[Ozrikconan]

Other than frequency response, impedance and spectral decay, what measurements can capture a speaker’s performance?  Are there any old or new technologies that shed light on this?  I know Danny shoots for flat response, etc, but in one of his videos there was a back to back comparison on 2 identical spkrs with identical crossover values but higher quality components on one of them.  Measured identical if i recall, but sounded different.

Would the existence of this new measurement shut down most youtube spkr reviewers?   maaaybeee.  That’s what the pentagon calls acceptable losses.

[Hobbsmeerkat]

That's something ive been curious about as well, esp after the whole drama with Audio Science Review reviewing the XLS kit, but doing a bare minimum assembly, Without polyfill/norez, no round overs on the edges etc.
It measured well, and got an overall positive review, but wasnt an entirely fair representation as it was essentially a "bare-bones" worst case scenario, which considering the positive review regardless, should be a testament to Danny's skill and knowledge.

However, the drama really arose from the ASR guys making fun of using high-quality components; namely tube connectors & bypass caps. Essentially saying that "if it's not measurable, it doesn't exist"

IMO, Im sure that there is a way to measure it electrically, but will require more sophisticated, sensitive & expensive tools than any average person will likely ever have on hand.

If there is an audible difference to your ears, it exists. (In my experience, there is definitely a difference, but how noticable it is will likely depend on your gear & the quality of the recording.)

But it would be interesting to find out the best way to measure the differences that aren't noticeable from typical measurement graphs.

[Scott Joplin]

Other than frequency response, impedance and spectral decay, what measurements can capture a speaker’s performance?

Polar response, distortion, transient response.......

[Ozrikconan]

Polar response, distortion, transient response.......

Would those discern between the 2 spkrs i mentioned?  How are distortion and transient response measured?

[Ozrikconan]

Found this from joseph dappolito: “ I have not found a quantitative or qualitative relationship between the various distortion types you can easily measure and loudspeaker preference.”    https://audioxpress.com/article/testing-loudspeakers-which-measurements-matter-part-2

[emailtim]

I find REW's Vertical Spectrogram to be very helpful identifying time alignment issues.  They are pretty intuitive to read.

[Ozrikconan]

REW looks like a useful tool. 

[Texbychoice]

Changed to higher quality crossover components in one speaker.  Left the other original.  At the time, did not have tools to measure frequency response, distortion, etc.  However, there was no doubt the two speakers sounded different.   Across the frequency spectrum the higher quality parts produced clarity and detail the unmodified speaker simply could not produce.  With both speakers upgraded, my listening experience has been substantially improved.

Recently acquired UMIK-1 with REW measurements confirm after modification a frequency response that matches well the speaker manufacturer published graph.  Nothing in either response chart can explain a difference in sound quality.  Measurements are just one tool, not the complete and final answer.  I find it amusing at times to read an Objectivist pontificate about measurements, referencing the work of Dr. Toole, Sean Olive, and others.  They seem to forget an important quote from Dr. Toole, "Two ears and a brain respond very differently to a complex sound field — and are much more analytical — than an omni-directional mic and analyzer."

Wonder what happened to the ASR review of the properly constructed X-LS Encore?  After all the buzz and arm chair expert critiques, gone awfully quiet.

[Hobbsmeerkat]

Wonder what happened to the ASR review of the properly constructed X-LS Encore?  After all the buzz and arm chair expert critiques, gone awfully quiet.

When I visited Danny last week, the fully upgraded X-LS were sitting in his listening room along with his other towers. But I know Danny mentioned previously that it would likely be a while before he would be able to send them out for Amir to review/compare due to the overall increase in sales volume.

[emailtim]

REW looks like a useful tool.

REW and a miniDSP USB UMIK-1 is a pretty inexpensive and easy to setup measuring system compared years past.  It does have a learning curve, but the basics can be up and running pretty quickly.

Cross-Spectrum labs will create calibration unique files for individual UMIK-1 which are supposedly more accurate than the generic factory calibration files.  You can buy the calibrated mic from them directly.

There are more expensive systems out there, but this is a pretty good setup for the novice.

[Texbychoice]

When I visited Danny last week, the fully upgraded X-LS were sitting in his listening room along with his other towers. But I know Danny mentioned previously that it would likely be a while before he would be able to send them out for Amir to review/compare due to the overall increase in sales volume.

As I understood the exchange over at ASR, a decision was made NOT to test one Danny built.  Instead, Rick built an upgraded version that he said on Sept 12 had been shipped to Amir for testing.  Maybe it is in the pipeline for testing?  Eager to see Amir's review, but I put more faith in Erin's reviews (Erin's Audio Corner).  Erin listens first, tests second.  IMO Erin uses test results to confirm what he hears.  I trust that approach to be more un-biased rather than the strident measurements are the only determination of goodness.  Measurements and listening are equally important to create a quality loudspeaker.

   

[Hobbsmeerkat]

As I understood the exchange over at ASR, a decision was made NOT to test one Danny built.  Instead, Rick built an upgraded version that he said on Sept 12 had been shipped to Amir for testing.  Maybe it is in the pipeline for testing?  Eager to see Amir's review, but I put more faith in Erin's reviews (Erin's Audio Corner).  Erin listens first, tests second.  IMO Erin uses test results to confirm what he hears.  I trust that approach to be more un-biased rather than the strident measurements are the only determination of goodness.  Measurements and listening are equally important to create a quality loudspeaker.

Ahh, okay I havent checked the discussion over on ASR since the original plan was made to send Amir an upgraded kit directly. But im definitely interested to see how the updated review turns out.

And that sort of "both-sides" perspective is usually how I want to look into speakers, & why I really like Ron's videos over on NRD.
 
Measurements & graphs are great for explaining some of the how & why behind an otherwise subjective experience, but without the inclusion of a subjective side, its hard to relate to or convey it to the experience of listening with your own ears, which is meaningful context, even if people hear things differently, from day to day or week to week.

[Texbychoice]

Back to the original topic of measurements.  Frequency response graphs were for many years the primary source of data supposedly defining the "quality" of a loudspeaker.  Other measurement techniques, Klippel for example, have been developed to perform more extensive measurements of a loudspeaker.  Even with improved technology and techniques there is no definitive test for sound "quality".  Loudspeaker placement in a room and the characteristics of that room have a huge impact on what we hear.  Dr. Toole acknowledged that fact.

The benefit of "Audiophile" capacitors is hotly debated.  Quality might be a better way to judge.  Cyril Bateman did extensive capacitor analysis work some years ago.  His work can be found on-line, but is quite technical dry reading.  The basic takeaway is that Electrolytic capacitors are not a good choice for loudspeaker crossovers.  A good quality film capacitor is a superior choice.  Polypropylene being the lowest noise. 

So why do so many loudspeaker crossovers include Electrolytic capacitors?  Low cost is one factor.  Another is likely achieving just good enough knowing most listeners will not perform much, if any, serious sound quality comparisons between multiple speakers.  It is not just capacitor selection performed on a just good enough basis.  All component parts of a design are selected based on technical and cost trade-offs.  Drivers, cabinet, crossover, wire, terminals etc. contribute to the final product. 

The DIY approach eliminates cost considerations attached to a name brand that do not directly contribute to the quality of the end product.  Danny and others have proven designs sonically equal or better than much costlier name brands.  There are many very happy DIY'ers.  Measurements are a good starting point.  Listening should be the final judgment.  After all, we select loudspeaker for listening enjoyment.  We can't listen to a frequency response graph.   

[Scott Joplin]

Would those discern between the 2 spkrs i mentioned?  How are distortion and transient response measured?

It might. Polar response is particularly important to judge the performance of open baffle speakers.

[FireGuy]

Other than frequency response, impedance and spectral decay, what measurements can capture a speaker’s performance?  Are there any old or new technologies that shed light on this?  I know Danny shoots for flat response, etc, but in one of his videos there was a back to back comparison on 2 identical spkrs with identical crossover values but higher quality components on one of them.  Measured identical if i recall, but sounded different.

Would the existence of this new measurement shut down most youtube spkr reviewers?   maaaybeee.  That’s what the pentagon calls acceptable losses.

Andrew & Ian give some interesting data of Axiom's measurement philosophy...FWIW.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dRiJUYxnHk

[Ozrikconan]

Andrew & Ian give some interesting data of Axiom's measurement philosophy...FWIW.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dRiJUYxnHk

Interesting approach.  Not sure it captures everything but seems closer anyway. 

[JLM]

Amir (audiosciencereview.com) uses Kippel NFS, a complex but cheaper (still $100k) alternative to running Spinorama testing (invented by Toole) in an anechoic chamber.  Either offers full fledged modern testing and correlates well to what can be expected to be heard in-room.  The measurements used in most audio magazines and manufacturers are primitive and extremely basic.  REW/Dirac/etc. are inadequate for loudspeaker measurement. 

Yes, the room and placement within the room are huge factors.  That's why you should really start with the room, that ideally isn't small or squarish and is well insulated.  Toole (and Earl Geddes, another well respected acoustician) advises the use of carefully placed multiple subwoofers, then adding bass traps as needed to tame the inherent huge bass peaks/dips before trying to "fix" the loudspeaker/room combination with room EQ. 

So full range loudspeakers are obsolete as they improperly bass load the room.  We've known for years that the ideal location for generating bass is opposite of that for mid/high frequencies.  Toole's 1st edition of "Sound Reproduction" explains the in-room phenomena.  Note that Toole used trained listening panels in comparative double blind tests to confirm lab results.  Much more valuable than single listeners in sighted auditions. 

I'd look towards loudspeaker companies who have long, rich histories in R&D and in-house manufacturing, like JBL, Dynaudio, Focal, or Genelec for guidance in design.