Measurements, EQ, and what we actually hear

[curtis]

Well, yes, that's the one I was looking at - it's very reasonably priced, and can be used easily with the REW software.

Can you post a picture of the frequency response of the one you have?

Of my mic?

I use Anthem's ARC/Genesis, and their own mic comes with the receiver/pre-pro. The software takes the serial number and downloads the correction file.

Have you looked up measurements of the Wilson Audio WATT/Puppy?
You can find a lot of measurements here:
https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/in...=16&Itemid=140

Here is Stereophile's for the WATT/Puppies
https://www.stereophile.com/content/...r-measurements
https://www.stereophile.com/content/...r-measurements

Do they sound like the graphs you see?

Stereophile also has Vandersteens.

[James]

It's been a number of years since I heard the Wilson's, and I don't remember which version of the W/P I heard, or anything very specific about the frequency response.

The main thing that I do remember is the "larger than life" soundstaging, which I believe may have been a bit exaggerated.

Oscar Peterson's piano sounded huge, and the imaging on a folk recording seemed funny somehow.

It was impressive, no question about that, but I didn't like it that much. And, of course, they're ridiculously expensive for normal folks like us.

Stereophile does have reviews of Vandersteen speakers with measurements, but not of the ones I'd be interested in. And there was an issue about the magazine not measuring one of the Vandersteens on the optimal axis - Richard Vandersteen sent his measurements with a comment, and his were much more neutral looking. If I remember right, he claimed something like +/- 2db over a broad frequency range (that's a tighter spec than the usual +/- 3db).

[James]

I actually went to the store, a smallish dealer in Columbus OH, to listen to the Thiel 1.6 speakers, which I'd read about in Stereophile. But when I got there, a fellow in the store asked if I wanted to hear their top "flagship" system - of course I said yes please.

So I went up to the top floor, and listened to the Wilson's with some Spectral monoblock amps, if I remember right. It was very exciting to listen to an expensive system that I'd never buy, and I was very impressed with it.

After that, the Thiels sounded small and just sort of ok.

It was only later while reflecting on what I'd heard that I came to the conclusion I wouldn't want the Wilson system in my house.

I didn't have my test cd yet - it would have been very interesting to run that on the system and see what I heard with it.

[James]

We all have our preferences - in the end, for me a perfect system would be one that I didn't hear at all, and that just reproduced exactly what's on the recordings I play through it - no colorations, nothing added and nothing subtracted.

[curtis]

We all have our preferences - in the end, for me a perfect system would be one that I didn't hear at all, and that just reproduced exactly what's on the recordings I play through it - no colorations, nothing added and nothing subtracted.

The big question is then how do you know you are hearing what the recording engineer heard? That person is in a different room with different equipment.

[James]

I don't know if you need to know that.

They may be using equipment that's not neutral to highlight aspects of the mix and make their job easier. There was a Yamaha monitor, I think it was the NS-10, that was widely used in recording studios, and it was widely understood that it was far from a neutral speaker.

But how do you know you're hearing exactly what was recorded is a good, valid question.

[curtis]

I don't know if you need to know that.

They may be using equipment that's not neutral to highlight aspects of the mix and make their job easier. There was a Yamaha monitor, I think it was the NS-10, that was widely used in recording studios, and it was widely understood that it was far from a neutral speaker.

But how do you know you're hearing exactly what was recorded is a good, valid question.

The bottom line is there is a lot of information you need to know to make that determination. What about soundstage and imaging?

[James]

Right, that's a tough one to know.

If you had the recording engineer who recorded what you're listening to, you could ask them if it matched how they recorded it, but that's unlikely to happen.

But it might be easier to decide that a system is inaccurate. If I listened to 20 CDs from different genres and different times, and they all had what sounded like an overly big/overly "3D" presentation, it might be reasonable to conclude that the system wasn't just reproducing the original recordings.

Because it's unlikely they all would have had that sort of imaging/soundstaging.

Jeez, I forgot about this - I've been so focused on frequency response and room modes with the Towers, but that Editor's Choice CD from Stereophile has a number of music tracks, all recorded by John Atkinson, and he describes a number of things about the recordings, including imaging/soundstaging.

So you could listen to those tracks, note what you heard, and then read his descriptions. That should give you a lot of information.

Stereophile Editor's Choice - Test CD | Shop Music Direct

[curtis]

Coming back full circle, you can't know really what a speaker sounds like by looking at the FR graph, just maybe a general idea.

[racrawford65]

Measurements are nice / interesting, but I agree with Curtis' statement. In the end, it's what sounds best to you in your room, regardless of measurements, specs, etc., IMO.