|
I don't disagree with you that the consumer loudspeaker market is fragmented in term of what they consider quality. We all seem to agree that amplifiers, and BLU-Ray players should be +- 0.25 dB but with loudspeakers, all sense of rational thinking seems to go out the door. I think this has to do with poorly controlled listening evaluations and poor objective measurements because when you have good subjective and objective measurements , consensus is usually reached.
That said, I think there is convergence over the last few years among the larger, more successful audio manufacturers in terms of what they believe the optimal target should be. I know this to be true because I do a lot of competitive benchmarking of loudspeakers, and the differences among competitors have shrunk. They are reading the available scientific literature and the measurement equipment, design tools,etc have come down in cost. Some even have anechoic chambers for doing accurate measurements but they don't always calibrate them or use them to their advantage.
There are still cases, where marketing/sales are clearly voicing the speaker to sound hyped in the bass and treble (Speaker B) and not natural, or they are going for high midrange sensitivity at the expense of bass in order to be the loudest speaker (Speaker C) on the floor at Best Buy. Or in the case of Loudspeaker D they clearly don't have any serious subjective/objective measurement capability or truly believe that coloring/distorting the music differentiates them from the pack. I've argued with misguided marketing people who think accurate sound is boring and not sellable, but fortunately they are long gone, and I am still here.
But on average, the design target for the majority of companies is flat, extended frequency response. The better ones get it right off-axis as well. The differences are how well they achieve their target and the devil is in the details. " Sean Olive Harman international |
Consider this:
I use protective glasses when I ride a bicycle. Thier primary purpose is to avoid damage to my eyex form projectiles like bugs or gravel. They also keep my eyes from being dried out by the wind. They usuaully come with four sets of lenses.
1. Dark shades
2. Clear shades
3. Amber shades
4. Yellow shades
The dark shades are to filter out bright sunshade and UV rays.
The other shades also filter out UV but are designed for low light levels such as clouds/rain and dusk/dawn.
We see then that the shades are acting as filters.
Intuitively we would think that the clear glasses would aas the medium of least filter. That is if we wanted to see things as they are actually are we would choose that one. thhen we choose yellow for early morning light/dawn, amber for evening light. Dark glasses for the brightest sunlight. Nowdays we have glasses thaat automaticall adjust as the light changes.
certisnly then we can us gleasse to ditort our back to 20/20. We can also amplify light or decrease it to bring it back to "a normal range."It would appear then the optimal speaker would be the replica of the clear glasses. How then do we define the "clear glass speaker?"
If we try and transfer this to speakers Ideally we want the that lets the music through. Empiraclly we would |
One would think then the speaker that measured best by traditional parameters would represent the "clear glasses" and sound best.i think we can agree this has not been the case.
That would make speaker design by manufactureres and selection of speakers by audiophiles exceedingly expedient.
Just look at the measurements and chose. Other factors suschas compatibility, practicality,etc. would still factor in. |
Carrying our clear glass anolgy to its logical conclusion we would expect the least colored spekered to bring forth the most vibrant sound analogous to live music. Yet most frquently we get the exact opposite. The excellent measurements translate t odull, lifelless and analytical.
A maddeneing conlcusion indeed. |
Yes anlytical has a negative connotation. SO does calling Musical speakers less accurate. Most proponents of analytical spekers calimthat cables have no effect and amplifiers all sound the same. Thefeore its the measurement group who claim they"can get awy with generic claims and basci amplifiers." One "skeptic" says zip cord is just fine and all you need in an amplifier can be had for $1k. |
A good explanation Josh.
It seems to me that a neutral (flat frequency response)speaker would not necessarily sound neutral. Let's go back to ny glasses anology. The clear glasse4s would let through the full spectrum of light. Whatever was there would come through. The mere fact that it(a speaker) always sounds neutral would indicate some type of "coloration." If truly flat it would present very different sounds based on the music prented to it. |
Hi Ralph
It takes me more than a few minutes but the results are similar to yours. |
"Years ago a Supreme Court Justice, in describing Porn said, 'I don't know exactly how to describe it, but I know it when I see it.' (Paraphrase)"
They went on to leave it up to community standards. What's obscene in a small town would not be obscene in the big city.
So like most speaker designers/ reviewer5s they punted. |
Unless you are a DIY yourself guy you are dependent on products supplied by manufacturers. Ultimately it is they who decide what you have to choose from.
The advent of large corporations put us in difficult position. Who are the arbiters of what we hear and the standard by which we judge it? When the baby-boomers die off what will the standard be? |
The question is what should the speaker do? Should it just pass the signal through? Should it correct the speaker to reflect the sound of real music?
What of unintended colorations? How do we prioritize there importance. Can we look at measurements and predict thier colorations? |
http://www.stereophile.com/features/99 |
A neutral speaker should not sound neutral. I would not want to be in the position of arguing that speakers that don't measure well are preferable. As Atmassphere pointed out, if a speker sounds good but measures poorly you are measuring the wrong thing.
I am a criminal defese attorney . When DNA testing first appeared I was against it because the sample size was way to small to apply it to the general population. That of course has changed.
Dr. Olive concedes that the results of his test (sample size)is too small to extrapolate it to the general population. Morever saying young people and audiophiles have the same preferences is not only wrong IMO but is not supported by any evidence that I am aware of it. The majority of those who heard speaker that measured well seemed to prefer them over speakers that measured less well. The good news is that as far as I know the test are ongoing. It is likely one day he will have a large enough sample with a proper demographic. Testing students on a high school field trip is hardly a scientific sample.
Drew Echardt- I heard the Orion at RMAF 2010. I liked them and found them to be very smooth. |
"While the small sample size of listeners does notallow us to make generalizations to larger populations, nonetheless it is reassuring to find that both the American and Japanese students, regardless of their critical listening experience, recognized good sound when they heard it, and preferred it to the lower quality options. "
Dr Sean Olive |
WHen you are dealng with marketing, you want to make products that customers will buy. No one wants to make what they think is a great speker and have it sit on the shelf.
Harman IMO has gone full circle. They not only think they make the best speaker. They attempt to replace your idea of what the best speaker is.
This may work on a focus group at the Harman factory, let's watch to see if it translates to the market place.
I drove a Mercedes with Harmon Kardon system. I was bored and certainly would not have purchased but for the fact it was OEM. That's just me. |
Phusis - I get your point.
I read spec/measurements. I read reviews. My ears are the final arbiter. As they must be. The question of course is what is my /standard/reference. I hope it's live music. |
"You want neutral speakers plus a tone or tilt control which compensates for the bad recordings so that better recordings are not compromised."
Ideally yes.
How do we know which componet is colored? Or if the source is colored? It has been suggested to me that EQ negatively alters the tonal balance of a speaker. |
"If it measures well but sounds bad you measured the wrong thing."
The current trend is to replace that with, if it measures well but sounds bad you are are indulging your bias and need to listen again under blind test conditions. |
"H. H. Scott was a manufacturer of tubed audio components back in the 1950s and 60s. The chief engineer was Mr. Donald von Recklinghausen. His most famous quotation goes something like this: "If a component measures good and sounds good, it is good. If a component sounds good but measures bad, you're measuring the wrong thing." To say that the wrong measurements have been made for decades would be to take the easy way out. It might be far more appropriate to say that in the absence of the "right" measurement, too much emphasis has been placed on the "wrong" measurement. While this "wrong" measurement is still an appropriate and valuable measurement to make, it is just not the most important measurement anymore." |
Humans are so unpredictable. |
The question remains who is the final arbiter? Measurements,reviewers or cutomers. Assuming some consensus could be reached about what measurements are important from a business point that would seem to be your choice.
Certainly there is no consistency between reviewers and customers. |
