Any objective measurements available for Audio Products ( eg Indiq audio)

[jls001]

This.

My contribution to the pot of controversy on this thread is this: reliance on flat frequency response or measurements is a crutch for 95% of the people (a different 95%, of course ) who dont trust their ears to decide what sounds best to them.

I go to (well, used to before this stupid virus) a lot of classical concerts and I have yet to hear a symphony with "tight bass" or a "precise soundstage" or any of that audiophool nonsense. I have come to the conclusion that audiophile preferences cater towards analyzing the information present in a CD vs actually enjoying the music.

For the record, i dont think ears are very reliable when it comes to telling the difference between gear either (especially when we get to the realm of amplifiers, where people are able to hear a massive difference between amps which purportedly have a variation of 0.1dB across their frequency range... go figure). Placebo plays a big role. I just think we complicate things too much. Listen to it. Decide if you like it it - whether it is placebo or real, if you think you hear a difference and it sounds better to you, it counts. And if you do like it, get it.

Back to the question - how do you plan to correlate an anechoic FR chart with how it will sound in your room? Not all speakers will respond the same in the same room.

Pertinent points there, @vkalia

Acoustic double bass in the concert hall does not sound "tight" though it does have lots of weight. In fact I would even go as far as saying it is dark and ominous because that's the feeling it evokes when heard live.

Sound staging can be perceived in a concert hall depending on seat. By this I mean the first string section is usually far left (when viewed by the audience). The bass section is far right, woodwinds and brass section are usually spread across the stage behind the second string section, and the big drums and tympani are at rear of the stage. But the various instruments and voices are NOT neatly layered as heard in more capable music systems. In fact if one sits in the cheaper front rows where the sounds from the instruments don't have enough distance to integrate as a single source to your ears, or in the nosebleed section at the back of the hall where the SPL is too low to discern a sense of depth, the sound stage collapses into a "wall" without depth differentiation.

But there is one aspect of live western classical performances that no music system I've heard can reproduce, namely, the sweetness of the massed strings, or the rich harmonics of the piano.

 

[Hari Iyer]

This.

My contribution to the pot of controversy on this thread is this: reliance on flat frequency response or measurements is a crutch for 95% of the people (a different 95%, of course ) who dont trust their ears to decide what sounds best to them.

I go to (well, used to before this stupid virus) a lot of classical concerts and I have yet to hear a symphony with "tight bass" or a "precise soundstage" or any of that audiophool nonsense. I have come to the conclusion that audiophile preferences cater towards analyzing the information present in a CD vs actually enjoying the music.

For the record, i dont think ears are very reliable when it comes to telling the difference between gear either (especially when we get to the realm of amplifiers, where people are able to hear a massive difference between amps which purportedly have a variation of 0.1dB across their frequency range... go figure). Placebo plays a big role. I just think we complicate things too much. Listen to it. Decide if you like it it - whether it is placebo or real, if you think you hear a difference and it sounds better to you, it counts. And if you do like it, get it.

Back to the question - how do you plan to correlate an anechoic FR chart with how it will sound in your room? Not all speakers will respond the same in the same room.

Don't agree with this at all. Period.

 

[vkalia]

Pertinent points there, @vkalia

Acoustic double bass in the concert hall does not sound "tight" though it does have lots of weight. In fact I would even go as far as saying it is dark and ominous because that's the feeling it evokes when heard live.

Sound staging can be perceived in a concert hall depending on seat. By this I mean the first string section is usually far left (when viewed by the audience). The bass section is far right, woodwinds and brass section are usually spread across the stage behind the second string section, and the big drums and tympani are at rear of the stage. But the various instruments and voices are NOT neatly layered as heard in more capable music systems. In fact if one sits in the cheaper front rows where the sounds from the instruments don't have enough distance to integrate as a single source to your ears, or in the nosebleed section at the back of the hall where the SPL is too low to discern a sense of depth, the sound stage collapses into a "wall" without depth differentiation.

But there is one aspect of live western classical performances that no music system I've heard can reproduce, namely, the sweetness of the massed strings, or the rich harmonics of the piano.

Agreed on both counts (soundstage and piano). The width of the soundstage obviously depends where you sit, but imaging is never as precise as audiophiles seem to prefer - I guess if you listen to jazz or something like that, it may be different.

My personal preference is to sit a little further back where i can "hear" the hall as well, but as a backdrop to the players themselves. Interestingly though, having sat across a range of seats, i find that there is a commonality to the tone and timbre that you hear, even though the balance between direct sound vs reflected sound, or the weight of the instruments (eg, if you arent sitting dead center) is different. Take a piano note - there is the leading edge and then there is the decay. The weighting between the two can change, but it falls within a certain range where you know it is a live piano being played in front of you. It has a certain body and tone that you can identify as being live, whether you are sitting in the front or the back.

Reproducing that, along with the richness of male vocals and realistic violins, in a listening room are the 3 things i focus on with music - once I find a system that does a good job with timbral accuracy and "weight" of instruments, other types of music fall into place quite well. And personally, the closest i have come to it is with a single ended triode amp and mid-range forward speakers with a lot of slam/dynamic range. You get the initial "bite" of the violines without that ear-piercing shrillness that passes for "airiness" or "clarity" or "transparency" (Rachmaninov's 2nd is my canary in the coal mine for treble - if i can listen to it at a reasonable volume without wanting to stab my ears with a punji stick, I am good). Piano notes that that clear leading edge and a bit of a bloom in the decay that, while not perfectly accurate, replicates the aural experience of a concert. Male vocals have a solidity to them. Etc. etc. As a objective/science type of person, it took a lot of courage for me to sell my Stereophile Class A or B approved rig and go with my ears, the fuzziness of tubes be damned - but in the end, I am glad I did.

As an aside, I dont know what i find more deserving of eye-rolls: the folks who claim to hear differences in audio equipment that sensitive measuring equipment cannot pick up or the folks that think that measurements take primacy over what the real sound of the instrument is (the latter is a proxy for the former).

 

[vkalia]

Don't agree with this at all. Period.

Since you havent bothered to expand on it other than adding a very ominous "period", i am not sure where you are going with this, so... good for you, i guess? If you find chasing a flat frequency response or whatever makes you enjoy your music more, have at it. I have stated what works for me.

 

[arj]

Acoustic double bass in the concert hall does not sound "tight" though it does have lots of weight. In fact I would even go as far as saying it is dark and ominous because that's the feeling it evokes when heard live.

I am not too experienced in live music but have heard the double bass many times walking the streets of couple of european cities. and yes , it has a weight though because of the open unamplified nature not sure of the "tightness" . Same for cello, maybe a bit lighter but it can really evoke that ominous feeling and i guess most movies scores use it to create suspense due to that !

In the end we listen to music to get joy if the joy is in analytical approach or a sensory approach as long as there is satisfaction from the hobby its worth it .

 

[keith_correa]

And, thus, it came to be that the deceased equine was resurrected to life with the same old words that the said equine had heard before numerous times. The equine now begs to be flogged to death. Again! <insert ominious double bass notes here>

 

[Bloom@83]

As a objective/science type of person, it took a lot of courage for me to sell my Stereophile Class A or B approved rig and go with my ears, the fuzziness of tubes be damned - but in the end, I am glad I did.

As an aside, I dont know what i find more deserving of eye-rolls: the folks who claim to hear differences in audio equipment that sensitive measuring equipment cannot pick up or the folks that think that measurements take primacy over what the real sound of the instrument is (the latter is a proxy for the former).

Hear here

 

[arj]

There are different opinions about this. But this is a worthwhile watch.

Finally found time to see this and interesting about how lower bass can make a speaker sharp due to Psycho-Acoustics . Have experienced this personally ie lack of gain in an amp making the sound sharp and a subwoofer improving the sound all across.

The point around modifying the response curve of a speaker to make it sound right in a room was illuminating about how speakers are designed ie the how designers consider it a pallet and use creativity around adjustments to define its final sound signature.

The eyeopener was around reducing sensitivity of the speaker to improve bass

 

[Bloom@83]

Finally found time to see this and interesting about how lower bass can make a speaker sharp due to Psycho-Acoustics . Have experienced this personally ie lack of gain in an amp making the sound sharp and a subwoofer improving the sound all across.

The point around modifying the response curve of a speaker to make it sound right in a room was illuminating about how speakers are designed ie the how designers consider it a pallet and use creativity around adjustments to define its final sound signature.

The eyeopener was around reducing sensitivity of the speaker to improve bass

Oh but what does Paul McGowan know about such stuff ? At least that’s the perceived notion around here….

 

[vkalia]

And, thus, it came to be that the deceased equine was resurrected to life with the same old words that the said equine had heard before numerous times. The equine now begs to be flogged to death. Again! <insert ominious double bass notes here>

At some point, every topic gets discussed multiple times. It is the nature of internet forums.

Oh but what does Paul McGowan know about such stuff ? At least that’s the perceived notion around here….

I dont think these are mutually exclusive, though. There is a difference between speaker designers trying to design a speaker to appeal to the most number of people and individual people deciding what sound palette they prefer. The type of music also plays a role - jazz fans, ghazal fans and orchestral fans will all have different requirements for their gear.

 

[Bloom@83]

My comment wrt to McGowan was a sarcastic one …

 

[vkalia]

My comment wrt to McGowan was a sarcastic one …

I know - sorry, i wasnt clear with my statement. I meant to say that the people discounting the value of measurements arent necessarily saying they have no value.

In the end, as @arj says - if you enjoy it, it's all good.

 

[square_wave]

Here's a recent talk by Danny of GR Research. He is one of the biggest proponents for making loudspeakers measure better. Please pay attention carefully to what he saying and read between the lines.

1. Great measurements are desirable but 2 similar measuring loudspeakers can sound vastly different.
2. Introducing 2 different crossovers or any other component that measure the same but made with different components can make the speaker sound way different.

Even with great measuring speakers, all the ingredients that go into the actual speakers can make or break a speaker design.

And then, there are speaker designers who only use good measurements as a base to further tune and maybe deviate from the baseline measurement to make it sound better ( subjective ). Danny did not say this but it is an industry best practice by many award winning and successful designers and is practiced widely.

 

[Enkay78]

Here's a recent talk by Danny of GR Research. He is one of the biggest proponents for making loudspeakers measure better. Please pay attention carefully to what he saying and read between the lines.

1. Great measurements are desirable but 2 similar measuring loudspeakers can sound vastly different.
2. Introducing 2 different crossovers or any other component that measure the same but made with different components can make the speaker sound way different.

Even with great measuring speakers, all the ingredients that go into the actual speakers can make or break a speaker design.

And then, there are speaker designers who only use good measurements as a base to further tune and maybe deviate from the baseline measurement to make it sound better ( subjective ). Danny did not say this but it is an industry best practice by many award winning and successful designers and is practiced widely.

Is he selling crossovers?

His rationale is illogical

Similar measuring speakers will sound same. Unless:
1. They were measured by different instruments
2. They were measured in different aechoic chambers (not standardised)
3. They were measured in different rooms with different acoustics
4. They were measured with different placements of measuring mikes
5. They were measured non-standardised/non-calibrated amplification.

(I may be wrong with the above points, this reflects my current understanding of audio research. So I stand corrected if wrong)

 

[aeroash]

Similar measuring speakers will sound same.

Nope. The timbre will be different. That’s what one eventually pays for.
With this logic one can buy the cheapest speaker that measures the best and be done with it!

 

[Enkay78]

Nope. The timbre will be different. That’s what one eventually pays for.
With this logic one can buy the cheapest speaker that measures the best and be done with it!

Now that statement is even more confusing for me.

When a speaker reproduces audio measurably good, now how will timbre be different?


If the cheapest speakers measures well and have a spinorama equal to the most expensive speakers, yes one can buy that one and be done with it.


Unfortunately there is no ‘cheapest’ speaker which measures exceptionally well. And that’s because the industry knows that to manufacture an exceptionally measuring speaker there are costs……and profits to milk.

But yes a genelec will do better than any boutique ultra-expensive speakers(which may measure bad)

 

[arj]

Nope. The timbre will be different. That’s what one eventually pays for.
With this logic one can buy the cheapest speaker that measures the best and be done with it!

That is true. as far as I know Timbre ( aka tone quality) cannot be measured directly and since its that quality that differentiates a guitar at 50hz from a banjo at 50 Hz, it is "fundamental".

I would assume some components of it can be measured individually or comparatively ie differences between Fundamental/Overtones and subharmonics from a reference, am not aware of quantification of the same if it does exist..or if it is proprietary to some manufacturers.

It usually very subjectively done and also changes due to room acoustics..I believe this is the "voicing" that is talked co-relating it back to the Mcgowan video perhaps the "Palette" of response which was being talked about.( My guess)

 

[aeroash]

Let me explain this from a musician's perspective.

The same musical notes on different instruments will have the same basic fundamental frequency, measured in hertz.

To elaborate further, the musical note 'C' will have the same pitch (frequency) when played on a mobile phone speaker and when played on the best of home/pro audio speakers. They will measure the same, irrespective!

The musical note "C" will "sound" different depending on whether a Piano is producing it or a Violin, and that's because of the "Timbre", consisting of harmonics (overtones), sustain, attack etc in a particular note.

Timbre is the "Colour" of that note. We all have our preferences for the "Colour" of a tone. Some of us like it to be as natural as possible. The sound emitting from the speaker of a mobile phone will sound "thin", although the frequency remains the same. A particular mobile phone speaker "might" measure well, would you rather listen to your music on it because it measures well?

If one is chasing a "natural" reproduction of tones from a system, then it is pertinent that one understands how musical instruments or a particular vocal sounds in real life. And this is the ultimate dream; to have your system reproduce "Timbre" as faithfully as possible.

 

[Analogous]

genelec will do better than any boutique ultra-expensive speakers(which may measure bad)

@Enkay78, I was wondering what you meant by this (above quote)
Did you mean objectively better or subjectively better?

 

[Analogous]

And, thus, it came to be that the deceased equine was resurrected to life with the same old words that the said equine had heard before numerous times. The equine now begs to be flogged to death. Again! <insert ominious double bass notes here>

The resurrected equine has been led to the water but adamantly refuses to drink.
More flogging perhaps?
Or a different beverage?