Check out the frequency response of these

[digicidal]

Not better in price than pretty much anything... but while we're looking at charts from there... how about this one:

YG Acoustics Anat Reference Main Module:

Sure they cost half what my house did... but I bet they sound halfway decent.

@josten - thanks for that. That chart puts many things into perspective. I realized that the resolution was siginificantly reduced on the Ascend graphs, but I didn't realize to what extent. Sad - but still think I'm going with them (or do some more research still).

 

[3db]

You got that right... and I've actually heard them and they don't sound bad at all - of course, that's without being able to do a blind shootout with anything else.

If you did like the sound, I'm wondering if there is more to a speakers sound than one the test graphs depict? Is it possible to have poor measurements and still come out sounding good? I realize I'm implying audiophilia but it does have me thhinking.

Of particular humor (at least I thought so) was "Chart 4 - Deviation from Linearity at 90dB and Above". At first this confused the crap out of me since it seemed to be indicating perfect linearity, which clearly was not being indicated in the FR plots... then the light came on. These charts simply state that the exact same crappy FR is present whether the speakers are playing at 70db or 90db - or at least I think that's what they're saying.

That's pretty hillarious, because most halfway decent drivers should have extremely similar FR within that range - now maybe if pushed over 110db you'd have something else entirely... but for the cost, I'd be utterly stupified if they couldn't reach referrence levels while maintaining their composure. .

I think it describes the behaviour of the speaker at two different volume levels. They should be linear but I've seen some gaphs where the linearity was noticeablly different between the 2 volume levels.

 

[JerryLove]

Exactly... I was simply saying that even if they were straight ahead instead of targeting a sweetspot inbetween... the most you could ever be off-axis would be 60 deg (and at that point you'd be 0deg to the other speaker) - even though I would still expect that your couch probably isn't that long and you'd definitely have bad imaging at that point regardless.

And in an anechoic chamber this is all fine and dandy.

In a real room, sound will bounce off the walls, ceiling, and floor. Sound that reflects of these and arrives at your ear within 1ms will be merged in by your brain to form the final sound.

The walls, ceiling, and floor, will indeed be more than 45-degrees off-axis (and less).

This is much of what came from Harmon's studies of listeners: that off-axis response curves need to look like on-axis response curves or the speaker sounds subjectively worse.

 

[Dr. Parthipan]

And in an anechoic chamber this is all fine and dandy.

In a real room, sound will bounce off the walls, ceiling, and floor. Sound that reflects of these and arrives at your ear within 1ms will be merged in by your brain to form the final sound.

The walls, ceiling, and floor, will indeed be more than 45-degrees off-axis (and less).

This is much of what came from Harmon's studies of listeners: that off-axis response curves need to look like on-axis response curves or the speaker sounds subjectively worse.

If you had been paying attention in your other thread, Roy Johnson pointed out that the trouble with response curves is that it very much depends on how you take the measurement. Moreover our ears 'ignore' all the reflections whereas a microphone will not.

 

[JerryLove]

If you had been paying attention in your other thread, Roy Johnson pointed out that the trouble with response curves is that it very much depends on how you take the measurement. Moreover our ears 'ignore' all the reflections whereas a microphone will not.

1. I didn't actually say anything about measurement methods... didn't mention the word measurement at all. I mentioned speaker performance.

2. Our ears don't ignore anything at all. Our brain merges sounds within 1ms into a single note (the issue with first-order reflections), and sounds after 1ms come across as echos. (BTW, if you want to cite Roy, you may want to take a look at his actual work. The GMA's are covered in felt to absorb cabinet reflections... which you just called "ignored").

 

[JerryLove]

Thx, jostenmeat
I know we started this thread with one expensive bookshelfs which I still don't consider to have flat response, however I did found few graphs I liked much more:
Almost all PSB's:
http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/psb_image_t45/

At just 45-degrees off-axis you've got a 10db spread (more) by 10khz. I'm not in love with that.

I didn't look at all the charts, but there were others that looked far better in there (the Paradigms IIRC)

 

[Docks]

Dont forget mine!!
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/paradigm_signature_s8/
Even the studio 60's measure pretty reasonable.
http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/paradigm_studio60_v5/
AND of course can never forget the salon2's
http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/revel_ultima_salon2/
Kef 201-2
http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/kef_201-2/

 

[digicidal]

If you did like the sound, I'm wondering if there is more to a speakers sound than one the test graphs depict? Is it possible to have poor measurements and still come out sounding good? I realize I'm implying audiophilia but it does have me thhinking.

I'm right there with ya 3db... That's why it's such a problem trying to research speakers that I can't audition - because I'm very dissappointed with what I have auditioned for the most part. I have some speakers that are absolutely horrible (as far as the chart is concerned). They're based on the now-discontinued FE207E with just a BSC filter to curb the peak around 2.8kHz - and off-axis they're a totaly disaster past 1.5kHz.

I'll be the first to admit that they pretty much have no treble once you get even slightly off-axis... but DAMN if they still don't sound better than everything else I've heard under $5K. I don't really like listening to music on them - because of how the highs sound (naturally the lows are completely fixable with subs) - but for HT they're incredible because they make such realistic sound...

I guess that's how I would describle them best - natural. Nothing is exaggerated sounding on them... just that they're too rolled off in the highs. However, even effects like breaking glass in a car accident have me running to the door because it sounds like it actually happend just outside. Part of that is dynamics I realize - they're very sensitive so even without much power they can really move.

But it is really confusing how a speaker that seems to test much better - when I compare it to mine - still doesn't cut it back to back (at least so far... the search continues).

 

[3db]

This is much of what came from Harmon's studies of listeners: that off-axis response curves need to look like on-axis response curves or the speaker sounds subjectively worse.

Sounds subjectively worse at near field or after reflections take place? Sorry Jerry, this part isn't clear to me.

You can fix to some degree the reflections with room treatments to minimize that affect, isn't that true?

 

[jostenmeat]

Sounds subjectively worse at near field or after reflections take place? Sorry Jerry, this part isn't clear to me.

You can fix to some degree the reflections with room treatments to minimize that affect, isn't that true?

Yes. It comes down to strength of reflection, and the delay of said reflection. You would want to absorb inaccurate offaxis information, for sure, particularly if it's a strong one.

AFAIK, the whole Toole thing about leaving sidewalls untreated is in the case of excellent offaxis reproduction, which can lead to greater stereo width (without worry of contamination by inaccurate reflections).

 

[JerryLove]

Sounds subjectively worse at near field or after reflections take place? Sorry Jerry, this part isn't clear to me.

I don't believe that much experimentation was done near-field.

It's not hard to put the two pieces of information together and surmise that our first concern is any sound that gets to your ear within 1ms of the original sound.

You can fix to some degree the reflections with room treatments to minimize that affect, isn't that true?

On one extreme an anechoic chamber *should* make off-axis a non-issue.

For most rooms, however, treatment is intended to control reflections, not prevent them.

 

[3db]

I don't believe that much experimentation was done near-field.

It's not hard to put the two pieces of information together and surmise that our first concern is any sound that gets to your ear within 1ms of the original sound.
QUOTE]

I can gather that near field listening will eliminate the affect of poor off axes frequency response. However, not having read the studies myself and hearing it third hand from you, I didn't want to jump to any incorrect conclusions.

 

[jostenmeat]

3db, I have read, and agree with, that closer positioning of speakers allows for better imaging. (I don't know if say 5 ft away means nearfield, though I highly doubt it.)

Also, I've never read 1ms as the threshold, but in fact a much longer period of time at 6ms. Maybe it depends on the person and setup, but that was the figure I've read as the threshold where we can discern ambient sound from direct sound.

 

[GranteedEV]

3db, I have read, and agree with, that closer positioning of speakers allows for better imaging. (I don't know if say 5 ft away means nearfield, though I highly doubt it.)

You want your speakers eight to twelve feet apart first of all to give enough sense of direction for imaging / soundstage width to really play a part. If they're too close then all imaging will feel "close to center".

Then you want to toe them in so that the center image is precisely in the center. This also depends on the dispersion and diffraction characteristics of the speakers.

Also, I've never read 1ms as the threshold, but in fact a much longer period of time at 6ms. Maybe it depends on the person and setup, but that was the figure I've read as the threshold where we can discern ambient sound from direct sound.

Dr Earl Geddes states it as 10ms

 

[jostenmeat]

You want your speakers eight to twelve feet apart first of all to give enough sense of direction for imaging / soundstage width to really play a part. If they're too close then all imaging will feel "close to center".

Then you want to toe them in so that the center image is precisely in the center. This also depends on the dispersion and diffraction characteristics of the speakers.

Coming from someone who prefers wider spread with significant toe in, this doesn't always sound the very best *to me*, depending on the room and speaker.

For instance, after my PSB repair, I threw them in the LR. I would never permanently have them 5' out from the front wall, but it was around that distance where they imaged better than I've ever heard them do in my life. This distance from the front wall naturally forced a closer distance between the two speakers, and waaay closer than 8', let alone 12'.

Mind you, these same speakers are slightly over 12' apart in the HT, with significant toe in, and yet the experiment in the LR was the best I've ever heard them. I didn't mention the placement, but I did mention how they imaged so well for me, in this post:

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=760865&postcount=40

 

[GranteedEV]

For instance, after my PSB repair, I threw them in the LR. I would never permanently have them 5' out from the front wall, but it was around that distance where they imaged better than I've ever heard them do in my life. This distance from the front wall naturally forced a closer distance between the two speakers, and waaay closer than 8', let alone 12'.

Wait, are we talking about distance between speakers or away from wall?

I can see how getting away from a wall will improve imaging as reflections off the wall will not confuse you. Remember, the idea distance from a wall speakers should be is 1/3 of the width of the room!

Now if the speakers require being close to each other to image best, I'd have to make a question of "why".

Do you have something at the first reflection points? The wall might be what's messing up your imaging.

 

[jostenmeat]

Now if the speakers require being close to each other to image best, I'd have to make a question of "why".

Because if you maintain double digit feet spread, and the speakers' plane is only 5' away for you, there can be a "hole" in the imaging with less than the best speakers in the world.

So, if my room is 15' long, and I sit 38% from the back wall (front wall would even exaggerate my point), I am 9.3' from the front wall. If speakers are 1/3 as you say, then their plane is 5' out, or only 4.3' away from me.

You can talk in generalities, sure. If you want to talk in absolutes . . . well something is not jiving with my personal experiences.

When you say something "must" be a certain way, I'd imagine there must be some prerequisites (such as "perfect" speaker, or "perfect" room).

I have several hundred lbs of treatments at my disposal.

Btw, I have electrostats in the LR, and again, I don't always find that a FORCED 8-12' spread is ALWAYS the best for ANY room. I've had them in multiple rooms. At least three rooms.

 

[RoyJ]

Coming in late and not staying...

If the FR graphs were accurate, free of reflections and mic-placement artifacts, which they are not, then each wiggle would be caused by a particular type of distortion, ones that FR graphs do not reveal and waterfall plots barely sniff at (especially since they don't encompass any tones below the high-midrange). FR is a guide to finding 'OK' performance but that's about all, in my experience. Perhaps you all agree.

Best regards,
Roy

 

[3db]

You want your speakers eight to twelve feet apart first of all to give enough sense of direction for imaging / soundstage width to really play a part. If they're too close then all imaging will feel "close to center".

If the room can afford the real estate, 8' to 12' might be optimal. Mine are 7' apart and pulled away from theside walls by approximately 18" because my lsitening space is only 10' wide. They are pulled out from the back walss by 2'.

Then you want to toe them in so that the center image is precisely in the center. This also depends on the dispersion and diffraction characteristics of the speakers.

Like you said, toe in also depends on the speakers and the room. Some speakers lose soundstage when toed in, most do not however. I would try and avoid blanket statements like having to toe in speakers because of variables such as effects of room, speaker dispersion, etc.