The Insanity of Marketing Disguised as Science in Loudspeakers

[kevon27]

Has anyone ever experienced this.. One day your speakers sound awesome (movies and music).. You're surprised how good they some for such a cheap price.. Then the next day (no modification made to anything) they don't sound all that great. And you're asking yourself, are these the same speakers that sounded to good yesterday and now today they ain't all that?

It's weird but it has happened to me. Maybe it's the mood I'm in which causes my perception of sound quality being good or bad to change.

[gene]

Fair enough. I did try to edit my comments (for whatever reason I could not) as I felt I went a little too far in dismissing your POV. For that I apologize. I do standby the fact that the appearance of a conflict of interest sometimes is just as bad as a true conflict of interest in the minds of the reader.

I did not know your qualifications other than I thought you were an engineer. I am impressed.

Thanks and quite frankly I've bottled up my opinions from editorials for so long, I felt like I finally wanted to vent my thoughts (correct or not) in an editorial piece and I was expecting a wide reaction like I've seen on this forum.

I try not to stroke my ego by touting my credentials too much. I am always humbled by folks like Dr. Sean Olive & Floyd Toole that dwarf my knowledge and experience in these areas. I enjoy learning from them but I also don't blindly accept published results, even from them, without questions raised in my mind.

[Philip Bamberg]

My observation is that many manufacturers don't publish graphical data at all. Or if they do, it is an FR graph which is severely "zoomed out" so as to make the +-dB wiggles appear very small. I mean, the vertical graph might show 80 or 100dB full scale! And this is still absent from brands that are fully capable of developing speakers with complete and valid measurement data and methods.

Anymore, it seems that a specs table is supposed to suffice, listing nominal impedance, bandwidth (FR extremes), and accuracy (+-dB variance from flat).

I do this, too, but then I also include a more comprehensive specs PDF binder which includes graphical data of appropriate resolution. I've even been criticized for the FR to look "rough", that is until the person looks closer at the left-hand scale and realizes the speaker is actually +-2.2dB.

[GO-NAD!]

I wonder if I need to restate this at the end of the article as some people in this forum are interpreting my editorial as anti measurements and anti blind tests?

I hope that isn't the impression that I gave you, as that is not what I took from your editorial. It would just be helpful if there was standarized testing of loudspeakers to help narrow down a field of candidates that one could then choose from, to audition at home.

[gene]

I hope that isn't the impression that I gave you, as that is not what I took from your editorial. It would just be helpful if there was standarized testing of loudspeakers to help narrow down a field of candidates that one could then choose from, to audition at home.

Believe me I am trying to make this a reality. I lose sleep at night thinking about this. I've spoken to Dr. Floyd Toole and many others in the industry on this very topic. I feel pretty good with how we are reviewing subwoofers and amplifiers/receivers right now and the industry agrees. I want to do the same with loudspeakers but the deeper I dig into this topic, the more complex I realize it is.

Here is my advice to those wanting more clarity on how to interpret data on speakers:

• know how the measurements were made and what the resolution was
• realize that distortion measurements are usually severely lacking in accuracy or in correlation to how the ear perceives distortion. Music is much different than sweep tones.
• recognize if a company claiming "similarly good" or "you can't do better beyond a certain price" that those claims are highly suspicious
• recognize that blind tests can be as biased and flawed as sighted tests
• recognize sighted tests can still be valid if properly controlled
• put more weight on reviewers that take the time to actually measure the products, consult with manufacturers to peer review their results, and give a detailed look inside the box and discuss design theory
• gather user feedback in the forums on the particular product you are interested in assuming they've actually heard the products in question
• trust your instincts, if something seems to good to be true, it probably is
• lastly and most importantly, demo the products for yourself!

I hate to admit this but before I started Audioholics, anytime I was set on buying a new pair of speakers, I would narrow it down to 2-3 models based on in-store demos. I would then purchase all 3 models and bring them home. I would spend weeks comparing them and writing notes. I would also do individual listening tests. I would also bring in my most trusted friends that are audio buffs and collect their opinions. I would then solicit them to help me bring the other two pairs back to the store. By the time I was done with my comparison it was quite clear I chose the right speaker for my needs and I typically lived with them for at least 5-6 years before upgrading again.

[wiyosaya]

Has anyone ever experienced this.. One day your speakers sound awesome (movies and music).. You're surprised how good they some for such a cheap price.. Then the next day (no modification made to anything) they don't sound all that great. And you're asking yourself, are these the same speakers that sounded to good yesterday and now today they ain't all that?

It's weird but it has happened to me. Maybe it's the mood I'm in which causes my perception of sound quality being good or bad to change.

Yes. I have experienced this, but perhaps not in the same way.

When I bought my current speakers, in the early 1990's, I auditioned two different pairs from the same manufacturer (Paradigm) at the store. One pair was a "higher end" pair than the other. Both had the same number of drivers, very similar specs, and a very similar response curve.

I brought along several CDs to use as test material. My experience was that some CDs sounded better on the higher end model, and some CDs sounded better on the lower end model. The only difference in the chain was the speakers. Same CD player, same amp - you get the picture.

My choice to purchase was based on this fact, and I chose the lower end model since I did not see the value inherent in the added cost of the higher end model. After all, if either model was just as capable of sounding not as good on different source material, I did not see the point of spending the extra money on the higher end model.

Long story short, source material is as much responsible for the sound coming from those speakers as is speaker design and everything in between.

One other possibility is that maybe if you were sick, had an ear infection, etc., this could also make speakers sound differently.

[djreef]

There are a multitude of differnt things that can change, including the thing between your ears that can affect sound and the perception of sound from one day to another. For example, my speakers always sound their best after application of 2 Dewars 12 Year on the rocks.

DJ

[lsiberian]

Just in case people mistook my statement I'm not at all opposed to DBT. I've used it as a basis for numerous design decisions and compression decisions. I will say that seeing a speaker does help me in evaluating it because I can tell a lot by looking at a speaker, but good sound is no excuse for ugly IMO. My wife may differ on that statement though.

I don't think a loudspeaker testing standard is impossible Gene. I think it's very expensive to pull off. I'd advise 3 placements for each speaker(on wall, 3ft, 6ft) in a typical living room settting, home theater setting and bedroom setting.

I wish you best of luck in this endeavor. It's not easy.

[Josuah]

Thanks for posting this editorial. I've been slightly turned off to the Audioholics community as a whole because of the whole "measurements" and "DBT" and "amps are all the same" vocal members.

The existing subset of published measurements are not sufficient to completely characterize the audio quality of a product. Large scale statistical testing may matter for a population at large, but not necessarily for an individual.

And thank you also for explicitly mentioning detailed can be the same as distortion and smooth the same as veiled. You have no idea how many people I run into thinking that something is wrong when this "stuff" is missing from a high-end setup, especially when very expensive gear also exhibits these characteristics.

[highfigh]

Tread carefully Gene. You start talking sense and the crazies will come out of their crazy rooms.

Looks matter. Good finishes inspire confidence and improve the listening experience. Why shouldn't we allow sight to influence our perception? Are we supposed to be robots?

"What kind of acoustic treatments do I need in my crazy room?"

Signed,
Confused

Cosmetics make us like the way our speakers look, but that is all. If some company can make speakers that are ugly (several do) but they sound better than the kind that are all sparkly and sound good/not great, why buy the pretty ones? Speakers are for listening to, after all. If not for WAF or guys who actually care about cosmetics, they could all be painted a neutral color and it would be OK. The cost of exotic woods and other materials doesn't make them sound better, so why use them?

Sex sells.