Home Theater Forum and Systems banner

The Official $2,500 Speaker Evaluation / Home Audition Event

138K views 1K replies 324 participants last post by  tesseract 
#1 ·
This is...

The Official $2,500 Speaker Evaluation / Home Audition Event



Introduction

On November 1st and 2nd we will come together for another speaker evaluation in my home in Luverne, AL. Attending the event and participating in the evaluation and auditions, in addition to myself (Sonnie), is Wayne Myers (AudiocRaver), Joe Alexander (ALMFamily) and Leonard Caillouet (lcaillo), all members of the HTS staff. All of the speakers are here and being broke-in as recommended.

This is not a shootout, but instead it is an evaluation and home audition of six speakers. You might even consider this a combined review of six different speakers, although not by one individual, instead by three or four individuals in a very controlled and organized evaluation. This evaluation is not conducted to determine the best speaker, as there are too many variables from home to home for us to tell you which speakers are the best for you. Therefore, ranking them may encourage you to buy speakers that may not accurately suggest which speakers will be right for you. Your room size, acoustics, speaker location, amplifier type, amplifier power, other electronics, and your very own ears, will all play a significant part in how a speaker will sound to you. What we will do is carefully measure and listen to these speakers, then provide you with the objective and subjective results. This will be influenced by the equipment on hand and the dedicated home theater/listening room... which is fairly well treated acoustically, and is setup to allow flexible placement of the speakers. In this evaluation, we hope to be able to tell you what speaker locations sound best for this room, including close to the front wall and out into the room. Unfortunately, we cannot completely mimic your room, so there is no way we can guarantee you that the speakers will sound the same in your room. As always, we encourage you to evaluate speakers in your own home to be absolutely certain you get what is best suited for you. Hopefully this can be a guide that in some way will aid you in the differences we hear, but ultimately your ears are what is most important in determining what speakers are right for you.

This event will include speakers from two of our sponsors, SVSound and Underwood HiFi (Emerald Physics). There are four other speakers that were voted on in our $2,500 Speaker Evaluation Event - Nominated Speakers Voting Poll. Pricing for these speakers is for the pair. We do realize that these speakers may not necessarily cost exactly $2,500/pair. We get that number from the fact that the average of all 20 speakers that were nominated is right at $2,500. However, all of the speakers in this evaluation can be purchased for $2,500/pair or less (add $350 to the Emerald Physic speakers if you get the DSP). That may not always be the case in future rounds. Actually most of these are closer to the $2,000 range than $2,500. We are basically covering speakers that range from $2,000 to $3,000... capping the max MSRP at $3,000. I suspect in the next round we will be closer to the $3,000 range on most of those.


The Speakers


Associated Equipment
  • OPPO BDP-105 Universal Player - We will again be using the 105 as the source for the evaluation. There have been some questions about recorded CDR's being used because they are a copy of a copy (extracting from original disc to computer and then burning to a disc). Personally I cannot tell a difference one way or another from the original and a burned copy. As a matter of fact, I know of a double blind listening test where a gentleman was unable to tell the difference from an original CD and a burnt copy of a computer copy, although he insisted he could tell a difference beforehand. However, to eliminate any questions, we will use either dBpoweramp or Exact Audio Copy (EAC) to extract the tracks from the original CDs to a USB thumb drive and use it in the 105 for our evaluation music. We will use the XLR balanced outputs on the 105. Be sure to check out our review of the OPPO BDP-105 by Luther Ward. We appreciate OPPO being a sponsor here at HTS.


  • Anthem Integrated 225 Amp (i225) - At 225 WPC (8Ω) and 310 WPC (4Ω), this integrated amp from Anthem should provide plenty of power to drive any of the speakers we are evaluating. It boast a 105dB signal to noise ratio and is built with high quality, close-tolerance parts. The main power supply includes an advanced generation toroidal transformer, which contributes to its low-noise floor. The conservatively rated massive transformer is designed with high rail voltage, fed by two oversized low-ESL, low-ESR Nichicon filter capacitors that employ a total capacitance of 30,000 microfarads. The preamp audio circuits are fed by two precision voltage regulators, thanks to the ±15 V rails in the main power supply. The input and voltage amplifier stages are a differential design, although the output power stage has a fully symmetrical complementary Class AB design with three pairs of high-quality bipolar output devices per channel. The amps design significantly reduces distortion and ensure extreme linearity. This is one solid built amp that is no doubt one of the best in its class and price range. We will be using the XLR balanced inputs on the 225. We sincerely appreciate Anthem lending us this unit for use in the evaluation.



    Specifications

  • Onkyo PR-SC5509 - We will use the heavy duty 5509 as our preamp processor during our home theater speaker system review and our $20,000 speaker system review (see last part of this post for more info on those). It may also serve some duties as a preamp in the two-channel speaker evaluation. Of course the Onkyo does not really need any introduction. It is well known and owned by several members in our forum. It is a beast of a processor and very well regarded as one of the top preamp processors available. You can learn more about it by clicking on the link above or visiting our Onkyo PR-SC5508 - PR-SC5509 SSP / Integra DHC-80.2 - DHC-80.3 SSP thread. Be on the lookout for upcoming reviews on the Onkyo TX-NR929 9.2-Channel Network A/V Receiver and the TX-NR626 7.2-Channel Network A/V Receiver, as well as a couple of their soundbars. We appreciate Onkyo being a sponsor here at HTS.


  • RAM Electronics Custom Speaker Cables - "Ram-Flex Custom Series" 11 AWG Canare 4S11 speaker cable sleeved with ViaBlue braid and terminated with gold plated locking banana plugs. These are also good looking high quality speaker cables that will not break the bank. We all fell in love with these speaker cables... they performed flawlessly and in no way hindered or colored the sound. These locking banana plugs are awesome! I have already ordered several of these since our last event. We appreciate RAM being a sponsor here at HTS.


  • RAM Electronics Custom XLR Cables - RAM "Custom Series" XLR Balanced Cables includes the Mogami 2534 with Neglex Quad Cable and Neutrik Connectors wrapped with the ViaBlue braided sleeve... as well as CBI Ultimate ML with Belden Wire and Neutrik "X" Connectors. RAM will custom build just about any cable you can think of... just tell them what you want and they will fix you up. Their service is awesome, as is the quality of their cables. These are good looking, good quality cables that are very reasonably priced. RAM does not play around... you order up what you want and in a few days it is on your doorstep. Compare RAM to places like Blue Jeans Cable and you will see the savings, using the same quality wire and connectors.



The Listening Room

As with the previous event, we will use Cedar Creek Cinema, our dedicated home theater/listening room that is a converted two car garage. The interior dimensions are 19.5' wide x 23.5' deep x 8.5' high. There is a 6" high x 4' deep stage across the front of the room, and a 12" riser in the back that is used partially as a ported enclosure for the rear subs. The room is excellent for our purposes with ample acoustical treatment on side walls and ceiling, large corner bass traps in front from floor to ceiling, a centered Primary Listening Position (PLP), lots of space to work with, and well-controlled early reflections and ambiance.



As shown below, the RT60 reverb time for the room is very well-controlled, 0.2 seconds overall, and below 0.3 seconds clear down almost to 100 Hz. This is a nice level of control with enough ambient liveliness to aid soundstage and image development. There has also been some additional acoustic treatment from GIK Acoustics that has been added to the side walls and back wall since the last event.




After Hours Fun... with a Few Surprises!

As a bonus to our members and readers, we will also be reviewing a $20,000 two-channel system. This review will be published later in our Reviews forum, but we will introduce you to the company and the products during the event. This system is truly to die for... just plain awesome and worth every penny of its price.

But that's not all... we plan to enjoy a little late night fun at Cedar Creek Cinema, and this event is sure to spark some excitement with a special guest, who will also be providing a truly unique 5.0 home theater speaker system (costing well over $10,000) for us to review. This will be the first review of this product. Our plans will be to watch a movie each night of the evaluation, hopefully Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. Then on Sunday evening and Monday, we plan to do more testing and evaluation for a complete review of this speaker system, which will also be posted later in our Reviews forum. I don't think you will want to miss this review. We will announce the manufacturer, the owner and the product a little closer to the event.

We believe you will truly appreciate these extra reviews we have in store for you. Personally, I think they are pretty significant... huge in fact!

I don't know about everyone else, but I am EXCITED!!!

BTW... :shhh: Remember... it's a secret! :whistling:


Results

As you can see below, we have reserved several posts for the results, which will be posted as soon as possible after the event. We will post some of the known information about the speakers between now and the event. You will want to subscribe to the thread. After the results are posted, we will post in the thread that the results are complete and the reserved posts have been updated.

The REW measurement .mdat files will be uploaded to each speaker thread and available for download.

...
 
See less See more
12
#802 ·
The Paradigm Studio 60 review has been posted here.


We need to take a little care with all our praise. Next thing we know, Jon will change the connectors or something insignificant but visible, call it a redesign, and start charging $2k for them.
Put a nicer finish on them to somewhat make up for them missing the lowest octave in bass and I think he could ask $1,500-2,000 for them and get it.
 
#804 ·
AudiocRaver said:
I might have misinterpreted this comment when I first read it. Upon re-reading it, it sounds like you were simply explaining how important the highest octave of frequencies is in our listening to recorded music. If so, apologies for my response, which was off the mark.

Assuming that is what you meant, I can only agree, and the little filtering experiment, along with other experience, only confirms that what you say is true. It may not be so readily apparent in everyday life because so much of what we hear has little occurring in the frequency range above 10 kHz. But some sounds can contain frequencies way beyond 20 kHz, and with those our brain is noticing the detail you are referring to. With music it is more constant by its nature and a bigger factor, so when it is attenuated due to a rolloff it can be more noticeable.
No apology necessary, I didn't catch anything in your posts that was off the mark. But yes, I was referring to your 15khz filter experiment, not the speaker testing at Sonnie's. Music can still sound good with a high frequency rolloff, it just doesn't sound as real.

Jon Lane said:
Owing to the affordability of some of our products I hate to admit it in public, but the truth is if you're really going for sound your speaker budget shouldn't be two-thirds your total expenditure. It should be about a quarter. Ten thousand dollars of front end into even $200 in very well executed DIY stand monitors can sound spectacular...they just won't play loud or deep.
:scratch: I would respectfully disagree. I've participated in multiple blind listening tests (threads probably still alive on AVS) with electronics, using everything from $150 receivers to expensive preamp, boutique stereo amps, and cheap pro amps with fans removed, and electronics just don't impart any character at all on the sound unless they are faulty, purposefully designed to impart a certain sound (not too many do this anymore), or clipping. Speakers on the other hand, whether $50 or $50,000, sound completely different from each other. Very rarely will any two speakers sound similar. Quick switching (level matched between switches) only highlights the differences further.
 
#805 ·
I've been playing with speaker placement today. I can't get then more than 6' from the front wall because of a couch on one side. The first disc I used wasn't much good, but then I used Brothers in Arms. The thing I've noticed the most is depth. Strangely, the plane of sound is at about the front wall audibly, but there is more information heard between the plane of the speakers and the wall now. The sound with the speakers 2-2 1/2' from the wall still seemed to come from the front wall, but moving the speakers out has increased the range of depth, if that makes sense. Track 4 is especially good for this. The width isn't too great, though, it often sounds like I'm 'looking' into a funnel, so to speak. There are some instruments that break that trend, though. The drums on track 6, Ride Across the River, seem to be the width of the room, and the bass guitar makes everything in the room vibrate, including me! Bass on the whole is more defined. There are crickets in the recording that are erie!
 
#806 ·
Interesting about the Paradigms. I heard a pair of those a year or so ago, and wasn't impressed. They weren't bad, don't get me wrong, just didn't do anything for me. Could have been the setup, though. My 25 year old Infinitys keep showing me new life every time I put more effort into placement, like following your advise today. Highs are still not my favorite. They get a bit harsh at high volumes. My amp upgrade tamed a lot of that, but it's still there somewhat. L/R imaging could be better. The bass will be hard to improve on though.

I'm really enjoying the comments/advice/ideas this thread is generating!!
 
#807 ·
This is true. That comparison broke the fundamental rules (and offers to assist before the fact went unanswered. The user eventually emailed after the event and expressed some doubts, but that too dead-ended.)

What's gratifying about the HTS events is that the basics are included.

-One speaker at a time. Please.

-Optimize each speaker in the room. This is so important as to go almost without saying. (I love that you're using the Cardas method when you can, Sonnie.)

-Only good quality amplification and sources. Cheap low current receivers sound like cheap low current receivers, which is a shame because inexpensive high current receivers can be had. Owing to the affordability of some of our products I hate to admit it in public, but the truth is if you're really going for sound your speaker budget shouldn't be two-thirds your total expenditure. It should be about a quarter. Ten thousand dollars of front end into even $200 in very well executed DIY stand monitors can sound spectacular...they just won't play loud or deep.

-No weak links in the system

This may be a time to mention that in some circles, this not being one, myths endure. One is that frequency amplitude as a measurement is all you need to know. (Probably no worse harm to good sound above the HTIB level than this exists).

Another: electronics sound identical unless they're tubed at which point they're whimsically colored so unscientific listeners can artificially sweeten the sound. And another is that the room is nearly all important and first arrival from the speaker is not at all important. (The best sound I ever heard was in the single worst acoustical environment I've ever seen. It all worked because the system was out of this world, especially in the front end and amplification.)

While speakers have much more measurable distortion than amplifiers, for instance, great, dialed-in systems have the ability to somehow push the speakers nearly entirely out of perception. When a system really starts to work, the upstream components start to predominate and the speakers become just their tools. Sounds odd, doesn't it?

It's really enjoyable to be part of this forum. I can't count the number of times I've nodded reading comments in these threads. There's a fundamental difference between really getting into immersive sound on the one hand, and speculating about how things should sound or what they should do on the other. Effort yields rewards.

Bravo!
Jon,

Thanks for posting. Sure glad we got those A5's back in August.:T

It seems like a healthy dash of obsessive attention to detail is a necessary ingredient in doing speaker evaluation effectively. One nice thing about our team is the way we bring different hot-buttons and experiences that complement each other, and also the sensibilities to help each other keep those drives in perspective. I dare say no one of us could accomplish 1/10th of what we have together. It has been an amazing journey.

From your list, I would say that optimizing each speaker in the room has been the biggest key to our success, with all other speakers removed and variables minimized being an important part of that. Then quality amplification and sources would be next. The well-treated room is certainly a factor, not disagreeing with your point about relative importance of first arrival and "quality of ambient arrivals" - I believe you were implying that a balance is desired, no?

Thanks again for posting, always great to hear from you.
 
#808 ·
As someone that moved from the Maggies to the Logans, I can say that I moved for a bit more oomph on the bottom end. Nothing against the Maggies, what they did in their range was to my ears quite good, however, there is only so much you can do with a planar that has X square inches to move X-Y millimeters. It is not until you get into the 3.7's and above that you can start to feel the bass and also feel comfortable you wont hear the Mylar buzz.

The Logan's dont go much deeper but they have a more solid and tactile bottom end, and for me a sweeter more extended midrange to top end. Good blend between the woofer and planar panel, but the woofer just cannot keep up all the time. The good news is, the pass from woof to panel is well hid.

Having said all that, my journey is not done. I truly want...no need to feel the power and the glory of a moving coil speaker. I have experimented with planar and am now kind of wanting to move on. I heard an older Klipsh KLF speaker and the feeling of those 10' woofers moving a giant amount of air brought me back to my roots so to speak. This is the direction I need to go, being able to produce sound pressure and ginormous dynamic swings while not only bringing the sound and power of live music to me, but bringing me to the power and glory of live music. Ahhh I remember it well.
 
#809 ·
-Only good quality amplification and sources. Cheap low current receivers sound like cheap low current receivers, which is a shame because inexpensive high current receivers can be had.
Jon (and anyone else who might have experience with this), can you comment on brands that, in your experience, could be trusted to deliver this elusive high-current receiver (in a multichannel AVR)? Most brands don't say much about their receivers' output into 4 ohms (and what they say about their performance in general is often suspect!) so it's hard to judge.

Is it fair to say that an amp that delivers 75% - 100% more power into 4 ohms than it does into 8 ohms is likely a high current design?
 
#810 ·
Jon (and anyone else who might have experience with this), can you comment on brands that, in your experience, could be trusted to deliver this elusive high-current receiver (in a multichannel AVR)? Most brands don't say much about their receivers' output into 4 ohms (and what they say about their performance in general is often suspect!) so it's hard to judge.

Is it fair to say that an amp that delivers 75% - 100% more power into 4 ohms than it does into 8 ohms is likely a high current design?
"High Current" amplifiers are a perpetuated audiophile myth.

The reality is these are voltage amplifiers.. it's simple as that. Current flows as a result of the load.. It's more of a matter of can the amp maintain its composure under the given load and voltage being produced.

End of the day it's a voltage amplifier.. current amplifiers exist but not in this context.

Sure some amps perform better than others given complex or low impedance loads... but making claims that a given amp is a "high current" design doesn't do an industry full of snake oil any favors.
 
#811 ·
I believe "amps of current" is a very legitimate spec... and current clipping is a reality. However... all of that is a discussion for another thread. Let's keep this one on track with reference to the speaker reviews. :T

EDIT: Here is a very good read on voltage and current as it relates to an amp.
 
#812 ·
"High Current" amplifiers are a perpetuated audiophile myth.

The reality is these are voltage amplifiers.. it's simple as that. Current flows as a result of the load.. It's more of a matter of can the amp maintain its composure under the given load and voltage being produced.

End of the day it's a voltage amplifier.. current amplifiers exist but not in this context.

Sure some amps perform better than others given complex or low impedance loads... but making claims that a given amp is a "high current" design doesn't do an industry full of snake oil any favors.
Not a myth at all. As you said yourself, current flows in proportion to the load. What is also true is that it flows in proportion to the voltage across the load. The load impedance can vary with frequency. An amplifier can reach the limit of its voltage swing or it can have adequate voltage but run out of power supply capacity and not deliver adequate current. In either case we have clipping. There have been many amplifiers designed to be able to deliver the voltage and current needed into a static test load yet not be able to deal with impedance dropping in a real loudspeaker. This can be due to either voltage limitations or current limitations or both.
 
#816 ·
Yeah... I did favor those quite a bit, although there were several very good speakers in the group.
I've loved Paradigm for probably close to 15 years now. Last time I heard them were the S8's at Kris Deering's GTG a few months ago after they had recently been booted from his theater by the Legacy Focus HD's (I believe). They are SUCH great speakers! I would love to hear the 60's as those are really in a sweet spot price wise. Thanks for the great write up!

Scott
 
#817 ·
Yeah... I did favor those quite a bit, although there were several very good speakers in the group.
Of the 5 speakers we had slated for review (not including the ML's as those will be done by Wayne at a later date), I can honestly say there was only one that I did not care for - and it did have it good points as well.

At the end of the day, I am a firm believer that 95% of speakers will have at least some redeeming qualities - it is deciding which of those qualities you are personally looking for that spark all the discussion. ;)
 
#818 ·
Of the 5 speakers we had slated for review (not including the ML's as those will be done by Wayne at a later date), I can honestly say there was only one that I did not care for - and it did have it good points as well. At the end of the day, I am a firm believer that 95% of speakers will have at least some redeeming qualities - it is deciding which of those qualities you are personally looking for that spark all the discussion. ;)
That should be on a giant banner across all the forums!
 
#819 ·
It is great to hear from a Magnepan owner/lover. I see you run 3.7's and MMGC's. I'll bet that is one fine sounding system.

First of all, the specs came directly from the Magnepan web site. I have no doubt you know the products but, all due respect, we should leave it the way they state it, "3-Way, Full-Range, Quasi-Ribbon." Your extra info is much appreciated, though.

Heretic or no, I could probably be an absolutely delighted Maggie owner running them the way you do, assuming the 1.7's could be brightened up a bit. The manual talks about replacing a jumper with a resistor to attenuate the high end, the 2 upper drivers together I believe. But our panels started out with jumpers - I saw them as we were packing up - so there seems to be no way to brighten them easily. Maybe a different model would take care of it. THEN - do like you have and cross them to a sub - or a sub per panel to keep it a music-only 2.0 system for purity's sake - could be the makings of sonic nirvana.

The Maggies seem to image a little differently, but I think I could get over that. I like a sharp image and panels seem to image a little softer, but as long as it is stable, I could make a teeny bit of an imaging sacrifice for all that clarity and definition. Of course the soundstage depth is a must, and they can do that. It would not take too much of an arm twist to get me there.

I will be working with some Martin Logan ESL's in a week or two, am excited about that. Do you have any ML experience, any comparisons to make?
Yep, I suppose it's somewhat heretical (I sense a trend;)) to run centers as surrounds, but I already had one MMGC when I transitioned to a dedicated space. IMO, they are far better surrounds than centers.:duck: At some point, I may add a CCR with the CC stand/woofer. Other changes keep cutting in line.

You're right; Magnepan's website does refer to the 1.7 as a 3-way. I suppose that's easier than explaining what a 2.5-way is, but they simply culled one 'loop' from the QR tweeter and fed it a filtered signal from the high section of the series XO. The remainder of the QR tweeter behaves normally. The result is the addition of a 'super'tweeter that parallels the top of the tweeter's response range. Being narrower, it does so with better dispersion characteristics – remember the inverse proportion rule of driver element size to reproduced frequency. The effect is a reduction in the head-in-a-vise imaging that plagues its non true ribbon brethren.

Neither my somewhat modified 3.7s, nor my highly modified MMGs have jumpers, resistors or fuses. Fully braced stands benefit Maggies in a number of ways – my 3.7s are on Mye Stands and the panels from my MMGs are in DIY braced hardwood frames. Again, I'll stress the counter-indicated demands of HT and planars – Maggies, at least. The room treatments that benefit multichannel reproduction over damp the Maggies. This forces a compromise – a common theme in life. It's impossible to optimize both simultaneously. It's highly unusual to encounter reports of stock Maggies, except for some older models like SMGs, as being too laid back. It's far more common for them to be faulted as being overly bright, hence the resistors. The fact that it was a unanimous complaint makes the fact of the matter rather apparent.

In my experience, once 'the spots' are discovered, the sound stage is deep, wide and reasonably well defined, with a solid center image (that largely happens between the ears, in any case). The interaction of the speaker with the room in this regard also forces us back into that HT vs Maggie compromise. Maggie is a demanding mistress, but she does bring some delights to the tryst.

I should think it best to enter the evaluation of the MLs with a minimum of expectation. By that, I mean that any comparative analysis I could tender might serve to influence your experience – such is an inescapable fact of being human. I shall only reply that I think they are excellent speakers with a different set of compromises and solutions - a different mix of strengths and weaknesses. I think the engineering concepts ML applies are both sound and effective. They have some products that I'd be extremely delighted to own.

There are lots of speakers that please me. My daughter's Def Tech Mythos STS speakers aren't even dipoles and I dig 'em. I still have a pair of AR91s that I bought 33 years ago that I enjoy (yeah, I've had to do some work to keep them going).

Sorry for the ramble. :geek:
 
#821 ·
It is very interesting to follow this thread and one thing that continues to gain mention is comparison to the A5 from the $1000 round.

What I wonder is, is audio memory playing a factor in just how good the A5s were here?

The general impression being recieved is that the A5s are all one needs and more expense does not equate to better sound, just a better finish.

While not directly in reference to this, the comment about tapering praise (I think "comments" was the actual wording) on the A5s less the price increase was what highlighted this impression. Just a perspective from reading along I thought I'd share
 
#823 ·
I have no doubt that $600 Ascend 340s would best the Studios by unanimous decision, but it just comes down to what other speakers were being tested at the time. Clearly the Emeralds and Maggies had some issues, and Dyns have always been "almost good enough" in my experience. I have not heard the SVS though, and am curious to read it's evaluation.

If this group does do a round 2, the Ascend towers with the ribbon tweeter and the Philharmonics would be more robust competition. Noesis 208s would be awesome too :T
 
#825 ·
Nice work on this thread, i really like comparisons like this. I am espescially curious about the SVS ultra speakers since i`m currently running on their old S-series (7.1) combined with the PB13 Ultra sub.

I Was thinking about replacing my front speakers to match the quality of my sub lol.
I find the towers and center from the S-series severely lacking for music.
I`m a bit torn atm between bookshelves and towers since i already have massive bass with my pb13 ultra.

Anyways looking forward to the review of the ultra`s ;)
 
#826 ·
From your list, I would say that optimizing each speaker in the room has been the biggest key to our success, with all other speakers removed and variables minimized being an important part of that. Then quality amplification and sources would be next. The well-treated room is certainly a factor, not disagreeing with your point about relative importance of first arrival and "quality of ambient arrivals" - I believe you were implying that a balance is desired, no?
The principle of optimizing each speaker in the space ties to the importance of the space. While I've hear some amazing sound in some amazingly bad spaces, which I mentioned, naturally that combination isn't sought. It just happens.

But if optimizing each system in its space is as key as it's assumed, we could intuit that we should treat the dickens out of that space.

Which is to say, to nullify it. Thinking a little further we see that this sets up another principle: Reflected sound is bad.

That then evolves into or revolves around another whole set of principles - especially in uncritical consumer and some home theater circles - which is that list I mentioned upthread. The common end result may be a fairly uninvolving, amusical sound.

This is where balance comes into play: We know spaces are important (and this event just proved it). But spaces absolutely do not need to be nullified. In fact, they must not be. Experience has taught that it's actually easier to over-treat a room than it is to get a stereo system to sound good in a typical space.

Previously an A5 pair fared less well in a heavily treated theater room with narrow side walls. Read: Little or no flexibility to orient the system for good sound. What fared well, naturally, were very high energy, directional, 80Hz monitors that, presumably, didn't "see" the space, didn't in themselves have to be balanced one octave deeper in response, and that had substantially higher levels on tap to re-compensate and re-drive this densely damped environment.

***

Someone once posited that just as some of us hear dynamically into electronics and sources, some of us hear primarily differences in the scale and static responses in the system that lend themselves to those differences: The speakers.

If you hear dynamically you'll hear electronic texture (grain, grit, distortions), image focus, transient behaviors, "jump factor", "slam", dynamics, and all the words sometimes disallowed by audio objectivists that describe the flavors every system has - that "connectedness" and "immediacy" you hear from what are considered fringe audiophiles also refer here - while static listeners hear the differences in frequency response, speaker size, loudness, dispersion, the effects of the room on the system, and so forth.

Naturally, this latter camp also relies more on classical theory and measurement. They cite amplitude more than just about anything and seem to feel that any deviation from amplitude linearity may just be an incompetent design, sometimes knowingly or even intentionally.

The former group tend to just listen, which accounts for how they describe what they're hearing: Subjectively and with lexicons borrowed from sight, flavor, and even touch. Transparent. Rich. Palpable.

It also accounts why they tend to find arcane factors in the engineering only after hearing them. Consider Marsh and Jung testing capacitors all the way back in 1980(?) and finding substantial differences. Work like this peppers the audio arts but since it does not lend itself to amplitude research, gets dismissed.

Getting back to your question: Notice that the Cardas method, which pulls the speakers well out into the space and sets them at calculated intervals in the space, does not call for treating the space. This does not mean spaces should be un-treated, but it also does not allow for spaces to be over-treated.

Balance is essential. It's just been my experience that "dynamical" hearers get much more from the first arrival than from the entire static response of the entire venue, system included. They hear the original system and do not let either plain theory or the space advise either their preconceptions or their sensory input.

Why do listeners favor the models they do in the HTS tests? I'd guess it may be that those designs are rooted in classic static and acoustical power theory but have a strong element of dynamic empiricism to advise their final tuning. They probably break no classical rules but are not mainly contingent on them either.

And reading the HTS analysis of various series of speakers, it's becoming clear that as far as balance goes, dynamic hearing is not an uncommon base of perception. I think that's fun.

(Static and dynamic listening theory attributes to Ingvar Ohman.)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top