Classic speaker design vs Subjective speaker design Which do you choose?

Robh3606

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2010
1,470
461
1,155
Destiny
  • Like
Reactions: Duke LeJeune

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,017
13,346
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
I choose subjective loudspeaker design. I care only about how the loudspeaker sounds in my listening room; I do not care how it measures on the test bench.

I think it's interesting to see measurements on the test bench, but they are not in any way dispositive for me.

I bought my speakers having no idea how they measure on the test bench.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rgmd11

Kal Rubinson

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2010
2,360
697
1,700
NYC
www.stereophile.com
I choose subjective loudspeaker design. I care only about how the loudspeaker sounds in my listening room; I do not care how it measures on the test bench.
Indisputable as long as you can evaluate candidates that way.
 

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,017
13,346
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
  • Like
Reactions: Duke LeJeune

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
I choose subjective loudspeaker design. I care only about how the loudspeaker sounds in my listening room; I do not care how it measures on the test bench.

I think it's interesting to see measurements on the test bench, but they are not in any way dispositive for me.

I bought my speakers having no idea how they measure on the test bench.

Did you listen to your future speakers with the Siegfried II?
 

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,017
13,346
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
Did you listen to your future speakers with the Siegfried II?

No; there was no remotely practical way to make that happen. At that time I believe there were no Pendragons in the United States of America.

In selecting Siegfried IIs I was triangulating on the VTL MB-750s driving the Prodigys --- an equal or more difficult load in every electrical parameter than the active woofer tower Pendragons; Andy Payor and a friend of mine happily using Siegfried IIs to drive Rockport Arrakis; and the frequent use of (low to medium power) tube amps by owners of big Genesis Technologies ribbon panels (the ribbon driver used full range in the Pendragon is the same ribbon driver used by Gary Koh as his midrange driver).

And I liked VTL MB-450 Series III driving Martin-Logan Neolith.

Finally, I believe (for speakers which are not extremely sensitive) in high power, and high headroom, and even switching the Seigfried IIs to triode mode (which I like for solo vocals with simple acoustic accompaniment) still gives me 350 watts.
 
Last edited:

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
Was reading Stereophile the other day and there was a column talking about this and how people may criticize a speaker and the designer based on Stereophile's measurements. Many of these manufacturers don't publish measurements of their products.

https://www.stereophile.com/category/we-see-it

There was a glaring example of this in this review in the readers comments.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/volti-audio-razz-loudspeaker

So what do you think??

Rob :)

I highly valuate speaker measurements - particularly impedance, efficiency and dispersion. They can help a lot in amplfier matching. I care very little about the frequency response, it is very hard to correlate with subjective sound unless we have long experience with many speakers in our room.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KeithR

Alrainbow

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2013
3,189
1,387
450
Was reading Stereophile the other day and there was a column talking about this and how people may criticize a speaker and the designer based on Stereophile's measurements. Many of these manufacturers don't publish measurements of their products.

https://www.stereophile.com/category/we-see-it

There was a glaring example of this in this review in the readers comments.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/volti-audio-razz-loudspeaker

So what do you think??

Rob :)

Everyone evaluates subjectively, the measurements tells us a story thou and It does measure poorly as per JA and actually sounded Meh when i Heard them , nothing bad mind you just nothing that caught my interest , so i moved on ..
 

Robh3606

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2010
1,470
461
1,155
Destiny
I am a DIY speaker builder and believe both are needed with essentially a 50/50 split. I think a balanced approach gives you a much better overall speaker when all is said and done.

You need to start with the classic approach. Once you are satisfied with the basic design based on a comparison between your predicted/target curve vs the actual speaker measurements you can start listening. That really is the fun part and you can fine tune based on your subjective impressions.

As a purchaser I look for manufacturers who use this method. I will however listen to just about anything from any manufacturer when given the opportunity.

Rob :)
 

Duke LeJeune

[Industry Expert]/Member Sponsor
Jul 22, 2013
747
1,200
435
Princeton, Texas
I think measurements can predict preference with good reliability up to a certain point. And maybe perfect measurements + perfect analysis would give perfect predictions up to the point where individual preferences diverge, but I'm not there yet.

When doing a speaker design I always start with an extensive suite of measurements which takes days to run. Assuming the drivers are not rejected because of problems which showed up, the crossover design then starts. Because of all the measurements I have a very good idea of what will be happening out in the room, which is imo important.

I have a specific target curve in mind but there will inevitably be forks in the road where choices must be made. And those choices are made by ear. I always enlist a second set of ears which is free from my unavoidable bias as the designer who knows which curve looks the most "right". Then once the design is as finished as I can get it, I ship it off to be auditioned by sets of ears (calibrated by a very good reference system) which have proven to be superior to my own. Fortunately I have all these measurements on file so that when feedback comes in, I can translate their words into a specific crossover adjustment.

We don't have the facilities for double-blind testing but we do use single-blind testing in the final phase, where the gradations are small.

Regarding the predictive power of Harman's Spin-o-rama suite of measurements (of which mine is a more laborious version) backed by their extensive controlled blind listening tests, I think it's great that they find reliable correlations between measurements and subjective preference. I'm geek enough to get into that sort of thing, but skeptic enough to not make it my "audio religion".

Here are four limitations of Harman's system for predicting preference from measurements which ime DO NOT get enough attention from my fellow geeks:

1. The listening test were single-speaker vs single-speaker. The speakers are each quickly shuffled to the same location along the centerline of a 21-foot wide, 30-foot-long well-treated room. So the speakers are abnormally far from the sidewalls; not getting much in the way of boundary reinforcement; and the relatively short decay times of the super-well-treated (though not overly dead) room will favor speakers with a wide radiation pattern. Narrow-pattern speakers will tend to sound too dry in such a room.

2. The measurements do not reveal non-linear distortions nor time-domain distortions, aside from their relatively minor effects on frequency response. In general non-linear distortions are not an issue unless a speaker is pushed beyond its linear excursion and/or thermal limits, but multiple researchers find the time domain to matter. And distortions which arrive later in time (such as diffraction), and are therefore less likely to be masked by similar sounds, may be unexpectedly audible and objectionable. (Revel's top-of-the-line Salon 2 is a very low-diffraction design, so they know that it matters, even if it's not highlighted by their Spin-o-rama measurements.)

3. The tests do not adequately investigate spatial qualities because they are comparing single speakers. Yes you can hear some spatial information from a single speaker, but that (imo) may largely be a function of radiation pattern width in many cases: More in-room reflections will make the speaker less obviously the sound source. If a pair of speakers is particularly good at recreating a holographic image of the recording, that will not show up. And spatial qualities apparently matter a great deal: According to a study by Wolfgang Kippel, cited in Toole's book, spatial qualities make up 50% of our perception of "naturalness" (realism and accuracy), and 70% of our perception of "pleasantness" (general satisfaction or preference). Not making an adequate subjective evaluation of a speaker's spatial qualities is an arguably major flaw unless comparisons are limited to speakers with very similar spatial qualities.

4. The sample of speakers evaluated is too small and non-diverse to make general extrapolations universally reliable. My understanding is that 70 single speakers were evaluated under controlled double-blind conditions, and from what I can tell, most of them were obvious competitors to Harman's offerings (in particular the Infinity and Revel lines). So the study was about "what beats our competitors", not about "what's the best way to make speakers". Unfortunately many people think the study has said all there is to say about the best way to make speakers, but look closely and it becomes obvious that was not the focus. For instance, conspicuous by its absence was the bipolar Mirage M1, which was Floyd Toole's speaker of choice after it performed exceptionally well in blind testing while he was in charge of the Canadian NRC. Anybody else curious about why it sounded so good? If so, your best bet is probably to read Stereophile's review.

Lest you think the above gripes are just the sour grapes ravings of a geek who's not part of the inner circle, these same limitations are mentioned (though not in as much detail) in one of Sean Olive's papers on the subject, "A Multiple Regression Model for Predicting Loudspeaker Preference Using Objective Measurements: Part II – Development of the Model":

"LIMITATIONS OF MODEL

"The conclusions of this study may only be safely generalized to the conditions in which the tests were performed. Some of the possible limitations are listed below.

"1. Up to this point, the model has been tested in one listening room.

"2. The model doesn’t include variables that account for nonlinear distortion (and to a lesser extent, perceived spatial attributes).

"3. The model is limited to the specific types of loudspeakers in our sample of 70."

My understanding is that Harman's model is roughly 87% reliable at predicting listener preference based on their tests (which have the above limitations). That's very good, but it means that even with their (imo inadequately diverse) sample size, there are things going on which the model doesn't explain. That may not matter to most people, but my guess is that it matters to some. And those people really have no recourse but to trust the final say to ears.
 
Last edited:

Robh3606

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2010
1,470
461
1,155
Destiny
Hello Duke

Just as a point of reference is an interview with Greg Timbers. He seems to share your concerns about blind testing and in particular how the tests were done at Harman

"I have no use for blind and double blind listening tests the way Harman implements them. Sound systems and their environments are very complicated. No speaker is even close to sounding "real" so personal opinion is always a major consideration. Most blind tests are based on a series of assumptions that enable the test to be easy or practical to implement. Unfortunately, these assumptions often invalidate or color the results because they cover up or accentuate aspects of the loudspeaker design."

I was surprised by this and if you have not read it, its a good read.

The complete interview to put the quote in context.

Rob :)

https://positive-feedback.com/interviews/greg-timbers-jbl/
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,681
4,470
963
Greater Boston
I am a DIY speaker builder and believe both are needed with essentially a 50/50 split. I think a balanced approach gives you a much better overall speaker when all is said and done.

You need to start with the classic approach. Once you are satisfied with the basic design based on a comparison between your predicted/target curve vs the actual speaker measurements you can start listening. That really is the fun part and you can fine tune based on your subjective impressions.

Customer adjustability would be great too, to some extent.

Doesn't Wilson provide that, for example?
 

Robh3606

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2010
1,470
461
1,155
Destiny
Customer adjustability would be great too, to some extent.

Doesn't Wilson provide that, for example?

Sure why not!

Many do with adjustable attenuation on the mid range and tweeters as examples. Either L pads, steeped with a switch, or terminals for changing resistor values. I prefer soldered stepped, L pads and screw down contacts can get noisy/intermittent/loose over time.

You also have bass dampening using foam plugs for bass reflex systems that can be used to limit bass response or change the box tuning by plugging one of two ports as examples.

If you go DSP it's almost unlimited with the added benefit of room correction providing you have enough horsepower.

Rob :)
 

Duke LeJeune

[Industry Expert]/Member Sponsor
Jul 22, 2013
747
1,200
435
Princeton, Texas
Just as a point of reference is an interview with Greg Timbers. He seems to share your concerns about blind testing and in particular how the tests were done at Harman

"I have no use for blind and double blind listening tests the way Harman implements them. Sound systems and their environments are very complicated. No speaker is even close to sounding "real" so personal opinion is always a major consideration. Most blind tests are based on a series of assumptions that enable the test to be easy or practical to implement. Unfortunately, these assumptions often invalidate or color the results because they cover up or accentuate aspects of the loudspeaker design."

Thank you VERY MUCH, I never would have guess that someone like Greg Timbers would seemingly agree with my oddball critique of Harman's double-blind listening tests. I've bookmarked the interview.

Fascinating quote ESPECIALLY considering its source. I think his Array 1400 is much more real-world-room-friendly, for instance, than the wide-pattern Revel speakers which tend to score well under the imo unrealistic conditions of Harman's single-speaker auditions.

My recollection is that Greg's Array 1400 actually fared quite well in Harman's controlled double-blind listening. I can't help but wonder whether its score in actual listening tests outpaced its predicted score based on the measurements, as my guess would be that its 80 x 80 degree midrange horn and 60 x 30 degree tweeter horn would not have scored well based on how Harman processes the measurements.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Robh3606

Choqueiro

Member
May 6, 2021
9
9
8
44
Excuse me for bumping this old thread but to a person like me, with little technical knowledge, this topic is really, really interesting.

As many "audiophiles" I don´t have the knowledge to understand all the measurements of a speaker on the test bench. I don´t know if maybe, for this ignorance, I´m not worthy to be called an "audiophile" in purity. At times, it seems that in this hobby are levels or categories...

Last days I´ve been doing a little research about Volti Audio. In some forums (well known for the most of you) the measurements are everything. The difference between a decent speaker vs a garbage speaker are the graphics and the lab tests. As you can imagine, to these colleagues Volti is rubbish and indecent. Someone in this forum describes Gregg Roberts as "a good carpenter with little audio knowledge". To me all the opinions are respectable but in my ignorance it´s difficult trusting these opinions and see on the other hand that Volti speakers receive all kind of words of praise from buyers, enthusiasts and even reviewers from the specialised press. Just see the reviews from Part Time Audiophile (https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2020/03/08/volit-audio-rival/); Positive Feedback (https://positive-feedback.com/reviews/hardware-reviews/volti-rival-loudspeakers/) or The Audio Beatnik (https://theaudiobeatnik.com/review-the-volti-audio-razz-v-2-loudspeaker/). Also Stereophile magazine talks really good about them (https://www.stereophile.com/content/volti-audio-rival-loudspeaker) even though the results on the test bench. Just see the Conclusions: "At a base price of $7900/pair, the Volti Audio Rival, like the Vittora before it, is a true bargain. Adding a snazzy veneer increases the price by a wallet-crunching $3500: not so much of a bargain. But the Rivals played music with supreme fidelity, openness, lifelike images, transparency, impact, touch, timing, dynamics, and flat-out musical fun. They sang with tubed amplification, and worked equally well with solid-state (as I discovered when I drove them with the Heed Elixir integrated amp). They gloried with both LPs and CDs. The Volti Audio Rivals are inspirational music-makers. Magnifico!". Not to talk about good reviews on shows and the awards as editor´s recommended products in both Stereophile or Positive Feedback.

What we are talking about?? Can any person in his right mind imagine that just a little enterprise as Volti (in comparison to the giants of the industry) is "buying" the reviewers to obtain positive feedbacks??

I don´t want to minimised the importance of the measurements (as a wise man said: "physics is physics"), but at last the only relevant is the sound and the listening experience and not the graphics on a paper. Yes, I know that hearing is really subjective and maybe this is the root of the problem: different tastes, different listening capacities (as humans, we all don´t hear and see the same). In this situation, the importance of the measurements could be relative?? Or if the measurements are awful the speaker, necessarily, will be awful??

And the other subject is that, to me, all that magnificent speakers with "perfect" measurements are, in the vast majority, not the most musical, friendly speakers. Curiosly they are more on the anlytical, brigth, even harsh side of the sound. Non engaging and with some tendency to be fatiguing. Maybe for some the pleasure is on the tecnical perfection instead of in the subjective pleasure of travelling during hours with the sound. The classical debate of what an audiophile is: a person who likes technology vs a person who likes a music.

Any opinion about this subject in general and about Volti in particular is always appreciated. Sorry for my horrible english.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing