[Danny Richie]

Okay, I think I get where you are coming from about what we can and can't discuss in the lab.

For instance when you said:

crossover components have been removed from the B2030P and are of high quality--heavy AWG iron core inductors and poly caps.

Then your belief that they are of high quality would be opinion oriented and may differ from my opinion that iron core inductors are going to smear the signal especially in the mid range and to me would be low quality.

So in the lab we should say that it has iron core inductors and poly caps and leave it at that?

I still think it to be prudent to advise caution if trying to read any subjective preference for something based on limited measurements.

For instance. I had some speaker come in recently and some of the measurements showed problems. One problem ONLY showed up in an impedance sweep. He had a cavity resonance that made it's own little bump. It was clearly audible as well. Had I omitted that measurement then a serious audible problem might have been unknown to one not having heard the speaker.

The CSD and impulse response are the same data in a different view.

No not really. The impulse response doesn't tell you what frequency the resonance is at it just shows more output over time. So with that information only, you don't know where to look to fix the problem. The CSD also shows you amplitude at each frequency. The impulse response does not.

It may well be what you believe, but it's not backed by science.  Measurements are most reliable thing they have to look at.

What I believe is any result that is repeatable and conclusive regardless if measured by an instrument or the ear. One real problem is that most lack the tools to measure many things that result is clear, repeatable, and audible differences.

Measurements have been shown to be far more reliable.  I don't believe in magic and the lab should be free from its influence IMO.  I hope you understand.

I hope you understand that I completely agree. My point is that if looking at limited data one can't draw a real conclusion based on that limited data.

For instance: The measurements that you posted look great. I see no problems in those areas. But what if the speaker also had a cabinet resonance that was so bad that the speaker was virtually un-listenable? You just didn't measure for that. I might think that the smearing of an iron core inductor might kill it for me, but that wasn't measured for either. And if you don't have the means to measure the smearing caused by an iron core inductor does not mean it does not exist. Just like if you don't have the means to measure a cabinet resonance doesn't mean that it does not exist either.

I really do like what you are doing and still encourage you to keep posting measured data and then some. I would still advise caution in letting it sway what our subjective preferences might be. That is nothing wrong with that.

Unfortunately CSDs more clearly show the types of resonances we have more trouble hearing and its usefulness has never been demonstrated.

Is this again an example of what you are talking about that we can't talk about? I would argue that these resonances are easy to hear and it has been easily demonstrated in the past. When you have a woofer that has a ring to it, and that can easily be seen in a CSD, it is real easy to hear it.

Oh and I am in agreement with you on this too:

Sighted opinions on loudspeakers have been demonstrated to be bias when it comes to the actual sound of the loudspeaker(as if that isn't obvious).

Note that in the speaker comparison that I hosted, all speakers were hidden from view.

[DanTheMan]

Weren't these copies of the Mackies?  When listening side by side, I preferred the Mackies hand down, but that was many years ago.

These certainly look a lot like the older Mackies with the exception being the ports.  The new line of Behringer monitors also mirrors the new Mackies. The older Mackies I've listened to didn't have the ports next to the tweeter which I think is a good idea because in the graphs I've taken below the ports, the off axis response is smoother.

Dan

[sts9fan]

Just so we are clear the title of this thread is:
 "What does the measurements on a common $152 pair of speaker look like?". 

Danny,
In a thread like this it is fantastic of you to share you expertise.  Although I see no reason for you to bring your issues with Zaph or anyone else into it.  I don't care if he thinks of you as a snakeoil salesman because you believe that caps sound different. 
This thread is the improper venue to inject your subjective beliefs.  It is possible to have conversations about measuments without warnings.  Just like you can discuss the sound of wire and caps without us data folks busting up your shindig.       

Kris

[csero]

Dan,

Could you do a couple of other measurements, like panel resonances and port response up to several kHz. Used to have them several years ago. Something bothered me in their sound, but did not have the measurement gear at that time. Of course, lot of thing changed in my system (ambiophonioc DSP changes) so maybe it was not the speaker.

[Danny Richie]

Danny,
In a thread like this it is fantastic of you to share you expertise.  Although I see no reason for you to bring your issues with Zaph or anyone else into it.  I don't care if he thinks of you as a snakeoil salesman because you believe that caps sound different. 
This thread is the improper venue to inject your subjective beliefs.  It is possible to have conversations about measuments without warnings.  Just like you can discuss the sound of wire and caps  without us data folks busting up your shindig.   

 

Fair enough. I don't want to incite a subjective verses objective camp debate.

However, if someone is going to recommend a site that is highly controversial in that regard, then I see no reason someone else like myself can't advise caution regarding it.

[DanTheMan]

((((((((((((snipped for brevity)))))))))
Then your belief that they are of high quality would be opinion oriented and may differ from my opinion that iron core inductors are going to smear the signal especially in the mid range and to me would be low quality.

So in the lab we should say that it has iron core inductors and poly caps and leave it at that?

I just meant the inductors look well made--not loose or thin/cheap looking parts.  If you can point me to a study that shows iron core inductors audible vs air core prior to saturation, I'd be totally fine with that your opinion on the subject has some merit.  Nothing wrong with your revision, but imagine if I went through and scraped all opinion from your posts.  This could quickly spiral and get ugly.  I have made effort to avoid opinion in my posts.

I still think it to be prudent to advise caution if trying to read any subjective preference for something based on limited measurements.

 
You opinion is allowed, and I'd even agree that more measurements would be nice.  You can see in other speakers that measure well in many ways in this price range that they do have measurably resonant problems--check out infinity's Primus 162.  There enclosure is not as well made or as sufficiently damped and it is measurable.  Unfortunately this is what I can do and they highly correlate with psychoacoustic studies.  You're a lot safer buying with these measurements than you are by going to the store and listening.  This has been demonstrated even though it seems counter intuitive.

It's like going to a music store and playing instruments. They always sound different when you bring them home and you can hear their tone so much better. Same goes for guitar amps--low level noise you can't hear in the store gets all too obvious at home. Too bad there isn't an objective way to know what instrument you are going to like when you are in a music store. Maybe that's the next thing for researchers to do. Where's Drs. Toole and Olive when you need them?   Ha ha. (don't anyone get huffy and puffy over that comment. It is a joke.) I go to instrument shops and play for hours and hours, listening carefully through the noise, only to get home be irked. Can't tell you how many times this has happened. Unfortunate that I have only come home to a pleasant surprise once with cheap($200), old, used guitar that actually sounded even better when I got home. It is around 40 years old and the finish is a bit worn, but had a relatively new fret job and a real bone nut, compensated saddle and the best intonation I've played. Someone loved this thing and I can't blame them.  Anyway, enough about my guitar.

For instance. I had some speaker come in recently and some of the measurements showed problems. One problem ONLY showed up in an impedance sweep. He had a cavity resonance that made it's own little bump. It was clearly audible as well. Had I omitted that measurement then a serious audible problem might have been unknown to one not having heard the speaker.

That has nothing to do with these speakers.  Check out a pair for yourself--they are cheap.  I'd be interested in your measurements.  No offense, but your opinion, like SL's, would be too biased for anyone to base anything on.

No not really. The impulse response doesn't tell you what frequency the resonance is at it just shows more output over time. So with that information only, you don't know where to look to fix the problem. The CSD also shows you amplitude at each frequency. The impulse response does not.

The CSD is calculated from the impulse and yes it does show the resonances that have been demonstrated to be more difficult for our ears to hear--not that they are completely inaudible.  I like looking at CSDs, but I don't have the software to generate a decent one.  The impulse does contain all the same onformation, but it's gharder to read.  Have you read the demonstrations by John K. and Zaph?  Very informative if you remove the opinion from it.
 

What I believe is any result that is repeatable and conclusive regardless if measured by an instrument or the ear. One real problem is that most lack the tools to measure many things that result is clear, repeatable, and audible differences.

For instance?

I hope you understand that I completely agree. My point is that if looking at limited data one can't draw a real conclusion based on that limited data.

No, but it's much better than MOST data available on speakers.  I do mean much better esp when you consider psychoacoustics.  Not perfect, just better than all but a very few.

For instance: The measurements that you posted look great. I see no problems in those areas. But what if the speaker also had a cabinet resonance that was so bad that the speaker was virtually un-listenable? You just didn't measure for that. I might think that the smearing of an iron core inductor might kill it for me, but that wasn't measured for either. And if you don't have the means to measure the smearing caused by an iron core inductor does not mean it does not exist. Just like if you don't have the means to measure a cabinet resonance doesn't mean that it does not exist either.

I actually do see problems in the areas I've measured.  It's just that for the money there's nothing I know of in it's league.  Can you show me a speaker that had no measurable resonance, but an audible one?  I find this interesting.

I really do like what you are doing and still encourage you to keep posting measured data and then some. I would still advise caution in letting it sway what our subjective preferences might be. That is nothing wrong with that.

Thanks Danny.  There's pretty much nothing you can do that won't sway your opinion. That is why I listened first at a friend's house and then at home--I didn't want the measurements to sway my opinion.  My opinion hasn't been changed by anything, but it's been swayed by everything.

Is this again an example of what you are talking about that we can't talk about? I would argue that these resonances are easy to hear and it has been easily demonstrated in the past. When you have a woofer that has a ring to it, and that can easily be seen in a CSD, it is real easy to hear it.

It's just that studies we are not allowed to discuss disagree with your opinion.  Ringing in woofers can be seen in the impulse and the frequency response as well esp when looked at from multiple axis.  This has all been studied and documented as well.

Oh and I am in agreement with you on this too:
 

Note that in the speaker comparison that I hosted, all speakers were hidden from view.

Sounds like a good idea.  I'm going to check out that comparison again as it's right up my alley.

Dan

[sts9fan]

Your caution had no qualifiers just a open ended warning that there are "a lot of misleading information there".  How mysterious.  It reads like a scare tactic.

The fact is the guy is respcted in the HOBBY.  He has plently of cool designs to build and he has measured tons of drivers.  So I think is input is valuable. 

Honestly I do see a problem with a person in the industry attacking a hobbiest.  Bigger fish to fry?
If you have specific issues post them in your fourm, this is not the place.

Lets bring this back on topic   

[DanTheMan]

Dan,

Could you do a couple of other measurements, like panel resonances and port response up to several kHz. Used to have them several years ago. Something bothered me in their sound, but did not have the measurement gear at that time. Of course, lot of thing changed in my system (ambiophonioc DSP changes) so maybe it was not the speaker.

I wish I did.  These are not perfect, just a great bang for the buck.  I'd rather have Genelecs by looking at the measurements, but I'd hate to file the divorce papers afterwards.  I know the cabinets are very sturdy and heavy, but I would have placed the ports differently judging by what I've measured.  Sure wold like to see the measurements on the Mackie siblings w/o ports next to the tweeter.  I've heard them, but never measured.

Dan

[DanTheMan]

Zaph is now in the industry as well, but yes, I'd love to keep personal stuff out of it.  It would be great to discuss the measurements at hand and even how they compare to other designs.

Dan

[James Romeyn]

...reminds me of a debate I had many years ago with a recording engineer who was absolutely convinced his Crown amps were superior to my hotrodded James Bongiorno Sumo 9, which measured inferior to his amps.  In less than 10 seconds of listening he discovered that old axiom, if it measures good but sounds bad, then it's still bad!  Still true today.

I heard the 9+.  I'd wager that even by today's standards (almost 30 years hence), a properly running Sumo 9 and/or 9+ would perform with the best.  Bongiorno will go down in history as one of the very best, most elite designers of possibly two generations.  He's still kicking butt and taking few prisoners.   

[rajacat]

Just so we are clear the title of this thread is:
 "What does the measurements on a common $152 pair of speaker look like?". 

Danny,
In a thread like this it is fantastic of you to share you expertise.  Although I see no reason for you to bring your issues with Zaph or anyone else into it.  I don't care if he thinks of you as a snakeoil salesman because you believe that caps sound different. 
This thread is the improper venue to inject your subjective beliefs.  It is possible to have conversations about measuments without warnings.  Just like you can discuss the sound of wire and caps without us data folks busting up your shindig.       

Kris

I don't have trouble with Danny participating in this thread. If you read closely into the OP's post he talks about "famous internet DIY designer" so it really doesn't require much imagination to realize whom he's talking about. Danny has a perfect right to defend his POV even if it isn't just all numbers. Is the Lab just the domain of the "objectivists"? Actually, it seems that the OP doesn't have the full range of test instruments for a complete set of numbers as possible to make generalized statements.

-Roy

[DanTheMan]

FWIW, I haven't measured any of Danny's speakers.  Try not to assume too much.

You can refer to me by name.

Dan

[Danny Richie]

If you can point me to a study that shows iron core inductors audible vs air core prior to saturation, I'd be totally fine with that your opinion on the subject has some merit.

Works like this. If I figure something out like that I may not want to document it at all. Some things that I have learned over the years that make clear and repeatable audible differences are things that I keep to myself. The competition can figure that stuff out on their own. In the case of air core verses iron core and the audible effects below saturation, that's a no brainer. Get yourself a good listening system and compare for yourself. Differences in foil verses wire wound is subtle, but in iron core, no problem. That is a big backward step.

You're a lot safer buying with these measurements than you are by going to the store and listening.  This has been demonstrated even though it seems counter intuitive.

Wow, are you serious? You can know more about how a speaker sounds by looking at basic frequency responses then going to a store and listening to it yourself? Really? Are you talking about a store like Best Buy or something? I am not with you on that one. 

Check out a pair for yourself--they are cheap.  I'd be interested in your measurements.  No offense, but your opinion, like SL's, would be too biased for anyone to base anything on.

What? My opinion is too biased to base anything on? Where does that come from? You're in the minority there. Many companies bring to me or send me products all the time just for my feedback, amps, pre-amps, DAC's, speakers, you name it. Likewise many loudspeaker companies come to me for driver design, crossover design, product line design, etc. And I don't really mind being lumped in with SL. 

What I believe is any result that is repeatable and conclusive regardless if measured by an instrument or the ear. One real problem is that most lack the tools to measure many things that result is clear, repeatable, and audible differences.

For instance?

Lots of things. Sonic characteristics of capacitors, wire, burn in effects, cryogenic treatment effects.

Can you show me a speaker that had no measurable resonance, but an audible one?  I find this interesting.

I can show you resonances that you don't see in a simple frequency response that are clearly heard, but can also be seen in other types of measurements. You can't just go by the frequency response and impulse response and get it all. I had this same debate on a different forum once where several guys said that all they needed was the impulse response and frequency response and that they could tell where all the resonances were. So I posted that data on three different woofers and none of them would say where the resonances were. One guy took a guess at it but was not right. The rest were too afraid to embarrass themselves to take a shot at it. 

Internal standing wave resonances and cabinet resonances are also easily heard but not measured unless you take the right measurement.

Ringing in woofers can be seen in the impulse and the frequency response

No, often NOT. Especially if it is well down in output. You might not even see it very well in a spectral decay until you put some power on it. Remember that a ringing woofer might not be a big deal at low power because you aren't exciting it much. The ringing is not just a measured order of magnitude, but has a time factor also. You can see the delayed ringing over a longer time period in the impulse response, but you still don't know at what frequency it is. So you really need to see the CSD.

If you read closely into the OP's post he talks about "famous internet DIY designer" so it really doesn't require much imagination to realize whom he's talking about. Danny has a perfect right to defend his POV even if it isn't just all numbers.

It's not mine, and I don't know who is is talking about. I never turn anything out that rough and have never designed a product for the $150 price point.

[DanTheMan]

Yes Danny, your opinion, my opinion, SL's opinion(which is pretty favorable regarding this cheapo FWIW(don't get huffy and puffy, just an illustration of my sense of humor)), is meaningless under biased conditions.  That's why I keep holding mine back--same goes for opinions on air core inductors, exotic cap, exotic wire, audiophile tweaks, etc.... all things that have neither been demonstrated or outright shut down under controlled, bias reduced tests.  What I believe or you believe we hear isn't particularly useful for anyone with an objective mind unless conditions are controlled.  We all know this and there is no argument.

Read Dr. Olive's Blog for an understanding on why going and listening to a speaker in a store won't work as well as going by measurements.  I used to have it in my signature, but apparently I no longer have one. 

Looking at the measurements in the Stereo Mojo tests only confirms this speakers value.  Thanks for that.  It's something I hadn't seen before.

I'll still agree that a CSD is nice to have no matter how many times you say it.   It just doesn't change the facts about what it shows.  If you impulse response is compact, your CSD will be clean.  Wavelet analysis should be even more clear as you can retain better time resolution in treble frequencies and better frequency resolution in the bass.  It also more closely correlates with psychoacoustic studies deem more easily audible.

That resonant problems can be exacerbated by volume I'll totally agree to.   Guitarists have been using this fact for decades.

Dan

[Danny Richie]

You can't ever say that someone's opinion is meaningless, especially if you have no idea how much work and study they have put into the specific subject.

--same goes for opinions on air core inductors, exotic cap, exotic wire, audiophile tweaks, etc.... all things that have neither been demonstrated or outright shut down under controlled, bias reduced tests.

Opinions formed without bases can have no value.

However, I have done extensive testing and comparisons on that stuff, even involving groups of people in blind listening tests under controlled listening tests. I have no motivation to publicize some of those findings. My views on many of those things go beyond opinions. They are well established facts for me and I use some of them to my advantage.

Looking at the measurements in the Stereo Mojo tests only confirms this speakers value.  Thanks for that.  It's something I hadn't seen before.

It may be a great value, but an impulse response, an on axis response and few off axis responses will only tell you if there are or are not problems in that area. It will NOT tell you how it sounds, and is by no means a better determining factor than going somewhere to hear the speaker for yourself.

If you impulse response is compact, your CSD will be clean.

This is true. However, if the impulse response is NOT clean, then where is the problem area? You can't get that from the impulse response.

[DanTheMan]

Maybe you can't, but I just did.   I'm just not an opinion believer.  Opinions w/o backing evidence always seem dubious to me especially when someone has a financial stake in their stated opinion.  You should post your results.  It would change the world of audio and would be good for all if what you are claiming is true.  Why make a claim your competitors can read and not back it up with evidence?  You're showing your hand w/o playing your cards.

You may want to read some psychoacoustic studies.  Much of what you say just do not hold up under scrutiny.  Anyone can say whatever they want.  It's an entirely different matter to demonstrate it in a way that's meaningful.

Actually it is possible to get that from the impulse response.  Matter of fact, that's what the CSD does as I mentioned before.  Truth is a wavelet would be far better than a CSD.  I'll agree that it's difficult to decipher the impulse with any precision. 

Dan

[bunnyma357]

Yes Danny, your opinion, my opinion, SL's opinion(which is pretty favorable regarding this cheapo FWIW(don't get huffy and puffy, just an illustration of my sense of humor)), is meaningless under biased conditions.  That's why I keep holding mine back--same goes for opinions on air core inductors, exotic cap, exotic wire, audiophile tweaks, etc.... all things that have neither been demonstrated or outright shut down under controlled, bias reduced tests.  What I believe or you believe we hear isn't particularly useful for anyone with an objective mind unless conditions are controlled.  We all know this and there is no argument.

Read Dr. Olive's Blog for an understanding on why going and listening to a speaker in a store won't work as well as going by measurements.  I used to have it in my signature, but apparently I no longer have one. 

Dan

I still maintain that you have misinterpreted the significance of bias in evaluating a speaker. If studies have proven that bias exists, is somewhat universal (i.e. bigger=better and pretty=better) and cannot be bypassed, even if one tries to, it makes no sense to remove bias from the evaluation of a loudspeaker, unless one plans to not know what speakers they bought or what their physical appearance is when they get them home.

It seems to me that the studies would indicate that aesthetics can have a tangible influence on perceptions and should be considered as part of the overall design. If we can't trust our senses and our brains to be objective, why not exploit our natural biases to actually improve what we hear rather than what we measure?

I guess for me it all comes down to what is "real" - the measurements or our perceptions.

Personally, my brain is also highly biased towards value, so I imagine I might actually prefer the Behringers to Genelecs, especially for listening in a home environment. I spent probably 6 or 7 years listening to Genelecs for 8-10 hours a day at work and not once did I ever wish I had them at home. Good for what they are, but not enjoyable - much like a broadcast video monitor will generally look worse than a consumer set, since it is designed to accurately show all of the flaws in a signal. In general, a less accurate consumer set provides a much more pleasing picture.


Jim C

[DanTheMan]

Jim, I think that's best best argument for the subjectivists side.  I actually brought it up about 6 months or so ago on this very board in the General Forum.  They canned that thread d/t the ad hominem barrage that followed.  I completely agree that if SQ is not what you are after, just pick whatever stuff you like.  Nothing wrong with that.  Just don't complain about the sound.  It doesn't hurt that I even like the way these B2031Ps look.  I actually like the way the Genelecs look even more.  My wife likes Bose (the infamous Wave Radio!)and that's what we'd use if it were up to her.   Good thing she doesn't like BeoLab.

Dan

[Danny Richie]

You should post your results.  It would change the world of audio and would be good for all if what you are claiming is true.

It won't. There will always be nay sayers that will claim that you didn't do this or do that to their satisfaction.

Why make a claim your competitors can read and not back it up with evidence?  You're showing your hand w/o playing your cards.

Telling everyone in the world that there are audible differences between "whatever" doesn't give my competitors anything. They still have to go through everything that I have to find the answers, and I am not giving away the answers.

You are welcome to come hear for yourself if X or Y makes a difference anytime, just let me know when you'd like to visit. Otherwise you are on your own to figure it out for yourself.

Or we can just see if all this that I think I have learned is real or psycho acoustic or not by listening to what I have done and see if its great or not. If I really have figured something out and everyone says its great then I either really have or I am fooling everyone. I guess you might have to figure that out for yourself too.

Or if what you say is true then what we really need is just to look at the measured responses and the one that looks the best will sound the best. That would make it real easy. Then we can just all buy the same speaker.

You may want to read some psychoacoustic studies.

You guys spend too much time worrying about psycho acoustic studies and not enough time listening and comparing for yourselves. I know plenty enough about human perception, and was even certified in hypnosis (believe it or not).

[DanTheMan]

It is true, no matter how much evidence is available, some people would never learn from it if it disagrees with their beliefs.  We see this everyday.

You were a hypnotist!  No wonder everyone loves your speakers. (That's a joke.  Not intended as any sort of serious statement.  Just my sense of humor again.)

It's not what I say that's true.  I'm just parroting the available Psychoacoustic research. It has been demonstrated many times and is well known by many industry professionals and hobbyists.  We would not all end up buying the same speaker b/c there would still be various compromises, prices, and designs that do or do not fit our taste or room.  However, the general quality of audio products would improve.  I forgot to put this in this post originally b/c it seemed so obvious.  I figured that since it was being refuted by a respected speaker designer, it must not be well understood.

Real and psychoacoustic are the same thing.  I thought this was obvious as well.

Hmmm,

Dan