Loudspeaker sound quality: interview with expert audio researcher

[Newman]

I thought some SNA members and guests would appreciate this recent interview with Sean Olive.

 

 

Olive works for Harman, but he is primarily a researcher/ director R&D, so he is not so wedded to specific products or design solutions as your typical loudspeaker designer. A brief profile is here: http://www.aes.org/aes/seanolive.

 

The interview is not particularly deep, but it is broad with numerous insights, and has a nice high-level and cool perspective.

 

If you have any constructive comments or questions, let's see how it goes.  

 

 

 

[edit: the above profile link for Olive isn't reliable so I have pasted part of it below:

 

Sean is Director of Acoustic Research for Harman International, a major manufacturer of audio products for consumer, professional and automotive spaces. He directs the Corporate R&D group, and oversees the subjective evaluation of new audio products including Harman's OEM automotive audio systems. Prior to 1993, he was a research scientist at the National Research Council of Canada where his research focused on the perception and measurement of loudspeakers, listening rooms, and microphones. Sean received a Bachelors in Music from the University of Toronto, and his Masters and Ph.D. degrees in Sound Recording from McGill University in Montreal. He has written over 25 research papers on the perception and measurement of audio for which he was awarded the Audio Engineering Society (AES) Fellowship Award in 1996, and two Publication Awards (1990 and 1995). Sean is the current Vice President for the AES Western US-Canada region and was recently elected President Elect.]

Edited February 7, 2013 by Newman

[b.d]

I dont think its possible to deny that this would be the best way to choose a speaker. Why none of us seem to do it, myself included, I dont know? Arrogance, wilful ignorance and laziness I'd have to say. And not wanting to look like a tool wearing a blindfold at the hifi store. 

[murrmax]

Makes sense that their 'trained listeners' prefer a neutral flat speaker , I wonder when the marketing guys bring in their audience  'potential purchaser demographic group' (or reviewers) - the results would be different to be sure.. give me some colour goddamit 

 

Also more midrange and treble may give the illusion of less bass, but may not be the fact..

[Demondes]

A variation on the above with statistics (powerpoint and no sound)

 

Edited January 7, 2013 by Demondes

[benifex]

Makes sense that their 'trained listeners' prefer a neutral flat speaker , I wonder when the marketing guys bring in their audience  'potential purchaser demographic group' (or reviewers) - the results would be different to be sure.. give me some colour goddamit 

 

Also more midrange and treble may give the illusion of less bass, but may not be the fact..

 

 

The research done by Floyd Toole at the Canadian equivalent of the CSIRO (the National Research Council), used by Paradigm and PSB as a basis for designing their speakers, found the same thing - people generally prefer a flat frequency response, i.e. realism (in that domain). 

 

There's a short writeup on it here: 

 

http://www.stereophile.com/content/psb-stratus-loudspeaker

 

Don't prejudge it on the basis that it was published in Stereophile .. !

[Newman]

I dont think its possible to deny that this would be the best way to choose a speaker. Why none of us seem to do it, myself included, I dont know? 

 

I guess it is thoroughly impractical.

 

Hifi stores would have nothing to gain by setting it up.

 

And it might blow up their standard sales banter of "the next model up sounds better with its extra x, y, and z."

 

And they might have to deal with curly questions like "why does the cheaper one sound better and why do you even bother selling that expensive one?" 

[b.d]

Would be interesting what people prefered if they controlled for frequency response by EQing them all equally neutral, as far as which brands and cost/performance, and also as far as dispersion (think Tool/Geddes have answered this?) and phase/time coherence vs lack thereof, and distortion (have seen these studies too). Also scale, as in big panel size images vs smaller cone ones. 

 

Equally interesting would be the question of how much consensus you would see if you lined up the whole of SNA blindfolded. Probably more that we'd expect would be my guess. 

[Decky]

The only thing they did not mention are effects of the speaker distortion and its management by a crossover. Two speakers of identical FR will sound different at different levels depending on the level of driver distortion. However, they have a very good point:  accuracy = fidelity.

[Newman]

Equally interesting would be the question of how much consensus you would see if you lined up the whole of SNA blindfolded. Probably more that we'd expect would be my guess. 

 

Nah, there'd be punch ups. And that's very messy with blindfolds. 

[Newman]

The only thing they did not mention are effects of the speaker distortion and its management by a crossover. 

 

Yes. Not mentioned in the interview was that Olive found off axis response to be also important. And he sees crossover points as a part of achieving a smooth off axis behaviour. 

[hugo_wilco]

Great viewing! Thanks. Anyone know what "Infinity" model speakers were used?

[Newman]

Infinity Primus 362

[Once was an audiophile]

I thought some SNA members and guests would appreciate this recent interview with Sean Olive.

 

 

Olive works for Harman, but he is primarily a researcher/ director R&D, so he is not so wedded to specific products or design solutions as your typical loudspeaker designer. A brief profile is here: http://www.aes.org/aes/seanolive.

 

The interview is not particularly deep, but it is broad with numerous insights, and has a nice high-level and cool perspective.

 

If you have any constructive comments or questions, let's see how it goes.  

Just wondering what would happen if the front end was changed driving the speakers,would they choose a different speaker?

[Newman]

Just wondering what would happen if the front end was changed driving the speakers,would they choose a different speaker?

 

I don't think they would expect it to… but ya neva no.

[Newman]

I have edited my post #1 with some profile info on Olive.

[bhobba]

Just wondering what would happen if the front end was changed driving the speakers,would they choose a different speaker?

 

Who knows - probably not - but since it hasn't been done who knows.  But this is hardly a surprising finding - people - especially those with training - prefer the more accurate speakers.

 

In my experience with accurate and transparent speakers it basically reflects what you feed it so it boils down to what you like in your source gear.

 

Thanks

Bill

Edited January 9, 2013 by bhobba

[JeffK]

Thanks Newman for posting this - very interesting.

[Satanica]

In my experience with accurate and transparent speakers it basically reflects what you feed it so it boils down to what you like in your source gear.

 

But digital source components and amplifiers are measurably far more accurate and transparent than any speakers, not even taking into account room acoustic influences.

So really "it boils down to" speakers (and room acoustics).

But of course it's a lot easier to rotate electonics in and out of your system both physically and financially.

Which is why some audiophiles get stuck in the "upgrade cycle", hence creating and maintaining an electonic industry bigger than it ought to be.

[Guest myrantz]

I have edited my post #1 with some profile info on Olive.

In case you don't know, he's a member here: tonmeister2008, and a thread on the training software: linky (look at his sig to get to the blog)

 

The work he's doing is very interesting, and I like it... Given the chance, i wonder what he and mario can do together  ...

 

He lost a bit of weight? :mellow:

[Tony M]

I seem to recall that they do the speaker preference tests at 78dB - not sure if it was A or C weighting.  As many people listen at higher levels than this routinely, I'd be interested to know if different listening levels resulted in any change in the order of preferences.

 

In any case, this is an interesting link and thanks for posting.  Overall, I think his findings are consistent with those I've read over the yerars from Floyd E Toole. (I just love posting that name! )

[Newman]

He lost a bit of weight? :mellow:

 

I thought so too, hopefully it's a health kick.

[planet10]

But digital source components and amplifiers are measurably far more accurate and transparent than any speakers

 

I take issue with the accurate bit. We still have yet to do the studies that correlate what is heard with what is measured so we have little idea of what measured accurancy looks like. For instance the much bandied about THD spec hardly correlates at all with sonics.

 

Despite having to listen thru a loudspeaker -- the best only a shawdow of what will be possible -- electronics can make a very significant difference. Write them off as essentially interchangable and you deprive yourself.

 

dave

Edited January 9, 2013 by planet10

[bhobba]

But digital source components and amplifiers are measurably far more accurate and transparent than any speakers, not even taking into account room acoustic influences.

So really "it boils down to" speakers (and room acoustics).

 

Not in my experience.  With really transparent speakers you can easily hear the difference in source components, even those that measure exactly the same eg I have heard two DAC's with the only difference being output capacitors - one is Duelund VSF Copper - the other Russian paper in oil.  The Russians sounded smooth and easy listening - the Duelund dynamic, fast and natural.

 

That's not to say speakers are not the most important thing - they are - nor is it to say measurements do not count - they do - its simply that other stuff comes into it as well - stuff that right now the usual measurements like THD etc are not good at detecting - but the ear is.  Check out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CkyrDIGzOE

 

As the guy explains people could hear stuff in DAC's they initially couldn't measure even though he personally couldn't hear it.  They actually had to invent new measurements to quantify what they were hearing.  There is a lot of that sort of stuff in Hi Fi.  Initially you may think along the lines of what you wrote but if you listen to a lot of stuff on transparent speakers you find that all sorts of things make a difference to how things sound - things we do not have a ready explanation for right now.

 

Thanks

Bill

Edited January 9, 2013 by bhobba

[Newman]

I just had another look at the Olive interview.

 

For the first time I noticed where he says they have successfully correlated speaker measurements with listener preferences. He says now, when a speaker arrives in their labs, they don't really need to do listening tests because they pretty much know from 10 minutes of lab measurements how listeners are going to rate it.

 

Amazing. And instructive, IMHO.

[audiohead]

But digital source components and amplifiers are measurably far more accurate and transparent than any speakers, not even taking into account room acoustic influences.

So really "it boils down to" speakers (and room acoustics).

But of course it's a lot easier to rotate electonics in and out of your system both physically and financially.

Which is why some audiophiles get stuck in the "upgrade cycle", hence creating and maintaining an electonic industry bigger than it ought to be.

Agreed Newman...Speakers and room are at least 70% of the recipe. My company does acoustic fit outs among other things and Ive grown weary of advising audio enthusiast's to 'fix' their room before source/pre amp etc  upgrades - sadly, all to often it seems to fall on deaf ears.

1st speakers - 2nd room - 3rd DAC - 4th/5th Amplification/source. So many seem to do this process in reverse order