*Rant/Idealism - Why can't there be an industry standard for speakers?

[speakerman39]

I guess after 8000 posts you learn a thing or 2

SheepStar

No doubt. But, it is also how you worded it. I can write well when I want to, but you just came right out with it that truly shows skill. And, as you said your 8K posts surely hasn't hurt anything. It is good that you have learned and grown in this hobby. I have as well. The best part is quite simple-I often learn something about this hobby everyday which keeps things interesting. Otherwise, burnout would set in quite quickly. Anyways, good job on the write-up Brian.

Cheers,

Phil

 

[no. 5]

Cost is one of the things keeping audio standards out of the loudspeaker arena, that and complexity. Most people don't want to go through all this to hear music, and are comfortable with what they have from their TV. Without a market, no product will soar, regardless of it's excellence.

Absolutely, and I agree, but an effective standard need not be as refined and detailed as what you outlined (although it would be preferable) to bring us an improvement. Right now there are zero standards for the acoustical performance of a loudspeaker, just look at what $3,600 and $274 can buy you. I do not think the issue in setting a standard lies in a manufacture being able to build a marketable speaker that meets reasonable tolerances of acoustic performance, but in getting people to agree on what the standard should be; many here would likely gladly accept a standard along the lines of what current perceptual research has outlined as "good sound", but what of speaker designers? Will they view off axis response as more important than phase response? What about resonance? Will every designer feel that they should go as far as possible to eliminate it?

 

[avaserfi]

In a way a standard has been created through perceptual research and in fact, many loudspeaker design companies seem to follow parts of it, but none follow it fully in all their commercial lines [not feasible] and very few use this research as an exemplar for their top tier speaker.

The first thing to note is that depending on application the standard would need vary. For example, if a loudspeaker was to be used for studio mixing in a near field environment the ideal loudspeaker and room requirements are vastly different from a far field studio environment and even father from the requirements of a loudspeaker whose goal is ideal perceived reproduction.

With regard to the example of a rating system based on speaker linearity: Such a system would be completely useless. Firstly, there are other variables that are just as important as a speakers on axis frequency response [as shown by credible perceptual research] such as distortion, polar response, cabinet and driver resonance etc... Also, the Q of each deviation is of utmost importance as well as the deviations relation to the axis [a dip or peak]. This is so because higher Q peaks/dips are less audible than low Q dips/peaks in many situations. Further, dips are less audible than peaks in many circumstances. So such a rating system would be virtually useless as loudspeakers that fall in class 1 or below could outperform loudspeakers in class 6 and even within class large deviations in quality would be had.

If a proper standard based on credible research was to be set into a list it would require any speaker that adheres to this list to have a variety of qualities which are not only unreasonable by most commercial design standards, but also vastly more expensive due to current production techniques. Also, as previously mentioned there would need to be various subsections of said standard accounting for near field listening [not as demanding] and far field listening as well as room interaction which is of utmost importance in typical home listening environments.

Now the JAES has created a standardized room for which much of the perceptual research is done. This room is designed in such a way to be representative of the average listeners living room furnished in various ways. So this would be a step in such a direction, but a typical living room will never be able to allow for optimal sound reproduction due to the necessity of specific [and fairly ugly] treatments for the ideal speaker.

So in an ideal world what would such a standard be for music reproduction?

For optimal sound reproduction [please note this is not necessarily a completely conclusive list, but just an example based on perceptual research and its findings on loudspeaker preference]:

-On axis frequency response with no deviation greater than 0.5dB 20Hz-20Hz [some could argue greater extension is required in both directions for such instruments as pipe organs and those who have hearing above the norm]

-Polar response matching on axis response in a full 360 degree pattern horizontally as well as +/- 90 degrees vertically

-No audible cabinet or driver resonances

-No audible distortion during normal playback or transient peaks [while this is rarely an issue many DIY and commercial designs seem to focus on distortion behavior so much that it is detrimental to other aspects of design]. Related: Dynamic capability such that during reasonable SPL there is no created distortion during transient peaks.

-Customizable tonality such that desired response can be had while maintaining all other previously explained aspects.

Now these are just requirements of the loudspeaker. There would need to be strict requirements for the room and all equipment being used. Not only this, but the recording methods used today. Since dynamic compression is so prevalent most modern recordings would sound no better on such an ideal system when compared to a system of far lower capability.

With regard to loudspeaker designers disagreeing on various aspects of design: Each aspect can be correlated to a specific part of loudspeaker performance. If a designer chooses to sacrifice one area it can be done while knowing what actual performance aspect is being sacrificed if the research is properly understood which from my experience seems rare. This is one reason I suspect that phase response is commonly dwelled upon when actual research shows its subjective effect to be minimal to nonexistent just like group delay or why distortion is commonly leaps and bounds below audibility yet resonance is almost always audible.

In the end, as with most consumer goods the final burden lay with the consumer. Doing proper research and understanding the issue at hand is paramount. Even with such standards in place some entity would need to be created to enforce them etc...There are still many areas of gray.

 

[FirstReflection]

Where is WmAx?

Lets look into what you're saying. Real life has nothing do with it. You're not loading real life into your DVD player then hitting play, it's a CD, DVD, Blu Ray, whatever. This is the source of sound. Since sound is subjective, and art(CREATING, not reproducing), it will vary from person to person. The job of the stereo is to reproduce the sounds on the CD, exactly as the CD reads. Having a CD player that can do this is very simple, and already achieved. Next you need an amplifier to take the signal and put it out to the loudspeakers without adding distortion or skewing the FR. Also achieved.

Wires... Achieved.

Loudspeakers, the weakest link. The loudspeaker must produce the sound form 20Hz to 20KHz without deviating more then 1.5dB above or below the source. Hard? Yes. Impossible? No. Also, you don't need 5Hz to 40KHz. You're wife may call you a dog, but you still don't have their hearing. B&W have made speakers that priduce 20H to 20KHz, WmAx modded some Infinity Primus speakers to do this. This isn't the hard part. The hard part is removing the cabinet coloration and resonance from the speaker. It's not impossible, but it requires a lot of labor and would be extremely expensive to mass produce. So now we have a clear sound, from the speaker. No coloration. But what about the room? It's going to change that perfectly flat signal into a Californian beach. You need to Treat the room with bass traps and acoustics diffusers and the like, but how much? And where? Well, how the speaker produces the sound will tell you. This is the key point to having surreal playback. Sound emanates from life like sounds, at more then 1 axis. If you want the same realistic sound in your stereo, your speaker has to also have a flat off axis response. This again is no small task, but it is doable, and has been done. The normal train of though is to treat the first reflection points, but if you have clear, clean sound waves going there, treating that spot is going to suck up that reflection that gives you a sense of depth and realism. I once knew the proper way to treat a room for Omnipolar speakers but I can't remember it. Hopefully WmAx will see this thread and post.

Cost is one of the things keeping audio standards out of the loudspeaker arena, that and complexity. Most people don't want to go through all this to hear music, and are comfortable with what they have from their TV. Without a market, no product will soar, regardless of it's excellence.

SheepStar

Awesome post. Very nicely done. And this is exactly the sort of industry standard I would LOVE to see put in place!

I think some people may have misinterpreted what I've said.

I never said I believed that ALL speakers must meet this hypothetical industry standard. In fact, I stated that I figured manufacturers would still purposely deviate from any such standard - just as they do with video.

My wish was simply that there BE a standard. So that just like video, when you go from one recording studio to another, nearly the exact same sound could be replicated. Then, if you were so willing and able, you could then have the option to recreate this same audio environment (room and speakers) in your home.

In video, the option to buy a display that can be calibrated to industry standards exists. Such a display typically costs more though. And the number of people who actually go to this trouble is very small! It's certainly not as though every TV out there MUST meet the industry standard - far from it! But what I'm saying is that the video standard does exist. You can go from studio to studio and see very nearly the exact same image on all of their monitors. And if I so chose, I can do this at home as well!

So I LOVE the idea of such tight tolerances as outlined by Sheep for audio!

Recording studios lay out A LOT of money for their gear and speakers. I truly do not believe it would be at all unreasonable to them to meet standards as strict as what Sheep has described.

The real point would be to have this standard and to have as many recording studios as possible follow it. On the consumer side, it's still a totally open ball game. Manufacturers can make whatever they like and consumers can buy whatever they like. And I'm positive they would!

But the OPTION would exist for me to build a room, treat it and populate it with speakers that meet or very nearly meet the industry standards. That would be my call and my option. But if it existed and I went to this trouble, I could then be reasonably sure that I was hearing, in my home, exactly what the recording artists heard in their recording studio! THAT is what I want