What do you all think of acoustic waveguide technology?

[Nuance AH]

The 2030P monitors are actually superior in almost all regards (performance wise) to the Helium although suspect the Helium will have better distortion behavior.

A $130/pair speaker is better than a $1000/pair speaker? Did you compare them?

There are far to many confounds that can bias this methodology. No one is exempt, not you, me or anyone else. Now, if proper steps are taken to remove these biases (typically unreasonable) that is a different case.

So what do you trust more, your ears or measurements? Or phrased another way, do you purchase based on measurements or your ears?

 

[avaserfi]

A $130/pair speaker is better than a $1000/pair speaker? Did you compare them?

I quickly compared their actual measurements and correlated them to perception. The one area still suspect is cabinet resonance which would play a drastic role in perception as I have not seen absolute resonance measurements of the 2030P.

So what do you trust more, your ears or measurements? Or phrased another way, do you purchase based on measurements or your ears?

I trust credible measurements far more so than my [or anyone's] biased impressions of a loudspeaker. When designing/building or purchasing/recommending a loudspeaker I do it solely based on credible measurements correlated with human perception. If, on the other hand, I could listen to loudspeakers in controlled situations to remove such confounds I would have no issue trusting my [or others] ears.

Do note that listening tests can be reliable for analyzing loudspeaker quality, but only in properly controlled situations otherwise, it has been shown, that resulting data will be confounded by factors besides those being tested [1].

[1] Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound Quality and Listener Performance. Toole, Floyd E. J. Audio Engineering Soc., Vol. 33, No. ½. Pages 2 – 32. February 1985.

-Andrew

 

[Nuance AH]

I quickly compared their actual measurements and correlated them to perception. The one area still suspect is cabinet resonance which would play a drastic role in perception as I have not seen absolute resonance measurements of the 2030P.



I trust credible measurements far more so than my [or anyone's] biased impressions of a loudspeaker. When designing/building or purchasing/recommending a loudspeaker I do it solely based on credible measurements correlated with human perception. If, on the other hand, I could listen to loudspeakers in controlled situations to remove such confounds I would have no issue trusting my [or others] ears.

Do note that listening tests can be reliable for analyzing loudspeaker quality, but only in properly controlled situations otherwise, it has been shown, that resulting data will be confounded by factors besides those being tested [1].

[1] Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound Quality and Listener Performance. Toole, Floyd E. J. Audio Engineering Soc., Vol. 33, No. ½. Pages 2 – 32. February 1985.

-Andrew

And that is where you and I differ. I'll take my own ears over measurements any day. Measurements tell us a lot and will help me narrow things down to a shorter audition list, but they won't tell us exactly how the speaker will sound. Our ears will. Talk about taking the fun out of speaker shopping...

You seem like a nice guy, but anyone who bases their recommendations off measurements alone is making a virtual blind recommendation. That's not the way to go about things. You are basically saying that unless our rooms, ears and electronics are all the same, we should never purchase based on what our ears tell us. That's kind of crazy, not to mention impractical.

I'll be purchasing Toole's new book, but I am pretty sure he'd actually want you to listen to the loudspeaker you are going to purchase, or recommend.

No offense. We'll just agree to disagree (big time).

 

[zumbo]

 

[avaserfi]

And that is where you and I differ. I'll take my own ears over measurements any day. Measurements tell us a lot, but they won't tell us exactly how the speaker will sound. Our ears will. Talk about taking the fun out of speaker shopping...

I guess I won't be able to listen to any recommendations you give either. You seem like a nice guy, but anyone who bases their recommendations off measurements alone is completely unaware of how the speaker sounds. That's not the way to go about things, IMO, and a person who's never even heard the speakers should not be giving recommendations.

No offense. We'll just agree to disagree (big time).

Measurements alone do not tell us how loudspeakers sound, this is true, it requires an in depth understanding of the relevant research that has very specifically correlated loudspeaker measurement with perception. This methodology also allows for a removal of the various biases that effect typical listening sessions. As I have stated in other threads there have even been mathematical models which have successfully predicted loudspeaker preference of individuals near perfectly (r=0.995) [1]. This could not be done if measurement was able to be translated to actual perceived performance.

Throughout this thread I have cited many examples of such research. It is an individual own prerogative if they wish to pursue such an understanding. I personally, have not only read this research, but created my own blinded listening sessions [to the best of my ability] correlating the tested loudspeaker measurements to perception in effort to hone this ability. Never once has the research been proven wrong in my experience or the experience of more credible sources such as the JAES.

Many people prefer simply listening to a loudspeaker to determine performance, that is their own choice. I do not use this method due to the variety of implied confounds that are impossible to avoid with its typical use. These confounds do not allow for optimal sound quality to be achieved. Rather, my recommendations for one to purchase the most neutral speaker possible [completely quantifiable if proper understanding of perceptual research is had] and adjust the tonality via a high quality DSP. If done properly virtually any 'sound' can be achieved.

[1] Multiple Regression Model For Predicting Loudspeaker Preference - Part 2. Olive, Sean E. Harman International. Convention Paper 6190. October 2004.


-Andrew

 

[Nuance AH]

Measurements alone do not tell us how loudspeakers sound, this is true, it requires an in depth understanding of the relevant research that has very specifically correlated loudspeaker measurement with perception. This methodology also allows for a removal of the various biases that effect typical listening sessions.

Throughout this thread I have cited many examples of such research. It is an individual own prerogative if they wish to pursue such an understanding. I personally, have not only read this research, but created my own blinded listening sessions [to the best of my ability] correlating the tested loudspeaker measurements to perception in effort to hone this ability. Never once has the research been proven wrong in my experience or the experience of more credible sources such as the JAES.

-Andrew

But we don't all hear the same, so...? We'd ALL have to partake in said tests in order to achieve your goal. Not many people will be willing to do that. It would literally take the fun (for many) out of shopping for speakers, not to mention listening to them in multiple environments.

This is suppose to be enjoyable, not work, unless you're engineering a speaker.

I edited my previous post, by the way. It came off harsh and that wasn't my intent. Sorry.

 

[avaserfi]

But we don't all hear the same, so...? We'd ALL have to partake in said tests in order to achieve your goal. Not many people will be willing to do that. It would literally take the fun (for many) out of shopping for speakers, not to mention listening to them in multiple environments.

This is suppose to be enjoyable, not work, unless you're engineering a speaker.

This is a fairly large misconception, that everyone hears differently. It seems to be perpetuated by western culture as well as the innate human need for individuality. [Please note I have an extensive background in the social sciences.]

Rather, through use of hundreds of listening groups, comprised of thousands of individuals in the vast field of perceptual research relating to audio these correlations between the quantifiable and the perceived have stood. Of course, there will always be outliers who are more or less sensitive to a specific anomaly, but in the end, if a sufficiently neutral speaker is the starting point any wanted tonality [sound] can be created through proper implementation of a DSP. This process allows for a superior loudspeaker choice while achieving one's desired tonality. If one wants to forgo this complicated process for simply picking a speaker that sounds good, that is their choice.

I cannot necessarily argue with the lack of fun with this method, some people enjoy tweaking, others enjoy shopping and auditioning etc...

Please note I was editing my previous post during the time at which you were typing your reply to it.

-Andrew

 

[gus6464]

I know you and WmAx like the B&W 805S for it's cabinet and fairly flat measurements but I just can't help but hear some harshness in the top end which I am very certain is because of the midbass driver being crossed over too high. On the other hand the Usher Be-718 "Tiny Dancer" measures just as good as the B&W yet does not exhibit that harshness. Here are the measurements for both. Both speakers cost the same amount of money.

Be-718
http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/508ush/index4.html
http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/usheraudio_be718/

N805 which is the same as 805S
http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/168/index6.html

The NRC measurements show that the Usher has good off-axis response.

 

[WmAx]

I know you and WmAx like the B&W 805S for it's cabinet and fairly flat measurements but I just can't help but hear some harshness in the top end which I am very certain is because of the midbass driver being crossed over too high. On the other hand the Usher Be-718 "Tiny Dancer" measures just as good as the B&W yet does not exhibit that harshness. Here are the measurements for both. Both speakers cost the same amount of money.

Be-718
http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/508ush/index4.html
http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/usheraudio_be718/

N805 which is the same as 805S
http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/168/index6.html

The NRC measurements show that the Usher has good off-axis response.

Actually, simple observation of the chart shows the Usher to have 1.5-2 dB average sloping down treble in the 500-10000Hz band, while the B&W does not, and in fact, has about a 0.5dB averaged increase in that band.

The measurements clearly show there is no issue with the midbass crossover point. It's silly to even imply it in the case of the B&W at subject here.

A very flat treble speaker(as measured at the listening distance) in fact, will usually sound 'wrong' on most commercial recordings. This is thoroughly covered in multiple experiments by different researchers.

The Usher reffered to is far more resonant, and as such, it has no special quality that would make it recommendable by me.

The B&W will do exactly as I said it will in the specific use that I recommended it for(An DSP controlled EQ and X-Over with stereo subs) to get a superb value system up and going. I have never recommended the 805 for use by itself.

-Chris

 

[Nuance AH]

This is a fairly large misconception, that everyone hears differently. It seems to be perpetuated by western culture as well as the innate human need for individuality. [Please note I have an extensive background in the social sciences.]

Rather, through use of hundreds of listening groups, comprised of thousands of individuals in the vast field of perceptual research relating to audio these correlations between the quantifiable and the perceived have stood. Of course, there will always be outliers who are more or less sensitive to a specific anomaly, but in the end, if a sufficiently neutral speaker is the starting point any wanted tonality [sound] can be created through proper implementation of a DSP. This process allows for a superior loudspeaker choice while achieving one's desired tonality. If one wants to forgo this complicated process for simply picking a speaker that sounds good, that is their choice.

I cannot necessarily argue with the lack of fun with this method, some people enjoy tweaking, others enjoy shopping and auditioning etc...

Please note I was editing my previous post during the time at which you were typing your reply to it.

-Andrew

How much does a digital speaker with the ability to change the FR to suit everyone's needs cost? I doubt it's anywhere near the price range that the "average" person has compiled. Heck, it's probably not in the price range of most audio hobbyists.

If I was rich, I'd happily employ your methods. Most people are not rich, however, nor do they want to fuddle and tweak forever; they want to sit, listen and get emotionally connected with music. They want to purchase a speaker that already sounds the way they want it to, hence why there are so many manufacturers out there; different people prefer different things. Manufacturers know this, thus cater to these needs. So when you say each person doesn't hear differently, it's not entirely true. Each person's hearing is effected by each individual's bias, preferences, emotions and pyschoacoustics, so in a way, we do all hear differently. If you remove those influences and place each individual in a controlled environment, they'd still have different preferences, so one, two or even three speakers would not please the masses. Throw aesthetic preferences or needs into the mix and things become even more difficult.

Even in a controlled environment the majority would never agree on a "perfect" speaker. Back to the point though...why would you recommend speakers you've never heard?

 

[Nuance AH]

Actually, simple observation of the chart shows the Usher to have 1.5-2 dB average sloping down treble in the 500-10000Hz band, while the B&W does not, and in fact, has about a 0.5dB averaged increase in that band.

The measurements clearly show there is no issue with the midbass crossover point. It's silly to even imply it in the case of the B&W at subject here.

A very flat treble speaker(as measured at the listening distance) in fact, will usually sound 'wrong' on most commercial recordings. This is thoroughly covered in multiple experiments by different researchers.

The Usher reffered to is far more resonant, and as such, it has no special quality that would make it recommendable by me.

The B&W will do exactly as I said it will in the specific use that I recommended it for(An DSP controlled EQ and X-Over with stereo subs) to get a superb value system up and going. I have never recommended the 805 for use by itself.

-Chris

So are you also in the camp of recommending speakers without every hearing them?

Sorry guys, but that's like hiring someone with no experience into a CEO position.

 

[avaserfi]

How much does a digital speaker with the ability to change the FR to suit everyone's needs cost? I doubt it's anywhere near the price range that the "average" person has compiled. Heck, it's probably not in the price range of most audio hobbyists.

Such recommendations are not vastly expensive. A relatively high quality stereo system of this sort could be had for $1.5k, of course, as price increases superior recommendations are possible. Also, if one is willing to make modifications to a speaker the fidelity will be allowed to increase exponentially especially with regard to cost.

If I was rich, I'd happily employ your methods. Most people are not rich, however, nor do they want to fuddle and tweak forever; they want to sit, listen and get emotionally connected with music. They want to purchase a speaker that already sounds the way they want it to, hence why there are so many manufacturers out there; different people prefer different things. Manufacturers know this, thus cater to these needs. So when you say each person doesn't hear differently, it's not entirely true. Each person's hearing is effected by each individual's bias, preferences, emotions and pyschoacoustics, so in a way, we do all hear differently. If you remove those influences and place each individual in a controlled environment, they'd still have different preferences, so one, two or even three speakers would not please the masses. Throw aesthetic preferences or needs into the mix and things become even more difficult.

My comments are with regard to actual performance not aesthetics. I have already mentioned that this methodology is not for everyone as some people are not interested in tweaking etc...

Even in a controlled environment the majority would never agree on a "perfect" speaker. Back to the point though...why would you recommend speakers you've never heard?

The exact opposite is the case in all of the relevant research I have cited within this thread. A lack of familiarity with this research has already been stated, I am unable to understand how such forceful comments can still be made. Due to this there have even been specific examples made referring to this research seemingly being ignored.

So are you also in the camp of recommending speakers without every hearing them?

Toole and Olive referring to actual listening tests: "The bottom line: if you want to know how a loudspeaker truly sounds. You would be well advised do the listening tests 'blind'." [1]

Just making an observation out loud. Those two seem to tag team others, straying off from the original topic often. I meant no harm.

In this thread, it was your questioning of me that lead to the topic currently being discussed, at first I merely commented on the usefulness of waveguides.

With regard to the 805 comment, again this had no initial causation direct to either one of us (Chris and I), but another member made this comment including us in the statement.

References

[1] Hearing is Believing vs. Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Listening Tests, and Other Interesting Things. Toole, Floyd E.; Olive, Sean E. J. Audio Engineering Soc., Conference Paper 3894. November 1994.

-Andrew

Please note, this is likely my last post in this thread, I see no point in constant repetition on my part. On the other hand, I would be more than willing to continue discussion of waveguides, their usefulness and proper implementation.

 

[Matt34]

So are you also in the camp of recommending speakers without every hearing them?

Sorry guys, but that's like hiring someone with no experience into a CEO position.

I'm in the same boat as WmaX and Avaserfi, which if you can find a speaker the does well in 3rd party measurements and implement a proper EQ and stereo subs, that you can manipulate the sound to the user’s preference.

Now, if you audition a bunch of speakers and find one that suits your needs, then more power to you and consider yourself very lucky to be able to do that....but when someone comes to a forum such as this and asks, "what's the best speaker I can buy for $$$$ amount, recommending something just because you liked it doesn't really help that individual. It just tells them through your subjective observations that was the speaker most enjoyable to you.

If I recommend a speaker that has a flat FR, good on/off axis dispersion, i.e. good perceptional characteristics then I know that base on the research, the person is starting with a good quality speaker that they then can adjust to their liking.

Speaker preference is a very subjective thing but objective testing can tell you a lot about what you will here.

 

[mazersteven]

I know you and WmAx like the B&W 805S for it's cabinet and fairly flat measurements but I just can't help but hear some harshness in the top end which I am very certain is because of the midbass driver being crossed over too high. On the other hand the Usher Be-718 "Tiny Dancer" measures just as good as the B&W yet does not exhibit that harshness. Here are the measurements for both. Both speakers cost the same amount of money.

Anyone have the measurements for these speakers? Dana 630

I'd like to see how they measure, and your thoughts on the measurements vs. the 805S.

http://www.theaudioinsider.com/product_info.php/p/dana-630/products_id/32

 

[Tomorrow]

This is directed to everyone but I hope Andrew and Chris will comment as well, particularly concerning the paragraph in bold. The following statements are part of a technical defense of the SP Technologies waveguide implementation. They are taken from http://www.4sptech.com/diffraction.php.

Complex DSP processing to correct for frequency response anomalies are not included in our designs for the simple fact that they are not required. Artificially forcing any system into a quasi-linear mode of operation by external means is inherently inferior to a system that is fundamentally linear to begin with. DSP processing has become relatively inexpensive and consequently very popular recently. It is an attractive method to a designer from a cost perspective in his/her attempt to linearize a fundamentally non-linear and inexpensive product.

As a side note, DSP based system designers will claim that diffraction effects are "corrected" as a side effect of frequency/phase correction. What they won't tell you is that the correction holds true for only one fixed point in space (usually on-axis) and falls apart at any other point (off-axis). This makes for a tiny little sweat spot - so be careful and try to hold your head real still.

Irrespective of these facts, a non-flat frequency response, by itself, is tolerated fairly well by the averaging effect of the human hearing mechanism. The greater problem arises from the fact that the delayed energy of diffraction tends to "smear" the impulse or transient response of the system, making fast rising signals such as snare drum strikes and plucked strings sound lifeless and artificial. Human hearing also localizes the point of origin (speaker location) more easily, thus destroying the sonic illusion of a three-dimensional space and a soundstage that extends beyond the boundary of the speakers. It is noteworthy that a poorly designed waveguide that has either a mouth area (the exiting point of the wave) that is too small or too abrupt will cause exactly the same phenomenon. The laws of acoustics simply must be accounted for in proper design.

Concerning impedance, a properly designed waveguide has the characteristic of raising the air load impedance to a given diaphragm in a way that can be considered a "conjugate match" with regard to what the diaphragm prefers to see when transferring its energy of motion into the air. It is often referred to in engineering terms as an "acoustic transformer," not unlike a transformer used in electrical circuits. If done correctly, the wave will transition to the air in a smooth and gentle progression without experiencing abrupt changes and the resulting reflections.

 

[avaserfi]

Complex DSP processing to correct for frequency response anomalies are not included in our designs for the simple fact that they are not required. Artificially forcing any system into a quasi-linear mode of operation by external means is inherently inferior to a system that is fundamentally linear to begin with. DSP processing has become relatively inexpensive and consequently very popular recently. It is an attractive method to a designer from a cost perspective in his/her attempt to linearize a fundamentally non-linear and inexpensive product.

I cannot actually comment on these specific speakers without actual measurements.

With regard to equalizing a loudspeaker to linear performance with a DSP, they would be correct, this is not the ideal circumstance. Rather, starting with a linear system and adjusting tonality is ideal. It is important to note that some loudspeakers that are already relatively neutral can have minor adjustments made via DSP to increase linearity, but this is far different than taming multiple dips/peaks.

As a side note, DSP based system designers will claim that diffraction effects are "corrected" as a side effect of frequency/phase correction. What they won't tell you is that the correction holds true for only one fixed point in space (usually on-axis) and falls apart at any other point (off-axis). This makes for a tiny little sweat spot - so be careful and try to hold your head real still.

This statement presumes that diffraction issues are dealt with via DSP and not actual design of the loudspeaker. This is a sign of a poorly designed loudspeaker. Rather than actually designing for diffraction this implies that the designer is attempting to place a band-aid on it with equalization.

Irrespective of these facts, a non-flat frequency response, by itself, is tolerated fairly well by the averaging effect of the human hearing mechanism. The greater problem arises from the fact that the delayed energy of diffraction tends to "smear" the impulse or transient response of the system, making fast rising signals such as snare drum strikes and plucked strings sound lifeless and artificial. Human hearing also localizes the point of origin (speaker location) more easily, thus destroying the sonic illusion of a three-dimensional space and a soundstage that extends beyond the boundary of the speakers. It is noteworthy that a poorly designed waveguide that has either a mouth area (the exiting point of the wave) that is too small or too abrupt will cause exactly the same phenomenon. The laws of acoustics simply must be accounted for in proper design.

Non-flat frequency response is one example of a quality of loudspeakers that consistently causes low rating relative to more linear loudspeakers. That being said audibility of such anomalies is depending on Q, frequency as well as if the anomaly is a peak or a dip. Diffraction itself causes a variety of issues that will effect perceived sound quality from decreased polar response [effecting imaging, soundstange and possibly timbre perception] to in extreme cases on axis linearity which will greatly effect treble performance.

-Andrew

 

[WmAx]

How much does a digital speaker with the ability to change the FR to suit everyone's needs cost? I doubt it's anywhere near the price range that the "average" person has compiled. Heck, it's probably not in the price range of most audio hobbyists.

The speaker in question is over $2000/pair. The DSP system I recommend to add to it is around a 10 percent cost increase to add. By doing this to the few speakers with appropriately neutral properties that let it work as intended, you gain far more ability to customize the sound to your preference(s) as compared to accepting any speaker's fixed stock sound.

If I was rich, I'd happily employ your methods. Most people are not rich,

If you bothered to go back to the original thread, the entire point was to get far higher quality sound than would be possible by purchasing an alternative in a given price range.

however, nor do they want to fuddle and tweak forever; they want to sit, listen and get emotionally connected with music.

It's really not difficult, it's just different than one is used to, and I will assist anyone as much as possible so they can operate/hook up such a set up properly.

Even in a controlled environment the majority would never agree on a "perfect" speaker.

Why, perfect is an ideal never met in any circumstance. But, the vast majority (upper 90th percentile with normal hearing) people will agree on a speaker or set of speakers that have very similar measured characteristics, in a controlled environment. Demonstrated repeatedly with perceptual testing experiments.

Back to the point though...why would you recommend speakers you've never heard?

Simply put (and I am not trying to sound arrogant - I am simply trying to explain the fact of the matter), I have extensive experience in controlled testing(careful blind testing with randomization protocol - testing isolated variables in the relevant areas), comparisons and correlation of measurements to these specific experiences, along with extensive knowledge of the relevant perceptual research involved. Such knowledge allows one to make extremely accurate analysis and predictions based on specific measurements, along with some educated guesses(in regards to B&W for example being reliable to produce a speaker that will not have gross non-linear distortions in normal operation since this specific data is not provided in the measurements shown). Such knowledge is by no means common, as the knowledge here in requires extreme dedication/discipline and a significant amount of time to acquire to a great extent.

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

This is directed to everyone but I hope Andrew and Chris will comment as well, particularly concerning the paragraph in bold. The following statements are part of a technical defense of the SP Technologies waveguide implementation. They are taken from http://www.4sptech.com/diffraction.php.

Complex DSP processing to correct for frequency response anomalies are not included in our designs for the simple fact that they are not required. Artificially forcing any system into a quasi-linear mode of operation by external means is inherently inferior to a system that is fundamentally linear to begin with. DSP processing has become relatively inexpensive and consequently very popular recently. It is an attractive method to a designer from a cost perspective in his/her attempt to linearize a fundamentally non-linear and inexpensive product.

As a side note, DSP based system designers will claim that diffraction effects are "corrected" as a side effect of frequency/phase correction. What they won't tell you is that the correction holds true for only one fixed point in space (usually on-axis) and falls apart at any other point (off-axis). This makes for a tiny little sweat spot - so be careful and try to hold your head real still.

I will put this into perspective and make clear the bottom line: it's easiest and cheapest to produce a maximally flat on axis and relatively wide off axis response set by using the proper waveguide. The superior method is to use very large radius on the horizontal corners, in the range of at least 3" radius. This allows a wider dispersion and also helps the upper band of the mid-bass i most cases. Cost to do this as compared to molding a waveguide face plate for the tweeter is enormous.

The description of using DSP to correct linearity behaviors is mostly accurate, but seemingly over-stated. On any single system, DSP will allow a better and more ideal target response to be realized. Even more importantly, it allows easy and accurate adjust ability of baffle step correction and treble graduation response; which must ideally be adjusted differently for every acoustic environment and placement, as well as to listener preference in regards to their choice of recordings.

-Chris

 

[Nuance AH]

If you bothered to go back to the original thread, the entire point was to get far higher quality sound than would be possible by purchasing an alternative in a given price range.


...Simply put (and I am not trying to sound arrogant - I am simply trying to explain the fact of the matter...),
-Chris

Whether you sound arrogant or not is besides the point. And even if you did, I wouldn't let it bother me. I've dealt with plenty of self proclaimed no-it-all's, and I've learned to cope (not saying you are, but you get the idea).

As far as the original thread, I am not, nor was I interested in it, but yet we somehow got back on that same topic. I created this thread concerning acoustic waveguides, not recommended B&W speakers. I noticed that some people were continuously making recommendations and arguing points while never having heard the equipment in question, so I asked why that is. Those are the only two things I wanted to know about, but yet we came full circle back to that thread? And if I recall, that thread was started because it had already gotten another thread off topic. Hmm...that's kind of humorous.

I also do believe in controlled tests and that the majority will agree (already did agree in Sean Olive's double blind test) that a flat FR is preferred, but that's not my argument. My argument is that most people will not purchase based on measurements only, or on someone else's recommendation who's never heard the speaker in question. They will use their ears, or at the very least take the suggestion of someone who's actually put some time in with said speaker(s). If you gave the majority a choice of choosing based on each, they'd choose their own ears in most cases.

I'm in the same boat as WmaX and Avaserfi, which if you can find a speaker the does well in 3rd party measurements and implement a proper EQ and stereo subs, that you can manipulate the sound to the user’s preference.

Now, if you audition a bunch of speakers and find one that suits your needs, then more power to you and consider yourself very lucky to be able to do that....but when someone comes to a forum such as this and asks, "what's the best speaker I can buy for $$$$ amount, recommending something just because you liked it doesn't really help that individual. It just tells them through your subjective observations that was the speaker most enjoyable to you.

If I recommend a speaker that has a flat FR, good on/off axis dispersion, i.e. good perceptional characteristics then I know that base on the research, the person is starting with a good quality speaker that they then can adjust to their liking.

Speaker preference is a very subjective thing but objective testing can tell you a lot about what you will here.

I agree with all of this (well...most of it), so don't get the wrong idea. I always make multiple suggestions and help the person find a speaker that suits their needs. I never only recommend a speaker that I like. I also think that picking up a speaker then tweaking it to fit your needs is a great idea, though not practical for many people. I do not, however, agree with continuously recommending a speaker to fit someone's needs without every having heard it. One or two based on great feedback is a given, but over and over again concerning multiple speakers? It just doesn't make sense because objective measurements only tell us so much, especially when adding different room sizes and acoustics into the equation. We don't all listen in the same room, with the same acoustics, using the same gear, with our ears at the same level at the exact same listening distance. That is why I keep "pushing" my point, avaserfi.

The exact opposite is the case in all of the relevant research I have cited within this thread. A lack of familiarity with this research has already been stated, I am unable to understand how such forceful comments can still be made. Due to this there have even been specific examples made referring to this research seemingly being ignored.

avaserfi - I am familiar with the white papers and sources you cited; try not to assume. I don't believe everything I read, however, especially if it's from the same sources.

Again, we'll agree to disagree. In my opinion you are forcing your own opinions on people (or rather your opinion of other people's opinions, since you cite Floyd and Toole so often), and I don't agree with that, especially if you've never even listened to the equipment at hand. Sure, you've got some credible sources, and a good teacher (WmAx) but who says they are the be all end all final source? You keep using the same sources. This is why you and I will agree to disagree. There is no point to further argue the issue, because I won't budge and neither will you, so that's where I'll leave it. I am not one to argue something so subjective, even if you say it's quite objective (which is still isn't, at least amongst the majority).

Simply put, measurements don't tell the entire story. If you'd like to further discuss this, we can take it to e-mail or PM. It's been entertaining, but you guys take the fun out of the debate (and no, not because I'm wrong, because I'm not ).

 

[Tomorrow]

This statement presumes that diffraction issues are dealt with via DSP and not actual design of the loudspeaker. This is a sign of a poorly designed loudspeaker. Rather than actually designing for diffraction this implies that the designer is attempting to place a band-aid on it with equalization.

Thanks for your take on the article, Andrew.

Seemingly, the bulk of the article presents the notion that any loudspeaker design not utilizing a waveguide design (such as theirs) causes a variety of diffraction "types" and "events"...including, perhaps especially, flat baffle designs (which the author calls actually a "bad [hemispherical] waveguide design"). Their point? Impedance levels and boundary conditions are both optimized with SP speakers, facilitating extended bandwidth and edge diffraction elimination.

Diffraction issues are multifaceted, yes? So ignoring for a moment the existence of the spheroidal waveguide, what elements in your speaker designs do you utilize to eliminate or minimize diffraction issues such as discontinuity of air pressure at the baffle plane, impedence mismatches, pressure zones causing secondary radiation, etc? Or is it even that much of an audible distortion problem? Looking for wisdom here.