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

[square_wave]

The second is from a listener's point of view - viz, what speakers sounds best to you. It is patently absurd to point to statistics about what sounds good to a large population of people and say that a speaker that matches these characteristics is definitively what you should buy. It could be a useful starting point for someone new to the hobby, but at some point, a listener ends up knowing what he likes and THAT should take primacy.

The listener's point of view is the only important point of view in my opinion. The listener will be " listening" to the speakers at his home....hence...so....and not....jeez..! I need a coffee!

 

[Analogous]

Does anyone REALLY think that we should buy speakers (or any other gear) that doesnt sound as good to our ears because it matches some broad statistical preferences? If not, what are we arguing about?

You just now killed the horse!

 

[Vineethkumar01]

Unfortunately, most of who are interested in audio, at least in India, don't seem to be able to able to make up our minds about how far the science in audio and specifically regarding loudspeaker design has advanced. We seem to hold on to whatever we know at the moment as the ultimate truth and fight with tooth and nails when somebody challenges our beliefs. We seem safe within our comfort zones and do not seem to motivate at least the local manufacturing firms to explore/push their own boundaries in getting the best products for us. The objectivists among us seem to be stuck with whatever Harman's research was, a decade or two back. The subjectivists among us seem to hold on to our own notions of what speakers should sound like.

At least when I personally used to do real research, I was taught to bank on real established results (and not reinvent the wheel) but also to shatter every single preconception/vague ideas I had about the topic and build knowledge from ground up. I personally believe that audio/music is ultimately for the satisfaction of our own senses. So the end goal is subjective. But, in my opinion, the way to get there is through a mix of both objective and subjective parameters. We should be using/learning about the best tools/ measurement technologies available to us to reach our own different end goals while also trusting our brains and ears. By saying measurements are useless, we are just doing ourselves a disservice again IMO.

I am happy for those souls who have been able to reach their audio reproduction goals using pure subjective knowledge. I am also happy for the objective camp who have reached their goals in their own ways. But there is a vast majority among us who are left somewhere in between wanting to try out/experience different things and eventually reach our own goals (if they remain the same with time ). To such people amongst us, my own personal advice/personal approach is please don't ditch measurements. They are the best tools available to us to help us in our journey. Every step of the way. Be open to experimentation. Be skeptical about other people's claims about what they are able to hear until we ourselves experience them/proven objectively with enough evidence. If we don't hear them, that particular thing/effect may not be applicable to us. So one less thing to worry about. Be aware of latest audio technologies, and learn more about them, if interested. In short be ready to push our own boundaries. IMO that is the only way we will progress and not get stuck in this limbo where we discuss the same things over and over and over again in different threads.
If a company feels uncomfortable enough to not use surface mounted tweeters in a future line up of their speakers and makes it a point to say that now they use flush mounted tweeters and even highlight it as new feature, I consider my approach a success.

 

[vkalia]

You just now killed the horse!

This is a zombie horse - you have to shoot it, cut off its head, burn the body and bury the head in salt, or it will come back to life.

Back in the late 1990s, when i was in my full-blown audioweenie mode, the exact same arguments used to happen on rec.audio.high-end and other Usenet forums, but with amps and other stuff.

Personally, I am with @square_wave - I do not design loudspeakers, so the science of what FR and other characteristics to target is not something i am interested in as far as purchase decisions go: I just care about how it sounds. I approach food the same way - the preparation, ingredients, etc are all well and good but in the end, the taste matters.

And now i have a hankering for horse biryani.

 

[Kannan]

In a nutshell measurements can be biased but human ears aren’t.

I still fail to comprehend why a absolutely similar measuring speakers should not sound similar. I mean aren’t the sound waves produced not similar? Isnt it physics?

I think you took it too literally. I am not saying that in one speaker Rafi will sound like kishore or a guitar will sound like sitar.
All I am saying is that in say amoung two speakers sharing very similar responce curve, one could for example have more body to the mids that the other or one might sound a little more extended.
In the example of the Daytons that I have given in my earlier post, when bandpassed in the 350 to 5khz bandwidth, the alu cone had more body to the vocals.

With tweeters for example even after you eq a metal dome tweeter or even a ring radiator to match the responce curve of a soft dome or vice versa, the medal dome and the ring radiator can sound a tad brighter.

 

[Enkay78]

I think you took it too literally. I am not saying that in one speaker Rafi will sound like kishore or a guitar will sound like sitar.
All I am saying is that in say amoung two speakers sharing very similar responce curve, one could for example have more body to the mids that the other or one might sound a little more extended.
In the example of the Daytons that I have given in my earlier post, when bandpassed in the 350 to 5khz bandwidth, the alu cone had more body to the vocals.

With tweeters for example even after you eq a metal dome tweeter or even a ring radiator to match the responce curve of a soft dome or vice versa, the medal dome and the ring radiator can sound a tad brighter.

I still don’t get you.

If the measurements are same, how can our ears hear different, when the physics of the waves, as measured, are same? (What are the instruments measuring?)

 

[Enkay78]

Okay I am putting the audioholics link again

Understanding Loudspeaker Review Measurements Part I

Audioholics’ speaker reviews often contain detailed measurement graphs. In this article, we explain frequency response and the set of curves known as the 'Spin-O-Rama' to help you pick better product.

www.audioholics.com

FMs May feel I am an objectivist stuck with ‘olden harman and Toole research’. But I am not. The audio technology is currently still founded on the standards. Please read this excerpt. The recent things which are happening or going to happen in speaker/headphone designs is the use of metamaterials. But the sonic characteristics are still founded on the standard research of Toole. Ask any reputable audio company.

Me, personally, I go with these research. And learn to know the subjective interpretation of a speaker from objective parameters of it. (Oh yes there is an audioholics article on this too. Else one can dig into ASR and other websites).

The ANSI/CTA-2034-A Standard, Also Known As ‘Spin-O-Rama’​

The six measurements discussed above are displayed together as a group that is known as the ‘Spin-O-Rama’ measurement set, which was developed by Harman International. It is called Spin-O-Rama because it involves rotating the speaker 360-degrees on both its vertical and horizontal axes to gain the necessary data to develop the measurement set. A frequency response measurement is taken every 10-degrees on the complete vertical and horizontal axes, and the Spin-O-Rama curves are calculated from all of those measurements. The science used to establish this measurement set as a guide to loudspeaker performance has been held in such high esteem that the American National Standards Institute(aka. ANSI) and the Consumer Technology Association (aka. CTA) have incorporated it into their standard for measuring home audio loudspeakers. This standard is known as ANSI/CTA-2034-A.

There is a lot more in interpreting these measurements than what has been written here, but hopefully, this article has given you a good start in understanding what this set of response curves mean. If you want to learn more, Audioholics has this article: Objective Loudspeaker Measurements to Predict Subjective Preferences, which touches on these measurements as well. Some other good resources for learning more about the Spin-O-Rama curves are these white papers from Harman International: Audio Science in the Service of Art and Loudspeakers and Rooms for Multichannel Audio Reproduction, Part 2. The very best source for understanding the meaning of these measurements is the book Sound Reproduction: Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms, by Dr. Floyd Toole. Sound Reproductionis a great resource for anyone just getting into audio as a hobby as well as those who have been an audio enthusiast for many decades.

For those who take the time to understand the meaning of the Spin-O-Rama measurement set, the knowledge will go a very long way in identifying the traits of a well-engineered loudspeaker. This knowledge can be very useful for anyone getting into this hobby, because there are so many good speaker designs that sadly aren’t available to many people to demo locally, so these measurements can indicate the type of sound character that a speaker has without having to hear it in person. These measurements also serve as a good guide for those who simply want an accurate loudspeaker instead of one with ‘personality.’ Audioholics publishes these measurements in our reviews of bookshelf speakers, and, as far as we know, we are the ONLY third-party publication to do so. Hopefully, other publications will follow our lead, so audio consumers can have a greater understanding of loudspeaker performance and pick the right speaker for the job.

 

[amrutmhatre90]

I still don’t get you.

If the measurements are same, how can our ears hear different, when the physics of the waves, as measured, are same? (What are the instruments measuring?)

I was a silent spectator since long time, adding a few tit bits.

When we eat something in restaurants or see food recipe's online and try to make them at home, why doesn't it taste the same even though all ingredients being same?

Water changes, quality of vegetables used changes, spices are made differently and many more things.

Even though speakers measure similarly, they won't sound same. All the materials used are different, each capacitor each component have a different sound to it. Even the copper strands used in a speaker coiling have a different sound.

Coming to measurements, if measurements was everything, people wouldn't have gone to Audition.

 

[square_wave]

I still don’t get you.

If the measurements are same, how can our ears hear different, when the physics of the waves, as measured, are same? (What are the instruments measuring?)

Frankly, I used to think the same as you when I got into all this decades ago. I realised very fast that it is a mix of art and science.

Many years back, I listened extensively to the Usher 718be. I really wanted to like that speaker. It measured extremely well. I never could like that speaker....and it left me scratching my head. A good friend of mine loves that speaker.

I listened to the Rethm single driver full range loud speaker when they launched it decades ago.. At the house of the designer itself. I sat transfixed in my seat for hours. It couldn't do extreme ends of the frequencies but the music it made was pure magic. Measurements ?? Don't get me started on that !

So, it all depends on what you are looking for.

Your brain and heart's reaction to the music or What the speaker looks on paper.

Btw, for the life of me, I still don't know what to look for on the paper apart from the basic measurements.

 

[chander]

Interesting as all debates are. Amazing to see the passion here.

Being a complete noob in the field of measurements and only recently having started dipping my toes on this side of the fun - I have a few questions. ALL THINGS BEING PERFECT -

1 - The 'introduction' to measurements (as far as I understand) is the FR - which is where I am right now. However on this discussion here borrowing from @aeroash - a piano and a cello both playing 80 HZ, FR tell us yes they are both playing the same Frequency. Now what measurements tell us whether a speaker can accurately produce two different instruments at the same frequency without them sounding just 80HZ and instead a real instrument? Or Is there a measurement for timbre?

2 - What measurement can tell us the sound stage, to genuinely hear whether a drummer was 8ft behind the lead singer on a live stage?

****NOT here to flog the deader than dead horse but a genuine question and before you point your guns and shoot - remember you were here once .

 

[Vineethkumar01]

Okay I am putting the audioholics link again

Understanding Loudspeaker Review Measurements Part I

Audioholics’ speaker reviews often contain detailed measurement graphs. In this article, we explain frequency response and the set of curves known as the 'Spin-O-Rama' to help you pick better product.

www.audioholics.com

FMs May feel I am an objectivist stuck with ‘olden harman and Toole research’. But I am not. The audio technology is currently still founded on the standards. Please read this excerpt. The recent things which are happening or going to happen in speaker/headphone designs is the use of metamaterials. But the sonic characteristics are still founded on the standard research of Toole. Ask any reputable audio company.

Me, personally, I go with these research. And learn to know the subjective interpretation of a speaker from objective parameters of it. (Oh yes there is an audioholics article on this too. Else one can dig into ASR and other websites).

The notion of taking polar frequency response measurements and concepts around using and optimizing directivity and power response for characterizing loudspeaker response was around in Europe even before Toole's and Harman's research. Nobody who believes in measurements is disputing its utility. Harman's research put it in a structured format and came up with their own version of weighing factors used in weighing the different angular measurements. Because that set of weighing factors were brought forward by them based on the experiments they did in the selected set of rooms they chose, it is not the best achievable/possible. Hence, their version of spinorama of a speaker is not all data about a speaker. Also since few loudspeakers can be called as fully minimum phase devices, timing aspects/measurements need to be separately studied and correlated with certain subjective perceptible characteristics of sound in the design process. Preference rating is an incomplete metric until we have something better. Geddes has his own notions of how directivity should be defined and its perceptibility. He is a very well respected researcher. This is the point I have been trying to convey for the last few months in reply to your posts of similar kind. But it seems we have not yet reached anywhere with that. Fine. You can believe anything you want.

Acoustic metamaterials is another thing altogether with many uses in loudspeaker design, the latest use being their use in back-wave suppression in KEF speakers. It is even thought about as a potential material/device to aid loudspeakers achieve desired radiation patterns like cardiod and super cardiod by selectively leaking backwave through it instead of complete absorption as done in KEF speakers. But it has nothing to do with Harman research and their established loudspeaker characterization methodology using spinorama.

 

[Enkay78]

I get it.

In such discussion we tend to mix with audio Research and psychoacoustics.

And yes much of the importance of measurements needs to be common knowledge. So that the myths and voodoo of audiophile industry can be weeded out.

Soundstage is 'perception'.
There is no standardized parameter of that between the ears for 'music' perception, even though the ears are quite an excellent audio device.

Hence off course the debate.

But I do believe things are/will be more clear in coming years - as consumers/hobbyists/industry.

 

[aeroash]

2 - What measurement can tell us the sound stage, to genuinely hear whether a drummer was 8ft behind the lead singer on a live stage?

There are various techniques employed with mic positioning during capturing/recording. These recordings are tweaked during the audio mixing exercise by adding reverb, ambient cues, auditory artefacts etc.

When musical instruments are recorded individually, the audio engineer has the flexibility to place the musical instrument in the final mix anywhere on the soundstage.

Space/distance in-between instruments are created by either increasing or decreasing the volume of those instruments in the final mix.
These techniques combined produce a soundstage that is as wide, tall and deep as required.

For example, loud instruments in a mix are perceived as being physically closer. Likewise, a lack of textural detail and ambient effects such as reverberation and delay can cause an instrument to appear far away. Volume, panning, tone, recording technique, performance, and after-effects all play a part in how an instrument’s “location” is perceived by the listener.

This is only one side of the story. Faithful reproduction of a music track is almost impossible; drivers, cabinets, crossovers, electronics, speaker placement, audio file/format/resolution, listening distance, and the room itself becomes a considerable factor in further polluting the original recording. And by no means can anyone know how an original track was "meant" to sound, besides the mastering engineer.

Soundstage exists, it's just a matter of how wide or narrow it is. To achieve a wide soundstage a proper set-up is primary.
Speaker placement and the room will dictate how wide a soundstage one can achieve. And at some point, a soundstage will be limited by the audio recording itself!

And at the risk of being contentious, we can indeed manipulate the texture, colour, dynamics etc., of tracks via speakers and electronics. At times, the attenuation or amplification of a particular frequency or frequencies brought about by the electronics in the chain is what creates an "illusion" of a broad, deep, or tall soundstage. IMO.

 

[Hari Iyer]

I think the big question for us all is “but will it sound good”?
Given all the variables that come into play I feel it’s a tough one to answer and satisfy everyone.

It depends on how you place your speakers in your room. If you have a flat on- axis response ( assuming all other parameters are accurate) in your speakers, you should not toe-in the speakers and keep them parallel to your side walls. So at the center sweet spot, your speakers are going to be 45 deg off-axis - literally speaking. So at this position, you already get around 4dB to 6 dB dip in response from 700 Hz onwards which Paul is talking about as above 700 Hz onwards the frequency start to get directional. It's important to adjust the toe-in as to how much dip in response you would prefer or like to hear. Some fullrange drivers ( like mine) used a vwhizzer cone for HF dispersion and they have wider throw of HF, and hence they could sound flat even off- axis.. A slight tilting esponse on-axis for such speakers may sound nice imo.

 

[Hari Iyer]

In a nutshell measurements can be biased but human ears aren’t.

I still fail to comprehend why a absolutely similar measuring speakers should not sound similar. I mean aren’t the sound waves produced not similar? Isnt it physics?

If you are referring only to FR similarity most of the commercial speakers or monitor speakers measure same. They sound different because of the phase response or impulse response.

 

[Hari Iyer]

If anyone is interested in identifying what can be EQed and what cannot be, I would highly suggest this paper by David Gunness:

https://www.fulcrum-acoustic.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/improving-loudspeaker-transient-response-with-dsp-2005.pdf

If there is a peak in the minimum phase group delay then it cannot be EQed all other frequency can be EQed.

 

[Vineethkumar01]

If there is a peak in the minimum phase group delay then it cannot be EQed all other frequency can be EQed.

The paper also discusses useful ideas about EQ ing non minimum phase artifacts that are benign enough, if we don't aim for 'perfect' correction.

 

[arj]

Mod Action: Changed Thread title to make it relevant to discussion.

 

[raghupb]

Good move to change title. It does not make sense to single out any one company or vendor.
Cheers,
Raghu

 

[Bloom@83]

If a company feels uncomfortable enough to not use surface mounted tweeters in a future line up of their speakers and makes it a point to say that now they use flush mounted tweeters and even highlight it as new feature, I consider my approach a success.

Where are they saying that?