AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › There is no perfect speaker . . .
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

There is no perfect speaker . . . - Page 2

post #31 of 496
7/13/09 at 10:00pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markwriter View Post

So you are eq-ing each recording?

No. Even though I could, I don't feel that is needed, and that would be a little too time consuming and neurotic, even for a perfectionist like me.

I've applied EQ to maybe 15-20% of my collection, and I really tend to refrain from it unless I feel it is really necessary.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #32 of 496
7/14/09 at 4:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifisponge View Post

I agree with a lot of what you say, but without some sort of test equipement and the knowledge of how to use it, the average consumer will never know if the sound quality they hear is due to the speakers, the recording or the room.


Yes, thet can get close. My test CDs are made of very different music that will sound VERY different, if the speaker have low coloration. But if the speaker have a coloration that give a sameness to the sound, it will be rather easy to hear it. That and complex metal music that will make bad speakers compress and distort very easily, I think I can get really close to what the speakers do with the music.



Quote:
Originally Posted by hifisponge View Post

For instance, you recommend that the user seek out speakers, "that sound flat in the listening position." What is the user's reference for flat response supposed to be when we have no idea how the recordings we are listening to were mastered? Were the studio monitors used to master the recording accurate? What was the engineer's intention? Were they going for a balanced sound, or something vivid and bright, or something else? This also applies to your comment that a speaker should "clearly show what is on the record." How does the average consumer know what that is?


For example, if a speaker sound bright on most recordings, it is probably not flat. The main thing is to listen for the difference between the recordings. The speaker that show the most difference between the different recordings, is probably the one that are the most "transparent". What speakers the studio, mastering studio and others have, are not really of any use. In your room, you want to reproduce the finished product on the CD/LP/FLAC.
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 496
7/14/09 at 6:20am
Define perfect?

Perfect as in pure measurements?

Perfect as in what you want?

I tend to think perfection is a waste of time if its about what someone wants. All I care about is that does the speaker beat all other speakers in the important measurements. CSD, IMD, Polar, THD etc
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 496
7/14/09 at 11:39am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

Define perfect?

Perfect as in pure measurements?

Perfect as in what you want?

I tend to think perfection is a waste of time if its about what someone wants. All I care about is that does the speaker beat all other speakers in the important measurements. CSD, IMD, Polar, THD etc

Both.

I used to be a hardcore / textbook objectivist, and I would scour the audiophile mags / web sites for speakers with measurements that were as close to theoretical perfection as possible. I’ve read much of what Sean Olive and Floyd Toole has written about objective speaker performance and how they tie to listener preferences, so I went looking for speakers with flat on-axis FR (+/-1dB), well behaved off-axis FR, low cabinet resonances, no ringing in the spectral decay, low distortion, etc. My thinking was that if I get speakers that were as accurate as possible, I would get a more realistic sound, and that I would get just what was on the recording. If something didn’t sound pleasing through said speakers, then the problem could be clearly blamed on the recording.

I’ve owned three such speakers in my lifetime (Aerial Acoustics 7B, Revel Studio 2, and KEF Reference 203s), and despite all of them having very similar performance on paper, they all had distinct character that could be heard across a variety of recordings. With all due respect to the owners of the following speakers, these were my impressions. The Aerials sounded a bit too dark and boxy, and I was never convinced that I was ever doing more than listening to a hi-fi system—no sense of the performer in the room. The Revels had a clinical quality to them, and they were also unable to suspend my disbelief. It was always quite apparent that I was listening to a recording of a performance through those speakers. While they sounded neutral they never sounded real or natural. The KEFs gave me moments of transparency, but they had some sort of coloration in the midrange that made voices sound nasal, sharp and thin. Forgive my use of subjective terms to describe the character of these speakers, but since what I heard does not line up with the measurements, it’s all I have.

I still think that measurements are a good starting point and that they can give an audio enthusiast a general indication of performance, but either there are things that affect sound quality that aren’t shown in the measurements available in Stereophile, Soundstage, Home Theater Mag, and Ultimate AV, or despite my efforts, I don’t know how to fully interpret them. So if I were speaker shopping today, I would still reference the published measurements on a set of speakers before listening to them to be aware of any potential issues, but I will no longer rule out a set of speakers because the measurements aren't close enough to perfect for me. My current speakers have on-axis FR that is +/- 3dB, and a suck-out in the crossover region if you measure below the tweeter in the vertical axis, yet to me they sound more natural and real than any of the more accurate speakers I’ve owned.

But lets just say for the sake of argument, that there existed today a set of speakers that were theoretically perfect. A sphere* that expanded and contracted instantaneously (perfect impulse response), with 1Hz – 100KHz FR that was +/- 0dB in all directions, zero distortion, no cabinet resonances (because there would be no cabinet), and phase coherent across all frequencies (because there would be only one “driver” and no crossover).

If someone likes to listen Brandy or Christina Aguilera (my wife does) and is looking for a balanced sound, they will run far, far away from these speakers. The problem is, the vast majority of consumers don’t buy speakers off of how well they measure-- they listen. So even if they were standing in front of the perfect speaker, most wouldn’t know it, nor would they care if their music doesn’t sound good through them.

*Note – it may have to be a semi-sphere as it is often debated as to whether omni-directional sound is the goal we are after.
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 496
7/14/09 at 1:39pm
A good example is the YG Acoustics Anat Reference II. If you look at it's specs and cabinet construction it is quite possibly the best designed speaker on earth. Yet people that have heard it have characterized it's sound as dull and not very engaging which is what a speaker that is free of coloration should do. One should get excited at listening to the music and not the speaker itself which is quite the opposite of what goes on today. That right there is what's wrong with the industry as a whole. We are constantly being told by reviewers and speaker manufacturers what we should hear and not what we want to hear.

Everyone is so bent on specs and measurements nowadays that the music itself has taken a back seat.
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 496
7/14/09 at 1:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

Define perfect?

Perfect as in pure measurements?

Perfect as in what you want?

I tend to think perfection is a waste of time if its about what someone wants. All I care about is that does the speaker beat all other speakers in the important measurements. CSD, IMD, Polar, THD etc


There is no perfect speakers but some are really good. What I want is a speaker that color the sound as little as possible, have very low distortion, don't compress easily, have high SPL, have a big sweetspot, and give a focused and real soundstage.
That is what I'm looking for, at least.
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 496
7/14/09 at 1:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by VectorLabs View Post

A good example is the YG Acoustics Anat Reference II. If you look at it's specs and cabinet construction it is quite possibly the best designed speaker on earth. Yet people that have heard it have characterized it's sound as dull and not very engaging which is what a speaker that is free of coloration should do. One should get excited at listening to the music and not the speaker itself which is quite the opposite of what goes on today. That right there is what's wrong with the industry as a whole. We are constantly being told by reviewers and speaker manufacturers what we should hear and not what we want to hear.

Everyone is so bent on specs and measurements nowadays that the music itself has taken a back seat.


It had a rather high level of distortion when they measured it. The speaker + room must work together. So a "perfect FR" in a anechoic chamber is maybe not what we want.
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 496
7/14/09 at 1:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifisponge View Post

Both.

I used to be a hardcore / textbook objectivist, and I would scour the audiophile mags / web sites for speakers with measurements that were as close to theoretical perfection as possible. I’ve read much of what Sean Olive and Floyd Toole has written about objective speaker performance and how they tie to listener preferences, so I went looking for speakers with flat on-axis FR (+/-1dB), well behaved off-axis FR, low cabinet resonances, no ringing in the spectral decay, low distortion, etc. My thinking was that if I get speakers that were as accurate as possible, I would get a more realistic sound, and that I would get just what was on the recording. If something didn’t sound pleasing through said speakers, then the problem could be clearly blamed on the recording.

I’ve owned three such speakers in my lifetime (Aerial Acoustics 7B, Revel Studio 2, and KEF Reference 203s), and despite all of them having very similar performance on paper, they all had distinct character that could be heard across a variety of recordings. With all due respect to the owners of the following speakers, these were my impressions. The Aerials sounded a bit too dark and boxy, and I was never convinced that I was ever doing more than listening to a hi-fi system—no sense of the performer in the room. The Revels had a clinical quality to them, and they were also unable to suspend my disbelief. It was always quite apparent that I was listening to a recording of a performance through those speakers. While they sounded neutral they never sounded real or natural. The KEFs gave me moments of transparency, but they had some sort of coloration in the midrange that made voices sound nasal, sharp and thin. Forgive my use of subjective terms to describe the character of these speakers, but since what I heard does not line up with the measurements, it’s all I have.

I still think that measurements are a good starting point and that they can give an audio enthusiast a general indication of performance, but either there are things that affect sound quality that aren’t shown in the measurements available in Stereophile, Soundstage, Home Theater Mag, and Ultimate AV, or despite my efforts, I don’t know how to fully interpret them. So if I were speaker shopping today, I would still reference the published measurements on a set of speakers before listening to them to be aware of any potential issues, but I will no longer rule out a set of speakers because the measurements are close enough to perfect for me. My current speakers have on-axis FR that is +/- 3dB, and a suck-out in the crossover region if you measure below the tweeter in the vertical axis, yet to me they sound more natural and real than any of the more accurate speakers I’ve owned.

But lets just say for the sake of argument, that there existed today a set of speakers that were theoretically perfect. A sphere* that expanded and contracted instantaneously (perfect impulse response), with 1Hz – 100KHz FR that was +/- 0dB in all directions, zero distortion, no cabinet resonances (because there would be no cabinet), and phase coherent across all frequencies (because there would be only one “driver” and no crossover).

If someone likes to listen Brandy or Christine Aguilera (my wife does) and is looking for a balanced sound, they will run far, far away from these speakers. The problem is, the vast majority of consumers don’t buy speakers off of how well they measure-- they listen. So even if they were standing in front of the perfect speaker, most wouldn’t know it, nor would they care if their music doesn’t sound good through them.

*Note – it may have to be a semi-sphere as it is often debated as to whether omni-directional sound is the goal we are after.

Honestly that opinion has nothing really to do with a perfect speaker and everything to do with what speaker you want....or "Your perfect" speaker. I just think the word perfect should have an exact meaning it sounds like you assume perfect to mean "Your perfect".

Obviously there is no subjectively perfect speaker for everyone but there are speakers out there that measure the best and that is all anyone can use to define how good a speaker is, the subjective part is all personal and its up to each person to decide what flaws they like.

I personally would always try to find the best designed, best measured speaker out there in a specific $$$ range and tweak as needed in room to personal tastes.
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 496
7/14/09 at 2:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by VectorLabs View Post

A good example is the YG Acoustics Anat Reference II. If you look at it's specs and cabinet construction it is quite possibly the best designed speaker on earth. Yet people that have heard it have characterized it's sound as dull and not very engaging which is what a speaker that is free of coloration should do. One should get excited at listening to the music and not the speaker itself which is quite the opposite of what goes on today. That right there is what's wrong with the industry as a whole. We are constantly being told by reviewers and speaker manufacturers what we should hear and not what we want to hear.

Everyone is so bent on specs and measurements nowadays that the music itself has taken a back seat.

I have read the YG speaker measurements are not that great actually.

As for being bent on specs and measurements. Science and measurements are what makes for great speakers not the love of music. The best speakers are designed by expert Engineers that are music lovers...not by music experts that may love engineering

What truely is wrong in the industry is that education is not at the forefront....too many people waste too much money on the wrong audio products only because no one is educating them on the turth.
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 496
7/14/09 at 4:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifisponge View Post

I used to be a hardcore / textbook objectivist, and I would scour the audiophile mags / web sites for speakers with measurements that were as close to theoretical perfection as possible. ... I went looking for speakers with flat on-axis FR (+/-1dB), well behaved off-axis FR, low cabinet resonances, no ringing in the spectral decay, low distortion, etc.

The problem with this supposition is that you're able to get any good measurements on the web. You don't know who really measures well and who doesn't. Toole mentions this repeatedly when talking about the gated pseudo-anechoic measurements that are so common. The only source of decent measurements is the NRC stuff published on Soundstage. So the idea that it is possible to shop based primarily on measurements is, unfortunately, a little too optimistic. I do respect the fact that you were able to try speakers in-house, but even there you've got the bias problem of a sighted preference testing. Toole, Olive et al have shown repeatedly that sighted tests are inherently biased. It's just a fact of human psychology that affects all preference testing.

Another inherent problem to non-scientific preference testing noted by the above experts is that when you evaluate one or two products at a time, you tend to overly magnify differences. Harman blind tests speakers in groups of four because four evaluations helps the listener keep everything in a more balanced perspective. Unfortunately for us, we mostly evaluate speakers in smaller groups than four, or we even do the worst type of evaluation, which is one-at-a-time over long periods of time. There's not much we can do about this, but being aware of the limitations of our own evaluations is a good thing.

I agree with others on this thread who have said that an accurate, non-editorializing speaker is the best starting point. This is why I think it makes a great deal of sense to buy speakers from companies who start from this philosophical basis, and invest in the people and equipment that helps them efficiently achieve this goal. Particularly attractive are those companies which have both state of the art objective measurements as well as rigorous and scientific subjective preference evaluations. The odds of getting a good product from such an organization is significantly higher than relying on the golden ears of a 'speaker guru' or some other method.
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 496
7/14/09 at 6:42pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markwriter View Post

The problem with this supposition is that you're able to get any good measurements on the web. You don't know who really measures well and who doesn't. Toole mentions this repeatedly when talking about the gated pseudo-anechoic measurements that are so common. The only source of decent measurements is the NRC stuff published on Soundstage. So the idea that it is possible to shop based primarily on measurements is, unfortunately, a little too optimistic.

I agree that Soundstage provides the most credible measurements, and that one should never buy based on measurements alone, even if those measurements were to come from Toole and Olive. Measurements are just one tool in the tool belt, and should only be a reference for possible characteristics to listen for, not taken as gospel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markwriter View Post

I do respect the fact that you were able to try speakers in-house, but even there you've got the bias problem of a sighted preference testing. Toole, Olive et al have shown repeatedly that sighted tests are inherently biased. It's just a fact of human psychology that affects all preference testing.

Yes, sighted evaluations allow for biases to be introduced that have nothing to do with sound quality, however the sighted biases I had when trying to choose a speaker were always in favor of the speaker, so it doesn't add up in my experience. That is, the Revel and the Aerial speakers both have exceptional measured performance and I had already purchased them, so I was biased to think that they would be pleasing to me and I was heavily biased to want to keep them to avoid having to sell them at a loss on the used market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markwriter View Post

I agree with others on this thread who have said that an accurate, non-editorializing speaker is the best starting point. This is why I think it makes a great deal of sense to buy speakers from companies who start from this philosophical basis, and invest in the people and equipment that helps them efficiently achieve this goal. Particularly attractive are those companies which have both state of the art objective measurements as well as rigorous and scientific subjective preference evaluations. The odds of getting a good product from such an organization is significantly higher than relying on the golden ears of a 'speaker guru' or some other method.

This is a very logical approach, and it is exactly the approach I took before purchasing the Revel Studio2s (which, as I’m sure you know are a Harman owned company that implements all of Toole’s practices in their speaker design and testing), and also the Aerials. Oddly, at least to me, is that I much preferred the sound quality of speakers that were technically less accurate in the commonly measured area of on and off axis frequency response, and sold the Revels at a loss to fund the purchase. I'd guess that I'd fall into the minority statistic if I were participating in one of Toole's blind speaker listening tests.


I still believe that objective performance, design experience, and engineering expertise should be considered when looking for new speakers, but I have broadened the range of what I consider viable options. As long as a speaker has no gross faults in its measured performance, I think it is worth a listen. In other words, I won’t rule out a speaker from being considered because it doesn’t have the on-paper performance of a Revel.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 496
7/14/09 at 10:43pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NIN74 View Post

Yes, thet can get close. My test CDs are made of very different music that will sound VERY different, if the speaker have low coloration. But if the speaker have a coloration that give a sameness to the sound, it will be rather easy to hear it. That and complex metal music that will make bad speakers compress and distort very easily, I think I can get really close to what the speakers do with the music.

That statement in bold makes a lot of sense. When you hear the same sort of sound across a variety of recordings, I think that is does point to problem with the speakers. Good point.



Quote:
Originally Posted by NIN74 View Post

For example, if a speaker sound bright on most recordings, it is probably not flat. The main thing is to listen for the difference between the recordings. The speaker that show the most difference between the different recordings, is probably the one that are the most "transparent". What speakers the studio, mastering studio and others have, are not really of any use. In your room, you want to reproduce the finished product on the CD/LP/FLAC.

Of course this does rely on the user listening to more than just rock / pop meant for radio play.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 496
7/14/09 at 11:33pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

Honestly that opinion has nothing really to do with a perfect speaker and everything to do with what speaker you want....or "Your perfect" speaker. I just think the word perfect should have an exact meaning it sounds like you assume perfect to mean "Your perfect".

Obviously there is no subjectively perfect speaker for everyone but there are speakers out there that measure the best and that is all anyone can use to define how good a speaker is, the subjective part is all personal and its up to each person to decide what flaws they like.

I personally would always try to find the best designed, best measured speaker out there in a specific $$$ range and tweak as needed in room to personal tastes.

Well, I think that you would agree that no current speaker meets the theoretical ideal, so in that sense there is still no perfect speaker. Some get much closer than others, but in my experience, even the "best designed and best measured" speakers that I have personally heard still colored/distorted the sound in some way that bothered me more than speakers with lesser measured performance.

My basis for perfection is the sound of reality. When I listen to a speaker, if it sounds like a real person is singing in my living room, or I can visualize a Steinway sitting between my speakers, then the goal of perfection has been met. And I'll take a speaker that does that regardless of what the measurements show, though I would honestly love it measurements would help me predict which speakers would do this.

On that note, I would love it if there were comprehensive, reliable, easy to understand, and readily available set of metrics for speaker performance. It would certainly be much easier and a lot less costly if I could reference a set of graphs / standardized subjective descriptions that gives me a clear indication of the strengths, flaws and character of a speaker without listening to it. Unfortunately, I think we'll be waiting a while for that to happen.

Actually, let me step back for a moment and ask, which measurements do you rely on (what do you look for and how do you interpret what you see/read), what do you consider a good source for measurements, and which of the best measuring speakers do you subjectively like the best? Have you ever been surprised by the subjective performance of a speaker that measured well, or do they always line up for you? These are honest, well-intentioned questions, not loaded or hiding an ulterior motive. I wondering if I can learn something from you.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 496
7/15/09 at 3:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifisponge View Post

That statement in bold makes a lot of sense. When you hear the same sort of sound across a variety of recordings, I think that is does point to problem with the speakers. Good point.

No, it means you're listening to Hoobastank.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 496
7/15/09 at 9:13am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

No, it means you're listening to Hoobastank.

Every time I see that band name, I know it is supposed to be read Hoobas-tank, but my brain always changes it to Hooba-stank.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 496
7/15/09 at 12:59pm
Perfection is a transitory state, if it is ever achieved at all. If one could find a "perfect" speaker on Tuesday, it likely wouldn't be perfect on Wednesday.

Perfection is ultimately a subjective experience, and you will never be the same from experience to experience. Once you change, the perfection only lives on in memory if at all.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 496
7/15/09 at 1:32pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by filecat13 View Post

Perfection is a transitory state, if it is ever achieved at all. If one could find a "perfect" speaker on Tuesday, it likely wouldn't be perfect on Wednesday.

Perfection is ultimately a subjective experience, and you will never be the same from experience to experience. Once you change, the perfection only lives on in memory if at all.

Thank you Zen-Master Filecat13.

Perfection is alos a transcendental state.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 496
7/15/09 at 5:28pm
Tim, I think you are spot-on with your observations in general.
And you have started a potentially very useful thread.

I've been down the same road, possibly with fewer iterations,
but after 30+ years chasing the holy grail, IMHO you have summed
up the realities pretty darn well, from the recording to the living room.

The only amateur two-bit contribution I would make to your thread is this:
We need more line-level ( active ) x-overs and integrated units, like
Siegfried Linkwitz has been doing for years, and pro-audio has too of course.
( There is also a UK company, AVI Hifi, that is doing the same now:
integrating DAC/Active crossover/Pre/Amps into their speaker boxes. )

I've owned 20+ speakers over many years,
and lots of quality 'mid-fi' electronics that got away, but I've never
heard anything as satisfying as a well-executed active set-up.

I know others might disagree, and that's fine. This is just my two cents.

And in terms of audio reproduction in general, having lived
with Linkwitz Orions now for almost a year, I find everything
that Linkwitz has written on his site to be accurate -- for me.
I encourage anyone who is in the throes of searching for speaker
perfection to at least peruse his site.

And finally, FWIW, I ran across this article just the other day ...

"The Untapped Potential of Active Loudspeaker Systems" ...

http://the.sound-signal.com/index.ph...d=6:technology
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 496
7/15/09 at 9:23pm
Thread Starter 
mpmct -

I'm glad that you brought up the option of active speakers. From everything I've read, and from all of the testimonials I've heard, active speakers with electronic crossovers address some of the significant issues with passive speakers. I've still yet to hear them though.

Thanks for your input.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 496
7/15/09 at 10:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifisponge View Post

in my experience, even the "best designed and best measured" speakers that I have personally heard still colored/distorted the sound in some way that bothered me more than speakers with lesser measured performance.

My basis for perfection is the sound of reality. When I listen to a speaker, if it sounds like a real person is singing in my living room, or I can visualize a Steinway sitting between my speakers, then the goal of perfection has been met.

I think another thing that gets in the way of this goal is that recording engineers and record producers rarely if ever care a whit about "reality." Unless you're dealing with only "audiophile-produced" music, there's not a great deal of reality out there to be had.

Surely, a lot of our disappointment as audiophiles comes from the recording side of the equation. Do you have any thoughts along those lines? I too long for spine-tingling realism (wouldn't Realistic make a great speaker brand? oops...) but often the lack of palpability is at least as much the fault of the recording as it is the fault of the speakers. For example, there is a song I listen to by The Church which is typical guitar/drums/bass song. It's not a remarkable recording in any way except for the beginning where you can hear the guys talking in the studio. Just before the music starts there is the sound of a door knock, and if I'm not bracing myself it startles the heck out of me -- it sounds so real. I even have to stifle the urge to look in the direction of the knock. But soon thereafter the song starts and nothing sounds anywhere near as 'real'. I've had this happen on my stereo system as well as when I was wearing headphones.

OK, as long as I'm rambling, I have one more observation: no matter how good our systems are, I think we can imagine something better. Since we don't know how the original performance actually sounded, it is easy to imagine better imaging, more convincing realism, a wider or deeper soundstange, more explosive dynamics, lower lows, etc. In that sense it's easy to always be chasing better because better is easy to imagine. And it's very easy to be disappointed with equipment because much of what we buy has a significant amount of hype attached to it, whether it be marketing materials from the manufacturer, hot-n-sweaty reviews in a magazine, or the wild-eyed raving of internet fanboys. We think we finally have sonic nirvana in a bottle, and then it disappoints because our expectations are pretty high. One thing that I've noticed is that my setups don't sound all that great during the day because of the higher ambient noise level. So if one of you audiophiles came to my house during the day and listenend, I think you'd have a lesser opinion of my system than if you experienced it at 11:00 pm. The level of 'detail' I hear at night versus during the day is significantly different. It took me a long time to figure out what was going on, however. I didn't take this type of stuff into account years ago. And I know from experimentation that my spare bedroom is an inferior acoustic environment to the great room, because over the years I've gone back and forth enough times to hear the typical degredation that happens to a pair of speakers when I put them in that room.

Oh well. Interesting thread.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 496
7/15/09 at 11:31pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markwriter View Post

I think another thing that gets in the way of this goal is that recording engineers and record producers rarely if ever care a whit about "reality." Unless you're dealing with only "audiophile-produced" music, there's not a great deal of reality out there to be had.

Surely, a lot of our disappointment as audiophiles comes from the recording side of the equation. Do you have any thoughts along those lines? I too long for spine-tingling realism (wouldn't Realistic make a great speaker brand? oops...) but often the lack of palpability is at least as much the fault of the recording as it is the fault of the speakers.

Hey Mark -

I appreciate your level-headed and insightful contributions to the topic. You're right, other than audiophile recordings, there ain't much reality out there. Those bolded sentences of yours above are pretty much the point of my original post. How can you ever expect to be fully satisfied with a single set of speakers, when there is such a wide range of recording quality out there? Which is why I suggested that if someone were dissatisfied with the some of their recordings, to try EQ rather than a speaker or component change.


Quote:
Originally Posted by markwriter View Post

OK, as long as I'm rambling, I have one more observation: no matter how good our systems are, I think we can imagine something better. Since we don't know how the original performance actually sounded, it is easy to imagine better imaging, more convincing realism, a wider or deeper soundstange, more explosive dynamics, lower lows, etc. In that sense it's easy to always be chasing better because better is easy to imagine.

Another great point. If we don't know what the recording is supposed to sound like, we may place unrealistic expectations on what is possible to get out of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markwriter View Post

And it's very easy to be disappointed with equipment because much of what we buy has a significant amount of hype attached to it, whether it be marketing materials from the manufacturer, hot-n-sweaty reviews in a magazine, or the wild-eyed raving of internet fanboys.

I bought the Aerials when I was pretty new to the hobby and I thought I could make my choice on reviews and measurements alone. I read through every review of every speaker in my price range. I still remember to this day that Home Theater Magazine gave the Aerials the most glowing review I had ever read. It was the first time I had read a review on a speaker that didn't include a single complaint, not even a teeny weeny niggle. The measurements that accompanied the review seemed to confirm that they were as close to objectively perfect as I had ever seen at the time. I drove two hours to the only dealer in WA state that carried them and bought them "sight unseen". Talk about high expectations. I felt like I was going to unbox the Holy Grail in my living room. Lets just say that they failed to excite me once I had them up and running. I found the whole experience, frustrating, and puzzling. The FR was almost ruler flat, yet they sounded rather dull and "shut-in".
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 496
7/16/09 at 3:14am
how about the speakers in the system.
___________
stock photography
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 496
7/16/09 at 3:24am
You're a different man now then when you bought those Aerial's Tim. Now were you to reevaluate the same ones once more, knowing what you now know, having built what you've now built, would you have changed your earlier perceptions?
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 496
7/16/09 at 5:52am
Hi Fi sponge excellent post my friend.

and you are very correct. as a matter of fact when i was dj'ing full time i became aware of this very fast. as some vynil recordings were mastered at different levels you have to adjust the levels on the mixer accordingly when mixing two songs together.


so when you demo a system/speakers use a recording you are very familiar with and know how it is suppose to sound but even that is all relative.

cheers
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 496
7/16/09 at 6:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by paranormalg35 View Post

Hi Fi sponge excellent post my friend.

and you are very correct. as a matter of fact when i was dj'ing full time i became aware of this very fast. as some vynil recordings were mastered at different levels you have to adjust the levels on the mixer accordingly when mixing two songs together.


so when you demo a system/speakers use a recording you are very familiar with and know how it is suppose to sound but even that is all relative.

cheers

But that is the kicker. How do we know how it is supposed to sound? Our only reference to this is when compared to a sound we determined was "right" on some system. Another person may feel your "right" is not what it was supposed to sound like. Without being in the studio we have only a rough idea what it is supposed to sound like. The recording engineer's job is to make what was played marketable, not necessarily true to what was recorded. IMHO
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 496
7/16/09 at 7:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifisponge View Post

Well, I think that you would agree that no current speaker meets the theoretical ideal, so in that sense there is still no perfect speaker. Some get much closer than others, but in my experience, even the "best designed and best measured" speakers that I have personally heard still colored/distorted the sound in some way that bothered me more than speakers with lesser measured performance.

My basis for perfection is the sound of reality. When I listen to a speaker, if it sounds like a real person is singing in my living room, or I can visualize a Steinway sitting between my speakers, then the goal of perfection has been met. And I'll take a speaker that does that regardless of what the measurements show, though I would honestly love it measurements would help me predict which speakers would do this.

On that note, I would love it if there were comprehensive, reliable, easy to understand, and readily available set of metrics for speaker performance. It would certainly be much easier and a lot less costly if I could reference a set of graphs / standardized subjective descriptions that gives me a clear indication of the strengths, flaws and character of a speaker without listening to it. Unfortunately, I think we'll be waiting a while for that to happen.

Actually, let me step back for a moment and ask, which measurements do you rely on (what do you look for and how do you interpret what you see/read), what do you consider a good source for measurements, and which of the best measuring speakers do you subjectively like the best? Have you ever been surprised by the subjective performance of a speaker that measured well, or do they always line up for you? These are honest, well-intentioned questions, not loaded or hiding an ulterior motive. I wondering if I can learn something from you.

Good post,

You point about " though I would honestly love it measurements would help me predict which speakers would do this." is a great one and I created a thread a while asking a similar question..."what can not be measured". Your point probably sums up that we its still very hard to use all the measurements available to make speaker predictions. I think we are close but there is no real value in something like that from a manufacturer prespective....an accurate prediction system doesn't seem like a good thing for the industry as a whole and there will always be the faith side that thinks measuring, computer processing is dry and inaccurate to them because they do honestly take the name, price tag, looks,smell, feel of the speaker as part of the overall package.

Im currently a fan of CSD, Polar Plots, Distortion, Impulse and impedance measurements. I think these give a lot of details about how a speaker will sound, more then what most people think. The big problem is putting it all together somehow to give a summary (Prediction of performance). Im learning daily, its hard to find good measurements on consumer products so I live in the DIY world where people are gratious enough to do incredible meaurements for free.

When I something measures well it has zero to do with its on-axis FR plot...that is child's play to bad its what manufactures publish. Its not very meaningful to me.

There is a facility in California that measures speakers for $1500, I would think anyone spending HUGE $$$ would enjoy knowing the measurements of their speakers for a small percentage of cost but then again, I doubt they care about measurements.

In the end we both have a passion for audio but we come at it completely differently. Im not specific in my speaker needs, if it measures well (off axis is important), it does not have distortion during peaks then Im gong to be extremely happy.

Music for me is about the event and people, remembering concerts, parties, things that happened during songs.....I care little about the speaker during that time.

I do not play music to just listen, I play it while doing something.....I have ADD and I can not sit still
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 496
7/16/09 at 7:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifisponge View Post

I suggested that if someone were dissatisfied with the some of their recordings, to try EQ rather than a speaker or component change.

I have a behringer digital parametric eq that I still haven't gotten around to trying. Will do that someday.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hifisponge View Post

It was the first time I had read a review on a speaker that didn't include a single complaint, not even a teeny weeny niggle. The measurements that accompanied the review seemed to confirm that they were as close to objectively perfect as I had ever seen at the time. I drove two hours to the only dealer in WA state that carried them and bought them "sight unseen". Talk about high expectations. I felt like I was going to unbox the Holy Grail in my living room. Lets just say that they failed to excite me once I had them up and running. I found the whole experience, frustrating, and puzzling. The FR was almost ruler flat, yet they sounded rather dull and "shut-in".

My somewhat similar experience here is that I bought monitor audio rs8's based on the magazine review that said something like "in my 20 years of reviewing I've never come across a speaker that is all around good as..." the monitor audio rs6. I figured that whatever was going on with the rs6's would be the same in the rs8's, only with a little more bass, and boy did that turn out to be wrong. I came across the white papers on Infinity's site, read them all (a couple times...it took a while to absorb) and I bought the Infinity Primus 360's for $300 shipped from Crutchfield. After 2 minutes of listening to them, it was clear that they were clearly superior to the RS8's in many important ways, and so out went the RS8's. They were much more expensive ($1500), and yes, maybe it was my room or some other factor, or maybe the RS8's didn't get as much R&D time inside Monitor Audio as did the RS6's. I don't know. But I was able to get an extremely satisfying pair of speakers for $300, and the 'brother' of the highly reviewed speaker proved to be very disappointing (and I sold it for a loss, as well). I have Revel F32's now.

One pipe dream of mine is that someone would set up an evaluation lab on par with Harman's, and charge people to bring in sets of speakers and do DBT's as well as objective measurements. To folks like us that would be like going to disneyland. I tell you, the 5-part graphs that Harman produces in their spin-o-rama anechoic measuring rooms is way more thorough than what magazines can produce (except for soundstage and the NRC).
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 496
7/16/09 at 8:40am
Jeez, if the people who make the speakers, and who can write off the expenses, aren't about to spend a couple of thousand to benchmark their speakers, what makes you think private individuals are going to do the same?
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 496
7/16/09 at 8:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

Jeez, if the people who make the speakers, and who can write off the expenses, aren't about to spend a couple of thousand to benchmark their speakers, what makes you think private individuals are going to do the same?

I guess Im just different I have spend probably $1000 over the years buying drivers and amps just to ship them off to someone else to be tested. its all part of the hobby to me.

Heck I spent $2K on 2 pre/pros in April to test....I will sell them on ebay for a loss.
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 496
7/16/09 at 9:44am
Users will order this list differently, and I'm deliberately not putting it in any order here because that's a debate with no winners:

room
EQ/crossover/network
source
media (or source material if you prefer)
listening position
amplification
processor
system installation

All of these stand between a great speaker and perfection, either helping, hurting, or, rarely, staying out of the way.

In a recent DIY installation of a JBL Synthesis® Array One system at my place, augmented by paying a few grand to a HT designer for consultation and two grand for a real JBL DACS calibration, I learned a lot about the pursuit of perfection.

1. Synthesis® Array Monitors are amazing out of the box and beg the question, "Can these really sound any better?"

2. Putting acoustical panels on the front wall changes the room in astounding ways.

3. Putting diffusers (even cheap ones like I used) and absorbers at the right places on the sides and rear brings the room to life.

4. Actively bi-amping through networked Parametric EQ processors with pinpoint crossover control takes a speaker from amazing to stunning--I mean literally stunning, as in "Migosh, what just happened? I need a minute to get my wits back."

5. An honest 150-200W per channel from an amp that could double as an arc welder is more impressive than 500W/ch from any big consumer amp I'm familiar with, both in terms of volume and clarity.

6. Running dedicated power circuits (in this case two 20A circuits) really does make everything sound better, measurably better.

7. There are some things experienced professionals with the right equipment can do that you just ought to pay for, such as a calibration. I could never take this system to its current level on my own.

8. Size matters in unexpected ways. I never imagined how much of an improvement 18" drivers would be over 15" drivers with regard to LF clarity and articulation.

Of course I learned a lot more than this, but for the purposes of this discussion, that's most of what's relevant. All these things contributed to taking me closer to perfection than I've ever been, both for movies and for music, especially MCH.

However, I know it's not yet perfect.

Without taking all this (and probably more) into consideration, it's unlikely that the full potential of any great speaker can be realized.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › There is no perfect speaker . . .