Green Mountain Audio Europas

[KEW]

You mean you think that's more important than how they measure? Wow, I'm floored. The general attitude around here seems to be more about waterfall plots and frequency response graphs. That's interesting stuff for sure. But at the end of the day, I'm more interested in that intangible quality of being drawn into the music.

Shakey

Actually, I was specifically thinking of my own experience where a slight amount of coloration (I think from cabinet resonance - but do not have the gear to measure that) caused speaker A to outperform speaker B on something like a jazz trio. Based on that experience, speaker A was clearly superior to speaker B. However if I played a music which was very busy with lots of instruments, speaker A got a bit congested and speaker B was clearer. I would love to see a accelerometer measurement on these two speakers like John Atkinson uses to get a better understanding of specifically what causes the difference. In the end, both of these speakers have their "shining moments" however, I would not have made intelligent comments had I not taken the time to listen to more music before publicizing my thoughts.

I think the general consensus on this board is that measurements provide a useful way of assessing the quality of a speaker to determine if it is a good candidate for further consideration. I'm not sure anyone here would consider measurements a replacement for listening.

 

[JerryLove]

You mean you think that's more important than how they measure? Wow, I'm floored. The general attitude around here seems to be more about waterfall plots and frequency response graphs. That's interesting stuff for sure. But at the end of the day, I'm more interested in that intangible quality of being drawn into the music.

There isn't a difference between how a speaker measures and how it sounds. Measurement gear is more accurate than the ear. The problem is that the understanding of how a given measurement will relate to the subjective experience can only be understood by experimentation.

Quantity is checked by measurement, quality is checked by ear... though once a relationship is established it is static (if x measurement = y quality than it always does... until other factors intervene).

I am and will give the Europa's every opportunity. I will put in my best effort to get them configured optimally before comparing them to other equally optimized speaker setups. I am giving my ears time to break in, so that I can make qualitative comments about the difference in sound that aren't simply a result of "not used to it".

I'm also still getting some of the gear I need for testing (proper AB switch and mic stand).

This is going to take some time to accomplish. I am not here to praise or bash GMA speakers, only to report on them. As this is something I'm unfamiliar with doing in a formal way, I am and will take my good sweet time to do it. After all, this isn't my job: just a hobby.

BTW. You were at least partially correct. At ambient (TV-watching) volumes the speakers don't appear fatiguing in a reasonably sized room. I'm not sure if this is more an issue of volume or proximity... I'll do large-room reference-level listening at some point soon.

 

[highfigh]

There isn't a difference between how a speaker measures and how it sounds. Measurement gear is more accurate than the ear. The problem is that the understanding of how a given measurement will relate to the subjective experience can only be understood by experimentation.

Quantity is checked by measurement, quality is checked by ear... though once a relationship is established it is static (if x measurement = y quality than it always does... until other factors intervene).

I am and will give the Europa's every opportunity. I will put in my best effort to get them configured optimally before comparing them to other equally optimized speaker setups. I am giving my ears time to break in, so that I can make qualitative comments about the difference in sound that aren't simply a result of "not used to it".

I'm also still getting some of the gear I need for testing (proper AB switch and mic stand).

This is going to take some time to accomplish. I am not here to praise or bash GMA speakers, only to report on them. As this is something I'm unfamiliar with doing in a formal way, I am and will take my good sweet time to do it. After all, this isn't my job: just a hobby.

BTW. You were at least partially correct. At ambient (TV-watching) volumes the speakers don't appear fatiguing in a reasonably sized room. I'm not sure if this is more an issue of volume or proximity... I'll do large-room reference-level listening at some point soon.

I would agree but one major factor is "Where is the mic placed, relative to the main listening position?". If the mic & listening positions coincide, it still doesn't tell how it will sound (the single mic vs two ears differences) but it does show how the room affects the response if a near-field measurement was done.

Having recently built a pair of speakers that have a great response curve, I can definitely say that they don't sound as good as the curve looks. They have phase issues caused by the preliminary crossover design and I have listened to many speakers of similar size/component mix in the same room without these problems. I don't remember seeing such a smooth curve from any speaker at that distance but the experience doesn't match.

I do agree about getting used to them. It may take some time, especially with the upper-midrange dip/peak. It would probably bring some ambiance and sense of space to acoustic music, though. Might be annoying with rock, especially if the guitars are very bright, too.

 

[Dr. Parthipan]

The problem is that the understanding of how a given measurement will relate to the subjective experience can only be understood by experimentation

So how do you propose to relate measurements with subjective experience? What does that even mean?

 

[ski2xblack]

So how do you propose to relate measurements with subjective experience? What does that even mean?

Many have attempted to do just that for decades (the Harmon crew, Paradigm at that Canadian facility, Dr. Toole, etc.), to discern correlations between measurements and subjective impressions, e.g. that folks generally like flat response, smooth off axis response, and so on. I've even seen unconventional approaches, with a less dogmatic but scientifically questionable method of correlating subjective experience to measurements (Chalmers?).

If the engineers ever get their measuring equipment to 'experience' music as humans subjectively do (which would be the only correct equivalence between measurements and subjective impressions), they would probably discount the data as purely anecdotal, particularly when their perfectly measuring robot went off the reservation and expressed a preference for SET amps.

Big thanks to Jerry for scratching that curiosity itch. Looking forward to your impressions, so keep posting.

 

[JerryLove]

So how do you propose to relate measurements with subjective experience? What does that even mean?

That means you take your subjective experience (say "fatiguing") and try to understand where that's represented in the measurements.

Conversely, if you find a measurement that looks like another speaker with a known trait (say "weak midbass") then you put on some appropriate music and listen for that trait.

In particular: I am not a trained listener. That is to say: I don't have the vocabulary and expertise to say "I'm getting harmonic distortion". So the measurements are, for me, a way to explain what I am hearing.

 

[Dr. Parthipan]

That means you take your subjective experience (say "fatiguing") and try to understand where that's represented in the measurements.

How will you be able to pin it down to a particular variable(s)?

 

[JerryLove]

How will you be able to pin it down to a particular variable(s)?

There are a good number of ways to try to tie a measured trait into a perceived trait. The most obvious would be to vary the variable and see how that affects the sound.

 

[Dr. Parthipan]

There are a good number of ways to try to tie a measured trait into a perceived trait. The most obvious would be to vary the variable and see how that affects the sound.

Presumably you'd agree there are a number of variables. Then what do you do?
And can you be more specific about what you mean by vary the variable? Perhaps give an example.

 

[JerryLove]

Presumably you'd agree there are a number of variables. Then what do you do?

Test each one to see which works.

And can you be more specific about what you mean by vary the variable? Perhaps give an example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalization_filter

 

[Shakeydeal]

Geez, and all this time I have just been listening to speakers to determine if I liked them or not. Look how much fun I've been missing.

 

[JerryLove]

Geez, and all this time I have just been listening to speakers to determine if I liked them or not. Look how much fun I've been missing.

Part of that is because you are not trying to describe what you heard to others.

You've discussed the importance of getting the proper configuration (position, lean in, etc) of these speakers. If all you did was sit and listen, how do you know if you are hearing a speaker at its best?

I've already discussed the results of "just sat and put on some music". But "do I like it" is only one of the several questions in front of me. My experience with the Europa's in a large room vs near-field is, for example, very different.

Like all bookshelves (and most towers) there's limited bass response in the Europa's. In fact, the floor is higher than I think any other bookshelf I have (would have to check on the PSB's). As such, without a subwoofer that's been properly setup for them, they will sound inferior to other bookshelves due to poorer bass response.

That would be a "didn't like the bass", but might also be unfair. Since any bookshelf would have to integrate with a sub: I might dismiss an otherwise good speaker for a fixable problem.

This is particularly important (in my mind) when dealing with speakers that are "different". If I compare two 2nd order 2-way monopolar bookshelves with similar frequency ranges then it's pretty easy. (well, less hard).

But say I throw in an omni-polar and listen: and there's a real sonic problem area behind the speaker (where the monopolar didn't hit except at low frequencies), or I put in a planar speaker but then place it too close to a wall.

No.

I actually just finished some HT listening on the Europas. I'm still needing to setup 2.1 to retry music listening.

 

[KEW]

Jerry, the method you are proposing might be better, but one method I have used when comparing speakers with different depth of bass (for use as 2.1 - not full range) is to skip the sub and set the roll off of the signal to the speakers at say 160Hz.
This could cause you to miss some important characteristics in the bottom end of the speakers, but it does help level the playing field as far as bass response is concerned.
I simply could not figure out a good way to use the same sub in the same position and have it level matched to both pairs of speakers and still have a quick A-B switch-over.

 

[JerryLove]

I simply could not figure out a good way to use the same sub in the same position and have it level matched to both pairs of speakers and still have a quick A-B switch-over.

that would depend on how you were doing your A/B switching.

If the speakers themselves are level matched: then there's no need to change the sub level. So if I settle on a crossover point that works reasonably for both speakers, and assuming I am going to put the ABX box in interconnect between the pre out and amp in, all I need to do is power the sub off of the sub out.

Since the speakers are level matched to each other, the sub should be level matched to both. I don't know if it's perfect: but it seems as close as I will get.

That said: I do like your suggestion as well. I also have done some listening (though no ABX yet) where the sound (vocals with no instrument) doesn't drop into sub range.

 

[Shakeydeal]

The xover point between the sub for any given speaker will be different. Hence, your method is flawed. And I also contend that level matching the speakers still will not give you a uniform setting for the level of the sub. This too can be different.

Shakey

 

[KEW]

Geez, and all this time I have just been listening to speakers to determine if I liked them or not. Look how much fun I've been missing.

I presume you are being sarcastic, but it really can be fun if you have much interest in understanding sound.
Look at it this way you listen to two pairs of speakers. You decide subjectively that you like A better than B. Maybe B sounds "dull" to you and also seems to boom a bit on the bass.
Correlating these experiences to measurements is educational. At first you are part-way guessing at it, but in time you end up with repeatability and understanding what is important to you.
For example, I have established that if a FR curve for a speaker trends down 4db at 15kHz, I don't need to listen to it - I'm not going to like it. If it trends up 4db I will listen to it and I will know to spend some time to see if it gets harsh or if I experience fatigue.
I'm not sure a flat FR is what I really want in a speaker - I listen at lower volumes where the ear is not as sensitive to highs and lows, so a little bit of a "loudness curve" is not a bad thing.
However, I do know I (and most people) don't want erratic/large hops in the mid-range of the FR.

 

[Shakeydeal]

I have established that if a FR curve for a speaker trends down 4db at 15kHz, I don't need to listen to it - I'm not going to like it. If it trends up 4db I will listen to it and I will know to spend some time to see if it gets harsh or if I experience fatigue.

So I am assuming you mean if it measures this way in YOUR room? Because if it measures this way in an anechoic chamber, or a professional reviewers room, or anywhere else for that matter, it will have little consequence to you.

Not everyone has the means to properly measure speakers in their home. And those who only have rudimentary means are setting themselves up for failure. And at that point, if the speaker is indeed in your room, you might as well listen to it no matter how it measures. Why not?


And if you see a speaker that measures ruler flat, do you think you will like the way it sounds? I seriously doubt it. Just like a SS amp might measure objectively better than a tube amp, but not sound nearly as good when you listen to it. Which is usually the case in that type of situation.


Shakey

 

[cornelius]

I'm curious to hear your final thoughts. I've heard of these guys before and always wondered how they were since they seemed to be interestingly made.

Also, haven't heard the Ohm MicroWalsh Talls mentioned in a few years, cornelius!

I really enjoyed the Ohms for the last six years - I still highly recommend them!! They were just too much for the room. We switched to a new listening room and the Ohms just didn't sound as good. Too much bass, and the new room is a little livelier. I'm really into being careful with using speakers that overload the room with hard to control low frequencies. Most rooms in people's homes are either too small or improperly damped to handle low bass. I rarely hear a well integrated sub in people's rooms...

Monitors are a much better solution, especially the Harbeths. I never thought I'd go back to cone 'n dome speakers again, but when I realized monitors are the best option, I checked some out and heard some very nice speakers. I was surprised at how coherent the Harbeths are. With the 8K xover, the Ohms had such smooth mids - the same goes with the Harbeths - amazing integration with between drivers.

 

[JerryLove]

The xover point between the sub for any given speaker will be different. Hence, your method is flawed.

That's not entirely correct.

The *minimum* crossover point may be different; but a speaker that can crossover at 80Hz can also crossover at 100Hz. In the worst case, I will be disadvantaging the lower-crossover-capable speaker.

And I also contend that level matching the speakers still will not give you a uniform setting for the level of the sub. This too can be different.

How so?

So I am assuming you mean if it measures this way in YOUR room? Because if it measures this way in an anechoic chamber, or a professional reviewers room, or anywhere else for that matter, it will have little consequence to you.

If that is the case, then there's no such thing as a better or worse speaker: not even to an individual. The speaker you buy and love will become useless the moment you move it. Speaker reviews are useless, etc.

Not everyone has the means to properly measure speakers in their home. And those who only have rudimentary means are setting themselves up for failure. And at that point, if the speaker is indeed in your room, you might as well listen to it no matter how it measures. Why not?

Limited lifespan and limited budget?

And if you see a speaker that measures ruler flat, do you think you will like the way it sounds? I seriously doubt it. Just like a SS amp might measure objectively better than a tube amp, but not sound nearly as good when you listen to it. Which is usually the case in that type of situation.

I strongly prefer SS to over-driven tube (and non-over-driven tubes sound the same as SS unless mis-calibrated.)

With the exception of the room that's almost always HT and never music: my goal is realism. I want a speaker in my room to sound like an instrument in my room. That's entirely up to the speaker. The room interacts with both similarly.

 

[KEW]

And if you see a speaker that measures ruler flat, do you think you will like the way it sounds? I seriously doubt it.

If a speaker measures ruler flat, it has a frequency response consistent with the intentions of the musicians and engineers who made the recording. I would consider this a good thing but the FR alone doesn't define the SQ.

Please refer to post #41 of this thread where I responded to essentially the same question as follows:

I think the general consensus on this board is that measurements provide a useful way of assessing the quality of a speaker to determine if it is a good candidate for further consideration. I'm not sure anyone here would consider measurements a replacement for listening.