B&W 800 D3 vs KEF Blade. Let's discuss.

[Ilkless]

Interesting list but many have not been tested independently!

And somehow that means we have to be content with demonstrably incompetent designs? There are plenty of competent designs out there that have indeed been independently tested. That thread is just a flavour of what passes the smell test and perhaps it would be much easier to find independent testing if the enthusiast market is not so antagonistic towards it, in fear it would ruin the mystique.

 

[Descartes]

And somehow that means we have to be content with demonstrably incompetent designs? There are plenty of competent designs out there that have indeed been independently tested. That thread is just a flavour of what passes the smell test and perhaps it would be much easier to find independent testing if the enthusiast market is not so antagonistic towards it, in fear it would ruin the mystique.

I agree I wish there was a standard just like to develop a new pharmaceutical drug with a regulatory body to ensure audio and video manufacturers can’t make claims that are not backed up by scientific data and measurements!

But that will never happen!

 

[tuga]

I reject your characterisation. Harman is not the end-all and I find their speaker designs good but thoroughly uninteresting in engineering and sound quality. I never said otherwise. Within the broad, evidence-based dictum of smooth dispersion (that Harman research happens to concur with, but there is a massive literature beyond Toole/Olive), there is immense variety in speaker engineering.

3 observations:

1. in sighted listening, preference is a composite of sound and non-auditory factors. B&W has cultivated a place alongside perhaps Wilson as the Platonic ideal of high-end loudspeakers. An image it falls short of but nonetheless has strong hold on the uninitiated, who become apologists for it, resorting to all sorts of mental gymnastics and ignoring their cognitive dissonance.

2. B&W fails to even reach the basic threshold of competent speaker engineering, with smooth dispersion. We are not talking tonality where legitimate preferences exist. We are talking design that wilfully defies how human hearing functions.

3. Evidence-based speaker design does not lead to homogeneity. If anything, there is vastly more variety as I've shown in the second link, more so than treading well-worn circles with incremental, if not dubious, improvements upon an antiquated paradigm of loudspeaker design.

I've been a member of several forums some English-speaking, others French, Spanish and Portuguese for over 15 years.
I have come to know many audiophiles, a tiny few of them personally, some of which have owned more than a dozen different speakers and amplifiers throughout their lives and having experienced different sound "presentations" many, maybe 50% have settled for "coloured" equipment. Most don't own and many cannot even afford high-end Wilsons or B&Ws.

If you believe that they do so because of bias-inducing sighted listening and not personal preference then you need to back that up with data.
While you're at it, contact that huge majority of classical music producers which chose B&W.

I happen to like/prefer/enjoy the sound of speakers which reproduce the signal with a higher degree of accuracy. But not every does. Or should/must.

 

[tuga]

And somehow that means we have to be content with demonstrably incompetent designs?

Not you or me. Those who prefer them.

For those who do not prefer accuracy it is a good thing that "demonstrably incompetent designs exist".

 

[tuga]

I place very little stock in Olive's formula in itself. I prefer to rely on first principles. Per Toole:

If the spectra of the direct and reflected sounds are significantly different, the reflections are likely to be more noticeable, from subtle timbral effects up to a premature breakdown of the precedence effect, at which point listeners may be aware of two simultaneous sound images, one located at the loudspeaker and one located at the point of reflection. This is obviously not good. Over the years this is likely a factor in listeners rating loudspeakers with uniform directivity more highly than those with uneven directivity. Wide dispersion seems to be good, but especially if it is uniform with frequency and the spectra of the reflections is not substantially altered. Hundreds of loudspeakers auditioned by hundreds of listeners in double-blind evaluations have demonstrated this; it is monotonously predictable.

He is much more circumspect about dispersion width, and I am too. But smooth directivity is not a difficult ask and coheres with first principles of psychoacoustics - particularly, the precedence effect.

Bad directivity provides more discordant cues. The tonal difference between direct and delayed reflected sound is perceptible and objectively, aberrant.

Early and late reflections, determined by off-axis performance, matter.

I, and others more knowledgeable and experienced than myself, have in this very forum have disputed Toole's preference testing methodology, as well as his interpretation of the data. It's flawed.

I, and others more knowledgeable and experienced than myself, also disagree with Toole that "wide dispersion seems to be good". That seems to be his personal preference and he may have used his research to back it, but others find wide dispersion lower fidelity due to the increased room-induced distortion.

Toole also seems to sometimes confuse live with reproduced sound, for example when he used the classroom example, to justify the benefits of reverberant space.


BBC Research Department engineers of the day and music producers and many gullible audiophiles know that changes in level amplitude to the presence range have perceptual effects which can be pleasing to the listener, but they're mere mortals which you choose to ignore... Besides, euphonic distortion cannot be a good thing, unless Toole says so (i.e. wide directivity in untreated rooms, or upmixed 2-channel stereo).

A snippet from a piece written by H. D. Harwood for the May '76 Wireless World issue.

 

[q3cpma]

I, and others more knowledgeable and experienced than myself, have in this very forum have disputed Toole's preference testing methodology, as well as his interpretation of the data. It's flawed.

I, and others more knowledgeable and experienced than myself, also disagree with Toole that "wide dispersion seems to be good". That seems to be his personal preference and he may have used his research to back it, but others find wide dispersion lower fidelity due to the increased room-induced distortion.

Toole also seems to sometimes confuse live with reproduced sound, for example when he used the classroom example, to justify the benefits of reverberant space.


BBC Research Department engineers of the day and music producers and many gullible audiophiles know that changes in level amplitude to the presence range have perceptual effects which can be pleasing to the listener, but they're mere mortals which you choose to ignore... Besides, euphonic distortion cannot be a good thing, unless Toole says so (i.e. wide directivity in untreated rooms, or upmixed 2-channel stereo).

A snippet from a piece written by H. D. Harwood for the May '76 Wireless World issue.

Toole isn't perfect on many points, but the concept of having consistence between the direct sound's and the reflections' tonaility is just sound logic. Criticizing the use of personal preference as scientific argument then citing audiophiles (an extremely small group that fetishes gear) followed by an article that uses it is clear as argument to make almost the same mistake you pointed out: worsening the speakers to correct what are actually recording issues.

Your propaganda thread about B&W in classical oriented studios already has some possible answers (did they really chose, do they have the budget to even change now, etc...).

 

[tuga]

Toole isn't perfect on many points, but the concept of having consistence between the direct sound's and the reflections' tonaility is just sound logic.

I didn't criticise smooth off-axis response, only wide directivity and the use of side-walls as unfit-for-purpose waveguides.
Of course if the side-wall early reflection zones are treated then "having consistence between the direct sound's and the reflections' tonaility is just" a non issue.

Criticizing the use of personal preference as scientific argument then citing audiophiles (an extremely small group that fetishes gear) followed by an article that uses it is clear as argument to make almost the same mistake you pointed out: worsening the speakers to correct what are actually recording issues.

Either you got it the wrong way round or I expressed myself poorly (likely the latter).

If Toole's preference (qt. of 1) is to be accepted then why not that of a large chunk of the audiophile community (qt. of 1 * X,000,000)?

Why are you making the assumption that many audiophiles choose "bad" speakers (or "euphonic" amplifiers or vinyl players) to "correct what are actually recording issues"?
Is it that difficut to accept that some audiophiles like a different "presentation"?

How do you prefer your black tea? Plain, with sugar, hot cold, with milk, with honey?

If I were to be really finicky then I would claim that accuracy is only really necessary for documental-style classical music recordings. Any close-mic'ed stereo mix results in a highly processed with tons of EQ and other effects.

I have no doubt in my mind that for music production accurate speakers, and rooms, should be used.
For listening, it's whatever floats your boat.
I find the patronising attitude of some people here a bit disturbing...and very un-scientific.
(the word "dogma" keeps popping up in my mind for some reason)

The Science of taste?

 

[q3cpma]

Why are you making the assumption that many audiophiles choose "bad" speakers (or "euphonic" amplifiers or vinyl players) to "correct what are actually recording issues"?
Is it that difficut to accept that some audiophiles like a different "presentation"?

It's me that wasn't clear on that point. What I meant is that the preference of audiophiles doesn't matter because they listen to speakers through music, not the opposite. So you can't compare their preference and what the word preference usually means here.

How do you prefer your black tea? Plain, with sugar, hot cold, with milk, with honey?

Not the same, you drink tea for taste, you choose your music for taste too, but you don't choose your speakers on that. Audiophiles would be the ones using a rusty iron or leather cup "just because it gives that special zing to the tea!".

If I were to be really finicky then I would claim that accuracy is only really necessary for documental-style classical music recordings. Any close-mic'ed stereo mix results in a highly processed with tons of EQ and other effects.

I don't see your point. Both have what can be considered a reference source, and the idea that the goal of a recording is to sound exactly like a live performance is arbitrary.

I find the patronising attitude of some people here a bit disturbing...and very un-scientific.
(the word "dogma" keeps popping up in my mind for some reason)

The thing is that if it were just a guy who listen to his inaccurate speakers and have fun, it would be just harmless. But you know it isn't just like that, especially the fact that these want their cake and eat it too (pretending they care about accuracy because deep down, they know that playing make-believe "artist" by distorting everything is shameful; classic cognitive dissonance); the dogma is also very real, because the aforementioned psychological "condition" make them cherry pick "research"/marketing to solidify their position while ignoring actual research to might compromise it.


By the way, I don't think this conversation can lead somewhere, as I am firmly in the Plato camp on the question of aesthetics and the objectivity/subjectivity of beauty. My tl;dr is there's objectively good and bad stuff and corresponding good and bad taste; irrespective to the answer to the question "can it be formalised?" followed by "how?".

 

[tuga]

Not the same, you drink tea for taste, you choose your music for taste too, but you don't choose your speakers on that. Audiophiles would be the one using a rusty iron or leather cup "just because it gives that special zing to the tea!".

Audiophiles do choose their speakers on taste, that is why they are unable to agree on what is good or good-sonding.... In other words, they have different preferences, objectives, requirements. Taste.

Music lovers on the other hand couldn’t care less about hi-fi. They're happy streaming low-res mp3 or Youtube over cheap earbuds, a bluetooth speaker or a soundbar at best. Almost all my friends do.
They don't even know that audiophiles exist, for them hi-fi is that stack of gear that dad used to keep in the sitting room next ot under the TV, not accurate reproduction. In fact many audiophiles think that too, that hi-fi is a synonym of playback system.
At best a normal person will look at user ratings on Amazon to decide whether or not to buy something, not ASR or even WHF?...

Audiophiles care about sound quality. But sound quality doesn't necessarily mean accuracy, it's mostly about preference. Of the personal kind.

 

[tuga]

The thing is that if it were just a guy who listen to his inaccurate speakers and have fun, it would be just harmless. But you know it isn't just like that, especially the fact that these want their cake and eat it too (pretending they care about accuracy because deep down, they know that playing make-believe "artist" by distorting everything is shameful; classic cognitive dissonance); the dogma is also very real, because the aforementioned psychological "condition" make them cherry pick "research"/marketing to solidify their position while ignoring actual research to might compromise it.

"deep down, they know that playing make-believe "artist" by distorting everything is shameful"

Wow!

Why do you care if a guy will "listen to his inaccurate speakers and have fun"? Isn't audio supposed to be fun? Many audiophiles are in it for the journey, they're gearheads, box- and cable-swappers. And it's their money.

 

[q3cpma]

Audiophiles do choose their speakers on taste, that is why they are unable to agree on what is good or good-sonding.... In other words, they have different preferences, objectives, requirements. Taste.

Music lovers on the other hand couldn’t care less about hi-fi. They're happy streaming low-res mp3 or Youtube over cheap earbuds, a bluetooth speaker or a soundbar at best. Almost all my friends do.
They don't even know that audiophiles exist, for them hi-fi is that stack of gear that dad used to keep in the sitting room next ot under the TV, not accurate reproduction. In fact many audiophiles think that too, that hi-fi is a synonym of playback system.
At best a normal person will look at user ratings on Amazon to decide whether or not to buy something, not ASR or even WHF?...

Audiophiles care about sound quality. But sound quality doesn't necessarily mean accuracy, it's mostly about preference. Of the personal kind.

You seem to completely ignore the third position of people like music AND wanting good (but still neutral) sound. Honestly, I have never seen a "music lover" that wouldn't put up a minimum of money into reproduction gear. Once again, compare to any other domain: do you see gourmets eating exclusively at McDonalds? Computer enthusiasts using netbooks with Windows?

"deep down, they know that playing make-believe "artist" by distorting everything is shameful"

Wow!

Why do you care if a guy will "listen to his inaccurate speakers and have fun"? Isn't audio supposed to be fun? Many audiophiles are in it for the journey, they're gearheads, box- and cable-swappers. And it's their money.

Mate, I explicitely said that "the guy who just has fun with his inaccurate speakers" is okay. It's the neurotics littering the Interweb with their delusions who are the problems.

 

[tuga]

You seem to completely ignore the third position of people like music AND wanting good (but still neutral) sound. Honestly, I have never seen a "music lover" that wouldn't put up a minimum of money into reproduction gear. Once again, compare to any other domain: do you see gourmets eating exclusively at McDonalds? Computer enthusiasts using netbooks with Windows?

The third position is maybe half of the audiophile community, people like you or me. And the reality is that audiophiles, people who worry about "sound quality"*, are a tiny minority of the population.

I know many music lovers, maybe a couple or three own a system, not a single one is an audiophile.


* - I'm not using "sound quality" here as a synonym of accurate reproduction; for many audiophiles that is not the goal

 

[tuga]

It's the neurotics littering the Interweb with their delusions who are the problems.

What about the neurotics littering the Interweb with their innacurate-science-driven moral righteousness?

 

[q3cpma]

The third position is maybe half of the audiophile community, people like you or me. And the reality is that audiophiles, people who worry about "sound quality"*, are a tiny minority of the population.

I know many music lovers, maybe a couple or three own a system, not a single one is an audiophile.


* - I'm not using "sound quality" here as a synonym of accurate reproduction; for many audiophiles that is not the goal

Certainly, but enthusiasts are always a minority.

 

[q3cpma]

What about the neurotics littering the Interweb with their innacurate-science-driven moral righteousness?

They are as bad, but I hope you don't put people saying "true high fidelity = least distortion (linear/non linear and on/off axis)" in your bag.

 

[ahofer]

As someone who uses and really enjoys non-ASR-approved but popular speakers (Harbeth), I’m following with interest.

One thing that seems intuitive is that uneven dispersion may be more finicky in terms of placement and orientation. The sound will change as the listener moves or toe-in changes (in fact we just had that conversation about B&W and toe-in in another thread) . It seems that in theory, an even and wide dispersion is likely to work in more real-world rooms, and can easily be EQ’d to whatever frequency bump the listener desires, without locking their head in a sweetspot vise.

On the other hand, audiophiles in general seem to enjoy the process of nudging their speakers an inch or two and solemnly comparing the results, it seems the journey is as important as the destination.

I like to lounge around with my wife reading, working, while listening to music. A broad sweet spot is a real benefit. If I were starting over, I’d go the ASR route, probably.

 

[ahofer]

If you believe that they do so because of bias-inducing sighted listening and not personal preference then you need to back that up with data.

This is an old debate, but I think this puts the burden of proof (if there is one at all) backwards.

Actually, let me refine that: If the assertion is that they simply like it that way, then we are in the subjective realm and there is nothing to be proved. If the assertion is that they prefer the strictly audible characteristics of the speakers, then the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion to show this in a controlled fashion. We know that non-audible aspects of equipment influence sound perception.

 

[tuga]

This is an old debate, but I think this puts the burden of proof (if there is one at all) backwards.

Actually, let me refine that: If the assertion is that they simply like it that way, then we are in the subjective realm and there is nothing to be proved. If the assertion is that they prefer the strictly audible characteristics of the speakers, then the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion to show this in a controlled fashion. We know that non-audible aspects of equipment influence sound perception.

I am as interested in such "preference" research as you are (if nothing else to put a closure on this matter).
Toole's methodology is not for purpose.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

I, and others more knowledgeable and experienced than myself, have in this very forum have disputed Toole's preference testing methodology, as well as his interpretation of the data. It's flawed.

I, and others more knowledgeable and experienced than myself, also disagree with Toole that "wide dispersion seems to be good". That seems to be his personal preference and he may have used his research to back it, but others find wide dispersion lower fidelity due to the increased room-induced distortion.

Toole also seems to sometimes confuse live with reproduced sound, for example when he used the classroom example, to justify the benefits of reverberant space.


BBC Research Department engineers of the day and music producers and many gullible audiophiles know that changes in level amplitude to the presence range have perceptual effects which can be pleasing to the listener, but they're mere mortals which you choose to ignore... Besides, euphonic distortion cannot be a good thing, unless Toole says so (i.e. wide directivity in untreated rooms, or upmixed 2-channel stereo).

A snippet from a piece written by H. D. Harwood for the May '76 Wireless World issue.

I do an EQ between 2 ~ 7 khz -3dB ~ in my headphone and my speakers, just because I like it

I prefer turn down a little bit that area rather than something neutral. Also i have more experience talking with people who use headphones, less than 5% said '' l like my iem neutral '', the companies know that and i dont see the companies fight for making a dead neutral iem in the hi end market, i said this because the people who use DAPS (yeah daps ..) is not even using the EQ for getting flat the FR from his headphones ... for example the EQ from A&K sucks and nothing happens and they are 3500 usd devices

 

[preload]

I place very little stock in Olive's formula in itself. I prefer to rely on first principles. Per Toole:



He is much more circumspect about dispersion width, and I am too. But smooth directivity is not a difficult ask and coheres with first principles of psychoacoustics - particularly, the precedence effect.

Bad directivity provides more discordant cues. The tonal difference between direct and delayed reflected sound is perceptible and objectively, aberrant.

Early and late reflections, determined by off-axis performance, matter.

Thanks @Ilkless for sharing your reasoning. To clarify, I don't doubt that directivity and early and late reflections matter. At the same time, we also know that a LOT of others things matter as well. The question I had, to clarify, is how MUCH does smooth directivity matter overall and to what extent it should be a primary consideration.

I was hoping there was primary literature to answer that question, but instead you seem to be relying on the expert opinion of Toole, which does not quantify just how important smooth directivity contributes to overall listener perceptions. As you may or may not know, "expert opinion" is one of the weakest forms of evidence. Even Toole is not concrete about how much directivity matters, instead stating that it is "likely a factor" and "wide dispersion seems to be good."

You may choose to dismiss the peer-reviewed, published work of Olive, which apparently does not support your own theory, but I would point out that that is not good science.

So it may be that your personal opinion, based on the opinion of others, and based on your theories, is that loudspeakers cannot be perceived highly when directivity does not meet your smoothness standards. However, so far, there does not appear to be any high substantial evidence to support that, and clearly my own experience (and those of countless others) listening to B&W 800-series speakers seems to directly contradict your theory.