Speakers getting too small!

If you want little speakers, just go buy some wireless head phones and pass them out to people when they come over.

 

I'm sure the AES would have accounted for this and if they did think it was warranted to test these few individuals they would have done so. There was no reason to do so.

Firstly, with such a large sample of listeners, you would expect a few outliners just on chance - just like if you get over 100 people tossing a coin, it is hardly surprising in just one trial someone might get 8 heads in a row, that is within the realm of chance probability and does not point to the coin being biased towards heads when everyone else was close to 50/50. If that person consistently got 8/10 in subsequent trials then perhaps there is something else at play, and not necessarily an issue with the coin. The Myer and Moran study was not a one off test - it was conducted a multiple number of times over a year. If that person who scored 8/10 on one trial consistently scored 8/10 on other trials (or the two that achieved 7/10 for that matter) then it might have pointed to further testing of those individuals.

The other factor is the nature of the listeners, most of them being musicians, music students, audiophiles or recording producers. The study did not find that any difference between this group to the listeners overall, and neither did the group of listeners that had tested hearing acuity past 15khz.

This study was done nearly 10 years ago and to date, no one has conducted a test with similar rigour which challenges the results. As with any peer review paper there has been some criticism and nit-picking of the study (which of course is healthy) but no-one has delivered a killer blow. In fact the most valid challenge came from the recording labels themselves, who claimed that many of the SACD and DVD A titles were actually from 16/44 or 16/48 masters. While this had implications for the sample size of the study, it ironically supported the findings of the study in the broader sense as for a number of years no golden eared reviewer or audiophile in the consumer world ever picked out that these titles were not hi res. It took measurements and not listening to verify that claim.

The last point you make as a teacher is valid, but unrelated to the study above.

 

The problem though is that you can't try to generalize the study to be the equal of complete random chance with coin flips - that is a bias heading into the test that - no one can hear the difference so let's only test as far as the initial prediction (that no one can tell the difference) goes.

coin flips there will be no outliars for eventually the ship will right to 50-50. Just because someone is a musician or an RE does not mean they are all created equally in terms of listening ability. Some people have perfect relative pitch some have perfect pitch some can detect distortion to varying degrees of ability. In a test like this - interest should almost exclusively be for those people who scored 7/10 and 8/10 and then focus on those. You simply can't assume that the people conducting the test "would do the right thing" - perhaps they don't know what the right thing is. Even the best doctors, lawyers, teachers, cops, PHds screw up from time to time. Adapting a medical trial creation and placing it on audio/response/test evaluations with zero change in format is questionable. And we actually don't know how many others scored 6/10. Simply conducting more tests of these people remember could have swayed their results rather dramatically in determining whether individuals can detect differences.

The reason for the high trials is to reduce mistakes. It is in a test stress environment (whether one tests themselves at home or not or has all day to make the selection or not) is that it is possible that a person hears the difference and gets it wrong when making the selection. Just as one knows the answer on a test and screws up when it's time to answer.

I'm not knocking them - or you if you want to go with the numbers - they tried and perhaps you can conclude the overall results for the average person - the differences were not detected under this test. Still my concern is those 6/10 and 7/10 and 8/10 where they were quick to say nope can't hear a difference. We really can't conclude that. It might be a fluke like the heads turns up 10/10 or you the ball on the roulette wheel comes out black 10/10 times. But then again these people may very well be able to detect the differences - and we will never know. I did these blind experiments in my second year psych courses so it's really strange to me that the engineers don't seem to be aware of this. Not sure what they covered not being an engineer myself but it's first/second year psychology and psychology statistics.

 

I'm not sure how converse you are with the scientific method and experimental design, you should be as it is not even second year psychology experimental method level of understanding. A valid experiment should always start with a null hypothesis, in this case there is no perceptible sound difference between A and B and find evidence to contradict it. A study of scientific grade would not do otherwise for well known reasons.

Random errors and chance events occur everywhere - white noise if you like - like I said, if the two who scored 7/10 and the one with 8/10 replicated that result on subsequent trials then you have a point. They did not. It is a bit disingenuous to imply the results only apply to the "average person" when most of the subjects are what we would call above average music listeners and the results fall well within the probability that the three one-off scores, not able to be repeated, are well within random white noise.

I'm not sure what more I can add. Perhaps you could put your dissention to the AES or the authors of that study.

 

Hey, how about this thread gets back to the OP?

It is what it is. But speaking as a loudspeaker design engineer, yeah, small is not good for speakers, it's just physics. And while some very good sound can be had out of 6" woofers, there is really no substitute for a lot of cone area, whether as one large woofer or several smaller ones.

What do you listen to, and at what volume? What is your room/setup like? (PICTURES!!). In what ways would you hope to improve on the sound of your current speakers? Are you looking for volume, or clarity (they don't always go hand in hand, at least without a lot of power). What amplification are you using.

 

I think the room is the biggest concern here. I mean, VERY-few small-sized speakers are going to be able to put out that big, rich, REAL-sounding bass. Not in a room that big. I wouldn't expect much out of my Denton reissues in a room like that, not without a subwoofer.

I wouldn't mind having my old W90's (from 1963) in a room that size though... They would be very-happy.

 

And when.

 

This is the part that was unclear to me. I did not realize that these individuals were fully tested again. From what I read I was under the impression they were not tested again. If so - and they got less than 6/10 then fine. If however they were not retested and were just assumed to be outliars then this is where I am coming from. Again this kind of test is not about what the majority happens to achieve. It is in the same exact kind of camp as people who claim to be psychics. You take the one person and you test the one person to determine if he/she is psychic. In audio you have one person who claims he can tell the difference between cable A and cable B and you test that one person. The reason it is supposed to be done this way is to find "someone" who is legitimately psychic or someone who can tell cables apart. 10 people may all claim to be a psychic or claim they can hear cable differences.

You can't just lump all the numbers together and then say well we ran 100 trials and we only got 50 correct answers so therefore no one can tell the cables apart and no one is a psychic.

But if I read it wrong and the outliars were all tested again and they all scored 5/10 or worse then they did their job and it is I who misread it.

 

You did read it wrong. There were 100 trials - so 100 trials x 100 subjects over a period of a year.

If it was the way you thought, I'd be more concerned with the much higher number of subjects who picked the CD loop as sounding better than hi res than those three who picked the hi res as sounding better than the CD loop.

 

I recently replaced a pair of Mission floorstanders with some KEF LS-50s. In my experience, in my 3x4m room, small is definitely good. From an objective perspective, the KEFs produce a flatter measured frequency response in my room versus the previous speakers that had a wildly off frequency response. Also, the sound of the speakers is more coherent and works better in my small space. I think it's problematic to make such a blanket statement regarding speaker size. It's a case by case basis and if you look at the LS50 white paper you'll see there's a lot of seemingly smart thinking going into the speakers.

 

@robertzombie

I also have ls50. Used to be in small room similar to yours. But the issue with small room is sub bass.

Having good strong even sub bass notes in small room in listening position is very hard, even if I add two subwoofers.

I agree with Richard Austen that putting big speakers in small room is asking for trouble. : )

 

For me, small speakers + subs does not work in small room.
But, small speakers + subs works well for me in larger room, if my listening position is at the front half of the room.

For example, my current room is about 13 ft x 23 ft with very high ceiling. If I only use the front half of the room and sit about 7 ft away from my small speakers and subs, I could get my small speakers (Paradigm Studio 10) to bleed very well with my twin 12" subwoofers. I set the high pass to 100 Hz for my speakers, and use about 70 Hz low pass for my subs.

While playing songs with strong double bass, I could close my eyes and would not be able to tell if I have subs.

 

Actually, I would be using HALF OF THE LENGTH of the dedicated room (the other half would be for a computer/TV; no walls between them, mind you) and I would be sitting close to the speakers (like 6ft). So, it won't need lots of volume; no loud party-level volume (though it's always good to have some extra watts available).

I listen to a lot of stuff: rock, hard-rock, psychedelic, pop (from every epoch), electronica, big band, swing, vocal jazz, piano balladeering, classical piano, etc.

I'd like to improve the sound of my current speakers... well, in every way that a higher-priced speaker set can: more fidelity, tighter and powerful bass, better soundstage, midrange, stereo imaging, etc. And that they can play very well without lots of power (my current Yamaha speakers don't need too much to sing, though... and they work very well when I sit close to them or when I crank them).

I haven't thought about the amplification: any $500 Marantz or Yamaha integrated.

I'm seeing that 6 inches is the top cone area I would get for $500. It's not bad, but a bigger cabinet would be nice...

 

Big speakers can be the "best" speakers but there are too many exceptions to call this the golden rule IMHO. The "jewel" of the KEF R-series for example is the R500 which has 5-1/2" woofers and sounds appreciably better than the R700 or R900 IMHO. Voicing, cabinet resonances, crossover design, baffle width, etc. all play a role in the speaker's final sound, not just the size of the woofers or the volume of the cabinet.

 

Having heard the 40.2 and the SHL5+ on many occasions and in proper room sizes for each speaker and on quality amplification, I like the sound of the SHL5+ slightly better. The bass is tighter. The bass on the 40.2s can get tubby / unwieldy at times even with superb gripping amplification. Definitely a natural high end sound but there is something about the SHLs.
Mr. Shaw is not an idiot either. There are challenges and trade-offs in any speaker- especially when you try to extend the bass response and increase SPL.

 

Slightly off topic- but relates to your background. Do you believe it is possible / likely for people to hear higher frequency distortion (edges) in a clean signal caused by ear irritation from simultaneous subwoofer / bass pulses?
I play certain music with the subwoofer turned off and it sounds cleaner than with the subwoofer engaged. Could this be because of instantaneous ear fatigue / slight trauma?

 

I do not purport to be an expert on this topic although I know a fair amount about sensory physiology. So, this is just what I hope is an intelligent opinion.

I think it may depend on the nature of the bass pulses. If they are at a high enough level and are transients they might outpace the ear's various protective mechanisms and modulate/distort the transduction of higher frequencies. OTOH, I have played my systems with/without and have not observed such a phenomenon. I have recently auditioned a very large, full-range speaker with 4 large powered woofers in each box and more output than a speeding sub. Organ pedals played at outlandish levels did not compromise the treble.

 

you use only one subwoofer. Id put it between the two speakers especially for music.

second issue is how much resonance very low frequency create in a room. a system that goes flat so low can easily sounds slower/weightier/less clean then the system without the added sub freq due to sub freq low decay.

Im pretty sure you have measure your sub + the harbeth so I doubt you have FR issue in your sub integration...

 

I have recently been running 20"-tall speakers with a 10" woofer and 1.5" tweeter, and all of a sudden my usual sort of minimonitors sound small when I swap them into the system.

 

i truly believe it is from ear fatigue- probably from listening to loud music with subwoofer in the car all the time too.

 

90 to 95 Hz is too high - subs do not sound that good at those frequencies and most speakers play lower than that regardless. The key is to measure the frequency response of your main speakers and then adjust your sub's crossover at that frequency. Usually it is very obvious and their response falls like a rock at their lower limit frequency.
The other notion that "the only way" to correctly add a sub is to treat your main speaker as a "single entity" is not really relevant. A sub might have output up to 100Hz or so- above that it drops rapidly, so it really does not interact with every driver in your main speakers, just the woofers, and for a very limited frequency range.
And yes, you can measure in the frequency domain to integrate with the time relationship. It isn't that difficult but you need a sub with continuous phase angle adjustment, the key feature for correct integration, You can adjust the dial and watch in real time the frequency relationships based on phase- cancellations that cause response drop outs- or response summing- where you generate peaks in the response. The goal is a smooth frequency response and it ain't that hard to do.

 

why is 90hz too high? 100hz wavelenght is 3.4m long. before you even hear 100hz it has already bounce on the side walls, floor, ceiling before reaching your ears. im experimenting with my sub up to -6db at 110-120hz with great result. I know thorsten loesch, main designer at ifi audio, use the ifi retro system with his sub crossed very high, something like -6db at 200hz.

 

I think the 90 to 95 Hz crossover is suggested for the small speakers. It doesn't mean the sub needs to be crossed that high.

I experimented with crossover points and settled at 100 Hz (at 12 dB slope) for my Paradigm Studio 10. I crossed both my subs at around 70 Hz or so (at 12 dB slope). In my room, this setup works just fine. The transition from 120 Hz and down is smooth.

 

I like big speakers! My set up is totally overkill for the environment it is set up in. Just a small dining room. Not only that but it totally unsuitable for such a system. A glass patio door that covers two thirds of one wall. The opposite wall is also largely glass, a double door leading through to the lounge. On the back wall there is a large glass mirror. Hard tiled floor. The speakers are not set away from the walls the required distance. They aren't even toed in towards the centre of the room, just pointing straight ahead. No form of sound treatment whatsoever. In short it is EVERYTHING it shouldn't be. If any of you guys saw it, you would be aghast. Having said all that, I am more than happy with the sound. As to the totally overkill set up...I love it! I am not in a position to be able to have a dedicated, sound treated, listening room so I have to make do. Nothing beats turning it up and literally feeling the sound waves washing over me. Also sounds good to my ears. I know it could sound far, far better in a different environment but I can't have that so no good worrying about it. Yes, I love big speakers!

 

Yes, I love the sound waves of big woofers. That's why I am using two 12" subs with my small speakers. : )