TLS Guy -vs- Studio 100's

[highfigh]

It's not 'incorrect', it's oversimplified.

I don't think there's any way to not oversimplify it here- this isn't the AES. The main reason I say peoples' preferences differ comes from the reactions I have seen and heard from people listening to various speakers over the last 3+ decades (FWIW). Any bias based on the visual appearance it up to the listener and to be honest, when people are buying speakers, I seriously doubt many will be willing to audition them without being able to see them, whether male or female. I have told people to close their eyes before starting the music and while the sound is the only criterion that can be used for their preference, finding that they love the sound and hate the look just won't fly. I also didn't see any indication of who the test subjects were in the links- are these people accustomed to critical listening or were they just random people who were selected?

Flat and preferred are two different things and the Sean Olive Power Point link has a comment in frame 29 that says "Flat in-room response is not the optimal target response (program may be a nuisance variable).

 

[KEW]

I hate to take a thread off on a tangent, but would anybody care to make some suggestions for a pair of the best bookshelf speakers I can get for up to $2000?

IMHO, the Paradigm S-2, v2 is the best bookshelf in that price range.
I don't know what the exchange rate is, but it looks like used Paradigm S-2 v2's are going for $1500 a pair. Since the v3 has come out, I'd bet you could start calling dealers (go through the Paradigm website for dealer locations) and find one who is looking to dump the v2's at a good price (I would expect under $2000USD in Cherry).
You should listen to them first. The Be tweeters are definitely different than other dome tweeters. To my ear they are exceptional, but to your ear, who knows!

What is the Canadian pricing on Paradigm's? You'd think they would be a pretty good deal since they are Canadian, but who knows?

 

[KEW]

I've got a set of the black S2v1s here. I'd love to play with the v2.
I'm put off on the v3 by the move away from a phase-plug. I still don't understand why.

The best speculative explanation of this I have seen came from Gene (post #15 of the following thread). He lists some of the downside.
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58849&highlight=paradigm+signature&page=2

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Okay, that was kind of funny. LOL.

 

[krabapple]

I also didn't see any indication of who the test subjects were in the links- are these people accustomed to critical listening or were they just random people who were selected?

They were well-trained listeners accustomed to critical listening -- Harman has a pool of them. Their 'reliability' can be verified in each test using what's called an F statistic. Olive describes it in one of his big JAES papers on loudspeaker preference.

In fact, having gone through these debates too many times, where people reading a summary of the work start demanding details that have already been published, I'm going to suggest right off that instead of getting it all secondhand from me, go read Floyd Toole's book or Sean Olive's papers, or you can post questions to Olive's blog or to the threads he's currently participating in on Hydrogenaudio and AVSForum.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

It doesn't mean that every single person will always prefer an accurate loudspeaker.

There you go. I agree with that.

I prefer a lot more bass than what is "accurate".

 

[krabapple]

There you go. I agree with that.
I prefer a lot more bass than what is "accurate".

(shrug) It's not unusual to prefer a somewhat bassy room response compared to 'flat'. But that could be achieved any number of other ways rather than being hard coded into the loudspeaker performance. Room gain for example naturally emphasizes bass.

When freed from biases listeners tend to prefer 'flat' (uncolored) loudspeakers but not 'flat' listening environments. In the double blind comparisons of 'room correction' schemes-- which used a loudspeaker/sub system with 'flat' bass -- listeners preferred the algorithms that left room gain intact and gently rolled off highs. This implies a smooth, straight downward sloping room response -- from bass to treble -- as a good 'target curve' for such schemes. The scheme that actually produced a big bump in the bass was less preferred than ones where the bass rose more linearly.

 

[highfigh]

They were well-trained listeners accustomed to critical listening -- Harman has a pool of them. Their 'reliability' can be verified in each test using what's called an F statistic. Olive describes it in one of his big JAES papers on loudspeaker preference.

In fact, having gone through these debates too many times, where people reading a summary of the work start demanding details that have already been published, I'm going to suggest right off that instead of getting it all secondhand from me, go read Floyd Toole's book or Sean Olive's papers, or you can post questions to Olive's blog or to the threads he's currently participating in on Hydrogenaudio and AVSForum.

I went back and looked in the PP for this and found that they train people, as well as have an available training program. I also tried to e-mail Sean Olive but the message didn't go through. I did bookmark the links, though.

The reason I wondered is that these people aren't just "average people" who might go out to buy speakers. That, in itself, skews the results. Listening for specific details knowing what to listen for means they won't be wowed by bass-heavy and bright sounding speakers which, as we all know, sell pretty well. Eventually, people learn that they aren't accurate or good and then, they're in our clutches, never to be the same again. While these people have to be included in the "on average, people tend to prefer accurate speakers" category but it's not the kind of average person many speaker manufacturers want. The ones who really know what they want, prefer and are willing to buy pose a problem to the manufacturers- These people are demanding and want results when they voice a complaint. These take time and cost money to address and manufacturers are in it to make money. Granted, some are really trying to make a high quality product but being inundated with questions or recommendations is much harder to deal with than making boxes and selling them.

 

[highfigh]

There you go. I agree with that.

I prefer a lot more bass than what is "accurate".

I did car audio for a long time and because of the Rap systems I did/was exposed to, I didn't even have a subwoofer for at least 5 years after getting out of that area. I like bass but not the tooth-rattling blurry vision kind. I want it to sound as real as possible, knowing how many instruments sound, but fully realizing that if it doesn't sound exactly the way I have heard, it's OK because producers and artists may want it to sound different. One of the most telling details, IMO, is the human voice. If that sounds real and natural, with no over-emphasis, it's more believable, for me. Some of the recordings I have are by people I know and when they sing or speak, I want it to sound like that person.

I think I should have clarified my statement about people's hearing not being the same. Evenness in the frequency response can't be expected to be the same because of genetics and environmental causes, like a dip at 5KHz. To me, that seems like it would be from pounding nails with a hammer for many years but if someone works in a factory, their hearing will have been affected whether they wear hearing protection, or not (depends on the type).

 

[Alex2507]

... a dip at 5KHz. To me, that seems like it would be from pounding nails with a hammer for many years ...

I'm not that kind of carpenter.

I'm pretty sure my deal is a result from shooting Hiltis into steel.

Edit: This is not a drill.

It shoots nails like bullets. It takes a .27 caliber shot.

 

[fredk]

I agree with alex. You da man!
::backs away slowly::

 

[fredk]

I went back and looked in the PP for this and found that they train people, as well as have an available training program. I also tried to e-mail Sean Olive but the message didn't go through. I did bookmark the links, though.

The reason I wondered is that these people aren't just "average people" who might go out to buy speakers. That, in itself, skews the results.

Did you look into what the training was?

When Toole did his research, he also 'trained' his listeners. The training consisted mostly of making people aware of the terms used and how to describe what they heard. The training took all of 1/2 hour. For Toole, among other things, he chose a cross section of people from the industry and actually looked for correlations between occupation and preference. It did not exist.

THE big deal in applying the scientific method is eliminating bias. Its the reason for peer review and that independent groups usually try to duplicate the research/experiments. If Toole and Olive were introducing bias in an obvious way, they would never have been published in the AES.

I agree completely about your statements of preference and bias. Its the 'we all hear differently so we like different speakers' stuff I disagree with.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Further to my request for bookshelf speaker recommendations, I was wondering if certain characteristics would be more suitable for my needs. My living room adjoins the dining room and kitchen, with a hallway at the opposite the speaker location. It's a large space to fill. So, should I stick with speakers that have larger (6.5" - 7") mid/bass drivers, vice smaller (5" - 5.5") drivers? Or, is that as important as the design of the speaker? A smaller driver will have to work harder, i.e. greater excursion.

 

[highfigh]

I'm not that kind of carpenter.

I'm pretty sure my deal is a result from shooting Hiltis into steel.

Edit: This is not a drill.

It shoots nails like bullets. It takes a .27 caliber shot.

With no hearing protection? That's an OSHA violation.

 

[jostenmeat]

Further to my request for bookshelf speaker recommendations, I was wondering if certain characteristics would be more suitable for my needs. My living room adjoins the dining room and kitchen, with a hallway at the opposite the speaker location. It's a large space to fill. So, should I stick with speakers that have larger (6.5" - 7") mid/bass drivers, vice smaller (5" - 5.5") drivers? Or, is that as important as the design of the speaker? A smaller driver will have to work harder, i.e. greater excursion.

The design is more important. Also, larger drivers usually means larger cabinets, which in turn could produce more cabinet resonances (odds of being critically damped are slimmer, with any given price point).

For instance, JL woofers normally outperform much of the competition, even when comparing to other, larger sizes.

Since you are already implementing a sub, I think this issue is of even less concern for you.

Quality of drivers, quality of x-over, quality of cabinet. Those are the three main things that will affect overall performance.

You get more efficiency with the larger driver, but I do wonder if you are overestimating what high SPL levels are to you. Who knows.

 

[GO-NAD!]

The design is more important. Also, larger drivers usually means larger cabinets, which in turn could produce more cabinet resonances (odds of being critically damped are slimmer, with any given price point).

For instance, JL woofers normally outperform much of the competition, even when comparing to other, larger sizes.

Since you are already implementing a sub, I think this issue is of even less concern for you.

Quality of drivers, quality of x-over, quality of cabinet. Those are the three main things that will affect overall performance.

You get more efficiency with the larger driver, but I do wonder if you are overestimating what high SPL levels are to you. Who knows.

So, if it comes down to choosing between a Studio 10 and 20, or between a CM1 and a CM5, there is nothing to be gained with the larger versions if a subwoofer is being added? Or, is it a trade-off between the greater efficiency of the larger and the possibly lesser cabinet resonance of the smaller? I know that may seem like a simplistic way to put it, but I'm trying to narrow down the list of candidates.

 

[jostenmeat]

So, if it comes down to choosing between a Studio 10 and 20, or between a CM1 and a CM5, there is nothing to be gained with the larger versions if a subwoofer is being added? Or, is it a trade-off between the greater efficiency of the larger and the possibly lesser cabinet resonance of the smaller? I know that may seem like a simplistic way to put it, but I'm trying to narrow down the list of candidates.

Yes, I guess you can simplify it like that, just to get the gist. Larger will not only get you efficiency, but extension as well. I suppose that could be important, come to think of it, since your sub is going to be far from the speakers, which necessitates a low xover.

I'm not going to go into the reasons right now why I chose PSB Image T55s over T45s for the HT, but my primary complaint is bloated midbass. Now, there are people who think the T45s are better in this regard. I have no idea how much of it is the cabinet vs other things, if this is true.

I remember the knowledgeable no.5 once mentioning that the smaller KEF IQ5 had better dispersion than the larger IQ7.

Anyways, I wouldn't use driver size as an important selecting factor. If you could indeed narrow it down to two models in the same lineup, the first thing I might do is bee-line to owner's forums and ask the owners, and salesmen, this question directly.

Are the xover points identical otherwise between those Studio bookshelves? How does that affect the overall performance? How does different port tuning choices affect the overall performance? Don't tell me the answers, because I won't be able to help you.

 

[krabapple]

Did you look into what the training was?

When Toole did his research, he also 'trained' his listeners. The training consisted mostly of making people aware of the terms used and how to describe what they heard. The training took all of 1/2 hour.

It's rather more involve than that.

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=9960

 

[GO-NAD!]

Yes, I guess you can simplify it like that, just to get the gist. Larger will not only get you efficiency, but extension as well. I suppose that could be important, come to think of it, since your sub is going to be far from the speakers, which necessitates a low xover.

I'm not going to go into the reasons right now why I chose PSB Image T55s over T45s for the HT, but my primary complaint is bloated midbass. Now, there are people who think the T45s are better in this regard. I have no idea how much of it is the cabinet vs other things, if this is true.

I remember the knowledgeable no.5 once mentioning that the smaller KEF IQ5 had better dispersion than the larger IQ7.

Anyways, I wouldn't use driver size as an important selecting factor. If you could indeed narrow it down to two models in the same lineup, the first thing I might do is bee-line to owner's forums and ask the owners, and salesmen, this question directly.

Are the xover points identical otherwise between those Studio bookshelves? How does that affect the overall performance? How does different port tuning choices affect the overall performance? Don't tell me the answers, because I won't be able to help you.

Thanks a lot! When I make this loudspeaker purchase, they'll have to do the job for at least 10 years, so I want to get it right. Do you think that when it comes to different bookshelf speakers within a model line, different resonance due to the different enclosure size, is a factor worth considering? I can certainly understand it being a factor with floorstanders, as I suspect that the increase in cabinet resonance, with an increase in cabinet size (design remaining the same) would be exponential, rather than linear. Would that be accurate?

Listening to these speakers in the dealer's room isn't ideal, as there are large windows and the traffic outside is a bit intrusive. He does have some acoustic treatments, but that does little/nothing about the window/traffic issue. I think I'll suggest that he do something about that. I suspect that the majority of customers aren't as anal about such things, but I'm not going to lay down my hard-earned cash on a pair of speakers when I have difficulty determining how good they sound to me.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Out of curiosity, I checked the sensitivity of the B&W CM1 and the Paradigm Studio 10V.5, as measured by the NRC and posted by Soundstage.

CM1: 81dB
S10V.5: 86.3dB

That is a massive difference and I expect that it would be difficult to get much SPL from the CM1's in my listening space. I'll have to check with the dealer about the CM5, as he didn't have any in his showroom.

I would guess, based on the above measurements, that the NRC would get a sensitivity in the 87 - 88dB range for the Studio 20V.5.

So, with further listening, unless I can detect a clear advantage in SQ for the CM's over the Studios, those CMs will be coming in behind the Studios in my speaker hunt. I won't be restricting myself to these two models of course. The hunt continues...