That´s for sure. But @Arindal makes some valid points to think about.
I like that, I want that too. But isn’t it most important to tell people what comes first and what matters most. You don’t need to spend a lot of money, just have a large room and no one that interferes with the interior of that room and build your own treatment.
I know audiophiles who spend hundreds of thousands of € and have a tall equipment rack between the speakers that destroys the center imaging. They don’t treat the room for low frequencies and don’t want to use the dsp for sound quality reasons, they say. I can tell them 100 times that they should do something about that. But I don’t think changing the high end dac for a Topping with less THD would ever help them getting a stable center image and good bass. When I see all these THD measurements I can only think “why”. When you and the members of ASR have fun with that it’s ok as long as there is some sort of disclaimer that ultra low THD doesn’t necessarily get you good sound but it’s just there for the fun of measuring stuff.
I am sorry, I was not allowed to edit my post (within the 4 h). It has to be “life”. By the way, this is from a group test of 75 amps with a panel partially blind listening.
,
1 Like
Well, different “audiophiles” want different things. Merely a matter of preference, and no objections to that on technical grounds. (Ethical grounds might have something to say, though.) In fact, there are probably a number of different classes of audiophile.
-
The measurement fans. Maybe they’re uncertain of their ability to listen critically, maybe they don’t trust the shifting tides of perception, maybe they are trying to optimize value for money. But generally, they are looking for accurate rendition of the digital recording. They do care about speakers and room treatment/correction as well as low noise and distortion figures.
-
The “euphonic distortion” crowd. They think it’s nifty to do things to the music, instead of just finding other music. They may be nostalgia fans. They may be tube-rollers, or op-amp rollers. They like to tinker with their systems.
-
Guys who spent too much time reading Playboy in the 1970s. They think a stereo system can help them get laid. They like it to look all shiny and cool, everything on display in custom racks, bizarre-looking speakers, whatever they can find. Barry White plays at the drop of a switch. Blind testing would probably show that this approach is suboptimal.
-
Guys who understand that an understated display of wealth actually can help them get laid. They want an elegantly displayed or even hidden system that dispenses not Barry White at the drop of a switch, but perhaps Johnny Hartman, and reeks of free cash flow,
-
Guys who went to too many rock concerts and can only hear bass. They want the largest speakers that can fit in their rooms, and the most powerful amps. They don’t care about distortion because they can’t hear it.
So, who am I missing?
7 Likes
I would not rule that out as a source of bad center localization but according to my experience in most cases early and asymmetric reflections from side walls, uneven, low directivity index of the speakers, an overshoot of discrete reflexions in general combined with listeners sitting way too far from the speakers are the main roots of these annoying flaws.
Install 3 diffusion panels, get speakers with even directivity at medium index and adjust the listening distance accordingly - voilà!
Bad center imaging, intolerable level of discrete reflexions and booming bass are typical examples of annoying phenomena you in most cases cannot solve by EQing. You can reduce the level in frequency bands which are most annoying and thereby make it less dominantly audible by getting masked, but the risk is high you indeed have side effects which deteriorate the general sound quality. In many cases reproduction becomes subjectively ´lame´, lacking presence in certain instruments, revealing audible contradictions between frequency bands (mostly a bass separated from the rest of the spectrum) or just sounding dull.
That would not make sense as they choose speakers for completely different environment. But the example is useful to understand which aspects of evaluation are used in professional listening tests and are not determinable by measurements.
So I would rather suggest to reproduce the evaluation method than the results. When doing that, I found it pretty useful to have 1 or 2 recordings per quality aspect being evaluated.
If the listening situation would be defined by a full-band RT60 measurement, frequency response and waterfall plot below 300Hz at the main listening position and neighboring seats as well as parameters like listening distance, position relative to the walls and behavior of the walls in the low-frequency region, that would be possible.
For a large part of that group I would rather say: they claim that they care for speakers and room acoustics, but they trust measurements and automated routines more than their own ears or lack the experience to optimize a room without measurements (which is admittingly difficult and requires years of training). Many of them are negating the existence of non-determinable and non-measurable aspects of sound reproduction quality.
So I would come to the conclusion, yes you have missed at least 2 groups:
-
no. 6 almost the entirety of younger people, the ´Generation iPhone´ and ´generation Spotify´ being both pretty interested in music reproduction while having a completely different approach to gear. They are neither interested in measurements nor in big gadgets nor in technical toys, but see hi-fi gear rather as an everyday tool for enjoyment. While it is difficult to get them to like technical details, they have a pretty good intuitive understanding about things and how they want their music to sound like. If anything, they are mostly thrilled by cool features and software as well as tiny, shiny gadgets and simply good sound fitting this ´playlist´ approach.
-
no. 7 who are understanding and have managed to overcome the limitations and inherent flaws of group 1 & 2´s approaches to create some superior philosophy on optimizing sound while listening to music listener´s needs and preferences. They seem to have superior knowledge of measurements, acoustics and psychoacoustics, and a surprisingly high number of them are successful loudspeaker developers around the world - may it be consumer audio, high end, pro-audio or sound reinforcement.
2 Likes
This is great! I would read an Audio Room Science Review. I already use Dirac, REW, etc. and apply physical treatments to various degrees. There are some great REW discussions, tips, tutorials, pointers, etc. at ASR already, but consolidating and focusing would create a vibrant community.
What are “the real deals” you expected to see when reading KEF and Genelec reviews/measurements?
1 Like
They are told that. But that doesn’t mean we stop testing everything else. Plenty of broken products are shipped in all categories.
Don’t agree but not going to get into it now.
Again, don’t agree. Speaker radiation in that acute angle is mostly low frequencies which won’t be part of imaging. What there is there, will act as some scattering. Since both ears hear what comes from that angle equally, spatial qualities are not changed.
They don’t need to treat the room for low frequencies as that can’t be reasonably done. DSP is heavily talked about in ASR. People have strong preference for them. Almost every review I do of speakers and headphones is an advertisement for Roon and DSP.
No one is confused about that except people in the subjectivist camp who don’t look at measurements anyway. If you need a DAC, my measurements give you many options across the entire price range. You choose accordingly but know full well that there are important things like speakers and rooms.
You ask the wrong question. I hardly ever measure “THD.” Measurements are for THD+N or SINAD which includes the all important noise. You better pay attention to noise as I have repeatedly explained. Any boosting you do with DSP costs you headroom and more noise performance.
I don’t have to say sun comes out the east. Spend a bit of time on ASR and you quickly realize there is no confusion there. Just about every state of the art DAC I review gets multiple complaints saying, “why do I need a higher SINAD DAC?” If they ask me, the answer is some of us can afford the best there is and we may want to buy that. If not, here are 100 other DACs you could buy. No one is forcing you to buy this one.
11 Likes
Can this result in a loss of fidelity? In a room with speakers or headphones when you consider preference and perception, how would you know?
Probably minor in impact on fidelity in relation to what we happily accept how speakers degrade the prior pretty clean and perfect source signal.
3 Likes
I already mentioned this to you a couple weeks ago
If you start with crap THD+N performance and then need to add 15dB headroom management for EQ (example only) now you lost 15dB THD+N
If the performance of DAC is poor to start with, you might start hearing some hiss or hum from that fancy linear PSU inside the DAC
Good reason to have low THD+N / high SINAD DACs to start with - high SINAD across the board, meaning single tone and all the various multitone tests etc
Nothing good comes from having crap SINAD performance. You only get hiss/hum , if enough DSD headroom management is required with a crap DAC.
If I owned 7Hz Salnote Crincacle Zero2 IEM and Topping L50 headamp , if you look at the noise and distortion performance of those components - I wouldn’t want to ruin this state of the art low noise and low distortion performance with this Brooklyn Bridge 2 DAC
Look at the Zero2 distortion 20Hz to 20kHz at 114dB SPL. Less than 0.3 %
Do you know the price of speaker system that can achieve this at 114dB ? If any ??
And do you know the price of these neutral IEMs?
3 Likes
Completely disagree. On one hand, tuning the room in the bass region can be done successfully, it may require some planning, some investment and alterations in the room.
On the other hand, I find the advice ´don’t need to treat the room for low frequencies´ highly misleading. I would rather say, it MUST be done first in the majority of cases, as typical room-induced low frequency problems are one of the main deteriorations of reproduction quality which you cannot properly EQ to satisfaction. You might be able to reduce the level of annoyance caused by these problems by reducing the level in the whole affected band, but that almost certainly comes at a cost of decreasing other aspects of the reproduction quality.
I intended not to get personal at all in this thread, but I have to say I find the degree to which you seem to lack basic knowledge of acoustical phenomena in the room and interaction between room and speakers to be really shocking.
You should be talking about what DSP CANNOT do and therefore has to be achieved by room treatment and choice of speakers. Hinting that one can solve any problem by EQing is highly misleading and btw a major source of dissatisfaction with one’s own system in the real world.
Why is that important for reproduction quality if it in most cases stays well under the threshold of audibility? For what is it important if it is not audible?
Does not make sense at all to name products ´best there is´ based on measurements which do not make an audible difference. Could take that lightly with a grain of salt like someone’s obsession with 99.9999% OFC copper in wires but in combination with the shocking lack of knowledge on room phenomena plus misleading advices about DSP, your public efforts leave a pretty bad aftertaste.
A deep and open discussion about direcitivity index, resulting risk of imbalanced frequency response of the indirect sound field in the room and some recommendations on (in-)compatibility of these speakers with certain rooms. It occurred to me that in several reviews a ´proper slope, excellent´ was the verdict for some acoustic behavior which I would rather call a red flag for many potential use cases (I by no means intend to say any of the speakers is bad, I just see a high risk of incompatibility with certain rooms and listening situations). So preferably all this should be discussed on the base of listening tests under different room conditions as solely on the base of measurements you cannot really predict what will actually happen.
1 Like
I’m sorry to be dense, but I’m not seeing where you answered either question.
Very good. Summarizing, then:
-
You would prefer ASR reviews routinely remind the reader about audibility thresholds and how SINAD, for instance, becomes irrelevant below audibility thresholds, especially since speakers and their interactions with the room become the dominant issue.
-
There are limits to using DSP, EQ, etc. in terms of shaping the in-room response. Those limits must be emphasized, especially in discussing bass response.
-
Reviews of speakers based on Klippel/anachoic spin-o-rama-style data fail to be able to capture the precise way in which they will interact with any given room. You cannot really predict what will actually happen. I guess folks need to be reminded routinely about that in your opinion?
So your complaints here are largely just a matter of how you would emphasize measurements? It seems good hygiene and I see a great deal of this in ASR community comments, but it’s worth considering perhaps with a set of “standard disclaimers” in the FAQ or just a “Getting Started with Reviews” page.
3 Likes
Read your own words. Alterating the room?
Not going to happen for your average Roon user / home enthusiast.
Room treaments for bass regions is either impractical or hit and miss.
There are multiple threads on ASR and AVS forums of people successully taming the bass using many techniques from speaker choice and positioning, multiple subwoofers, using EQ, dirac art etc.
So far you have done lots of talking but i see nothing practical. Iam happy to learn but so far you have suggested;
- I look at how broadcasters set up their monitor rooms - not relevant to me at all!
- I get a group of audio experts to do listening tests of various speakers in my listening room. How is that going to happen?
- I perform an extensive set of in room measurements -doable, but then I need speakers to choose speakers.
- I physically alter my room.
I think you are not talking about home audio. Particularly when you disparage a company like Kef which is at the forefront of home audio reproduction
8 Likes
We had the identical conversation 17 days ago
I think you’re implying what i said was accurate. But you didn’t answer my question then too. I’m curious whether you could lose fidelity with such a dsp/eq approach and how you’d go about determining if that was the case.
Twice now I mentioned with the perfect combo of lots of DSP headroom management + crap DAC, you could hear hiss/hum.
Surely that is proof of poor fidelity
I see the confusion, i was asking about.in general and you are saying yes for that specific example and conditions.
1 Like
I am solely talking about home audio.
Could you please show me an example of me disparaging KEF? Maybe you have confused me with someone else? I would not see them at the forefront of research when it comes to room acoustics, but they have definitely a very competent engineering team. Was even ordering a pair for my bedroom - and you speak of disparaging?
Absolutely not. There are products out there to counter these problems. They are neither cheap nor compact but they are existing and might be vital in many more rooms than you think. You simply have to know what the particular problem is, and for that you IMHO need a combination of in-room measurements and listening tests.
I do not doubt people managed to tame the bass. Choosing the right speakers (e.g. speakers with non-unidirectional bass radiation pattern) or using multiple subwoofers might even solve the problem if you really know what you are doing.
Using solely EQ, especially routines like DIRAC, is not enough in most of cases, even if it is possible to tame the bass in the meaning you have no annoying booming anymore. But you might end up with having no consistent bass timing over the whole frequency band anymore and you usually have to live with serious reproduction flaws remaining. I understand that many people are not aware of that as they claim to have ´solved´ the problem the moment booming has disappeared, but if they have a desire to add or reduce bass level depending on the current volume setting and particular track played, I know that it is not really solved.
Same with other ´non-EQable´ problems such as incoherent center imaging, annoying hissing or dull indirect sound field lacking treble.
I repeatedly explained that I had not meant to recommend the choice of speakers and methods used by broadcasters. The example was rather mentioned to learn something about reproduction criteria requiring a listening test instead of measurements. And that is VERY relevant to you when choosing and setting up speakers which would satisfy you on the long run. You might not be aware of that yet.
Book one specialist for room optimization and invite some friends who are into hi-fi so they can exchange opinions and discuss what is desired and possible? Get a pair of speakers for comparison which are from acoustical point of view best practice in your particular room? Invite a high end dealer to bring a pair of speakers for a shootout promising to buy them later if they succeed?
An increasing number of high end dealers and speaker manufacturers are offering such personal service in your room , including optimizing positions and personal DSP setup.
I do not think it is necessary to emphasize this every time, some information on what is general knowledge about thresholds, masking and audibility would do. But I would expect that measurements which are clearly and consistently below audibility thresholds should not be the base for verdicts like ´underperforming´, ´poor performance´ or ´broken products´. I find this misleading and I have a general problem with judgements suggesting a solid estimation of the reproduction quality when in fact they are based solely on inaudible measurements.
-
- yes, surely, but from the perspective of a consumer I would rather be interested not only in what DSP would do and could not, but also in necessary measures of room treatment in case DSP is failing. In my experience that is a surprisingly common case in living rooms, not only when it comes to bass, booming and standing waves, but also everything related to direct reflections resulting in flawed center imaging, excessive level of reflections in the room in general and tonal imbalance thereof in particular. The latter is very common and could lead to ´harsh, metallic reverb´, sharp hissing or in contrary to dull, lame reverb and lack of perceived dynamics.
Would not say that. I do not have much of experience with the Klippel method of nearfield measurements under different angles but what I have seen looks pretty plausible compared to what I know from an actual anechoic chamber or free-field conditions respectively.
When it comes to judging the directivity index and how it is frequency-depending, it is not possible to draw conclusions without having an idea of the RT60 in the room which should serve as a listening room. So instead of praising tidy-looking, steadily decreasing off-axis measurements, a discussion would be more helpful in which environment and under which conditions such an increasing D.I. towards high frequencies would lead to a well balanced indirect sound field (which is a rare case) or when a constant or even decreasing D.I. would be more advisable. And of course discussing the optimal avarage level of D.I. in relation to listening distance and RT60.
Please note that this is merely not a question of measurements but requires a lot of listening experience, especially of numerous combinations of speakers and rooms.
Not particularly. I do see the point in publishing measurements as a base for judging certain aspects of sound quality and certain decisions when it comes to gear and tuning. So I do welcome the general approach of ASR.
My main problem is the fact that pretty bold verdicts and claims are solely based on measurements, from ´underperforming´ to ´poor performance´ or ´broken products´, even in case the technical result hints to differences being clearly inaudible in one particular case (mainly DACs) or a listening test is vitally needed to come to such conclusions (in case of speakers).
It leaves a bad aftertaste if people would come to the conclusion they could base their buying decisions solely on the published data as well as always relying on things like DSP when it comes to room-induced problems. Both will according to my decades-long experience lead to disappointment on the long run in many many cases.
2 Likes
Ok, understood. I don’t see your comments as moving outside the bounds of my summary, except in specificity and tone:
-
You recommend against attaching judgement language to audio components insofar as the relative performance is inaudible.
-
You recommend toning down judgement language applied to directivity indexes for speakers.
Otherwise very interesting additional commentary! I’m personally not extremely picky about equipment but enjoy learning stuff and use REW, Dirac, room treatments, etc. in moderation. I primarily like to understand the culture, attitudes, and language constructs that surround and enervate movements, and how they evolve over time.