DYNAUDIO C4 VS B&W 800 D3

[Art Vandelay]

Based on these Stereophile measurements, anyone can see that the cheap Infinity P362 have much better on-axis and off-axis FR than any B&W D series.

Are you claiming that your measurement is more accurate than Stereophile ?

Are you saying that the Stereophile FR measurements are inaccurate and we should view your measurement as the correct one?

Stereophile conforms to a standardised set of measurements and methodology for consistency, and the end result is not necessarily reflective of what the listener hears. Not all speakers are designed to be listened to on-axis and at tweeter height, which is the Stereophile reference axis, and Stereophile measurements are taken at d=50 inches from the baffle, which is not representative of a normal listening distance. Also, their of-axis measurements are a difference plot, not a FR plot, which I'm sure confuses many readers.

Stereophile measurements should be seen as a guide at best, and not interpreted as an absolute indicator of speaker performance. I think that's a mistake that too many people make.

 

[<eargiant]

Are some of you guys saying that shiny cabinets, hefty price tags and slick Svengali-like marketing is what made Pogre think that the 800 series sounded "magical"?

 

[Art Vandelay]

That's not my experience at all. Once I've trained myself to listen for aspects of certain instruments it is almost always the case that when I train others to notice the same characteristics they consider it new knowledge.

What are those Yamaha monitors that supposedly measure so well? I've never seen a Yamaha monitor that measured or sounded very good.

From your description, what you're doing is training yourself and others to focus on a particular aspect of the sound, which is not the same as making a performance based assessment.

And fwiw, The Yamaha's are HS-5's. A compact 2-way active speaker.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Stereophile conforms to a standardised set of measurements and methodology for consistency, and the end result is not necessarily reflective of what the listener hears. Not all speakers are designed to be listened to on-axis and at tweeter height, which is the Stereophile reference axis, and Stereophile measurements are taken at d=50 inches from the baffle, which is not representative of a normal listening distance. Also, their of-axis measurements are a difference plot, not a FR plot, which I'm sure confuses many readers.

Stereophile measurements should be seen as a guide at best, and not interpreted as an absolute indicator of speaker performance. I think that's a mistake that too many people make.

Nothing is an absolute indicator of Speaker performance -measurements, opinions/reviews, aesthetic, price.

And every factor is important in determining which speaker to buy.

Some people care about Stereophile measurements, some people don’t.

Nobody ever says that measurements are an absolute indicator.

Did someone actually say that?

 

[Irvrobinson]

From your description, what you're doing is training yourself and others to focus on a particular aspect of the sound, which is not the same as making a performance based assessment.

No, it proves listeners can be trained. It is a performance-based assessment that could not have been made without training.

 

[killdozzer]

Try using that line of argument in a car forum and see how you go.

Nah... Analogies are for pussies!

I was trying to start a slightly different conversation and hopefully a different point of view on what these "floydists" are trying to achieve. I was thinking about all the unnecessary variables that degrade sound, since there are so many that are unavoidable. It would be a huge deal if someone managed to eliminate the variable of "funky speakers" out of the equation.

I don't think that only the speakers described by Floyd Toole sound good. However, I do think that what they choose to propose as standard is among best choices by having the least amount of undesirable traits. And they did it fair; they tested what most people would describe as sounding good.

I always make clear that for me this question and many like this one lead into world view type statements and thus ideology. My opinion is that unifying (in any field) is scaring people who believe they differ by purchasing different commodities in some sort of free-market distopian nightmare where the category of a citizen is forcefully being replaced by that of a consumer. In the end, instead of thinking that reading a different book will make you different where it counts, you opt for a different product, the one that perhaps is being described by traits you'd wish you posses.

Sadly, what people don't see is that when they ALL buy different to express their different tastes, they are actually hopelessly unified. Since I don't see "floydists" as threatening to anything or anyone (other than people who think they buy their uniqueness with money, and I don't give a f... for those), I welcome their effort.

Okay, gents, we are taking about loudspeakers for personal entertainment, not neurosurgery or rocket science.

AcuDef noticed in this post I was going a bit over the top, but I think that as soon as you say; ah, it's just shopping for speakers, who cares - you're not giving it enough credit. Political actions are being reduced to purchasing options and this shouldn't be left untested.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I don't think that only the speakers described by Floyd Toole sound good. However, I do think that what they choose to propose as standard is among best choices by having the least amount of undesirable traits. And they did it fair; they tested what most people would describe as sounding good.

Yes, it seems to me, from my own experience, that all speakers from the Harmon stable are well engineered, and designed to produce very consistent performance; As invariant of environment and installation as possible, while maximising value for money but not at the expense of SQ.

 

[TheWarrior]

You mean some people have hearing impairment or cannot hear frequencies above 12 kHz?

I say just give everyone a hearing test to rule out the hearing impaired.

But don't bias people with what they should prefer.

Don't tell people "this is what good and accurate speakers should sound like".

That's creating bias IMO.

As long as people have good hearing and can hear 20Hz-20kHz, they should not be told what is supposed to sound good or accurate.

The only question should be, "Which speaker do you prefer?"

People should buy speakers that sound good to them, not speakers that sound good to anyone else.

Don't you think?

Perhaps my description of the Harman 'How to Listen' software was insufficient, but make no mistake, there is no room for bias - you are using your own speakers! It teaches you to listen critically, and nothing more.

'Which do you prefer' is the whole point. But the tests Floyd conducted proved that people's opinion on what they heard varies HUGELY when the speakers are seen vs blind. He proved that his own engineers were full of sight-bias when he tested them.

Since most people will never compare speakers in a blind test, learning to listen critically would be the next best thing, so I recommend the Harman 'How to Listen' software to anyone especially if they're about to go spend their hard earned money on new speakers!

The consumer electronics association developed CTA-2034, with a lot of help from Harman's people. Not to dismiss the importance of CTA-2034, but there are other metrics that are also important to a loudspeaker than what is displayed by CTA-2034 graphs. CTA-2034 does not tell the full story.

Furthermore, not many enthusiasts really understand the curves in CTA-2034, let alone the general public. I agree it should be more widespread and better understood, however at the moment it is only of interest to manufacturers and hardcore speaker nerds. Manufacturers whose products do not fare well in CTA-2034 measurements aren't really in danger were their products exposed in that measurement set.

For the sake of discussion, what other metrics do you follow? Are any of them able to be easily understood by the average consumer? It would seem that's going to be the next best break-through is finding an easy/cost-effective/comprehensive way to categorize and describe loudspeaker performance to the consumer, without needing to rely on marketing. Of course marketing will always be there, but I think everyone's dollar is just as valuable, and I hate knowing how many people are persuaded by pseudoscience.

All of those problems are fixed if the sample size is large enough, and the listeners can be pseudo-randomly selected from a large group of audiophiles with an age limit filter if necessary.

Any person who is dedicated to high fidelity audio doesn't need to be "trained" IMHO. They've already trained themselves over a lengthy period of time.

Over time, the number of brands is actually increasing, not decreasing, and as any one brand gets a jump on another as a result of design or construction it usually doesn't take long before it's imitated. An example of that is the B&W801F, which was constructed with individual enclosures for each drive unit.

Time is money, and there's only one speaker shuffler - sorry you don't like the way they chose to do it, but it works! And it works so well that it's already been proven that even 'professionals' cannot escape sight-bias, even if you dilute their ratings through averaging a larger pool of listeners.

Training people to listen critically is also training their attention span - something we could all use more of!

My point on decreasing the number of brands is that it would be a good thing for everyone. There's only so many ways to make the best use of cone and dome speakers, and the time, effort and money spent to produce hundreds of different brands could be better used to produce better speakers for more people that would ultimately be more affordable through mass production.

 

[highfigh]

Nothing beats marketing and hearsay when it comes to the common population.

Oh, now you're quoting Aristotle? Nice.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Oh, now you're quoting Aristotle? Nice.

Did he really say that? It must have gotten into my mind somewhere.

 

[highfigh]

Training people to listen critically is also training their attention span - something we could all use more of!

My point on decreasing the number of brands is that it would be a good thing for everyone. There's only so many ways to make the best use of cone and dome speakers, and the time, effort and money spent to produce hundreds of different brands could be better used to produce better speakers for more people that would ultimately be more affordable through mass production.

Anyone who has listened to speakers during their quest for improvement should have been told that they should limit the number of speakers per session because it's hard to avoid assigning attributes of (at least) one model with a different one. It forces customers to limit the choices per session, but it makes for better analysis if they aren't taking notes.

The thing about speakers, it's not hard for someone to decide that there's something they don't like about many speakers- the thought of them going out and listening to everything that's available in their area might make them decide to become a hermit. They read about people making their own and after a while, they give it a shot and in the process, become a member of the group who's biased toward their own speakers, mainly because they made them and naturally want to like the results. That is, unless they can be somewhat objective. Then, they invite others to listen and after they have explained what the new listeners will hear, darned if that doesn't happen- just like the description! I'm fairly certain a lot of speaker brands started this way- the builder may or may not have had the knowledge to do it, but the results sometimes defy this and the sound really is good. Or, not. I have heard some incredibly bad speakers in my 40+ years of dealing with this stuff.

 

[highfigh]

Did he really say that? It must have gotten into my mind somewhere.

Oh, yeah! True story! I think it was mentioned in Homer's Iliad.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

It teaches you to listen critically, and nothing more.

I understand that. If the goal is to buy the most accurate speakers, then people need to learn what is accurate sound.

But for most people (not the minority audio enthusiasts), loudspeaker is never "critical", and "the most accurate sound" isn't the end goal.

Most people don't care to listen critically. They just want the speakers to sound mellifluous and entertaining, not critical or "clinical".

They want the speakers to sound "awesome" to them, not sound the most accurate.

Some people prefer more bass, some prefer medium bass, some prefer less. Some people want more treble, some want less.

If the only goal is to find out which speakers people prefer, the test subjects don't need to be trained to know what is more accurate.

If the goal is to find out which speakers are most accurate, the test subjects need to be trained to know what is accurate.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Oh, yeah! True story! I think it was mentioned in Homer's Iliad.

That's just crazy funny. How many years ago was that? Some things never change?

I never read Homer's Iliad either. But I would love for Starz or HBO to make a TV series based on Homer's Iliad.

 

[highfigh]

That's just crazy funny. How many years ago was that? Some things never change?

I never read Homer's Iliad either. But I would love for Starz or HBO to make a TV series based on Homer's Iliad.

The Iliad was written some time between 1260-1180 BC.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Perhaps my description of the Harman 'How to Listen' software was insufficient, but make no mistake, there is no room for bias - you are using your own speakers! It teaches you to listen critically, and nothing more.

'Which do you prefer' is the whole point. But the tests Floyd conducted proved that people's opinion on what they heard varies HUGELY when the speakers are seen vs blind. He proved that his own engineers were full of sight-bias when he tested them.

Since most people will never compare speakers in a blind test, learning to listen critically would be the next best thing, so I recommend the Harman 'How to Listen' software to anyone especially if they're about to go spend their hard earned money on new speakers!

Maybe I'm not prone to sight bias because some of the best speakers I've heard have been the ugliest and vice versa. That said, people derive a sense of satisfaction from something that looks the part, so desirably we want something that sounds and looks good. Same applies to motor vehicles and our homes etc.

I see no harm in learning to listen critically, but would make the point that most people don't go out of their way to do that. The objective for most audiophiles (self included), is to own an aurally invisible system that allows them to be immersed by the music itself. When we focus our eyes to look at something specific we also become less aware of what's happening out to the limits of our peripheral zones, and i think the same applies to aural perception too.

My point on decreasing the number of brands is that it would be a good thing for everyone. There's only so many ways to make the best use of cone and dome speakers, and the time, effort and money spent to produce hundreds of different brands could be better used to produce better speakers for more people that would ultimately be more affordable through mass production.

I'm a free market kinda guy, so I'm of the view that a product will eventually live or die based on it's performance, and ultimately that's determined by the consumer. And when people attempt to interfere with natural forces it usually doesn't end well.

 

[<eargiant]

Maybe I'm not prone to sight bias because some of the best speakers I've heard have been the ugliest and vice versa.

I agree 100% as this has been my experience as well.

I'm not saying that there aren't people that buy expensive speakers just for the sake of it or for bragging rights but to lump us all into that category is a cop out. Some of us have a good deal of listening experience and choose speakers based on the capabilities we hear in them, not based on marketing, brand name or fancy finishes that some believe have us brainwashed. Sometimes that means spending more than you'd like if the hobby is really important to you.

 

[TLS Guy]

I don't need to. I have Stereophile to do that for me. They have measured the D1, D2, and D3.

What difference does it make if I have measured the D3 when Stereophile has done that?

Anyone can see these measurements.

Based on these Stereophile measurements, anyone can see that the cheap Infinity P362 have much better on-axis and off-axis FR than any B&W D series.

Are you claiming that your measurement is more accurate than Stereophile ?

Are you saying that the Stereophile FR measurements are inaccurate and we should view your measurement as the correct one?

First of all Stereophile have not measured the B & W 800 D3, they measured the 802 D3.

This is the FR Stereophile got from the 802 D3.

I would grant that the probability that the mid tweeter crossover being the same is high, but that the woofer mid would have to be different.

I made my measurements carefully after a prolonged listening session. However mine and their measurements were made under different conditions.

Having built and voice speakers since a young child, heard lots of live music and have made several hundred live recordings I consider myself an experienced listener.

All I can say is that the Stereophile measurements would indicate that the speaker would have a degree of sibilance, and yet I detected not a trace of it. In addition the speaker would be expected to sound somewhat forward. The speaker infact sounds slightly recessed which is much more in line with the slight dip in response I measured at 5 KHz.

So I can only say this, that what I heard of the speakers, and I have now listened to them on many occasions, is much more concordant with my measurements than Stereophile's.

But you are correct that measurements are not everything, especially the FR as it says nothing about time. It is perfectly possible to build a speaker with a perfect FR that would be totally useless, with speech totally unintelligible.

So measurements are useful. If the FR is awful it will not be a good speaker, but a good FR alone does not make it a good speaker.

So fine tuning a design is a combination of measurement but also prolonged listening should also be a guide to properly voicing a speaker.

I was taught years ago, by John Wright of TDL than once you had the speaker in your opinion good, to listen to it for prolonged periods, and not make changes more often than every 3 to 4 months. If you are an experienced listener and critical you won't get used to sound of a speaker, as many do, but minor blemishes will bug you more and more over time, and force you to get it right.

Lastly we have to come to the source of the music for evaluation. That means only natural instruments and the natural human voice unamplified or in anyway modified are acceptable point of reference.

By far the best is music recorded in a venue you know well. So you need to have experience of live orchestras, chamber groups, choirs, a wide variety of solo instruments, including a wide variety of pipe organs, and solo voices.

Those are the dues you have to pay to became a critical listener.

This is why I think that the market for better but not uniformly high end speakers are picked by individuals who listen often to the type of program I have outlined.

 

[Beave]

I agree 100% as this has been my experience as well.

I'm not saying that there aren't people that buy expensive speakers just for the sake of it or for bragging rights but to lump us all into that category is a cop out. Some of us have a good deal of listening experience and choose speakers based on the capabilities we hear in them, not based on marketing, brand name or fancy finishes that some believe have us brainwashed. Sometimes that means spending more than you'd like if the hobby is really important to you.

There are countless biases - both conscious and unconscious - that go into human thought and decision-making. I'm not saying sound quality doesn't play a role. It does, probably the dominant role. But just because one is an 'experienced listener' does not mean that person is immune to factors other than sound quality. There are lots of things going on in your brain when you make judgments about a speaker and its sound quality, and many you're not aware of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

 

[killdozzer]

Yes, it seems to me, from my own experience, that all speakers from the Harmon stable are well engineered, and designed to produce very consistent performance; As invariant of environment and installation as possible, while maximising value for money but not at the expense of SQ.

I agree. And still I'm saying, these are not the only good sounding speakers, that's not the point, but it's an effort worthwhile.