Real world listening

[plastic penguin]

As many of you know I'm not a fan of graphs and paper specs. There are many modern amps that reads better than the Leema. I've demoed so many speakers over the 14 years I've owned it, including infinite baffle designs as well as ported and vented designs. Of course the Leema has lost a little volume with the Dalis, but still drives the speakers to impressive levels without any clipping.

My TB2is were very efficient while the Rubis are quite inefficient in terms of ohms. The amp isn't phased by speakers that have nasty dips in ohms either. So is a graph or paper spec a worthy alternative to physical listening?

Your views please.

 

[DougK1]

Charts and specs can illustrate lots of things but the only things I trust are my lug 'oles

 

[podknocker]

I think all amp and speaker companies are aware of each others devices and their corresponding demands. I can't think of a mainstream, everyday product you could buy from your local HIFI shop that would cause serious problems with the other kit that it's expected to work with. You can find exotic and esoteric components and kit at the very top end of performance and finding compatible partnering devices can be tricky. Just about every amp and speaker you can buy will work with anything its connected to. Graphs and specs can be useful, but listening is always going to be more useful. Having an amp with much more current than a speaker would like is always going to be better than driving recalcitrant speakers with an underpowered amp. The only thing to consider is being careful with the volume control, if it's a slippy rotary one.

 

[daytona600]

If it sounds bad and measures bad then it's bad, but it sounds good and measures bad then you measured the wrong thing.

Western Electric 16a from 1929 grand father of all speakers made for the talkies jazz singer
WE invented the Speaker / PA system
Measurements are truly shocking , but sound better than 99% of every speaker ever made
8 watts could fill a room of 3,000 people with One Speaker

 

[DougK1]

Having an amp with much more current than a speaker would like is always going to be better than driving recalcitrant speakers with an underpowered amp. The only thing to consider is being careful with the volume control, if it's a slippy rotary one.

Agreed on the first point, Pod. You've mentioned problematic rotary volume knobs several times, I've never had an amp without a rotary volume knob and I've never encountered issues with any of them

 

[Noddy]

If it sounds bad and measures bad then it's bad, but it sounds good and measures bad then you measured the wrong thing.

Assuming the measurements are done competently, then it just means you like voiced gear that doesn’t reproduce sound faithfully. A lot of boutique equipment that costs a fortune is voiced. Or perhaps there is some resonance or feature of your room that works best with a particular voicing.

Measurements on headphones tell me if they are worth trying out. The trend in consumer cans is for bass heavy which I hate. So I didn’t even bother with Sennheiser and B&W wireless cans. I like neutral, and the neutral ones I tried were excellent.

 

[Friesiansam]

So is a graph or paper spec a worthy alternative to physical listening?

Decades ago when I bought my first Technics gear, I would have said yes but now, it's what it sounds like to me, that matters.

 

[nopiano]

There is an argument that amplifier design is pretty much a solved problem. With something based on a Hypex or Purifi module you get 80 wpc upwards with essentially unmeasurably low distortion and noise. Drives any speaker, uses not much electricity and runs cool.

Many more traditional class AB designs like your Leema are equally pretty immune to weird speaker impedances and will get the best from most speakers.

I do find measurements and charts useful to establish where weaknesses might be apparent, and with loudspeakers mainly, once one learns to match specs with preferences ( when auditioned), a lot of listening and leg work can be saved when trying to shortlist something for audition.

What fascinates me with speakers is that you’d imagine the more you spend the more designs would converge. However, in practice it’s quite the opposite, whereas budget 2-ways about the size of an A4 sheet are made by the thousands.

 

[Noddy]

So is a graph or paper spec a worthy alternative to physical listening?

If you know your tastes, measurements can help you wittle down a shortlist for auditioning, saving you having to audition all and sundry.

 

[abacus]

How an amp reacts with the speakers will determine the sound of it. (This is because speakers contain capacitance and inductance as well as resistance)
All the amps mentioned above are built to a price, therefore they will vary depending on the speakers, (The more expensive ones mentioned will be less affected) however if you go really high end then the power supplies and output stages have so much driving capabilities, they will not change whatever is connected to them.
As I have mentioned before, there are 2 types of Hi-Fi enthusiasts, those that like a nice sound and those that want a sound that is as accurate as possible (If a recording is bad then it will sound bad), hence the reason to have a listen.
All differences' can be measured, however what can't be measured is people's personal preferences, which is why listening is the only way to get an ideal match.
Biological life forms senses suck big time and is the reason they are easily tricked into seeing, hearing etc. something that is not there, hence the reason why when making critical comparisons it has to be done totally blind and random.

Bill

 

[Jasonovich]

Charts and specs can illustrate lots of things but the only things I trust are my lug 'oles

'ear 'ear!

 

[Jasonovich]

We talk about graphs and measurements and I agree, when this is used in reference to subjective reviewing , you can then make an educated choice about the Hifi that ticks most of the boxes or one that is the most preferable to your listening requirements.

If you rely entirely on word or mouth, you need to filter out the sponsorships, brand loyalty, personal bias's and lazy reviewers using social trends to mask bad products.

Apart from Audio Science Review, I don't see too many HiFi publications that factor in any kind of measurements when reviewing a product. I feel it's half cooked when reviewers overlook this.

 

[daytona600]

If two different speakers measure the same , will they sound the same !
if two identical speakers are used in two different rooms , will they sound the same !
Room acoustics affect about 90% of the sound you hear

 

[matthewpianist]

Measurements on headphones tell me if they are worth trying out. The trend in consumer cans is for bass heavy which I hate. So I didn’t even bother with Sennheiser and B&W wireless cans. I like neutral, and the neutral ones I tried were excellent.

But you signature lists Sennheiser HD600s...

 

[twinkletoes]

The problem with home audio is there no one set standard to measure, especially speakers hence THX tried and ultimately failed in way to standardise it for the AV crowd, somethings stuck other things went by the way side (80hz reference level and the like for example kind of stuck). They the manufactures can make the numbers look vastly better by measuring with a different set of standards and protocols. It well known that klispch for example use one standard that makes the speakers seem more sensitive than they otherwise are. Still easy to drive but the number lie a little. So the opposite can true of reviewers.

As for measurement's shown on YouTube, take it for it is, entertainment! You have no idea how good there procedures are and they certainly aren't measuring in a perfect environment and the same goes for the so called industry experts the reviewers of mag's.

The only people that truly know with 100% certainly how that unit/product measures is the manufacture and some designs go out of there way to add character to there sound and "reviewers" can misinterpret these as faults/problems. Many forget this aspect. Some things measure "badly" and sound great. Many great designs don't have completely black backgrounds, sound a bit fat and so on, heck some believe all amps, CD players and dac's all sound the same.

Truthfully for the last 30 years or 15 at least there really hasn't been a bad product released. Even for tech giants like Sony, to release a product thats truly bad would be utterly disastrous for them its just to expensive.

 

[Juzzie Wuzzie]

If two different speakers measure the same , will they sound the same !
if two identical speakers are used in two different rooms , will they sound the same !
Room acoustics affect about 90% of the sound you hear

Which forms the basis of my "pet peeve" about this forum ... where we get into debate on cables or discuss "what's best sound" when it is so dependent on your ears and your listening environment. For instance, my apartment has wooden floors, concrete walls and plenty of windows ... not ideal. My ears have just turned 50 (not ideal). We overlook probably the biggest impact on our listening experience and focus on the minute details.

I understand discussing more objective elements / features such as "does it have a LAN port" or "is Spotify Connect convenient" and / or giving people the benefit of experience with questions such as "should I go separates v. one box" or "do I want a soundbar v. full blown AV system".

Mini-rant over. Apologies.

 

[Fandango Andy]

Graphs and charts can't tell you about soundstage, stereo imaging, instrument separation.

People who say they want the most accurate and/or faithful reproduction are kidding themselves any instrument or voice will sound different depending on the room regardless of if it is live or reproduced.

Then you have people who go for the speakers that have the best review, or sounded good in a HiFi store listening room, then expect them to sound good in a compromised position in there own room.

 

[Stuart83]

I use the obvious specs only when shortlisting the suitability for things to demo.

Obviously power and impedance are among the must know caveats to avoid the obvious damage getting them wrong can cause.
After that room size and listening styles are to be considered for a ballpark figure in what direction to look.

Graphs however I'm with you

I've heard too much gear over the years to know they are not reflective of anything useful.
I've tried graph matching only to find what I like reads differently from one amp to another or matching the frequency responses of one speaker to another to again find they sound very different in the flesh.

Matching the same frequency response of a certain set of speakers you've heard through a different pair is a good example of how different the sound is using the same graph along side the obvious huge effect our own ears preferences and a given room factors in rendering graphs somewhat meaningless in the real world.

An interesting read on such a thing

Couldn't we technically standardize "perceived" frequency response of a loudspeaker system?

There are a ton of people on this forum smarter and more knowledgeable than me, so I'm hoping someone could explain why I'm wrong, why this is a useless idea, or on the flip side, inform me that this isn't a novel idea and that people are already working on this. I have recently learned that...

audiosciencereview.com

I've see people argumentatively use graphs constantly to prove the betterness of something they've never heard over something someone else has again that they've also not heard 😕

We would all have the perfect system if graphs were an accurate representation of what we like in the real world.
But the many factors involved mean direc etc can't graph (EQ) you to that perfect hifi infact having it myself I find it detrimental.

 

[abacus]

I use the obvious specs only when shortlisting the suitability for things to demo.

Obviously power and impedance are among the must know caveats to avoid the obvious damage getting them wrong can cause.
After that room size and listening styles are to be considered for a ballpark figure in what direction to look.

Graphs however I'm with you

I've heard too much gear over the years to know they are not reflective of anything useful.
I've tried graph matching only to find what I like reads differently from one amp to another or matching the frequency responses of one speaker to another to again find they sound very different in the flesh.

Matching the same frequency response of a certain set of speakers you've heard through a different pair is a good example of how different the sound is using the same graph along side the obvious huge effect our own ears preferences and a given room factors in rendering graphs somewhat meaningless in the real world.

An interesting read on such a thing

Couldn't we technically standardize "perceived" frequency response of a loudspeaker system?

There are a ton of people on this forum smarter and more knowledgeable than me, so I'm hoping someone could explain why I'm wrong, why this is a useless idea, or on the flip side, inform me that this isn't a novel idea and that people are already working on this. I have recently learned that...

audiosciencereview.com

I've see people argumentatively use graphs constantly to prove the betterness of something they've never heard over something someone else has again that they've also not heard 😕

We would all have the perfect system if graphs were an accurate representation of what we like in the real world.
But the many factors involved mean direc etc can't graph (EQ) you to that perfect hifi infact having it myself I find it detrimental.

Graphs and measurements are needed for design so as to make sure whatever you are designing meets the requirements. (It also allows a basis for comparisons)
The room is always the biggest influence on the sound.
As I have mentioned before, unless you go really high end, amps are built to a price and will vary depending on the speakers used. (Speakers are not just resistance)
Again, each person is different, and that can't be measured. (Actually, that's not strictly true as if you have the right equipment and know how to use it (It would have to be done in a lab) then it can be done, but is extraordinal expensive)
You are the type of listener that goes for the sound you like, rather than accurate to the original recording, therefore if a perfect system and room could be made, I can guarantee you wouldn't like it.

Bill

 

[Friesiansam]

You are the type of listener that goes for the sound you like, rather than accurate to the original recording,

I know some people are obsessed with getting as close as possible to the original sound, which is fine if that’s what you like but, as I see it, surely a pleasing sound is a better thing to aim for. Surely it’s your own listening pleasure that matters most?

 

[nopiano]

I know some people are obsessed with getting as close as possible to the original sound, which is fine if that’s what you like but, as I see it, surely a pleasing sound is a better thing to aim for. Surely it’s your own listening pleasure that matters most?

Yes, it’s an interesting debate. Personally, I find my preference is often for objectively well measuring kit, that I also like the sound of. I know, however, that many simply alight upon something they ‘like’.

For me, Hifi can be broadly neutral and enjoyable too, whereas often one reads the opinion that these are more like opposites. However, though an individual’s preferences for food or seasoning is truly a matter of taste, for Hifi there is a fairly objective standard to aspire to, namely the sound of un-amplified instruments and/or the human voice.

Obviously nobody knows quite what a studio creation really sounds like, or was intended to sound like, but I do know what the instruments of the orchestra sound like.

 

[matthewpianist]

Of course, the hi-fi can only reproduce the sound of acoustic instruments and voices as accurately as the recording allows, and that's a big caveat.

 

[basscleaner]

Of course, the hi-fi can only reproduce the sound of acoustic instruments and voices as accurately as the recording allows, and that's a big caveat.

You may hope to listen "acoustic instruments and voices as accurately as the recording allows" only when there are no walls, no floor and no ceiling at all. Even if you use headphones, but you are in a room, low frequencies will distort your sound.

 

[GSV Ethics Gradient]

I really couldn't care less how something might measure. I know what many instruments sound like (to me) first hand, so if it works for my ears I'm happy. I'd like to think that this would mean that they would therefore measure well, but would lose no sleep whatever if that turned out to be wrong.

 

[matthewpianist]

You may hope to listen "acoustic instruments and voices as accurately as the recording allows" only when there are no walls, no floor and no ceiling at all. Even if you use headphones, but you are in a room, low frequencies will distort your sound.

Yes, of course the listening environment brings further compromises, but before you even get to that, if you stick technically accurate equipment into an anechoic chamber, it can still only replicate the recording and the way in which it was engineered.