Revealing Flaws in the Loudspeaker Demo & Double Blind Test

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I was naive to think that bright means detailed, boy was I wrong

Everyone has his or her own definition in mind.

To me, "Bright" doesn't mean detailed. It doesn't mean anything to me. Just like "Sweet" doesn't mean anything to me.

The sun is bright.

The candy is sweet.

"Detailed" means detailed. I can hear the instruments even with all the other sounds.

"Fatiguing" means my brain feels exhausted after listening to the speakers.

"Painful" or "uncomfortable" means my ears hurt after listening to the speakers.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I was the happiest camper to replace them with a more neutral and initially duller sounding speaker.

Neutral is good. It sounds like real life.

I don't know about "dull", though. I don't think real life sounds dull.

 

[gene]

Neutral is good. It sounds like real life.

I don't know about "dull", though. I don't think real life sounds dull.

I meant dull in the context of comparing a tonally neutral speaker to a bright one. I have heard many speakers over the years that have an elevated top end that at first listen appear to sound more revealing but overtime very fatiguing and unnatural sounding.

 

[PENG]

Everyone has his or her own definition in mind.

To me, "Bright" doesn't mean detailed. It doesn't mean anything to me. Just like "Sweet" doesn't mean anything to me.

The sun is bright.

The candy is sweet.

"Detailed" means detailed. I can hear the instruments even with all the other sounds.

"Fatiguing" means my brain feels exhausted after listening to the speakers.

"Painful" or "uncomfortable" means my ears hurt after listening to the speakers.

I like your definitions and I also found the adjectives bright, dull, dark mean too much to be meaningful.

 

[Irvrobinson]

The bottom line is you have to spend a good amount of time with a speaker to ultimately determine if you like how it sounds. A bright/bassy speaker will initially sound better than a neutral speaker in short sighted or blind tests. Try living with a bright speaker over a course of a few months. It's painful. I know this b/c years ago I was attracted to such a speaker and bought them. A year later I was the happiest camper to replace them with a more neutral and initially duller sounding speaker.

Bingo. My sentiments exactly. And figuring out exactly what makes a given speaker sound a little bright or harsh seems to be incredibly complex. On the Linkwitz Labs website is a fascinating discussion about how SL improved his satisfaction with the Orions by a surprisingly subtle change in the crossover in version 3.1.

 

[psbfan9]

Can't a 'bright' speaker be toned down using an equalizer?

I have heard neutral speakers referred to as boring. I had a pair of Paradigm Atoms V.6. My wife hated them. She said they were boring.

So I got the PSB B1's ones and she was happy.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

When I auditioned the RBH T3/P speakers at a dealer's house, he told me that some of his clients complained the RBH were too "bright" and "forward".

After I auditioned, I told him I didn't think the RBH sounded "bright" or "forward" at all. I thought they sounded accurate and real.

If you can listen to the speakers @ 80dBA for 4 hrs straight and 8 hrs total in 1 day, and feel comfortable and relaxed doing it, than they are not "bright" or "forward".

 

[GranteedEV]

When I auditioned the RBH T3/P speakers at a dealer's house, he told me that some of his clients complained the RBH were too "bright" and "forward".

After I auditioned, I told him I didn't think the RBH sounded "bright" or "forward" at all. I thought they sounded accurate and real.

Not sure what those sound like, but on some recordings their cousins the e55tis can walk the fine line of being a bit "screechy", but at other times make me think I need to to take all the carpeting off the floor to liven things up!

I think it's a combination the nature of flush mount tweeters + flat frequency response. They can excite a lot of quick upper mid / lower treble reflections (IE ceiling) that we think are harsh for a split instant, but also not dominate the overtones so much that the tweeter is standing out and doing its own thing.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Can't a 'bright' speaker be toned down using an equalizer.

Maybe to some degree with some Audyssey room correction.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Not sure what those sound like, but on some recordings their cousins the e55tis can walk the fine line of being a bit "screechy", but at other times make me think I need to to take all the carpeting off the floor to liven things up!

I think it's a combination the nature of flush mount tweeters + flat frequency response. They can excite a lot of quick upper mid / lower treble reflections (IE ceiling) that we think are harsh for a split instant, but also not dominate the overtones so much that the tweeter is standing out and doing its own thing.

Probably similar signature.

 

[zieglj01]

I have heard many speakers over the years that have an elevated top end that at first listen appear to sound more revealing but overtime very fatiguing and unnatural sounding.

Same here - it has been an interesting adventure.

 

[Calvin Hobbes]

Not sure what those sound like, but on some recordings their cousins the e55tis can walk the fine line of being a bit "screechy", but at other times make me think I need to to take all the carpeting off the floor to liven things up!

I think it's a combination the nature of flush mount tweeters + flat frequency response. They can excite a lot of quick upper mid / lower treble reflections (IE ceiling) that we think are harsh for a split instant, but also not dominate the overtones so much that the tweeter is standing out and doing its own thing.

The nature of the e55ti's mtm configuration subdues room interaction, especially floor and ceiling and to some extent the horizontal high frequencies are controlled. The e55ti's are anything but a bright speaker. It's all about the midrange.

I wish the e55ti used a standard tweeter mount diameter of 104, it would be nice to have other tweeter options besides the Vifa 19mm radiator, with a corresponding modification to the crossover.

 

[gene]

The nature of the e55ti's mtm configuration subdues room interaction, especially floor and ceiling and to some extent the horizontal high frequencies are controlled. The e55ti's are anything but a bright speaker. It's all about the midrange.

I wish the e55ti used a standard tweeter mount diameter of 104, it would be nice to have other tweeter options besides the Vifa 19mm radiator, with a corresponding modification to the crossover.

Very true on all accounts!

I proposed to EMP a business model like Build a Bear where you can customize your speaker by choosing a series of upgrade options in drivers, crossovers, etc. You then get a speaker with a birth certificate with measurements and a statement they were custom built for you. Hopefully one day this can happen.

 

[GranteedEV]

The nature of the e55ti's mtm configuration subdues room interaction, especially floor and ceiling and to some extent the horizontal high frequencies are controlled.

Yes, I agree. Still the MTM won't do much when the tweeter takes over in the treble. I'm not complaining here, just commenting.

The e55ti's are anything but a bright speaker. It's all about the midrange.

But since they're not a "warm" speaker either, every once in a while there's some harshness. Could be the recording, could be room interaction. My point was that people's perceptions are based off so many things and they can be vastly different even for the same speaker!! Only speakers with extreme tonality will have consistent perceptions.

 

[agarwalro]

It looks like the whole point of Gene's editorial was lost along the way. IMO, due to flawed tests and/or agenda driven inferences (intentional or not) the science of DBT or ABX speaker comparisons has been lost and in audio circles the concept has been reduced to a buzzword . Further, removing some of the most basic flaws in most sighted reviews (tester bias, room effects, calibration) would make them just as effective as a DBT test with a much more feasible procedure.

 

[Nuance AH]

It looks like the whole point of Gene's editorial was lost along the way. IMO, due to flawed tests and/or agenda driven inferences (intentional or not) the science of DBT or ABX speaker comparisons has been lost and in audio circles the concept has been reduced to a buzzword . Further, removing some of the most basic flaws in most sighted reviews (tester bias, room effects, calibration) would make them just as effective as a DBT test with a much more feasible procedure.

Well stated. Unless we had a Harman-like setup, DBT is virtually impossible; I'd never say it was useless or meaningless, though. If performed properly within a meaningful time frame (again, nearly impossible), the results shouldn't be dismissed.

 

[gene]

Well stated. Unless we had a Harman-like setup, DBT is virtually impossible; I'd never say it was useless or meaningless, though. If performed properly within a meaningful time frame (again, nearly impossible), the results shouldn't be dismissed.

It also needs to be conducted by a panel of listeners NOT without familiarity bias. The listeners should be able to repeat these listening sessions over a course of several days to see how their opinions change over time.

Seriously how crazy do we really have to get with listening tests. Any test that doesn't disclose biases (sighted or blind) should be suspect.

There are obvious differences in how loudspeakers sound. No comparison test is perfect, but I can tell which speaker I prefer the sound of in both sighted and blind tests, especially if I am given enough time to evaluate them in the comforts of my own home. I am sure most people can but of course promoting "Blind tests" as the only valid comparative tests is yet another great marketing tool to exploit.

 

[gtpsuper24]

But if you don't have familiarity bias and preach DBT are the only way to evaluate speakers, then a pair $1000 towers can't out perform the other brands that are 2-5 times the price.

 

[Nuance AH]

It also needs to be conducted by a panel of listeners NOT without familiarity bias. The listeners should be able to repeat these listening sessions over a course of several days to see how their opinions change over time.

Seriously how crazy do we really have to get with listening tests. Any test that doesn't disclose biases (sighted or blind) should be suspect.

There are obvious differences in how loudspeakers sound. No comparison test is perfect, but I can tell which speaker I prefer the sound of in both sighted and blind tests, especially if I am given enough time to evaluate them in the comforts of my own home. I am sure most people can but of course promoting "Blind tests" as the only valid comparative tests is yet another great marketing tool to exploit.

Indeed - I agree. I was merely speaking of Harman's research, specifically in this area of expertise. Their research and results shouldn't be dismissed IMO. Now some random forum members on the other hand...

But if you don't have familiarity bias and preach DBT are the only way to evaluate speakers, then a pair $1000 towers can't out perform the other brands that are 2-5 times the price.

LOL! Anyone who preaches you should buy speakers based on measurements or DBT's alone (or both) probably has hearing problems. At the very least they should be ignored.

 

[zieglj01]

It also needs to be conducted by a panel of listeners NOT without familiarity bias. The listeners should be able to repeat these listening sessions over a course of several days to see how their opinions change over time.

Human mood swings tend to play a big part, one day sessions are interesting - however?????