SDC (not MWAF) 2022 fallout thread....

[AdrianD]

A tabulation error was discovered on the spreadsheet used to record the judge’s scores that affected the outcome in the Under $300 category at this year’s Speaker Design Competition.

The final placements in the Under $300 category should have been:
1^st Place Paul Kittinger/ Duetta
2^nd Place Nick Santorineos / Carl & Stuart
3^rd Place John Hollander/ LCR Mains
4^th Place Michael Hadjinian / Bella Sonus Model 1

We are so very sorry for this oversight and sincerely apologize to all the participants in the Under $300 category, particularly Nick Santorineos who was not appropriately recognized as the 2^nd place winner at the event. We also apologize to the other competitors, spectators, and judges for the error.

The final scores in all the other categories have been verified and no other placements were affected.

Again, we humbly apologize for this mistake, and thank you for your understanding as we make efforts to correct it with all those affected.

[jhollander]

Actual comments were "Mid-bass too prominent, Highs exaggerated. Very limited dynamics. Female voices strident. Soundstage two dimensional." I thought "did not like" was nicer

[DeZZar]

Clarity 9, 4, 8
Craftsmanship 7, 5, 5
Dynamic Range 6, 5, 8
Originality/Design 7, 5, 5
Soundstage/Imaging 8, 4, 7
Total Balance 7, 5, 8

Not sure what to make of scoring like this.

I expect/accept that there is obviously a degree of subjectivity involved but to what extent to be fair in judging a competition?

These scores (just using Billets as an example) kind of tell me the judges are just on completely different pages - they don't appear to have any sort of agreed reference. Take clarity for instance - all judges should be in at least basic agreement that one of those disposable plate speakers kids can make as a science experiment is a 0 (zero) and say 'x' speaker is an example of exceptional clarity - or that with this given test track a speaker with poor clarity will muddy these sounds and one with exceptional clarity will reveal this - all agreed - lets judge.

Then you would expect a bit of, I think that's a 7 and someone else gives it an 8....not...4 and 9....this might as well tell you one judge thinks it sounds like a handheld radio and the other thinks its as close to perfect as clarity can get!?!?!?! There has to be some objective truths for each of these categories - they cant be completely subjective.

[Paul K.]

Hmm, Judge 2 gave my entry higher scores than the other two judges, two 9s (dynamic range and tonal balance) and four 10s for the other criteria but also stated "Bass OK".
Paul

[tomzarbo]

Was it John H's SP11 speakers?
I've looked at all the pics several times over several days and just can't seem to see it.
I think John's MTM speakers seem to look extra-clear to me, that's why I'm guessing those.
TomZ

[tomzarbo]

I agree100 % on point 5 for sure. I didn't know who you were even. There were a few other guys that I was able to figure out who they were, but a lot more who I just did not know about, and was too embarrassed to ask at this point. I also think a name, screen name would be great. I didn't stick my name tag on my clothes, but paper clipped it to my shirt pocket. That way I could use it for both days. But I think some lanyard setup would work too, and bigger. Nice meeting you Charlie. I said hi when we're seated on opposing couches in the open area.
TomZ

[KEtheredge87]

"JUDGE 2: Did not like"
Ouch! I assume that was your interpretation of J2's scoring? That would be some serious feedback if J2 doled out the harshness like that!

[KEtheredge87]

Got mine in the mail a day or two ago.

https://techtalk.parts-express.com/forum/speaker-project-gallery/1456831-the-plum-dingers-ps95-8-and-nd20fb-4-in-a-desktop-mtm

Category: Judge 1,2,3
Clarity: 9 , 7 , 9
Craftsmanship: 7 , 8 , 9
Dynamic Range: 5 , 5 , 7
Originality / Design: 4 , 6 , 8
Soundstage / Imaging: 8 , 6 , 8
Tonal Balance: 8 , 6 , 9

Total , Average: 129 , 7.17

Judge 1
T1: Big sound,. Tuneful.
T2: Did well. Lots of sound for size. Good vocal.
T3: Good piano. Good instruments. Good vocal.
Overall: Great Job (double exclamation point smiley face)

Judge 2
Bass a little weak and high in upper bass. Balance otherwise good except slightly low in mid and elevated in treble. Good overall for a small two way. Female voice good. Piano a little thin. Good transients.

Judge 3
T1: Surprising good bass, good tonal balance, tweeter level good
T2: PS95's are working!, Good bass definition, missing lower bass, nice tonal balance
T3: Great high hats, tweeter level. Good soundstage.
Overall: Great Job

-------------------------------
Keith's Comments - Judge 2 apparently does not enjoy the choices I made in this design. Guess he's the "Russian judge"

[charlielaub]

Hello All,

First post in a couple of years here. I have been lurking recently to see if/when the write up from the SDC is posted by PE staff. I am also still waiting to get my score sheets and comments. Maybe soon on both of these.

I have a couple of comments about the room setup. All in all let's keep in mind that this was evidently the first year in this facility and there are always some things that can be improved. The space is very well suited for the type of competition we had, but I think that there are a couple of things could help the experience.

1. Listening/judging room setup.
Putting adsorption everywhere, on all walls, is not a recipe for good sound. Instead these rooms would be better if the "live end dead end" concept was employed. This states that the front wall (the one you see behind the speakers from the listening position) should be "live" that is a hard, reflective surface. The wall behind the listening position should be quite dead. The side walls can have some adsorption, and this is especially helpful when the room is on the narrow side, like the judging room. Actually, the judging room was set up in the completely opposite way - no treatment behind the judges and all other walls with moving blankets and acoustic fabric. Live end dead end should make the sound better overall, for a variety of speaker types.

2. Jam Room
The same idea applies to the jam room regarding room treatment. This room is wider, so the side walls really do not need treatment towards the front of the room. Only the rear wall should be treated to make it more dead, and perhaps the side walls starting about halfway back.

3. Location of playback equipment
In both the judging and jam rooms, the rack of playback gear was right smack in the middle of where speakers are placed. This was IMHO a problem especially in the judging room. It's small. There is a desk in front of the judges. Larger speakers need some room to integrate properly. Because of the rack I set up my speakers about halfway in the room. They would have been better placed closer to the back wall (but no closer than 1m). Put the equipment at the back at the side opposite the door and get some long 12GA speaker cables. There is no need to clutter up the front with the gear, and this will place the equipment next to one of the judges if they need to use it. This is less of an issue in the Jam room because it is larger, but I think it would be better to move the rack to the side there too.

4. Length of time to demo, and to talk to the builder
We all would like to be able to play music through our speakers for longer in order to let the audience better judge them, etc. Unfortunately because of the pace at which the event must proceed and the ensuing rotation through the jam room after the judging room, I think there is no solution to the this issue. There is only so much time and space to work with at/during the event. On the other hand, I would have like to talk to several of the builders about their projects but I was unable to find the person or did not know who they were.

5. Who is who?
Another problem, particularly for me because I have not attended in the past, was that I had a very hard time putting together the names at the event with people I had only known via their username at PE or other online forums. It really took me awhile to figure out who some of these people were. Perhaps a larger name badge, maybe on a lanyard and bearing REAL NAME, SCREEN NAME, PROJECT NAME in large font would make this easier? For some reason I only received a tiny piece of paper with my name scribbled on it, dangling from a piece of tape to identify me. After 1 day these things often just fall off. A lanyard can be put on and taken off repeatedly, and is much more robust. Just a suggestions there, PE.

I'd like to hear comments from others about these issues and my suggested improvements. Maybe we can crowd source some good solutions for next year.

-Charlie

[wogg]

Mine was waiting for me to come back from a weekend trip. Very interesting!
Supernova Minimus

Category: Judge 1,2,3
Clarity: 7, 10, 8
Craftsmanship: 5, 6, 6
Dynamic Range: 7, 7, 8
Originality / Design: 6, 6, 6
Soundstage / Imaging: 2, 10, 7
Tonal Balance: 7, 10 ,6

Total 124, Average 6.89

Judge 1
T1: Good vocal. Good balance. Not much image
T2: Good vocal
T3: Good vocal clarity.
Very good. Just need to work on placement to see if image improves.

Judge 2
Soundstage very good. Voices very good. Low bass limited, but rest very balanced. Transients and harmonics great, good separation of voices, dynamics etc. Very listenable.

Judge 3
T1: Little bright, tweeter ~1dB too hot?
T2: Good soundstage. Needs more BSC?
T3: Good clarity. Nice soundstage

Seat 1 must have had a weird room interaction with the placement or something, definitely way off the other opinions on imaging. The craftsmanship and originality make sense for a re-purposed vintage cabinet and straightforward 2 way design.

[Wolf]

You had the little studio monitor style 3ways right?

I think we talked very briefly about Michael H.'s build and the HiVi top mount tweeter etc, Though you were hanging with someone else so I let you guys go on. I'm balding with facial hair, I wore a Scythian tour t-shirt on Friday and Cake t-shirt Saturday. I was just spectating to check it out. Talked to a handful of folks but spent most of my time in the Jam room listening.

Yep, that was me. I remember being asked about the TN28, but the person is not in memory. We'll catch up again at the next one...
Heads up CSS Grand Rapids event is Sept 23/24.

Wolf

[DrewsBrews]

Craftsmanship is a tough one IMO. The end product is highly dependent on skill and available tools.

Some folks have cnc routers and can easily make cuts that would be very hard for me to freehand with a router.. Unless I make a jig specifically for the cut, which I have yet to try.

Others may not have a high level of skill, but if they know that and work within their limitations to make something that might be basic but is relatively free from flaws, then I'd consider that good craftsmanship.

[DrewsBrews]

I didn't even know you were there. I would have liked to have met you. It's possible we did cross paths and converse but I'm not positive that I met you. Maybe next time in Indiana we can make for sure that I know who you are and put a face to your name.
Wolf

You had the little studio monitor style 3ways right?

I think we talked very briefly about Michael H.'s build and the HiVi top mount tweeter etc, Though you were hanging with someone else so I let you guys go on. I'm balding with facial hair, I wore a Scythian tour t-shirt on Friday and Cake t-shirt Saturday. I was just spectating to check it out. Talked to a handful of folks but spent most of my time in the Jam room listening.

[ugly woofer]

Sound is subjective, and the room was questionable, so the only score that I take exception to is the 6 for craftsmanship.

[Wolf]

Just to say, Tom switched to the right and Javad to center seats at some point. I think it's the only time I've noticed that over the years.