[thebrieze]

.there really is no good, better, best...there are only speakers built to satisfy a particular customer...that other customers have tried and liked as well. 

Maybe it would be helpful for each speaker to understand the original design goals...and then to go read what owners of the speaker say about how it sounds...hopefully with some insight into their rooms, equipment and music.

I mentioned good/better/best for various design goals, compared across speakers and speaker lines. This allows a customer to understand for example, that speaker A improves upon speaker B in terms of Bass extension and smaller size, but has lower efficiency.

I think a matrix of this kind would make the Salk website and speakers much more accessible to newcomers not familiar with the history of each product line. Jim already does this when he speaks to customers to understand their needs, but not everyone will make that call. For those that do, being able to see the information upfront before the call/email will be able to ask better questions.

[jtwrace]

Whose standards? Who has approved these measurements? 

https://www.klippel.de/products/rd-system/modules/nfs-near-field-scanner.html


 

[HT cOz]

https://www.klippel.de/products/rd-system/modules/nfs-near-field-scanner.html


 

I have zero problem with ASR methods and reviews.  I've owned this speaker and I would not subject it to this test as it is too inherently compromised by the form factor.  This is a case of form over function and anyone buying this speaker should understand that compromise.  I suggested measuring a model like BeAT which has a much better balance of form and function.  I really liked Jim's response! 

[CurtisIIX]

https://www.klippel.de/products/rd-system/modules/nfs-near-field-scanner.html


 

I agree that the Klippel supports these measurement standards and his Audio Precision complies with other measurement standards. However, there is no industry penetration especially in loudspeakers specifications to comply with these standards. For other industries, there are IEC standards for the specifications (often accompanied by labeling requirements) as well as IEC standards for the measurements.

If a speaker manufacturer is specifying 83dB +/- 2.2 dB with 2.83V at 1m within 80-20,000 Hz simulated in-room response per CEA-2034 and Amir is measuring something totally different, that is a valuable service. If he is measuring distortion at 106dB output on a speaker that should not be playing that loud, it is not a valuable service.

[jtwrace]

The reality is that most speaker designers are more concerned about aesthetics than the measured performance.  There are standards just like any other (e.g. ASTM) standard too that each and every one of us comes in contact thousands of times per day whether we know it or not.  On the flip side, there are many manufactures that do go by these standards, otherwise, what are you designing to?  And no, by "ear" isn't a standard. 


You can also look at what Erin is doing and he's doing this on a smaller budget with a pretty darn good correlation to what Amir has done too.  So yeah, it can be done if a manufacturer actually cared enough about the measured science but one shouldn't be all bent that their offerings don't measure well either.


The reality is that people that are buying a Salk Sound speaker probably don't really give a hoot about the real measured performance and that's their prerogative - doesn't make the measurements wrong though. 

[Endo2112]

Tvyankee

No running of mouth here, just stating an opinion, mine, and asking a question. That said, you did make a good point and it is Friday, so I think i'll have a beer.

Cheers all, stay safe, and happy listening

Don

[intamin22]

I'll chime in and state that I'm a measurement guy and appreciate ASR because it does provide empirical data that can be used as a reference point. I've owned a variety of electronics over the years (parasound, pass labs, Octave, emotiva, rotel, and devialet to name a few) and my take away has been that most things sound more similar than different.

I'm also about to be a Salk owner again with a pair of BeATs en route via Fedex (can't wait!). I definitely considered Revel in my decision because of the research of Harman and the quality of the speaker's measurements. That said, the BeATs offer a similar complement of components that should measure similarly as well, while also coming in a beautiful custom package that's built locally. Based on Dennis' excellent crossover work and independently measured BMR speakers, it's safe to assume that that DNA is carried into each Salk design, with each design having it's own specific goal in mind.  The custom finish, locally built, while probably very good measuring speaker outweighed the potential theoretical marginal benefit of a Revel design.

All that said, I appreciate Jim's response. It was both informative, reasonable and very on character. It's a breath of fresh air to see normal discourse.

[CurtisIIX]

The reality is that most speaker designers need to more concerned about aesthetics than measured performance because that is where value can be added. Otherwise, there is no place in the market for their speakers. This isn't inherently wrong nor does it excuse poor measured performance.

Among those speakers measured at ASR, the WOW1 is middle of the pack. The WOW1s have the same ASR preference score (with subwoofer) as a Pioneer Atmos bookshelf speaker. For these Salk speakers, you are getting custom veneers, American manufacturing, smaller form factor, a front port, and known off-the-shelf drivers. Some of these attributes may hold value for the consumer. Jim is selling these speakers to the consumers that will pay for these attributes, and Pioneer would sell to the consumer that will not pay. It's branding and positioning in the marketplace.

If you take another speaker with a higher preference rating than the WOW1 at the same cost, the value being added is the X% probability of preferring that speaker over the WOW1 when listening in mono (and whatever other constraints Toole made in his studies). That's more abstract and less definitive than whether measured performance is valued or not.

Obviously the issue is getting these measurements because the manufacturers are not providing them, so looking at ASR/Amir's measurements is helpful to make these trade-offs.

[kingdeezie]

The reality is that most speaker designers are more concerned about aesthetics than the measured performance.  There are standards just like any other (e.g. ASTM) standard too that each and every one of us comes in contact thousands of times per day whether we know it or not.  On the flip side, there are many manufactures that do go by these standards, otherwise, what are you designing to?  And no, by "ear" isn't a standard. 


You can also look at what Erin is doing and he's doing this on a smaller budget with a pretty darn good correlation to what Amir has done too.  So yeah, it can be done if a manufacturer actually cared enough about the measured science but one shouldn't be all bent that their offerings don't measure well either.


The reality is that people that are buying a Salk Sound speaker probably don't really give a hoot about the real measured performance and that's their prerogative - doesn't make the measurements wrong though.

Disagree with your first assertion. Manufacturers that are selling speakers meant to live in residential spaces have to balance aesthetics and performance for a given price point. That is until you start to reach the cost no object arena. 

Speakers that are made to be used in a studio don't have to worry about being visually appealing.

Sure, something like the Genelec 8030 may measure better than the WOW1s, potentially may sound better to a given individual, but certainly won't look great in a living room/entertainment room. Most customers have to balance those priorities, and by extension, so do manufacturers. 
   

[mav52]

Exactly.  As a person with a degree in mathematics I appreciate and find value in the "science" of attempting to quantify our world.  As a psychologist, however, I find that believing you can reduce the incredible complexity of perceptual psychology (i.e. the brain's ability to interpret and make sense of what it, in this case,"hears") to a single or set of "numbers" to be, as I wrote before, bogus.  As the saying goes, not everything that can be measured is important and not everything that is important can be measured . . . perhaps some day??

Agree, I enjoy math, have a Masters in Industrial Engineering , now retired after 37 1/2 years.  "As the saying goes, not everything that can be measured is important and not everything that is important can be measured . . . perhaps some day?? "" So very true

[RonN5]

Jwtrace

Thanks for the link to Erin’s corner... and another guy doing testing with a Klippel... but unlike ASR... listening first, writing down impressions.... then testing. And he explains he does it this way to avoid unintended bias.

Intamin22

Enjoy your BeaTs.  I’ve heard them, they sound great... but don’t Klippel test them if you really like them because if you find even the slightest quirk... it may just make you love your speakers a little less.... or maybe it won’t bother you at all... what was the old saying...”ignorance is bliss”... but not for everyone.

[WGH]

Recently I have come to the conclusion that in addition to being an amazing form of communication to anywhere in the world, the internet is somehow permanently entangled with a parallel universe. How else can the thread at ASR be explained? The people with the most posts and strongest negative opinions have never heard the WoW1. I have never heard the WoW1 and would never comment on it's sound. In the parallel universe measurements are the preferred method to evaluate speakers.

Jim's (and Dennis Murphy's) posts are an excellent try at cross-species communication, I wish them well. I unsuccessfully tried to communicate in a "Perfect DAC test" thread at AVS Forum and learned my lesson, I'm staying in this universe for a while.

I haven't fixated on the measurements of any of the half dozen speakers I have owned. I bought Salk speakers because after numerous trips to RMAF and hearing 100's of speakers, the Salk room was always an oasis of excellent sound, year after year. Other speakers may have measured better but the Salk's consistently sounded better and I could afford them.

[thebrieze]

I'm also about to be a Salk owner again with a pair of BeATs en route via Fedex (can't wait!).

You should consider having Fedex re route and drop the speakers off at Amir's for a measurement. Yeah, you might have to wait a few more days, but the benefit is measurements from speakers that "are" designed for the SPL levels of Amir's tests

[Barrelfish]

I have hardly ever looked at that site, even though my mind and career fall on the side of science and analytical views.  It just seems too sterile.

That said, I don't have any issue with the approach (other than it would help to separate tests by speaker sizes/intent) nor do I have a problem with his findings in this case.  Maybe there was something wrong with the speakers and if so, hopefully that can be corroborated once the speakers are sent back. 

My issue (frustration) is that unlike Jim and Dennis, who had very professional and mature responses, there are a couple posters there (probably millennials ) who were quite trollish and juvenile in theirs.  It is one thing to opine that based on the measurements, the speakers would not be of interest, that they seem to be fundamentally flawed, that they wouldn't pay for a speaker with measurements like that, etc.

But to basically make accusations that this is just another company selling snakeoil and magic boxes and that don't they know how to make speakers because they are just cabinet makers?  Well, that is just plain rude and furthermore, insulting.

I hope to one day own Salk speakers and if I do, they will be bought unheard.  Why?  Because they have established such a great word of mouth reputation that it doesn't feel like there is great risk in buying this way.  From the quality of speakers (sound and looks) to the customer service, I have really seen nothing but positive opinions.

But evidently some of the know-it-all posters don't actually know of the reputation that Salk actually has so their 'edginess' simply makes them look foolish.  So, if this kind of posting is standard on that site, visiting isn't worth my time.

[sts9fan]

Recently I have come to the conclusion that in addition to being an amazing form of communication to anywhere in the world, the internet is somehow permanently entangled with a parallel universe. How else can the thread at ASR be explained? The people with the most posts and strongest negative opinions have never heard the WoW1. I have never heard the WoW1 and would never comment on it's sound. In the parallel universe measurements are the preferred method to evaluate speakers.

Jim's (and Dennis Murphy's) posts are an excellent try at cross-species communication, I wish them well. I unsuccessfully tried to communicate in a "Perfect DAC test" thread at AVS Forum and learned my lesson, I'm staying in this universe for a while.

I haven't fixated on the measurements of any of the half dozen speakers I have owned. I bought Salk speakers because after numerous trips to RMAF and hearing 100's of speakers, the Salk room was always an oasis of excellent sound, year after year. Other speakers may have measured better but the Salk's consistently sounded better and I could afford them.

To be fair, they are commenting on the data presented. Not saying I agree with the posting but it is possible to make informed comments on data you didn’t collect.

[Texbychoice]

Simply touting compliance with a list of standards does not ensure the goodness of the Klippel system.  You have to understand each standard and what section of each standard the Klippel claims compliance with.  Over my career have been in many interesting product design reviews as an independent third party. Too often designers did not even understand the foundational requirements.  Picked component parts based on flawed understanding.  Tested to confirm performance as designed, not to confirm compliance with requirements.  Then QA developed a plan to inspect and accept a flawed product. 

Don't think Amir has any malicious intent.  Just do not see any evidence that measurement X, Y, and Z will every time indicate a good speaker or bad speaker.  How did designers of the past before computer simulations and $100K test equipment come up with good sounding speakers?  In reading about John Bau he had to create his own design software and test methods.  He also listened with a musically trained ear.  Ultimately we make our own choices.

[charmerci]

I've only perused the article and all the responses here but has anyone pointed out that he faults a speaker with a 4" woofer for having huge distortion numbers at 20hz??? That's just absolutely ridiculous!!

[intamin22]

You should consider having Fedex re route and drop the speakers off at Amir's for a measurement. Yeah, you might have to wait a few more days, but the benefit is measurements from speakers that "are" designed for the SPL levels of Amir's tests

I thought about it after seeing the wow1, but saw someone else has already offered up a pair that were recently ordered saving me $300 in incremental shipping 👍. Will be interesting to see the results.

[thebrieze]

I thought about it after seeing the wow1, but saw someone else has already offered up a pair that were recently ordered saving me $300 in incremental shipping 👍. Will be interesting to see the results.

Send a message to Amir. He usually pays for return shipping, so if you can have it re routed, there would be no additional cost to you.

[JLM]

I'm disappointed that a technically savvy audio group wouldn't know/appreciate the leading edge work done to measure pertinent speakers as promoted by the Audio Engineering Society, such as spinorama (done in an anechoic chamber) and Kippel.  These measurements do correlate well with well designed listening tests (done in double blind mode with qualified listeners) as demonstrated by years of research by Toole and others.  Note that assembling such a panel of listeners in the requisite facilities is harder and more time consuming than doing the measurements.  But the validity of the measurements is unssailable, so simple one at a time stereo listening tests, especially those typically conducted (sighted) by a single observer, as nearly every review is done, should be considered secondary at best. 

Amir doesn't get paid for running these tests, in fact he invested $100k of his own retirement money to buy the Kippel gear.  So he has few axes to grind and isn't in it for the money.  By the way, if you look at the Kippel setup it requires the speaker being tested to be lifted about 3 feet off the floor.  As Amir works by himself, that limits the size/weight of speaker he's able to safely test.