Complaint thread about speaker measurements

[Thomas_A]

Perhaps it has been mentioned already, but for prices given in the list, I think it is mixed with both per each, per pair and for speaker models that currently are not in production. My suggestion is to give per pair and use approximate used prices for models that are not in production. The Harbeths model 30 have price listed around $2000 per pair on Hifi Shark.

 

[TLEDDY]

A discourse with Amir about his measurements will be fruitless. He does not want to change or implement what he's comfortable with. Please note how he facetiously created this new thread as well as it being a form of censorship. I am honestly surprised that some of my prior posts calling Amir out for being so closed minded in regards to feedback on his measurement system have not been moderated already! I appreciate your effort into calling the discrepancy out, its a shame it seems to get buried. This place can be quite an echo chamber at times.

As I read some of the complaints about the reviews, I get annoyed. Amir has dedicated his time and money to the review process for all of the products that we enjoy... and now, speakers.

Amir can do anything, given the time and money! If one wishes to complain, then send in the money to cover the time and investment; put your money where your mouth is.

Comment on stress testing speakers: In my over 60 years of listening to “hi-if” systems, I have NEVER heard one being played at max rating! I do not think anyone on this Forum has heard max volume, other than by accident, in a normal home system. We are not like Spinal Tap - our volume controls do not need “11”! I value what remains of my 9.5 kHz hearing too much to max out volumes!

Now, definitions:

facetiously

• In a facetious manner; merrily; waggishly; wittily; with pleasantry.
• adv.
  In a facetious or flippant manner; in a manner that treats serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor
• adv.
  In a pleasantly humorous or playful fashion.

The term seems inappropriate in the above post... its use implies bad behavior, not impish. Creating a new thread for complaints is NOT censorship - rather creating a place for discussion and disagreements rather than in the body of reviews.

Rant off...

 

[stunta]

My only complaint is not getting more speaker reviews It's Amir's time, money and effort so its his choice, but I really feel like DAC reviews at this point are not good ROI given how many have been measured at various price points. With electronics, IMHO, HT processors are more interesting as they are rarely measured and are generally pricey.

I for one am patiently waiting for reviews of the celebrities in the "audiophile" market - B&W, Wilson Audio, Maggies, Focal etc. They all make tall claims so putting them through the test would be revealing and the impact huge. I am also guessing that folks on this forum would be interested in JBL, Revels etc.

Ultimately, I see this exercise from Amir as a process of elimination. This is not about unit testing every single feature or component of a speaker; this is not about stress testing either; this is very helpful with a purchase decision for typical home use cases. For me, it helps to put things in context - these are measurements coming out of Amir's garage and given to us for free (donations are encouraged but not required); these are not tests run in a multi-million dollar laboratory with a paid staff. I am not technical enough to provide feedback, but I get that if I did, it would be within the scope of what Amir is already doing rather than asking for a bunch of other tests with questionable ROI.

All IMHO.

 

[aarons915]

Not a complaint, just a suggestion. I think the way Harman presents their Klippel measurements with thicker, solid lines is easier to read than the format currently used. If others don't agree that's fine, just my opinion. I also prefer a "clean" Spin without subjective thoughts written on it, even if a clean Spin could be attached that would be fine.

 

[Cahudson42]

Not a complaint, probably my misunderstanding, and possibly covered in the earlier 19 pages, but it completely eludes me - in order to compare speaker to speaker - why the Spinorama is always run at 2.83v, and not instead normalized to a specific SPL at a specific distance.

With the 2.83v, efficiency of the speaker can drastically change the test SPL. So a very efficient speaker, say a Klipsch at 96db, may test poorly because it is being driven way over a usual listening SPL - which might be 70 - 75 SPL. The over-driving may result in resonances, distortion due to excessive cone excursion, etc. My point is, that the test becomes essentially invalid for comparison because of the variability caused by different efficiencies.

Here is another example..The Dayton B652 AIR. 'Worst test ever' - resonances from the thin cabinet, peaks and valleys, a terrible 'shrill ' tweeter..etc. But how many listen to these at 86db SPL? I have a 'desktop' pair. I'll estimate I usually listen at 70 to 75 SPL, near field. It subjectively sounds not bad. The cabinets don't vibrate (glass of water test). The woofer is not flapping in the wind distorting.. etc.

What am I mis-underdtanding? Perhaps I can be pointed to a URL explaining why always testing at a fixed 2.83v makes any sense?

Thanks for your help..

 

[bluefuzz]

if you have a beef about how or why speakers are measured, this is the thread for it.

Not a complaint but a small request. Would it be possible to post the basic dimensions of the tested loudspeakers, please? I.e width x height x depth in mm and diameter of the driver(s) and any other relevant data (weight?). Although there is usually a pic of a panther with each review I have no idea how big your panthers are! So difficult to visualise the size. Also if this site is to be useful as some kind of buying guide then the 'vital statistics' are pretty important. If I'm looking for a speaker with a flat response from 50 Hz - 20 kHz at, say >87dB then it makes a difference if its 300 mm high to if it's a meter high ... ;-)

 

[spacevector]

I can google measurements of speakers. If a member can't, they are lazier than Amir .

 

[edechamps]

By the way @amirm I notice that in all reviews thus far you measure with the grille removed. I'm curious as to why? Intuitively I would expect grille on would be more representative of how the speakers would be used by the average person at home.

 

[amirm]

Not a complaint, probably my misunderstanding, and possibly covered in the earlier 19 pages, but it completely eludes me - in order to compare speaker to speaker - why the Spinorama is always run at 2.83v, and not instead normalized to a specific SPL at a specific distance.

The CEA/CTA-2034 mandates it such:

We are measuring frequency response. 2.83 volts is picked because it is loud enough, yet not too loud to cause frequency response to vary.

SPL output of a speaker is another matter and unrelated to its frequency response.

 

[amirm]

By the way @amirm I notice that in all reviews thus far you measure with the grille removed. I'm curious as to why? Intuitively I would expect grille on would be more representative of how the speakers would be used by the average person at home.

I think many people who are anal enough to read these measurements, likely use them without grill.

I guess it is somewhat a convention to measure without a grill as to know the true nature of the sound the speaker produces.

 

[Hugo9000]

Perhaps one reason is purely practical, because it's easier to find the tweeter axis with the grille off?

 

[amirm]

One other reason is that with the grill removed, I can align the speaker to the tweeter. Without it, it is difficult.

 

[amirm]

Perhaps one reason is purely practical, because it's easier to find the tweeter axis with the grille off?

Our posts crossed.

 

[edechamps]

I think many people who are anal enough to read these measurements, likely use them without grill.

Well, I don't know. I for one am using your reviews to recommend speakers to friends and family, i.e. people who value aesthetics more than I do, and thus are likely to use them with the grille on. Also, intuitively it seems like a manufacturer would optimize the design for grille on, not grille off, because that's how it expects the speaker to be used.

Not sure how much of a difference it makes in practice though. Maybe it's worth doing an experiment with grille on and grille off and compare results.

One other reason is that with the grill removed, I can align the speaker to the tweeter. Without it, it is difficult.

Is it possible to align the tweeter with the grille off, and then put the grille back on before starting the actual measurement process?

 

[Francis Vaughan]

It may not be so much the grille cloth as diffraction off the grille frame that matters. On balance grill on is probably the better choice. Many homes have issues like WAF and little prying fingers to contend with. And so on.

 

[napilopez]

Well, I don't know. I for one am using your reviews to recommend speakers to friends and family, i.e. people who value aesthetics more than I do, and thus are likely to use them with the grille on. Also, intuitively it seems like a manufacturer would optimize the design for grille on, not grille off, because that's how it expects the speaker to be used.

Not sure how much of a difference it makes in practice though. Maybe it's worth doing an experiment with grille on and grille off and compare results.



Is it possible to align the tweeter with the grille off, and then put the grille back on before starting the actual measurement process?

I try to do grille on grille/offmeasurements(though I do often forget). Usually what I do is run a separate grille off and on measurement to minimize variation with my primary on/off axis sweeps.

The effect does vary quite a bit from speaker to speaker, so I do think it's a somewhat worthwhile endeavor. Most speakers measure worse imo, but for some the effect seems negligible or even improves the sound. Although like @amirm I do assume that most of the people who care about sound will be using it without a grille - and they do care and are using a grille, it is out of necessity.

Since the effects are usually constrained to high frequencies, maybe amir can just run a quick gated sweep with the grille on and off rather than the full shebang? Not sure how much that affects things logistically.

Some examples of grille on/off. I have not yet tested off-axis with the grille on, which might be interesting to see.

SVS Prime elevation:

Definitely worse with the grille on.

L100 Classic (blue is not relevant here):

Small difference that is almost completely fixable with the tuning knobs, although the 3.7Kish dip is a bit steeper. That's with the grille off.

PSB Alpha P5:

The response might actually be a bit better with the grille on, depending on how sensitive you are to the top octave? The highs seem better balanced overall with the mids, though the 3.5K dip is relatively steeper.

 

[tuga]

PSB Alpha P5:

The response might actually be a bit better with the grille on, depending on how sensitive you are to the top octave? The highs seem better balanced overall with the mids, though the 3.5K dip is relatively steeper.

That reminds me of the FR of the Ultima Salon2:

 

[amirm]

Also, intuitively it seems like a manufacturer would optimize the design for grille on, not grille off, because that's how it expects the speaker to be used.

Why?

 

[amirm]

Is it possible to align the tweeter with the grille off, and then put the grille back on before starting the actual measurement process?

Only if you screw the stand to the speaker so it doesn't move.....

Folks, I am not the QC or certification lab. The goal here is to determine if a speaker is well engineered or not. Not generate graphs for every possible usage of the device. Everything that you ask for takes time away from something else. There is no free lunch. There is no "quick test." Everything takes time to do, document and field questions about it.

 

[Rick Sykora]

Based on what I have measured over the past 20 years or more, every speaker I have measured with a grill on has had worse frequency response than having it off. I could post this, but there are plenty of more recent examples in this thread that seem to confirm. Ideally, you would hope that the grill was an integral part of the design, but that seems to be a rare occurrence.

My conclusion was that, unless the manufacturer insists that the speaker sounds better with the grill on, you can pretty much figure the grill was added for reasons other than improved sound quality.