The Insanity of Marketing Disguised as Science in Loudspeakers

N

Nuance AH

Audioholic General
It will be interesting at the WI gt to see how the speakers represented do when driven hard. So far with few exceptions, I find that as loudness increases the music starts to sound compressed. Imaging is a different matter, and will depend on the design etc. My use of compression speakers (Procella's) is for multi channel music and movies, hence why I ordered the Phil 2's. My audition at Dennis's was they sounded amazing but at really loud levels, I thought I heard the start of some compression of peaks. That being said, it could also have been inherent in the recording so I will reserve judgement. It certainly did not disuade me from wanting them for 2 channel music.

I respect those that say a "good speaker" is good "good speaker" for both music and movies. However, I have to respectfully disagree. I think when you are watching a movie you are aware of the sound but you are not as critical (sort of a texting and driving thing) except when things get loud and if the sound compresses the dynamic range (or lack thereof) it is noticeable. Now, I am talking about listening at fairly loud levels. The thread on AVS that talks about SPL's and list high SPL speakers has a really nice post on about the last or second to last page that I agree with. And remember, imaging with surround sound bases a lot on the center and surround speakers and a "good imaging speaker" for HT really doesn't make sense to me.

I certainly agree that bias is inherent in all we do but that works two ways.

^ And I totally understand and agree with that. Most of the 2-channel or pure music guys are no dummy's; we understand we cannot play our speakers at reference levels, and we also understand that is not what they were designed for. I think the loudest I've listened to music on my system is 90dB sustained, and they didn't start to compress or distort at that level, so I am a happy camper. I have cranked the Salk's up to 100dB briefly, and I did notice a change, but it was minor and probably more due to the level of loudness rather than the speaker struggling, though I could be wrong. Speaking of which, and maybe I am mis-stating it here, but haven't there been studies that have proven that the louder the music gets the harder it is for our brains and ears to pick out details and subtleties in the music? If so, why would anyone want to listen that loud to begin with, not to mention you'll damage your hearing at sustained levels above 85dB; that's why I usually listen at 85dB. :)

Anyway, my point is that reference levels is great for HT but isn't necessary for music unless you're of the variety that attends rock concerts often. Even then, you're sacrificing your hearing in order to be able to listen that loud, because doing so at sustained levels will damage your hearing. Maybe that's why the HT extremists tout reference levels all the time...because they struggle hearing below that level. :p

I too will be interested to see how the speakers at the GTG fair at louder levels, Randy, though I don't think said levels will be desired by the attendees. No one I know listens to music at super sonic levels, and I think we'll probably have a discussion on how loud to listen and then try to maintain that level throughout. I am sure they'll be time at the end of each audition to crank it up and get a feel for how they handle the stress, though.
 
C

cschang

Audioholic Chief
^ And I totally understand and agree with that. Most of the 2-channel or pure music guys are no dummy's; we understand we cannot play our speakers at reference levels, and we also understand that is not what they were designed for. I think the loudest I've listened to music on my system is 90dB sustained, and they didn't start to compress or distort at that level, so I am a happy camper. I have cranked the Salk's up to 100dB briefly, and I did notice a change, but it was minor and probably more due to the level of loudness rather than the speaker struggling, though I could be wrong. Speaking of which, and maybe I am mis-stating it here, but haven't there been studies that have proven that the louder the music gets the harder it is for our brains and ears to pick out details and subtleties in the music? If so, why would anyone want to listen that loud to begin with, not to mention you'll damage your hearing at sustained levels above 85dB; that's why I usually listen at 85dB. :)

Anyway, my point is that reference levels is great for HT but isn't necessary for music unless you're of the variety that attends rock concerts often. Even then, you're sacrificing your hearing in order to be able to listen that loud, because doing so at sustained levels will damage your hearing. Maybe that's why the HT extremists tout reference levels all the time...because they struggle hearing below that level. :p

I too will be interested to see how the speakers at the GTG fair at louder levels, Randy, though I don't think said levels will be desired by the attendees. No one I know listens to music at super sonic levels, and I think we'll probably have a discussion on how loud to listen and then try to maintain that level throughout. I am sure they'll be time at the end of each audition to crank it up and get a feel for how they handle the stress, though.
For me, it isn't really reference levels that I am concerned with. I too don't normally listen to anything more than 90dB average...usually a fair amount lower.

That said, I am interested in how a speaker handles things at louder volumes because, IMO, that is good indication, and sometimes easier to judge, how the speaker will handle the peaks that I do encounter.

As far as HT is concerned, aspects that are not a big deal in that setting are imaging and soundstage. With imaging, we want to be able to isolate sounds in specific locations...with HT really is not too concerned with that unless it is in the center...but with a center channel, it is pretty easy.

Those HT enthusiasts that want reference level in their environments...I would bet, at least some, are so accustomed to those levels, good or bad, that listening at lower levels just don't sound right to them.
 
R

randyb

Full Audioholic
^ And I totally understand and agree with that. Most of the 2-channel or pure music guys are no dummy's; we understand we cannot play our speakers at reference levels, and we also understand that is not what they were designed for. I think the loudest I've listened to music on my system is 90dB sustained, and they didn't start to compress or distort at that level, so I am a happy camper. I have cranked the Salk's up to 100dB briefly, and I did notice a change, but it was minor and probably more due to the level of loudness rather than the speaker struggling, though I could be wrong. Speaking of which, and maybe I am mis-stating it here, but haven't there been studies that have proven that the louder the music gets the harder it is for our brains and ears to pick out details and subtleties in the music? If so, why would anyone want to listen that loud to begin with, not to mention you'll damage your hearing at sustained levels above 85dB; that's why I usually listen at 85dB. :)

Anyway, my point is that reference levels is great for HT but isn't necessary for music unless you're of the variety that attends rock concerts often. Even then, you're sacrificing your hearing in order to be able to listen that loud, because doing so at sustained levels will damage your hearing. Maybe that's why the HT extremists tout reference levels all the time...because they struggle hearing below that level. :p

I too will be interested to see how the speakers at the GTG fair at louder levels, Randy, though I don't think said levels will be desired by the attendees. No one I know listens to music at super sonic levels, and I think we'll probably have a discussion on how loud to listen and then try to maintain that level throughout. I am sure they'll be time at the end of each audition to crank it up and get a feel for how they handle the stress, though.
I am not talking reference levels to notice a difference which I have only used twice in my home theater as a demo on Master and Commander. I am talking louder than medium levels really. I loved my HT-3's at lower levels but I do think they sort of compressed at higher levels. I think the stock Songtowers (with the dome tweeter) did less of that and the Ascend speakers will play pretty loud. There is a reason that Dennis Erskine used to recommend Triad speakers and now recommends Procella. It isn't because he doesn't like music but he builds home theaters first and primarily.
 
Last edited:
R

randyb

Full Audioholic
For me, it isn't really reference levels that I am concerned with. I too don't normally listen to anything more than 90dB average...usually a fair amount lower.

That said, I am interested in how a speaker handles things at louder volumes because, IMO, that is good indication, and sometimes easier to judge, how the speaker will handle the peaks that I do encounter.

As far as HT is concerned, aspects that are not a big deal in that setting are imaging and soundstage. With imaging, we want to be able to isolate sounds in specific locations...with HT really is not too concerned with that unless it is in the center...but with a center channel, it is pretty easy.

Those HT enthusiasts that want reference level in their environments...I would bet, at least some, are so accustomed to those levels, good or bad, that listening at low-medium levels just don't sound right to them.
I actually think DavidF made my point for me when he described in the tower thread who would want the RAAL and who would want the stock tweeter. FWIW, I don't think there is a right answer and I actually don't listen at really loud levels very often (if i did hearing would be the least of my problems since the wife would kill me). However, I do think there is a difference in speakers at how they handle peaks even at low to medium levels. I often think back to my first CD buy. It was the dynamic range that blew me away because for me it is an emotional thing. I hate bands that play just loud or just soft. I like using loud and soft to evoke emotion. Just my POV.

Take someone who has been in the news a lot lately....Whitney Houston. Her rendition of the national anthem was stirring not because she sang all at the same level, but because she really increased her level of loudness at key points. So many rock bands now a days just play loud and it is boring to me.
 
Last edited:
C

cschang

Audioholic Chief
I actually think DavidF made my point for me when he described in the tower thread who would want the RAAL and who would want the stock tweeter. FWIW, I don't think there is a right answer and I actually don't listen at really loud levels very often (if i did hearing would be the least of my problems since the wife would kill me). However, I do think there is a difference in speakers at how they handle peaks even at low levels. I often think back to my first CD buy. It was the dynamic range that blew me away because for me it is an emotional thing. I hate bands that play just loud or just soft. I like using loud and soft to evoke emotion. Just my POV.

Take someone who has been in the news a lot lately....Whitney Houston. Her rendition of the national anthem was stirring not because she sang all at the same level, but because she really increased her level of loudness at key points. So many rock bands now a days just play loud and it is boring to me.
I'm in agreement with you.

I realized early on in my speaker quest that dynamic range was important to me, I just didn't know what to call it, or how to test for it. Some speakers just sounded "lifeless" to me.

Dave's post that you are referring to would create a tough decision for me if I were looking to purchase Towers right now. I am planning a trip to their shop in the next couple of weeks, so I hope to compare. I don't think my listening levels are loud enough to necessitate the need to go the NrT route. I have been in that listening room he is referring to, and 95dB peaks were plenty loud enough for me...the 105dB peaks he posted must have been nuts!.

I was going to make a wise crack about your first CD and your age...but I will save it for later. :D
 
Last edited:
N

Nuance AH

Audioholic General
I am in complete agreement with both of you. I suppose it all depends on the application and what we want our speakers to do. I do want to ensure what I own sounds good even at louder levels, even if I don't listen that loud if nothing else for peace of mind, but anything above 90dB is very uncomfortable for me, so it's moot in the end. It's good to know that I have more headroom than that if I so desire, though. It's also worth mentioned if I had a dedicated HT I wouldn't be using Salk, Ascend or Philharmonic speakers.
 
Last edited:
R

randyb

Full Audioholic
I am in complete agreement with both of you. I suppose it all depends on the application and what we want our speakers to do. I do want to ensure what I own sounds good even at louder levels, even if I don't listen that loud if nothing else for peace of mind, but anything above 90dB is very uncomfortable for me, so it's moot in the end. It's good to know that I have more headroom than that if I so desire, though. It's also worth mentioned if I had a dedicated HT I wouldn't be using Salk, Ascend or Philharmonic speakers.
Cool. Look forward to meeting you in person in April:)
 
C

cschang

Audioholic Chief
It's also worth mentioned if I had a dedicated HT I wouldn't be using Salk, Ascend or Philharmonic speakers.
Agreed.

The best HT setup I have heard had all Harman/JBL pro equipment, and was also EQ'd/calibrated by Harman professionals.

Not that I would build it with the same equipment...but it was impressive.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
I'm in agreement with you.

I realized early on in my speaker quest that dynamic range was important to me, I just didn't know what to call it, or how to test for it. Some speakers just sounded "lifeless" to me.

Dave's post that you are referring to would create a tough decision for me if I were looking to purchase Towers right now. I am planning a trip to their shop in the next couple of weeks, so I hope to compare. I don't think my listening levels are loud enough to necessitate the need to go the NrT route. I have been in that listening room he is referring to, and 95dB peaks were plenty loud enough for me...the 105dB peaks he posted must have been nuts!.

I was going to make a wise crack about your first CD and your age...but I will save it for later. :D
Are we talking dB-C weight?
 
GranteedEV

GranteedEV

Audioholic Ninja
Thank you for the incredible in-depth detail writing on this subject, it certainly provide some clue as to how difficult this is, and probably why many of these state-of-the art loudspeakers with first order crossovers are huge and with so many drivers... I never ever seen any proper DIY projects with first order crossovers, perhaps there's a good reason for this as being too bl¤¤#& difficult...
It's not how difficult it is, it's how pointless it is.

So utilizing DEQX or Behringer Ultradrive DCX2496? (read digital crossovers) that's phase perfect and higher order, will we not be able to get through these issues and get time/phase coherency without all the downsides?
A DCX2496 uses biquad (IIR) filters. It's no different from analog filters even if you correct the time delay.

TO do it correctly you need finite impulse response. It's not without its issues, of course...you'd have to do some heavy reading to learn more.

For example, controlled directivity reeks havoc on the sound stage width and depth based on what I've heard.
Narrow directivity reduces the room. If the room is adduing soundstage depth and width, then for starters its artifical (not part of the recording).

I'm not saying it's bad though. There's plenty of colorations we prefer. I'm just saying that what you're talking about IS a coloration and should be recognized as such.

The solution of course, also exists. Make it a bipole, like the Audiokinesis stuff. And crossfiring is a starting assumption. When you heard narrow directivity speakers were they even crossfired?

My audition at Dennis's was they sounded amazing but at really loud levels, I thought I heard the start of some compression of peaks. That being said, it could also have been inherent in the recording so I will reserve judgement.
Do you think it could have been amp clipping instead?

No one I know listens to music at super sonic levels
not to get all pedantic on you.................but............ :p
 
N

Nuance AH

Audioholic General
Don't controlled directivity drivers limit dispersion?

They weren't reflections, by the way; the side walls were way too far away for that.
 
GranteedEV

GranteedEV

Audioholic Ninja
Hell, it could me getting senile and old.
...nope...that's our control. :D

Don't controlled directivity drivers limit dispersion?
What do you mean by controlled directivity drivers? Do you mean narrow patterns? I think that a 90 degree dispersion pattern means that (roughly) at 30 degrees off axis, the response is down in level by about 6db, and at 45 degrees off-axis, the response is down in level by about 12db.

The "sweet spot" when crossfired will put you at about 22.5 degrees off-axis from both speakers, so the level of the listening axis is already lower than the level of the direct forward axis. If you sit to the left, you get closer to 0 degrees from the right speaker, and closer to 45 degrees from the left speaker. So the distance loss is compensated for by the pattern.

I think what you're thinking of, is a typical beaming horn, full range driver, or electrostat panel that becomes increasingly directive as frequency rises. In those cases, everywhere but the sweet spot, the response won't be flat because it's gradually falling. For true Constant Directivity speaker, crossfired, the response should always be flattish at the listening position, the only thing changing being lower midrange. All box speakers have a transition in off-axis response in off-axis response in the lower midrange. For a 15" driver in a 16" baffle this transition happens lower in frequency than a 5" driver in a 6" driver. The lower you can push this transition, the less audible it's likely to be. Dipoles have a different transition, from baffle restricted forward/back reradiation, to unrestricted out-of-phase radiation (and cancellations to meet).

It really is the reflections that create some of the soundstage you possibly prefer since dispersion pattern won't matter in an anechoic chamber at the sweet spot. Narrow pattern speakers in very live rooms will still have reflections, just not early reflections. Level-matched, they will probably sound "quieter" as your brain is really only getting the direct sound. I think rear radiation for these kind of speakers is a good idea.
 
Last edited:
N

Nuance AH

Audioholic General
What do you mean by controlled directivity drivers? Do you mean narrow patterns? I think that a 90 degree dispersion pattern means that (roughly) at 30 degrees off axis, the response is down in level by about 6db, and at 45 degrees off-axis, the response is down in level by about 12db.
My fault, I meant to say controlled directivity designs...narrow patterns, yes.

Whether it's the room or the design I don't like what pro audio style, high sensitive drivers do to the midrange and sound stage. I don't have a technical explanation for why; I only know what my ears tell me. There is less detail and separation of instruments, inaccurate timbre and the sound stage becomes narrow and everything sounds mashed together. It could have been the room, sure, or maybe not.
 
krabapple

krabapple

Banned
I will say Harman is probably one of the few companies that don't suffer from "familiarity bias" in their test results. Yes I have read their test results and I still feel their sample size (alternative brands / models) are too small and limited to come to some of the conclusions they have come to so definitively. Harman only directly compares their products to whom they feel are their mainstream direct competitors (ie. B&W, Martin Logan,Klipsch, etc). There are over 400 brands in the US market alone, some of whom don't have the marketshare and thus fall off Harman's radar. There are a lot of good companies doing good work making expensive but excellent product. Thus I disagree with the notion beyond a certain $$$ only cosmetic improvements are achieved.
The implication of Harman's work for the 'untested' brands is simply that , if compared fairly on the basis of sound alone, ones that 'measure well' in certain parameters will tend to be preferred over ones that don't, by listeners both 'trained' and 'untrained'.

Happily for loudspeaker manufacturers, 99.9% of listeners won't ever be able to fairly compare loudspeakers by listening alone.
Happily too for them, many times the relevant measurements are not available to the consumer. So the consumer is left with the highly superstitious method of simply 'auditioning' loudspeakers in demo rooms or in their own rooms, where the listener could well conclude that a loudspeaker 'sounds bad', when the problem is the room and the positioning, not the product; or they might luck out and find a crummy speaker that happens to sound good in that crummy room.



I don't think we can define such an amount when our ability to make subjective comparisons and conclusions are still quite limited. Most listening tests are done at low power levels where speakers generally behave well. What happens at higher levels in large rooms? Clean output and extension costs $$$s b/c they involve multi driver arrays, more powerful motors, better high temp crossover parts, etc. $1500/pair is NOT the magic # for achieving this (not saying Harman says this, but some brands that preach DBT as religion do).

And I ask again: what loudspeaker brands preach 'DBT religion'? Harman is well-known and matter of fact in its devotion to measurements and DBTs in its product development. I know Pioneer has published audio research that used scientific protocols. Other than that, I draw a blank. No doubt there are loudspeaker brands that tout bench (anaechoic, quais-anaechoic) measurements, but that's a different thing. DBTs of various kinds (there is more than one kind of 'DBT') are common in preference research in product development outside of audio where sensory perception is involved (e.g., 'blind taste tests'). They can be abused but I don't see much evidence so far that's happening in the loudspeaker realm.


Upon closer inspection of some tests I've seen, they often seem more like a test of preference towards loudspeakers with more bass extension than overall fidelity. In a direct instantaneous comparison, I've personally found listeners gravitate towards the speaker with most boom and sizzle. This is why I maintain long term and frequent listening tests of products on an individual basis is necessary. If Speaker A has more bass than Speaker B, but Speaker B produces better mids/highs and can play at higher SPL more cleanly, than it may be a good idea to bass manage both speakers to a level matched sub and run separate listening tests to see how listener preference changes. Nobody does this to my knowledge.

Please point me to those tests you've seen.


IMO we are NOT at the stage (perhaps we never will be) where we can just look at a graph, flip a switch for a quick test and determine causation of measured results vs subjective preferences. Sorry, there are too many variables to control, some of which we still don't have a firm grasp of. Harman is probably closer to this than anyone, but its still not an exact science IMO.
Please stop erecting straw men to knock down. No DBT user I know of -- either proffessional like at Harman or amateur -- has been talking about 'exact science' (whatever that is...all the science I know of has degrees of confidence attached to its results.)

The overall thrust of Toole's/Olive's/Harman's results is that measurements that we can do right now, *do* predict listener preference to a good degree of confidence -- *if* the listener is assessing only the sound. Of course a good degree of confidence is not an exact degree -- it's not going to tell you correctly, every time, what a particular listener is going to prefer, even in a blind comparison. The work reveals preference trends and relates them to measurements. Don't damn them for being something they never intended to be: perfect predictors of subjective preference.

If your overall message is, don't believe everything you read in audio marketing literature, well, duh. I think there are much bigger fish to be fried there in other parts of audiophilia, than the tiny school of mfrs that cite DBT-based results. I can't fathom why they've stuck in your craw.


Finally, why is Philip Bamberg given privileged commentary in the article, versus any number of other people who might have expertise in the areas you are discussing in it?
 
Last edited:
S

Steelheart1948

Enthusiast
I've been involved in this hobby since the mid 1970's, but after going through this entire thread, it seems that measurements mean nothing, and a review only has value to the reviewer. I think I'm going to sell my speakers and take up knitting.:(
 
JohnA

JohnA

Audioholic Chief
Has anyone evert thought about doing a DBT using the same speakers and see what the results are...
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top