Worst measuring loudspeaker?

[Justdafactsmaam]

I have actually heard these and they sounded pretty good to my ears, though i can't afford it, of course.
If we put a blindfold on you and walked you into a room with these speakers, so you didn't know which speaker it was, there is a possibility that you may enjoy it.
We should also probably put your favorite speaker that looks pretty and measures great in the same room and do some swaps. As you sit blindfolded, we could wait to see what you pick.

The blindfold is the greatest tool ever invented, when introducing a listener into this equation. It removes all biases that creep in about ugly vs pretty, great measurements vs sloppy measurements, and so on. It could reveal how sloppy a guy's tastes really are in reality, if he's picking speakers that measure sloppy when he's blindfolded.

In other words, he may just be another guy with sloppy tastes, who just says he likes speakers that measure perfectly. In other words, the blindfold is the greatest tool ever to level out the playing field for guys who identify as 'ears only' audiophools, audioscientists and so on.

When i bring that blindfold like the grimreaper, it should put great fear into the hearts of audiophools and audioscients alike, the fear of getting exposed in front of everyone.

Physical speaker swap takes too long. They need to be in the same space with quick switching between the speakers being compared. That can have it’s own issues when it comes to optimizing each speaker all in the same space

 

[GXAlan]

That can have it’s own issues when it comes to optimizing each speaker all in the same space

A little bit. If the difference between two speakers is so small that the small amount of positional change makes a big difference, then you probably cannot go wrong with either choice and you might as well pick the one that looks better or measures better.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

A little bit. If the difference between two speakers is so small that the small amount of positional change makes a big difference, then you probably cannot go wrong with either choice and you might as well pick the one that looks better or measures better.

It depends on the speakers. Something like a top of the line Sound Lab speaker will take over the space. Also if the ideal room acoustics are different for the competing speakers that’s a problem. But in many cases it shouldn’t be too big of an issue

 

[MattHooper]

T+A Solitaire S 530 loudspeaker Measurements​

T+A Solitaire S 530 loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements I used DRA Labs' MLSSA system, a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone, and an Earthworks microphone preamplifier to measure the T+A Solitaire S 530's quasi-anechoic frequency- and time-domain behavior in the farfield. The center of the line-source tweeter is just 32" from the...

www.stereophile.com

I'm not actually proposing these as the "worst measuring loudspeaker." But I didn't know what other thread to address this. These are a Line-Source speaker design:

I'm quite open to the descriptions of these speakers having some spectacular qualities in terms of imaging and soundstaging, as declared in the Stereophile and Soundstage reviews. But I wonder about the measurements. Is there something about measuring a line source loudspeaker that makes getting an accurate measurement - or at least an accurate correlation to what the listener will hear - problematic? Or is the above frequency response likely very accurate to what a listener will hear?

I also note the cumulative spectral-decay plot looks a bit frightening:

My layman's intuition is that looks like a bad thing: some of the speakers that have sounded particularly "clean and pure" to me have tended to have much cleaner-looking cumulative spectral-decay plots. On the other hand, JA has said before, and mentions again here, that planar speakers tend to measure hashy like this (this speakers employs planar magnetic tweeters). Yet I don't necessarily hear the sound as hashy (been a long time since I had my Quads, but don't remember that character).

So, again, my main question is: would the Stereophile measurements suffice to reliably predict the sonic character of such line-source speakers as this, or are there some difficulties posed by these designs in "measuring them correctly" to predict the actual sound?

 

[MKR]

T+A Solitaire S 530 loudspeaker Measurements​

T+A Solitaire S 530 loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements I used DRA Labs' MLSSA system, a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone, and an Earthworks microphone preamplifier to measure the T+A Solitaire S 530's quasi-anechoic frequency- and time-domain behavior in the farfield. The center of the line-source tweeter is just 32" from the...

www.stereophile.com

I'm not actually proposing these as the "worst measuring loudspeaker." But I didn't know what other thread to address this. These are a Line-Source speaker design:

I'm quite open to the descriptions of these speakers having some spectacular qualities in terms of imaging and soundstaging, as declared in the Stereophile and Soundstage reviews. But I wonder about the measurements. Is there something about measuring a line source loudspeaker that makes getting an accurate measurement - or at least an accurate correlation to what the listener will hear - problematic? Or is the above frequency response likely very accurate to what a listener will hear?

I also note the cumulative spectral-decay plot looks a bit frightening:

My layman's intuition is that looks like a bad thing: some of the speakers that have sounded particularly "clean and pure" to me have tended to have much cleaner-looking cumulative spectral-decay plots. On the other hand, JA has said before, and mentions again here, that planar speakers tend to measure hashy like this (this speakers employs planar magnetic tweeters). Yet I don't necessarily hear the sound as hashy (been a long time since I had my Quads, but don't remember that character).

So, again, my main question is: would the Stereophile measurements suffice to reliably predict the sonic character of such line-source speakers as this, or are there some difficulties posed by these designs in "measuring them correctly" to predict the actual sound?

I saw those measurements and was wondering same thing! Measurements quite terrible, but as usual with Sphile, the subjective impressions do not concur. Hmmmm …

Thanks @MattHooper for asking the question

 

[dfuller]

These really aren’t bad Purifi/ BMS two ways but $14k.

Thrax Audio Siren loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 4: Measurements As the schedule didn't allow sufficient time for Martin Colloms's pair of Thrax Sirens to be shipped to me for measurements, Thrax arranged for a different loudspeaker to be sent from their factory in Bulgaria. This sample had the serial number 211123. I used DRA Labs'...

www.stereophile.com

And on the subject of Purif,
Phil Ward reviewed/measured these for SOS.

PresentDayProduction MUM-8

Can a direct sales model and high‑tech components make top‑level monitoring affordable? Present Day Productions believe so.

www.soundonsound.com

Keith

The MUM-8s aren't amazing... But I've certainly seen worse. And they're apparently going to update the DSP to remedy the measured issues. IIRC they're trying to find an NFS to hire in the UK, so that's cool.

 

[MarkS]

my main question is: would the Stereophile measurements suffice to reliably predict the sonic character of such line-source speakers as this, or are there some difficulties posed by these designs in "measuring them correctly" to predict the actual sound?

I would expect the measurements are reliably showing the sound amplitude at different frequencies (above 200 Hz or so, where the method is applicable) and different angles, and that the waterfall plot is reliably showing the time-decay behavior. The quasi-line-source design should not impact this, AFAIK (but I am not an expert on acoustic measurements).

Then the crucial question becomes, what is "sonic character"?

I have no idea. Over the decades, we have seen tons of strongly positive subjective reviews of badly measuring speakers. So the bad measurements do not predict universally bad impressions. It seems to me that no matter how badly a speaker measures, somebody somewhere will like how it sounds.

I suspect that if listened to blind, on lots of different kinds of music, over a long period, and with the ability to quickly switch to a well measuring speaker for comparison, a lot of these positive impressions would slowly dissipate.

 

[mwmkravchenko]

I would expect the measurements are reliably showing the sound amplitude at different frequencies (above 200 Hz or so, where the method is applicable) and different angles, and that the waterfall plot is reliably showing the time-decay behavior. The quasi-line-source design should not impact this, AFAIK (but I am not an expert on acoustic measurements).

Then the crucial question becomes, what is "sonic character"?

I have no idea. Over the decades, we have seen tons of strongly positive subjective reviews of badly measuring speakers. So the bad measurements do not predict universally bad impressions. It seems to me that no matter how badly a speaker measures, somebody somewhere will like how it sounds.

I suspect that if listened to blind, on lots of different kinds of music, over a long period, and with the ability to quickly switch to a well measuring speaker for comparison, a lot of these positive impressions would slowly dissipate.

There are deeper issues and "problems". What is the "expert" listening to? Do they ever listen outside of their own sound system? Do they listen to acoustically reproduced music of any genre? Second issue the recording engineers that have sucked any life out of music via the methods that they use. 3 human generations of mono recording engineers that are selling us manipulated, produced to a sound versions of what they think should be listened to. Not recorded for the purpose of highest fidelity to the source. The reasons for the mono recording method is manifold. Chief among them is dearth in musician ship among many, but not all musicians. And ease for the recording engineers.

How about this for a change. Record a loved ones voice. Your car door slamming shut. Sounds around your residence. Items of real life that you know so intimately that you will in seconds recognize yes, or no if it correct. But I'm not a recording engineer! Well you have a cell phone. And they all have top and bottom mics. And they are all capable of recording rather decently within the human voice range. Give it a try. I have had many a client's jaw drop when they try this. It is an ear, and an eye opener.

What has gone to the wayside for so many people is sound that is reference to reality.

 

[617]

There are deeper issues and "problems". What is the "expert" listening to? Do they ever listen outside of their own sound system? Do they listen to acoustically reproduced music of any genre? Second issue the recording engineers that have sucked any life out of music via the methods that they use. 3 human generations of mono recording engineers that are selling us manipulated, produced to a sound versions of what they think should be listened to. Not recorded for the purpose of highest fidelity to the source. The reasons for the mono recording method is manifold. Chief among them is dearth in musician ship among many, but not all musicians. And ease for the recording engineers.

How about this for a change. Record a loved ones voice. Your car door slamming shut. Sounds around your residence. Items of real life that you know so intimately that you will in seconds recognize yes, or no if it correct. But I'm not a recording engineer! Well you have a cell phone. And they all have top and bottom mics. And they are all capable of recording rather decently within the human voice range. Give it a try. I have had many a client's jaw drop when they try this. It is an ear, and an eye opener.

What has gone to the wayside for so many people is sound that is reference to reality.

Every advance in recording was accompanied by a drop in the required musical ability. Pre multitrack records are incredible, it's a shame the music is old fashioned and the sound quality is so low.

 

[mwmkravchenko]

Every advance in recording was accompanied by a drop in the required musical ability. Pre multitrack records are incredible, it's a shame the music is old fashioned and the sound quality is so low.

I chase labels that still get it. They are out there. But it won't be big name artists. I also have friends that are accomplished recording engineers. None of my comments are from lack of practical experience.

 

[Descartes]

Tekton get the prize!

 

[CapMan]

Every advance in recording was accompanied by a drop in the required musical ability. Pre multitrack records are incredible, it's a shame the music is old fashioned and the sound quality is so low.

I understand your sentiment, but I think that is a bit of a sweeping generalisation.

 

[mwmkravchenko]

I understand your sentiment, but I think that is a bit of a sweeping generalisation.

It is Sweeping. But as a guy that has chased actual stereo recordings for nearly 40 years I can tell you it is not exactly common. And for popular stuff, RocknRoll etc it is non-existent. Panned mono is not stereo. What I watch and read people calling soundstage is nothing near what can be created. Consumers are the primary driving force. If it sounds like crap, why buy it?

 

[CapMan]

Coltrane Mono on Atlantic are some of the finest, most impactful, musical recordings I have. It doesn’t matter that it’s not in stereo.

Surely we should chase the best performance , not the best recording. Getting both is a bonus in my mind.

Louis Armstrong recorded the Hot Five and Hot Sevens in the 20s - we have those performances, warts and all. Nobody else can reproduce the performances on modern gear.

 

[mwmkravchenko]

Coltrane Mono on Atlantic are some of the finest, most impactful, musical recordings I have. It doesn’t matter that it’s not in stereo.

Surely we should chase the best performance , not the best recording. Getting both is a bonus in my mind.

Louis Armstrong recorded the Hot Five and Hot Sevens in the 20s - we have those performances, warts and all. Nobody else can reproduce the performances on modern gear.

Agreed that you can't recreate what is done and dusted. I have a friend that records jazz two DPA omnis and a Jecklin disc. Coherent Recordings. You have to listen to understand what I am saying. People are there in front of you. The room is there. You hear every bit of what is happening. I used to play French Horn in an orchestra. It's different at the back, but you still have room ambiance and an understanding of space and distance. Position in the room itself. And with a two mic recording you can get all of this. The only label that comes quickly to mind that does jazz well is Reference recordings. Might be something there that strikes your fancy.

After all that is why we all do this right? We enjoy the music?

I chase the most realistic possible sound. Regularly attend live concerts for me these are acoustic. And damn the torpedoes of sh!t brained recording engineers. Find what makes you remember being there at the concert. And enjoy!

 

[CapMan]

I chase the most realistic possible sound. Regularly attend live concerts for me these are acoustic. And damn the torpedoes of sh!t brained recording engineers. Find what makes you remember being there at the concert. And enjoy!

Understood and that is your choice.

For me it has always been about the performance first and recording second. As a jazz lover I would miss out on 70% of the entire cannon if I didn’t do this

 

[Purité Audio]

Hardly the worst measuring TAD evolution grand one, actually $65 grand.
If JA has measured this after his usual fashion, might not the bass be a little lightweight, usually his measurement technique imparts a bass lift.

TAD Grand Evolution One loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements I used DRA Labs' MLSSA system, a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone, and an Earthworks microphone preamplifier to measure the TAD Grand Evolution 1's quasi-anechoic frequency- and time-domain behavior in the farfield. I used an Earthworks QTC-40 microphone, which has a small...

www.stereophile.com

Keith

 

[dfuller]

Hardly the worst measuring TAD evolution grand one, actually $65 grand.
If JA has measured this after his usual fashion, might not the bass be a little lightweight, usually his measurement technique imparts a bass lift.

TAD Grand Evolution One loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements I used DRA Labs' MLSSA system, a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone, and an Earthworks microphone preamplifier to measure the TAD Grand Evolution 1's quasi-anechoic frequency- and time-domain behavior in the farfield. I used an Earthworks QTC-40 microphone, which has a small...

www.stereophile.com

Keith

Probably an EBS alignment if I had to guess.