Why Not Studio Monitors? [Archive] - Audioholics Home Theater Forums

Jack Hammer

11-10-2006, 06:15 AM

What would be "wrong" with going with high quality pro-audio recording monitors, such as
http://jblpro.com/lsr/lsr4300home.html
http://www.jblpro.com/LSR6300/LSR6300_index.htm

Both come with built in room correction, for adjustment at the "mix" location--just make that the listening location instead. Add a decent sub (or better 2) with a BFD.

Is that they are optimized for closer than the 8-12 ft normal listening distances? If they are flat, with smooth off axis dispersion, and the properly set up, would that matter?

(BTW, I did a bunch of searching in this forum before asking...did not find a really on point discussion).

Thanks

Bob
I'm not familiar with those speakers. Personally, i like an accurate sound. Not everybody does. Speakers preferences are completely subjective to each individual. For me, using what the pro's used makes sense to hear how it was intended to sound.

One problem, as I understand it, is some pro monitors are designed to be listened to at a very close distance, as short as just a few feet from the mixer. I believe this can affect the sound if a speaker designed to be listened to from such a short distance is used in a larger room. Think along the lines of intended use of product. (i.e., a good headphone sounds great at point zero, but not so good from half a foot away)

I'm sure some one with studio experience can explain it better than I can. That doesn't mean professional studio equipment isn't good, just that you want to make sure anything you use is used within the limitations of it's design.

Jack

jaxvon

11-10-2006, 01:20 PM

Many studio monitors are not designed for good off-axis sound; they are designed for super-accurate on-axis sound. In an HT environment, off-axis sound is important for creating an even sound for all the listeners. Additionally, as was mentioned before, unless the monitors you want can be adjusted for midfield placement, a nearfield calibration will not be the best possible setup when you are not locating the listening position in a nearfield location.

j_garcia

11-10-2006, 01:42 PM

I've listened to one system using Mackie powered monitors and it sounded amazing with music. If properly set up, it can be done. It may not be an ideal setup for HT.

Tomorrow

11-10-2006, 02:08 PM

Here we go again. Sorry for the left turn boys, but....I've said this many times on AH and no one has ever taken me on (I'm ready for it, lol)....there is no such thing as an accurate speaker. ALL speakers color sound and are designed with tradeoffs in mind, with priorities that include the pleasantness of the reproduced audio and cost/market factors. Speakers are nothing more than fictional representations of what something sounded like, recorded somewhere positioned near the original performance, as opined by some recording engineer with his/her hearing abilities, listening to his/her particular speakers/headphones/electronics that may or may not represent ALL voices/instruments (and their individual abilities)/sounds/silence/, in that particular sound studio/venue, and run through whatever format you're listening too (not lossy, of course) and all your front-end electronics in whatever listening environment you may have (that's unlike any other in the world).

Are you old enough to remember the commercial for Memorex tape? "Is it live? Or is it Memorex?" Let's see...It was ca. 1980, JBL speakers were big, Memorex tape on a high-end Nakamichi cassette deck, driven by a Technics integrated amp. Hell yeah, you could tell the difference. Or could you? It seems what we have today is more science, but the same old paradigms (not the speakers).

See AverageJoe's post from another thread, below. Psychoacoustics are everything!

A long, long time ago (no, not in a galaxy far, far away - but it was Southern California, so it may seem like another galaxy), a friend of mine participated in a review of some "incredibly innovative audio equipment that sets new highs in hi-fidelity" or some such jargon. I'm not sure when all this took place, but I met him in the mid 70's when he owned a small recording studio so it had to be before that. He had already been a musician, music producer, and was involved in the recording industry for years.

In any case, the organizers of the event had access to Hollywood Bowl for an afternoon, and set up a demonstration of the equipment for 25 or 30 local studio engineers, musicians, audio enthusiasts, hi-fi reviewers, etc. The type of equipment was not revealed and was set up behind a large curtain. The participants were told the music was previously unheard live rehearsals, and were encouraged to write down all impressions and observations - both pro and con.

Unfortunately, the "incredibly innovative audio equipment" was not very well received. The cons far outweighed the pros: "lifeless and flat", "overly exaggerated high freq.", "sounds like a low-end stereo". Some of the kinder reviewers thought it might sound better inside a room instead of outdoors - "You can't expect any equipment to perform well under these conditions".

Anyway, to make a long story short, after gathering up the reviews of the equipment, the organizers dropped the curtain to reveal a live orchestra.

At least two of the reviewers had guessed what was going on because it was written on their notes, but most were quite surprised.

I'm told this type of thing has happened a few times, but this was the only one I heard specifics about.

Jack Hammer

11-10-2006, 04:02 PM

Here we go again...there is no such thing as an accurate speaker. ALL speakers color sound and are designed with tradeoffs in mind, with priorities that include the pleasantness of the reproduced audio and cost/market factors. Speakers are nothing more than fictional representations of what something sounded like, ...
No arguements here.:) Maybe I should have used a different term, something more like neutral sounding...or whatever a better way of calling it is. All I really meant was some speakers are intentionally coloured to sound 'better' in some way. Some speaker designers try to limit the coloration, that is what I like. If I'm not using the correct terms or talking out my behind, just try to get the general drift of what I'm saying and not take it verbatim.;)

Jack

Tomorrow

11-10-2006, 04:32 PM

No arguements here.:) Maybe I should have used a different term, something more like neutral sounding...or whatever a better way of calling it is. All I really meant was some speakers are intentionally coloured to sound 'better' in some way. Some speaker designers try to limit the coloration, that is what I like. If I'm not using the correct terms or talking out my behind, just try to get the general drift of what I'm saying and not take it verbatim.;)

Jack

I gotcha, but I can only go by what you say. I'm not good at mind reading. :) But concerning the above (I've highlighted it)....ALL speakers are colored. No speaker or speaker design effort can limit coloration. Period. Some are just more or less pleasing to you.

But I'm glad you are with me on this. Would you be surprised to know that we're in the minority here? Just picking a number out of the air, I'd guess that 90% of the folks on this forum would agree with the following statement.....

"Speaker A (say a Sonus Faber or Wilson) is much more accurate than Speaker B (for example JBL or Yamaha)." Or, "Accuracy can be designed and built into a speaker."

And it just isn't so.

jaxvon

11-10-2006, 04:59 PM

I gotcha, but I can only go by what you say. I'm not good at mind reading. :) But concerning the above (I've highlighted it)....ALL speakers are colored. No speaker or speaker design effort can limit coloration. Period. Some are just more or less pleasing to you.

But I'm glad you are with me on this. Would you be surprised to know that we're in the minority here? Just picking a number out of the air, I'd guess that 90% of the folks on this forum would agree with the following statement.....

"Speaker A (say a Sonus Faber or Wilson) is much more accurate than Speaker B (for example JBL or Yamaha)." Or, "Accuracy can be designed and built into a speaker."

And it just isn't so.

RJ, what's your beef with accurate? If one proclaims a speaker to be accurate, that is of course asserting that it is accurate within the limits of reality. The finest monitors available often have super-linear response, linear off axis response, and distortion below the threshold of audibility. Taken together, I would say that this is a very accurate speaker. Of course it colorizes the sound, but not nearly as much as something that was not designed to be accurate.

Rob Babcock

11-10-2006, 05:15 PM

The mere point that perfect accuracy isn't possible doesn't obviate the need for studio monitors to be as accurate at possible. There's no reason why one couldn't enjoy a studio monitor as a home speaker, but they are designed with a different purpose in mind. Dispersion and, um, accuracy can be their main disadvantages in a home rig. Unless you're sitting alone in the sweet spot you may require better horizontal dispersion than most studio monitors provide. And the very flattness that makes them useful for evaluating mixes can make them sound a bit bright or harsh in untreated living rooms.

JackT

11-10-2006, 05:33 PM

Jack Hammer

11-10-2006, 05:50 PM

"Speaker A (say a Sonus Faber or Wilson) is much more accurate than Speaker B (for example JBL or Yamaha)." Or, "Accuracy can be designed and built into a speaker."

And it just isn't so.
Actually, I would tend to agree somewhat with the first statement. :eek: Except I would say "more accurate," instead of "much more accurate." (feel free to substitute the words 'colored' or 'realistic' or 'lifelike' or 'natural' for accurate);) I think some speakers produce a sound that is sonically closer to the original material than others do. Though I don't think it is necessarily a huge difference between well made speakers. And yes, :rolleyes: all speakers have some amount of coloration. And that is what makes people prefer them.:) I would say its how much coloration, what kind, and where in the spectrum it dominates. And of course, how ones ears percieve them. This varies from speaker to speaker. This is why some speakers are thought of as bright, warm, neutral, accurate, harsh etc...

Jack

Tomorrow

11-10-2006, 05:56 PM

RJ, what's your beef with accurate? If one proclaims a speaker to be accurate, that is of course asserting that it is accurate within the limits of reality. The finest monitors available often have super-linear response, linear off axis response, and distortion below the threshold of audibility. Taken together, I would say that this is a very accurate speaker. Of course it colorizes the sound, but not nearly as much as something that was not designed to be accurate.

I'm not sure what you mean by "accurate within the limits of reality", Jax. Something either is or is not accurate. As I've said, all speakers are merely representations of someone's opinion of what a sound should...'sound' like. Completely disregarding the actual speaker design, there are difficulties with positioning of the original source players, the source's venue acoustics, the method of recording, the biases/tastes of the recording engineer, the engineer's equipment, playback equipment, listening room acoustics, etc. ad nauseum. Speakers can be ubi-linear and even distortion free, but that doesn't mean that they're presenting a live performance in your listening room. Ergo...no accuracy. Even if one had a microphone on every instrument in an orchestra (multiple mikes for multiple sound producing instruments like one mike for each string on a violin), and a speaker for each instrument/string (etc.), you would still have all the above highlighted issues, plus an infinity more, such as speaker placement, listener audio sensitivity, amplitude subtleties, ringing effects, ambient electrical issues, and on.

Heck, one's listening environment alone can snuff the whole concept. Take a pair of what you would consider the most accurately designed (within the limits of reality?) speaker, cue up the Boston Pops Star Spangled Banner (on your ubi-accurate-linear preproampcdplayer), and play it in your dorm room...and then put it in Hollywood bowl (or any other place for that matter) and play it. The speakers will sound much different, won't they?! What changed? Is that indeed what the Boston Pops would accurately sound like in your dorm room? In Hollywood bowl? Where is the accuracy? Where did it go? Intentional or (more probably) accidental, I believe psychoacoustically pleasurable presentation is the aim of good speaker designers. Not some impossible notion of accuracy.

But perhaps more on the issue is this thought of a designer designing a speaker to be more (or less) accurate, as you mentioned. The honest answer you'd get from all designers is that the best eventual result from their designs, their 'trade-offs', would be a pleasant representation of audio sources.

My 2 cents, anyway.

ZoFo

11-10-2006, 06:17 PM

Elliah Fitzgerald if I remember correctly; and she was able to shatter a glass by hitting a high note.

Tomorrow

11-10-2006, 06:41 PM

There are physical limitations in both recording and reproduction of sound. Any real thing is by definition limited.

The act of recording captures only a subset of information contained in the the total sound field created by the source.

But it's silly to say there is no such thing as an accurate speaker. You can do your best with the information contained in the recording. For example, you can try to make the power spectrum of the sound coming from the speakers match as closely as possible the power spectrum of the sound entering the microphone. You can also make nonlinearities as small as possible, etc.

Saying there is no such thing as an accurate speaker is akin to saying there is no such thing as an accurate camera, or accurate film. It is true only in a non-useful, trivial sense.

Gee, I've never heard anyone, ever, call a camera or film "accurate". So, using your kind of logic, why would anyone want to call a speaker "accurate"?

All speakers are colored by a variety of intrinsically designed elements...crossovers, motors, driver material, etc. (Are they colored to be more accurate? There's a thought, eh?!)

Now, I've heard that there are color variations in film...Fuji tends to green, etc. That's an analogy I'll buy.

Rob Babcock

11-10-2006, 06:50 PM

Rob Babcock

11-10-2006, 06:54 PM

We're really wasting our time by being led down the garden path, here. There was a genuine question before this devolved into semantics. So as to that question, another reason studio monitors may not make ideal home speakers for everyone is that they don't include all the patterns generally found to be optimal for things like home theater. Perhaps for music, 5 identical speakers would be ideal. But for HT, many people prefer bipole or dipole speakers for surrounds, and placement/aesthetic issues often dictate a horizontally laid out center channel.

That said, there are some good speakers that were primarily designed as monitors. The SP Timepeices have garnered wide critical acclaim, and I know a few guys who swear by their Genelec monitors. I know at least one guy who really likes powered Mackies for music playback.

Tomorrow

11-10-2006, 07:05 PM

What is accurate? I'd say so long as the parameters are listed all speakers are "accurate." The only meaningful way you could define the term in relation to a speaker is by comparing the output to the input vs the stated deviation (eg 20-20khz, +/- 1.0 dB). It's not realistic to say a speaker isn't accurate because it doesn't reproduce reality flawlessly. A speaker isn't designed to mimic reality- it's designed to play back recordings. How would it even be theoretically possible for a speaker to perfectly mimic music unless the recording contained a flawlessly perfect image of that music?

Well said, Rob!!

And this is exactly my point. The terms "accurate" and "inaccurate" do not belong in the audio lexicon when speakers are discussed. These terms are used pretty flagrantly by professional speaker reviewers to indicate reality sounds..."Flughog Speakews pwesent the twumpet in Satchmo's album with unbewievable accuwacy!" :D

EDIT: The issue of accuracy as it relates only to a speaker faithfully rendering a recording is also wrought with difficulties...but that's for another day. :)

rsachs

11-10-2006, 07:15 PM

As to the Original Question: Thanks Rob for the response and clarification of the different roles. Yes, I'm familiar with the differences of HT vs Music and the preference for diffusions/dispersion on the surround channels for the former, but directivity for latter.

As to Semantics: There is indeed two different meanings of "accurate" at play here--RJ's meaning of 'accurate' in the sense of "perceptually realistic" reproduction of an original live event, and JackT's and other's in the sense of "measurably correct" reproduction of an input signal. Both are "valid" senses of accurate, but must be used appropriately. In other words, the real question is accurate *with respect to what?* As long as one is clear as to which sense of 'accurate' is being used, then a misunderstanding can be avoided.

Thus, I think its perfrectly its fine to say a speaker does (or does not) "accurately" reproduce an input signal, e.g., in regards to distortion, frequency linearity, etc.

Thanks again all

Bob

Rob Babcock

11-10-2006, 07:26 PM

Thus, I think its perfrectly its fine to say a speaker does (or does not) "accurately" reproduce an input signal, e.g., in regards to distortion, frequency linearity, etc.

Bob

In my mind that's the only real measure of accuracy we can apply to a speaker.

rolyasm

11-10-2006, 07:41 PM

rsachs,
I am not familiar with the JBL's, but I have heard the M&K S-150 THX ultra and was astounded at how revealing they were. They are intended as a studio monitor, but for a small to mid-sized room, they would be great. If you were in a larger room you would want something like the high output 250 version. I listened to them from about 10 feet away. Anyway, ever since I have heard the 150's I have been looking to find a used pair for my HT. You would probably want to use the dipole version for surrounds, but for the mains they are unbelievable.
Roly

Tomorrow

11-10-2006, 07:55 PM

In my mind that's the only real measure of accuracy we can apply to a speaker.

You may think my posts are off the mark and are semantic thread-robbing, Rob...but I ask you to look at the following remarks. THIS is why it's important to know what we mean when we're tossing verbage around about speakers and why one is 'better' (or more accurate) than another for some application.

"The CM1’s sounded bigger than they were, recapturing the majesty of these grandiose pieces in good measure, handling dynamic swings from solo instruments to full orchestra well. The slightly more laid back sound of these speakers put me at mid hall with the orchestra slightly below, consistent with where it should be with the slope of hall seating. Ambience and decay were reproduced with sound staging good enough to recreate the envelopment of the hall from the actual event. At the detail level, inner parts were discernable as well as nuances of detailed interplay between instruments.

Bartok’s ‘Concerto for Orchestra’ also was presented well by the CM1’s. Sound rich with the details of inner parts and hall ambience came through the speakers on ‘Introduzione’. Delicate micro dynamics between low strings to the flutes and upper strings were preserved in quiet sections while fanfares carried dynamics and separation while sounding full. Interplay of dissonant trumpet chords in ‘Presentando le Coppie’ was delicate and detailed. The ‘Finale’ also displayed the CM1’s ability to present detail, hall ambience, and separation simultaneously handling dynamics and transients while providing a full sound."

Nothing in the above segment of an Audioholics speaker review details accurate reproduction of the recording! It's all about being there...live...accurate reality. Where the author saved the day was with the following quote, which I honored him for providing. And I think he states what I've been at in this thread. I've highlighted a key part, as well.

"I will get off the audiophile high horse long enough to say this: absolute reproduction accuracy is an ideal that should be pursued, but realistically, it is not achievable. No equipment is perfectly uncolored and most recordings are less than ideal. For whatever reason: artistic intent, equipment limitations, bad studio acoustics, or technical incompetency, few recordings fit well within the ideal. With bad production, what can we realistically expect from reproduction? Many bad speakers add content in a non uniform fashion that skews the sound; for those rare cases where sound can be enhanced in a uniform way, it may not be all bad.

The ideal is also part of a double standard for if the sound is edited before the speakers, by say digital processing … Dolby Pro Logic IIx, DTS Neo6, stadium, club, etcetera… then it seems to be considered acceptable by many listeners. But these are not part of artistic intent unless the music was actually recorded as multi-channel and one is listening in the studio or a room with identical acoustics, on identical electronics, through identical monitors, then even the most dead on accurate speaker system is part of an editorial of the original production."

With apologies to Bob Sachs if these issues are irrelevant or deviate from your pursuit of information.

JackT

11-10-2006, 08:48 PM

jaxvon

11-10-2006, 11:45 PM

You may think my posts are off the mark and are semantic thread-robbing, Rob...[snip]

I still fail to see the point, RJ. Yes, speakers are never perfectly accurate. No one here is trying to push that message. However, modern technology is allowing us to get pretty damn close to ideal, and seeing how that is the limit of our technology at the present time, I would deem such a speaker "accurate".

Tomorrow

11-11-2006, 02:38 AM

I assume the bold sections are supposed to be especially significant. Yes, no speaker achieves absolute accuracy, but speakers can be accurate nonetheless. Unless you are of the opinion that the only accurate speaker is a perfectly accurate one. In which case, no rulers are straight, and there is no such thing as a circle.

That depends upon how you define accurate. Since you earlier related what I have said to an analogy of camera and/or film, then I believe we mean something different by the term. All speakers color a recorded signal in some way. If you wish to say that some speakers are less colored in their presentation than others, I do not agree. It is not a matter of degree. It's just a representation of a different color.

JackT, have you auditioned high-end, expensive and renowned speakers? I'm thinking of brands like Wilson, Salk, SP Technologies, Aerial, Sonus Faber, etc. If you have, you will agree that they all sound different. (There are dozens of brands in this price class. Why is that if they're all pretty much accurate?) They all possess a quality that's desirable (and expensive), but they are indeed, all different sounding. So where is the miniscule, not-quite-ruler-straight accuracy if they are all different? Why do these highly regarded speakers all represent recordings so well, yet sound so different, even when carefully A/B compared to each other? Are they not accurate? Or are they?

EDIT: Jax...does this answer your question? IF there was a modern science template for speaker asymptotic, near-pure accuracy, why isn't it cloned by all manufacturers (in whatever appropriate price class)? Accuracy is being presented here as a good and wondrous thing, brought to you by modern acoustic science. Show me any two brands of speakers that you consider accurate, and I'll show you two significantly different sounding speakers. How is this term 'accuracy' reflected in the real world of retail speaker making, then?

(It's just my answer to the above query, but I see speaker design as personal preference, experimental, and based upon acoustic trade-offs, and not upon some absolute parameters that spell out ACCURATE.)

Jack Hammer

11-11-2006, 02:46 PM

...The english language is in a constant state of change. Words are often used in ways that are less than ideal compared to the leteral definitions offered in a standard dictionary. Over time, these new uses become accepted as a new definition of those words and if used long enough, are added as part of the meaning of a word in a new dictionary release. So in current terms, the word accurate, as it applies to speakers is evolving to include a more linear response as a definition, even if the speakers do not create a sound that is 100% like the original sound they are mimicing.:) :rolleyes: ;) :cool: :)

I agree with the gist of what is being said, but I think it's being taken a bit too far. It's like saying that bright is not an acceptable use of speaker's sound because there is no light coming from it. :p

I'd just say, everyone should agree that they are somewhere on the same page, the only real diagreement seems to be the use of a particular word in the description.

Moving on...:)

Jack

bandit

11-12-2006, 10:24 AM

I'll just throw in my .02 here...

As far as utilizing studio monitors for a HT setup - I think much would depend on the layout of your listening/viewing enviroment. It was mentioned that most stuido monitors are more or less designed to be utilized for near field listening. I believe that is true - but in smaller rooms it may work out well. Probably the biggest factor is dispersion. As mentioned earlier - very accurate sound - but focused on one listening location. I imagine it would depend on exactly how the dispersion actually is on the speaker monitor you are looking at.

Keep in mind that in JBL's hay days - they had a studio monitor line and then would follow on with a 'home version" of these systems. They usually had identical drivers but the cabinets were taking the WAF into consideration.

Bandit :cool:

Nick250

11-12-2006, 12:00 PM

Bear in mind that monitors/speakers used during recording/mastering are heavily EQed and the studio is heavily treated as well. So, if you took the exact same speaker used during the recording and placed it in your listen room, the sound will completely different that what was heard during the recording/mastering phase. My take on this topic, buy what sounds best to you because there is no way you are going to reproduce or even know what went on in the studio.

Nick

WmAx

11-12-2006, 06:06 PM

The different 'sound' from loudspeakers that measure on axis similarly in respect to amplitude vs. frequency, comes down to factors such as non-linear distortion(s), dispersion and cabinet resonance(s). Most waterfall plots, btw, do not have satisfactory resolution into the common bandwidth that cabinet resonances reside(200-1000Hz) due to a limitiation of the measurement method used in most magazines. Most *quality speakers do not have distortion of a high enough magnitude during normal use to become audible[referring to known audibility thresholds of harmonic distortion as presented in credible publication], so that is not usually an issue. Oddly enough, I find that if you record even a moderately decent loudspeaker that measures within +/- 2dB in an anechoic environment, directly on axis, using a linear measurement microphone, and then compare it directly with the original sound source file, comparing the recording and original file on a reference transducer later, that the two will sound very close, a lot closer than many people would probably assume was possible. The real differences begin to emerge in a reverberant(real room) environment. At that point, the dispersion and resonances become a substantial factor, as they have the opportunity to be delayed then arrive at your ear after the initial direct sound. Floyd Toole referred to these issues in his perceptual research published in JAES in the mid to late 80's.

As for the direct subject at hand: others have already made it clear that studio monitors are usually intended for an environment with little to no reverberant field. Unless your environment also has this trait(and this is not a desirable trait for general sound quality according to experts such as Floyd Toole), then it is probably best to choose a speaker that was designed to operate optimally in a normal reverberant field. It is only fair to state that some studio monitors are suited to normal environments; it's just that most are not. Also, some hi-fi speakers are considered nuetral and used in studios routinely. B&W 802N, 802D, 801N and 800D[I might have missed a couple] are commonly found in 'high-end' studios, being used as monitors.

-Chris

Tomorrow

11-12-2006, 08:24 PM

The different 'sound' from loudspeakers that measure on axis similarly in respect to amplitude vs. frequency, comes down to factors such as non-linear distortion(s), dispersion and cabinet resonance(s). Most *quality speakers do not have distortion of a high enough magnitude during normal use to become audible[referring to known audibility thresholds of harmonic distortion as presented in credible publication], so that is not usually an issue.
-Chris

Chris,

Thanks for your input. I respect your knowledge level on these matters. This hobby is rife with hearsay and bias and I appreciate the technical information.

Certainly, speakers in this class share much in measurable values. And I know you're not limiting the 'sound' difference causitive factors to non-linear distortion, dispersion and cabinet resonance. (But it seems these can be significant issues, even in 'quality' speakers.) Wouldn't you (or Toole...I haven't read him) say, that while still offering a linear presentation, that crossover electronics, driver material, and other such brand/model design differences also may offer reasonable 'sound' variation? Theoretically, can we have two near-identically measured/performing speakers that don't similarly share psychoacoustically tested signatures?

My entire point in this exercise is to understand why some are saying that they prefer listening to a desirable class of speakers that share highly 'accurate' or 'linear' attributes, when the intrinsic design values may make grouping them irrelevant to listening preferences...this being due to acoustic presentational differences as stated (over and above issues of room acoustics or other psychoacoustic reasons).

WmAx

11-13-2006, 12:15 AM

Wouldn't you (or Toole...I haven't read him) say, that while still offering a linear presentation, that crossover electronics, driver material, and other such brand/model design differences also may offer reasonable 'sound' variation? Theoretically, can we have two near-identically measured/performing speakers that don't similarly share psychoacoustically tested signatures?

If the two speaker examples truly measure near-identical in all of the previously listed parameters that I specified, then their is nothing to suggest that they will sound substantially different from each other.

The crossover topology in a normal multi-way speaker is part of what dictates the off axis response(at and around the crossover frequencies).

Driver material means nothing in itself, but the specific use of particular materials in a particular execution will lead to defined physical behavior(s), which can be utilized for specific purpose(s). Examples of substantial effects are dispersion(in relation to break-up modes/diaphragm flex along proportionate area of the transducer) and frequency response(and in turn phase response and resonances). BTW, most modern drivers are almost always designed with FEA(Finite Element Analysis) modeling software which takes into account almost all base material behaviour(s) and allows for highly accurate prediction(s) in what result will be had by modifying a given variable in the driver design.

It is important to note that most speakers(even so-called high end examples) have substantial dispersion differences when compared to one another, even if the on-axis response is similar.

My entire point in this exercise is to understand why some are saying that they prefer listening to a desirable class of speakers that share highly 'accurate' or 'linear' attributes, when the intrinsic design values may make grouping them irrelevant to listening preferences...this being due to acoustic presentational differences as stated (over and above issues of room acoustics or other psycho-acoustic reasons).

I understand your concerns. But If you have two speakers with identical frequency response(in respect to on and off axis) and cabinet resonance behaviors, and both are operated below thresholds where audible non-linear distortion is present, then both speakers should sound identical. However, such coincidence does not often occur.

-Chris

rsachs

11-13-2006, 01:12 AM

The points about dispersion are well made by Chris and others.

I have a dedicated HT/Music room, so I can add as much acoustic treatment as I want, more or less. I have already installed a number of DIY absorbers at first order reflection points, along with bass traps. So I can make the room pretty dead if I wanted. At least I have the option to experiment with the approach. Darn, more speaker choices! ;)

Buckle-meister

11-13-2006, 08:23 AM

...most speakers (even so-called high end examples) have substantial dispersion differences when compared to one another, even if the on-axis response is similar.

Would it then be correct to say, generally, that various brands of studio monitor speakers will sound far more alike than non studio monitor speakers because the former are usually listened to on-axis and the latter off-axis but that if non studio monitor speakers were compared on-axis, different brands may well sound alike?!

jaxvon

11-13-2006, 06:09 PM

WmAx

11-13-2006, 10:43 PM

Tomorrow

11-15-2006, 11:24 PM

Would it then be correct to say, generally, that various brands of studio monitor speakers will sound far more alike than non studio monitor speakers because the former are usually listened to on-axis and the latter off-axis but that if non studio monitor speakers were compared on-axis, different brands may well sound alike?!

Let us be really clear, Robby. What you are asking is theoretically possible. But practically speaking, on or off-axis, no two speaker designs will sound alike because none share the same design parameters and measured output.

Might they be a lot similar...or a lot different? Well, yes. But that's a little like asking "How high is up?". And it still does not eliminate the need to actually audition speakers to determine which is which (how high the 'up' is ;) ) for someone's tastes and in their particular listening environment. Chris said, "Such coincidence (of relevant measurements) does not often occur." I'd go further and state that it never occurs among different brands. (It's difficult enough for speaker manufacturers to get their same-model individual speakers to perform within some tight performance criteria boundary limit...say +/-2%.)

Otherwise, why even bother with speaker reviews, auditions, sound rooms, etc? One should consider just why there are so many brands. I've been in auditioning rooms and listened to up to 10 different monitor-type speaker pairs...all on-axis listening. Not-a-one of 'em sounded like another. Were they all accurate? Bright? Detailed? Who knows? It depends upon the listener.

(Okay...I'm ready for the pounding, Jax. :) )

jaxvon

11-15-2006, 11:41 PM

No pounding necessary, RJ. I'm not sure if it *never* happens, but it is very, very rare that a speaker would measure basically the same in all parameters as one of a different brand.

As for the accuracy thing, I think there are two main definitions of accuracy. The first is how I define accurate, meaning the scientifically accepted and measurable "true" accuracy. "True" accuracy to me would be a speaker that has virtually no colorations due to resonance, a flat frequency response, inaudible distortion, and smooth off axis response. Very few speakers share these characteristics. It seems that your definition of accuracy is that which is perceived by the listener as accurate. This, of course, will vary widely from person to person and is, I surmise, at least part of the reason why we have so many different speaker brands. I think that if you think of accuracy in the sense I have described (two separate definitions), you won't have as much as a beef with the term "accurate".

Also, regarding Joe's experience years back with the orchestra...I believe it was outside, no? If this is the case, then it does not surprise me that the reaction to the sound was "dull" and such. Outside venues lose a lot of the treble due to the distances and the fact that much of the sound is dissipated without ever being reflected back to the audience. If the same thing were to be done in an orchestra hall with proper acoustics, I would wager that the results might have been different.

Tomorrow

11-16-2006, 12:50 AM

No pounding necessary, RJ. I'm not sure if it *never* happens, but it is very, very rare that a speaker would measure basically the same in all parameters.

As for the accuracy thing, I think there are two main definitions of accuracy. The first is how I define accurate, meaning the scientifically accepted and measurable "true" accuracy. "True" accuracy to me would be a speaker that has virtually no colorations due to resonance, a flat frequency response, inaudible distortion, and smooth off axis response. Very few speakers share these characteristics. It seems that your definition of accuracy is that which is perceived by the listener as accurate. This, of course, will vary widely from person to person and is, I surmise, at least part of the reason why we have so many different speaker brands. I think that if you think of accuracy in the sense I have described (two separate definitions), you won't have as much as a beef with the term "accurate".

Also, regarding Joe's experience years back with the orchestra...I believe it was outside, no? If this is the case, then it does not surprise me that the reaction to the sound was "dull" and such. Outside venues lose a lot of the treble due to the distances and the fact that much of the sound is dissipated without ever being reflected back to the audience. If the same thing were to be done in an orchestra hall with proper acoustics, I would wager that the results might have been different.

Thanks for being *gentle* with me, Jax. ;)

I agree with what you have said in the above...with two minor qualifications. One is that I don't have an issue with the term "accurate" per se...but in its use as a category of speaker (the 'how high is up' problem). My problem lies in the essence of what a speaker is...a transducer that makes sound for the ears to hear. It's essence is not how it measures on some measuring device(s). So any measurement is somewhat secondary to the thing's purpose, function, and impact upon an individual. In other words, if you say "I prefer an accurate speaker", what you're really saying is "I prefer a speaker that measures somewhat like this"...when, indeed, the sounds eminating from it can be all over the map.

Secondly, I think there are probably a number of other definitions of 'accuracy'. Rob mentioned just one, the 'ability to reproduce a recorded signal' was how I read his point. (That's a tough one to defend though, I think.)

I think you're on the right track with your analysis of the AverageJoe story. An interesting side note came from this acquaintance of Joe's. The fellow is/was a reasonably well known artist and recording engineer (name withheld to protect the innocent). He would laugh when bands would come into his studio for recording sessions and demand that he use their preferred speakers when he mixed the recordings. He had to keep a variety of monitors around, just because of their individual monitor brand preferences. :)

Diapason

11-16-2006, 05:11 AM

Tomorrow

11-16-2006, 08:31 AM

This is an interesting thread. As a PMC owner, I think studio-style monitors can have a place in the home, but many people don't like that particular sound.

Rjbudz, reading through this thread it strikes me that you think "accurate" is an absolute, and that comments like "more accurate" are meaningless. Is this fair to say? I'm surprised at this viewpoint. 100% accuracy in anything is virtually impossible to achieve, but it doesn't mean that some things aren't more accurate than others. For example, suppose I ask you to write the fraction 1/3 in decimals. You can't ever write that to 100% accuracy, but that doesn't mean that every attempt to do so is created equal. After all
0.25 isn't that accurate
0.3 is pretty accurate, and might be okay in some situations
0.33333 is more accurate
0.3333333333333333333333 is more accurate again, and so on.

The speaker's job, whether we like it or not, is to reproduce a waveform. Any musical or emotional responses a listener wishes to attach to it are his/her own business, but in terms of reproducing a waveform, some speakers produce a reproduction that is "closer" to the original than others in some measurable sense. That measure can be whatever you consider appropriate. Of course, personal preference is an entirely separate matter, but that's not the issue here. Some speakers simply *are* more accurate than others.

Si

Diaperson....it's good to see fresh thoughts joining in, here. Welcome.

I think you have misunderstood my thinking, perhaps based upon what others have said in this tread, particularly some inappropriate analogies. I have not included the listener's 'emotions' toward the accuracy of a speaker in any of my discussion. I may simply not be articulate enough to communicate my point.

Nevertheless....I don't feel that a speaker is more or less accurate (except perhaps in Jaxvon's definition) any more than I believe they are intrinsically more or less bright...and I say this in a relative sense....not an absolute one. I have no interest in discussing how a speaker asymptotically approaches some absolute "accurate" performance. Why? Because it serves no valid function to do so. Your percentage analogy does not describe anything relevant to my thinking any more than Jack Hammer's analogies did. Speakers only have attributes such as 'accurate' or 'bright' based upon psychoacoustic factors. Perhaps that's what you meant by "emotions". You may look for an absolute resolution of some particular waveform, but it is you and your hearing that will interject any attribute to the sound.

As Jaxvon pointed out, there are differing definitions of the term "accurate" as it relates to speakers. My point is that in no case (under any definition) is it appropriate to categorize a speaker, or group of speakers as "accurate", because the grouping has no practical meaning.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your particular definition of speaker accuracy seems geared toward the following: A piano (e.g.), in some location, emits a sonic waveform. The waveform is then recorded by some analog and/or digital means (and is engineer-manipulated based upon his or her opinions/equipment/training/ear). The waveform is then processed via some front-end equipment , and ultimately then is reproduced by the speaker...the closer to the original waveform, the more accurate the speaker. (Have I stated your position correctly?)

Here is the problem with that approach. ALL speakers have different sonic signatures (for reasons amply stated by WmAx and Jaxvon). When you go into an audition or comparison of a group of "accurate" speakers (or even 'non-accurate' speakers...your .25 analogy :) ), they're all going to sound different. Let's just concentrate on two studio monitors, each highly regarded as "accurate"...the SP Technologies Timepiece and the Salk Veracity H3. If you put those in any similar environment and listen to them, they sound very different. Which is more "accurate"? Which is the .333333333333 in your analogy? Who decides? You do...psychoacoustically. You are the one that interposes your opinion. A little modification in waveform can a large opinion make. (And by the way, unless you have the original performance played in your listening room and A/B'ed with your speakers, you can never know which among speakers, by your definition, is more accurate.) Perhaps you even have a waveform monitor on your lap. You happened to be at the original recording of this piece of piano music and you caught the signal as it was recorded. You now overlay that waveform with the reproduced signal from the Salks and the SPs. Now you do a deviation under the curve analysis and find that the Salk and the SP are equally 'accurate' using this measurement. (But one brand will miss the mark on the highs, one misses the lows...one misses the mids...) What to do? They sound so different. So what exactly is the sound of an accurate speaker? Which one is "'closer' to the original"?

Do you see the problem? It has nothing to do with some absolute approach to "accuracy". It has nothing to do with one's emotions when listening. It has to do with variance in speaker design and it's concommitant trade-off approach to reproducing that original sound. All speakers will sound different to your ears. That is the issue.

Diapason

11-16-2006, 09:32 AM

Thanks rjbudz, I think I understand your viewpoint a little better (I possibly should have spent more time reading the rest of the thread in detail before chiming in!) This sentence is probably the one that I found most interesting:

I have no interest in discussing how a speaker asymptotically approaches some absolute "accurate" performance.

While I absolutely understand this view, I'm not sure that I share it. The fact that something may or may not *sound* more accurate is, in my opinion, not relevant to a discussion of "accuracy". For example, I don't think I agree with this:

Speakers only have attributes such as 'accurate'...based upon psychoacoustic factors

For me, speakers have many attributes that can be decided without even listening. Dynamic range, frequency response, phase coherence can all be quantified, and can all be measured to be more or less accurate than some other speaker. As I said, how they sound to you, and whether your *perception* is of more accuracy is irrelevant to me. (Well, of course it isn't irrelevant ;) but for the purposes of my definition of "accuracy" it is).

We may at this point be talking at cross purposes, but here's a fairly extreme example to demonstrate what I mean. I listen to a lot of organ music, and I know that the bottom C on a 32' stop in the pedals gives a fundamental frequency of 16Hz. Now, if I play a sine wave of 16Hz (and I know that's not the same thing, but this is a thought experiment) through my speakers at home, the response is pretty much zero. Inaudible. However, if I play a sine wave of 16Hz through some state-of-the-art full range setup, there will be some response, and possibly quite a good response, at 16Hz. So, my speakers have an accuracy of zero playing 16Hz, because there is no sound at all. The better speakers are more accurate in the sense I'm referring to, because they can at least reproduce that frequency. Psycho-acoustics don't come into it. One speaker is simply more accurate to the input signal. Similar arguments can be made to other attributes, again in the measured sense.

Note, I'm not referring to speakers being accurate to a waveform heard in the church at the time of recording. I agree that there are too many variables to make that an achievable goal. However, the speaker is a transducer to turn an electrical input signal into an acoustic waveform. That transformation can be done more or less accurately by various measures, irrespective of the sound a listener hears, and their perception of it.

Of course, my speakers at home, for whatever reason, might convey to my ears the effect of being in a cathedral listening to an organ better than the full-range rig, but that is a separate question. I can't quantify accuracy in this case, that *is* a psycho-acoustic phenomenon. Some may argue that that's all that matters, but that, unfortunately, is in the ear of the beholder.

Si

Buckle-meister

11-16-2006, 11:33 AM

I've been in auditioning rooms and listened to up to 10 different monitor-type speaker pairs...all on-axis listening. Not-a-one of 'em sounded like another. Were they all accurate? Bright? Detailed? Who knows? It depends upon the listener.

I disagree Rjbudz.

In essence:

All a speaker does is mimic a signal.
Some speakers are more able at mimicking a signal than others. The more able, the more accurate.
How able the speaker is, is independant of human listening.

This post is accurate. :)

Nuglets

11-16-2006, 01:39 PM

I am enjoying this thread very much and the argument's from everybody are very interesting. Now for my input...I agree that a more accurate speaker would be one that takes an input signal and reproduces it as accurately as possible. I don't think that you can define an accurate as one that can reproduce the original sound in the venue/studio/etc. before it enter's the microphone. Like many have said, there are far too many variable's in this description of accurate. I think most people are coming to this conclusion also, so it is not 'inaccurate' to say that a speaker can be accurate in a sense that it takes the signal going in and reproduces it as accurately as possible.

Jack Hammer

11-16-2006, 02:02 PM

Actually, the one thing you said, RJ, that I kind of see what you're getting at was that there is no really definition of what the term 'accurate' means in reference to speakers. Maybe there should be a more widely accepted definition of exactly what that term encompasses.

BTW, I saw a tv commercial the other night for a Bose Lifestyle system. One of the first things they said was that it is one of the most accurate systems you can buy. Not to change the subject, there are more than enough threads on their systems. But, it got me thinking about what you had said and how there really should be a standard acceptance of what that term means.

Jack

Tomorrow

11-16-2006, 02:19 PM

I disagree Rjbudz.

In essence:

All a speaker does is mimic a signal.
Some speakers are more able at mimicking a signal than others. The more able, the more accurate.
How able the speaker is, is independant of human listening.

This post is accurate. :)

LOL, Robby. Is this post accurate independent of human listening? :p

Seriously now, how does one measure whether one speaker mimics a signal better than another?

jaxvon

11-16-2006, 02:41 PM

LOL, Robby. Is this post accurate independent of human listening? :p

Seriously now, how does one measure whether one speaker mimics a signal better than another?

With a calibrated measurement microphone.

Buckle-meister

11-16-2006, 03:00 PM

Firstly, in the interest of accuracy, my name's spelt Robbie, not Robby. Says it right there at the bottom. :D

...how does one measure whether one speaker mimics a signal better than another?

If one speaker possesses measureably better properties than another in terms of the ideal, that speaker will mimic a signal better than the other because it'll be able to 'map' the signal closer than the other.

Tomorrow

11-16-2006, 03:11 PM

Firstly, in the interest of accuracy, my name's spelt Robbie, not Robby. Says it right there at the bottom. :D

If one speaker possesses measureably better properties than another in terms of the ideal, that speaker will mimic a signal better than the other because it'll be able to 'map' the signal closer than the other.

Sorry, I forgot you enjoyed the..er..gentler spelling of the name, Robbie. ;)

But you didn't answer my question. I asked HOW do you measure the mimic ability of a speaker. You just restated your opinion.

Buckle-meister

11-16-2006, 03:27 PM

Sorry, I forgot you enjoyed the..er..gentler spelling of the name...

Hey, it's got nothing to do with me. Speak to my folks; they gave me it! :D

...you didn't answer my question. I asked HOW do you measure the mimic ability of a speaker. You just restated your opinion.

Well, I'm not an expert on speakers Rjbudz. It's not like I have an electrical or mechanical degree and/or work in the speaker testing/manufacturing industry. You know this.

I can't understand what the confusion is here. :confused: We're trying to reproduce something, a signal in this instance, as close as possible to what is inputted. The better the measurable electro-mechanical performance of the speaker, the closer the reproduction will be. And still this has nothing to do with listening.

Tomorrow

11-16-2006, 04:16 PM

I can't understand what the confusion is here. :confused: We're trying to reproduce something, a signal in this instance, as close as possible to what is inputted. The better the measurable electro-mechanical performance of the speaker, the closer the reproduction will be. And still this has nothing to do with listening.

Ah, but there is the snag, Robbie. Listening has everything to do with it if you're talking about sound reproduction (mimicking a piano, for example). You might want to reread Jaxvon's and Chris' comments and my reply to Jax concerning accuracy definitions. One simply cannot state that one speaker is a better mimic (accuracy) of a signal by measurements alone. Why? Because speakers all have different sonic signatures. (There is NO template of an 'accurate' speaker design.) Measurements may be similar, but sonic output may not be so similar.

And in practical terms ("what's the confusion here"?)...I know you've been in audio stores, auditioned and compared high priced, well courted speakers. Did any pair sound alike? You selected Mission Elegantes...beeeea-u-tiful speakers, I might add. Beyond their styling and price point, did you buy them (I assume you bought them and they weren't a gift) for the way they sounded (good mimickry?) or how they measured on some waveform monitor?

jaxvon

11-16-2006, 05:05 PM

One simply cannot state that one speaker is a better mimic (accuracy) of a signal by measurements alone. Why? Because speakers all have different sonic signatures. (There is NO template of an 'accurate' speaker design.) Measurements may be similar, but sonic output may not be so similar.

I beg to differ. I already mentioned what an accurate speaker would be. The different sonic signatures that you hear are measurable, and therefore you can guage accuracy with measurements. The problem is that often people only consider *one* type of measurement, rather than the whole set. A speaker might have ruler flat frequency response, but if it has resonances or high distortion, it isn't accurate, and will not sound the same as another speaker with identical FR, but lower distortion and lower resonance levels.

Tomorrow

11-16-2006, 05:43 PM

I beg to differ. I already mentioned what an accurate speaker would be. The different sonic signatures that you hear are measurable, and therefore you can guage accuracy with measurements. The problem is that often people only consider *one* type of measurement, rather than the whole set. A speaker might have ruler flat frequency response, but if it has resonances or high distortion, it isn't accurate, and will not sound the same as another speaker with identical FR, but lower distortion and lower resonance levels.

I think we agree, Jax, but I also feel like we're both starting to talk in circles on slightly different issues. Perhaps Jack Hammer had it right, and we just need to carefully examine the language and definitions within our hobby. And definitely, more DBT's are required!

EDIT: And oh, by the way....GO WOLVERINES!!!!

Buckle-meister

11-16-2006, 06:24 PM

Phew! Okay, after re-reading the previous posts...

One simply cannot state that one speaker is a better mimic (accuracy) of a signal by measurements alone. Why? Because speakers all have different sonic signatures...Measurements may be similar, but sonic output may not be so similar.

To me it's pointless judging the accuracy of a speaker based upon how it sounds in a room because of the latter's influence. To me, accuracy of a speaker is about the performance of the speaker's components as compared to ideal component behaviour. Whether or not the presentation you hear - that's hear, not necessarily what the speakers are actually delivering - is perceived to be close to the original is something else.

The sound in my room changed drastically with the introduction of my room treatment. I believe that your argument, that (as far as I can tell) it's what we hear that determines whether or not a speaker is accurate falls down because using the above example, first my speakers weren't accurate then they were, or more correctly stated, that they were simply more accurate with the introduction of room treatment than without, and that's clearly not the case - the speakers hadn't changed at all - only the sound changed.

...I know you've been in audio stores, auditioned and compared high priced, well courted speakers. Did any pair sound alike? You selected Mission Elegantes...beeeea-u-tiful speakers, I might add. Beyond their styling and price point, did you buy them...for the way they sounded...or how they measured on some waveform monitor?

Like most folk, I bought them for a number of reasons which included sound, looks and budget. I can't really comment on their sound apart from to say that I bought them for their sound from the point of view that I liked it, not because I thought the sound was accurate.

My current (3rd) system was bought before I came to know about Audioholics. I knew from having heard previous systems of mine in a variety of rooms that the room had an effect on the sound but I didn't fully appreciate just how much. I auditioned my speakers in the shop's carpeted, untreated room. My own room is uncarpeted, treated and dimensionally smaller.

I will never buy speakers in the future without demoing them in my own room.

Tomorrow

11-16-2006, 07:42 PM

Phew! Okay, after re-reading the previous posts...

To me it's pointless judging the accuracy of a speaker based upon how it sounds in a room because of the latter's influence. To me, accuracy of a speaker is about the performance of the speaker's components as compared to ideal component behaviour. Whether or not the presentation you hear - that's hear, not necessarily what the speakers are actually delivering - is perceived to be close to the original is something else.

The sound in my room changed drastically with the introduction of my room treatment. I believe that your argument, that (as far as I can tell) it's what we hear that determines whether or not a speaker is accurate falls down because using the above example, first my speakers weren't accurate then they were, or more correctly stated, that they were simply more accurate with the introduction of room treatment than without, and that's clearly not the case - the speakers hadn't changed at all - only the sound changed.

Aha...Robbie, we almost agree. But there is still the one point you aren't hearing from me. No, no, I'm not saying a speaker is more or less accurate based upon any parameters...hearing, measuring, whatever. To the contrary. That was my argument against others who were suggesting it. (It is the common thinking, I think you'll agree, that when someone speaks of 'accurate' speakers, they generally mean "sounds like real life".) I too disagree that that is a good definition of accurate.) What I said from the very beginning (check the thread) is that ACCURACY as a categorization, as in "I prefer accurate speakers", is irrelevant to speaker selection...using any definition of the term! Why? Because they all sound different. Rob accused me of nitpicking differences, but hear me out.

Suppose you define accuracy using all the parameters that Jax suggests. One can say that they prefer 'accurate' (Jaxvon's definition, which I'll accept but do not use) speakers....but that category becomes meaningless for the non-speaker related issues that you wrote of, OR WITHIN ANY ENVIRONMENT because even small variations from some ultimate, absolutely desirable measured accuracy (Jaxvon's definition) may result in meaningful auditory variation. So yes, you can define speakers as approaching measurement 'accurate'. But in real life, these similarly accurate speakers do not sound alike. If they do not sound alike, why would (or how could) one "prefer" a class of accurate speakers? They will differ in sound reproduction, in design, and within potentially significant measured parameters. It becomes the issue of how high is up? that I mentioned. Just what does an accurate speaker sound like?

Here I go, repeating myself again. I guess by now the point either has gotten to the reader or won't. Uncle.

Buckle-meister

11-17-2006, 11:20 AM

...It is the common thinking, I think you'll agree, that when someone speaks of 'accurate' speakers, they generally mean "sounds like real life.

I do.

...ACCURACY as a categorization, as in "I prefer accurate speakers", is irrelevant to speaker selection...using any definition of the term!

If the definition of accurate was with regard to the measurable properties of a speaker's components, we listen blindly and you are right, then logically there'd be no reason to buy, other than for taste, anything than the cheapest speakers available and I don't agree with that.

No doubt we choose the speakers we do because we like their particular sound, but blinded, I believe I am right in saying that people can distinguish between speakers that measure poorly compared to those that measure well without enjoyment of the sound forming the basis of that decision. I believe that how lifelike the sound is, is directly related to how well the speaker measures. Yes, that's it; it's the speaker that's accurate and the sound that's lifelike, therefore the first quote above hit the nail on the head. We agree! :D

The crux of your argument appears to me to rest on the premise that there's a seeming contradiction that different speakers that say measure accurately sound different, whereas I'm personally quite comfortable with the notion that speakers can sound different and yet still be accurate.