodwind was not just wonderfully clear with all the breath noises I recognised from a live orchestra, but they were placed behind the strings, but in front of the timpani. That became my goal - to get realistic depth placement and venue acoustics. A big ask!

 

[Vladimir]

Home Hi-Fi is about how it makes you feel for your money and pro audio sticks to utilitarian performance per pound. If we applied some Sonus Faber Aida. Obviosly a flat FR on-axis and off-axis with low distortion is desirable. It is part of everything that makes these SFs great.

 

[nopiano]

They look fab, Vlad, and I think that is part of the appeal. They look like musical instruments, as well and sounding like them.

When I bought my much more modest models, piano black was scarcely seen. Now it is common-place. (I even have a facsimle of it on my car dashboard). That means my 17 year old speakers could be brand new, at least appearance-wise. The most expensive hifi I ever bought turned out to be the cheapest in the long run!

 

[Infiniteloop]

They look fab, Vlad, and I think that is part of the appeal. They look like musical instruments, as well and sounding like them.

When I bought my much more modest models, piano black was scarcely seen. Now it is common-place. (I even have a facsimle of it on my car dashboard). That means my 17 year old speakers could be brand new, at least appearance-wise. The most expensive hifi I ever bought turned out to be the cheapest in the long run!

I had a pair of SF's for a long time too. I have a recently acquired pair of Cremona Auditor M's in my second system. They're just so easy to live with and sound great with any music.

I've recently been eyeing up the Guarneri Evolutions......

 

[CnoEvil]

I've recently been eyeing up the Guarneri Evolutions......

Fantastic idea.....just do it....life is short.

I still can't fathom how you like Focal and SF / Devialet and UR.....normally if you like one, you can't stand the other.