Audio Misconceptions?

[cornelius]

Speaker Brand X sounds better with classical, Brand Y with Jazz and Brand Z with....

Sound is sound and a good speaker will produce it accurately...be that a Belushi belch or Bethoven's Ninth...don't matter.

When was the last time you heard an "accurate" speaker?

In the real world, some speakers perform better with different types of music. It just depends on what their strengths and weaknesses happen to be. That also happens to be why some speakers pair up better with certain electronics.

 

[Spiffyfast]

I'd have to disagree. While a speaker should be highly accurate, all speakers color the sound in some way. The way some speakers colorize the sound compliments different genres of music better than others. Also, the way certain speakers interact with the acoustics of the room will work better with orchestral music than it will small trio jazz.

and how a lot of people like Klipsch for rock and rap

 

[sploo]

The sound coming out of the speakers hasn't changed at all.

Quite true, but... the sound that's hitting your ears has.

The modes in different rooms will cause different frequencies to 'boom', and comb filtering will cause all sorts of weird sound problems (especially in a smaller room, where you have little choice but to put speakers near the side walls).

You can, and almost certainly will, have peaks and nulls across the frequency range of upto 30dB. With treatment, this can be greatly reduced.

It's certainly true that a good pair of speakers in a bad room will probably sound better than a bad pair of speakers in the same room, but you'd be able to massively increase the sound quality of the good speakers (and improve sound from the bad ones too) with good room acoustics.

I've attached a couple of images. Both show the frequency response of the same room, without and with panels (that are placed at the first reflection points of the room's speakers).

You can see major comb filtering without the panels, and greatly reduced filtering with. The sound from the speakers is much improved - i.e. they sound good, like they sounded good in bigger rooms (I've not take any measurements from bigger rooms so I can't claim that it sounds 'like it does in another room', only that it's improved).

 

[Buckle-meister]

...[silver] won't oxidize like copper..

Eh? Why then does silver jewelry tarnish? White gold will too, because whilst it is approximately 75% yellow gold, the remaining 25% is silver, thus tarnishing more slowly than purely silver, but tarnishing nevertheless.

Silver definitely oxidises.

Regards

 

[Audiosouse]

When was the last time you heard an "accurate" speaker?

I've got six in my living room. I feel sorry for you if you've never heard one, they're magnificent! Two of the all time best speakers I've ever heard are not coincidentally extremely accurate.

Accuracy refers to flat frequency response. Although I don't care for the verbal diarea on the following site (unless you want to learn every cliched audio term in one review), the NRC independently tests speakers for them and provides measurement:
http://www.soundstageav.com/speakermeasurements.html

An accurate speaker comes closest to a flat line in the first two charts. This explains how to read them, an invaluable tool for anyone in this hobby:
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/test_loudspeakers.htm

The goal of an audio system is to reproduce the source as the studio intended it to be heard. A good one doesn't add it's own sonic signature.

In the real world, some speakers perform better with different types of music. It just depends on what their strengths and weaknesses happen to be. That also happens to be why some speakers pair up better with certain electronics.

Ok Morpheus. By that logic, you'd need different speakers for each genre. Good luck convincing the wife on that one! Only a poorly designed system tries to use amps, speakers and interconnects for attenuation; they do a random and piss poor job at it. Why not just buy an equalizer? Then you're free to change the sound infinately and taylor the music to your liking. Your saying to yourself "any self respecting audiophile wouldn't dare drop an equalizer in their system". That's exactly what you do every time you buy an esoteric piece with it's own "sound".

Why do you think some esoteric components work better with others? Your brain is attempting to flatten the frequency response by using components that are opposingly attenuated. That's why people don't put a "bright" amp with a "bright" speaker. Instead they'll put a "cold, analytical" solid state amp with a "warm" tube preamp or vice versa. Why not skip the foolishness and buy a system that's properly desinged (flat) in the first place?

I can understand if people are attracted to the trail and error ritual. Who doesn't like to bring new hardware home and try it out?

 

[jaxvon]

Remember that distortion plays a big part in the sound too. Tube amps tend to pile on 2nd order harmonics that make the sound pleasing to the ear. Speakers also exhibit harmonic distortion. An accurate speaker would have very low distortion. Unfortunately, most speakers do have distortion components well over 1% and into the audible range. For you this may not be right, but for some people, the way the harmonics affect the sound make an orchestra sound magical on their setup.

 

[Audiosouse]

I'd have to disagree. While a speaker should be highly accurate, all speakers color the sound in some way.

Only poorly designed ones, although two speakers can be accurate and not sound identical based on other factors such as it's dispersion or distortion levels.

 

[cornelius]

Audiosouse, what kind of speakers do you have at home?!?

 

[Audiosouse]

Audiosouse, what kind of speakers do you have at home?!?

I don't see the relevancy. This type of question is usually a lure for a "my speakers are more expensive, therefore better than yours so you don't know what you're talking about" shootout. If I paid more for speakers that didn't perform as well, I'd be agitated too.

For HT, Paradigm System Seven (Monitor Series v3) and for 2 channel late '80s Energy Pro 22 Reference (my first pair of "good" speakers), JPW AP2 and Athena S.5 sub that I got for $59 CDN 'cause they marked the box wrong! The next week they had the same sub on clearance for $299...I just love a sweet deal!

You'll find most Canadian brands (Athena, Axiom, Energy and Paradigm especially) purely adhere to the NRC studies they were part of in Ottawa during the late 70's and early 80's. They use those groundbreaking results as a strict design guidline...and as we all know, it works! Just check out the measurements in the link I previously supplied.

You can get great, accurate sound from Athena. Higher prices generally buy you fancier cabinets and lower extension (which doesn't matter if you use a sub anyway), but not better sound. NRC research quickly established price did not correlate to sound quality in DBTs. And if you can't see what your hearing, only your ears can guide you. Price, size, cabinet finish and the name on the front become irrelevant.

That's why I laugh when people say "I trust my ears". More like I trust my eyes. Unless properly DBTs are done, you can't trust 'em. Bias, bias, bias!

 

[tbewick]

A series of articles I looked at on the Stereophile web site explained, quite comprehensively, why loudspeakers sound so different from each other. Distortion ratings do help to give some impression of loudspeaker performance, but no single test will tell you whether a speaker is good or not good. You must consider how the loudspeaker sounds with your ears and well as running quantitative, consistent tests. Again referring back to the Stereophile articles, 'Measuring the Performance of Loudspeakers', there is correlation, as you'd hope, between the test results and the subjective ratings given for a reviewed loudspeaker. This would support the assertion that you can evaluate the quality of a loudspeaker by simply listening to it.

I'd disagree about the 'LP's being better than CD's' debate being a non-issue. From the limited understanding I have of digital audio, I'd say that it is possible for a poorly designed digital audio system to sound worse than an analog system.

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

It's certainly true that a good pair of speakers in a bad room will probably sound better than a bad pair of speakers in the same room, but you'd be able to massively increase the sound quality of the good speakers (and improve sound from the bad ones too) with good room acoustics.

That's been my point all along. Better to start with great speakers and fix the room later than have a great room and crappy speakers, no? My view still is that "Room acoustics are less important than speaker selection."

In other words, I'll be able to tolerate a set of B&W Nautilus series in a poor room much longer than I could tolerate a set of Bose cubes in a perfect room.

 

[WmAx]

The goal of an audio system is to reproduce the source as the studio intended it to be heard. A good one doesn't add it's own sonic signature.

I am confused as to the use of the word accuracy. At this point in time, sound reproduction is not an encode-->decode system. That is impossible at this time, due to lack of standards established in the recording, mixing, mastering production and playback chain. So far as what the studio intended? If you enjoy the sound of nearfield playback, then good for you. But that is not enjoyable(I wager for most people, and certainly for me) for any music that has ambient/reverberant content. A degree of coloration from the room in itself is desirable at the current state of sound reproduction for most people. Maybe in the not-so-distant future a standardized multi-channel system, recording process and mixing process will yeild a situation where encode-->decode sound reproduction is a possibility.

You should read Floyd Toole's summary on sound reproduction[especially the parts where he discusses accuracy and studio condition playback]:

http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/AudioScience.pdf

-Chris

 

[hopjohn]

I'd disagree about the 'LP's being better than CD's' debate being a non-issue. From the limited understanding I have of digital audio, I'd say that it is possible for a poorly designed digital audio system to sound worse than an analog system.

It was a generalization, stated by those I've heard who seem to think there is no CD that can match the quality of an LP. You make the point of saying that a poorly designed CD system could sound worse and I agree, but I could then say a pooly designed LP system would do the same in reverse, and I know of lot more poorly designed analog systems than digital.

Given that an LP is much more difficult to care for and by design is slowly eroded through play, I see no logic for this generalization which is why I listed it.

What I've typically noticed is that there is a nostalgic preference for the format that refuses to move to digital medium. That's fine, but LP lovers should admit it as such rather than making subjectively biased claims stemming from their "good ole days" syndrome.

Actually, to answer Hopjohn, yes, I have heard great speakers in a proper room setup and they sound great. I have heard these same speakers in a poorly setup room and they still sound good. The sound coming out of the speakers hasn't changed at all.

You're right, because it is the room's effect on the speakers you end up hearing as much as the speakers themselves.

IMO you'll see a greater performance gain improving your room than you will changing any other component, including speakers. Now, having said that, I do make for the exception of someone who is actually wanting to use such a horrible speaker that it would make for a bigger difference going from it to something much, much better, which I guess technically could prove me wrong. But why go to such extremes if the whole point is to have good system to begin with? Seeing as how nearly 99% of the speakers I see recommended here are of respectable quality, it is safe to say that room imporvements will make the larger difference.

 

[hopjohn]

In other words, I'll be able to tolerate a set of B&W Nautilus series in a poor room much longer than I could tolerate a set of Bose cubes in a perfect room.

Again with the extremes....sigh

 

[sploo]

That's been my point all along. Better to start with great speakers and fix the room later than have a great room and crappy speakers, no? My view still is that "Room acoustics are less important than speaker selection."

In other words, I'll be able to tolerate a set of B&W Nautilus series in a poor room much longer than I could tolerate a set of Bose cubes in a perfect room.

Well... OK. Let me compare the following:

1) Ancient all-in-one stereo system that redefines the meaning of 'cheap and nasty', in a room that has reasonable acoustics.
2) Good speakers driven by a decent amp in a room with really bad acoustics.
3) Good speakers driven by a decent amp in a room with good acoustics.

I don't think anyone would disagree that option 3 is going to sound the best.

Option 1 is my study room. Music on this system is pretty poor, but it is adequate.

Option 2 is my current listening/home-theatre room. Without any treatment loud complex music is extremely unpleasant - confusing reflections damage the stereo effect and everything sounds really unfocussed. As a friend of mine put it "it makes me feel ill".

Additionally, the room exhibits some really nasty peaks in low bass response which cause a few frequencies to boom terribly, thus making some music very unclear, and movie dialogue is totally overwhelmed by LFE 'boom'.

Now, taking the crappy system from the study to the listening room is really nasty, so yes, a better system is always preferable. However, from my admittedly limited experience, I'm certainly of the position that room acoustics are at least, if not more, important than the speakers.

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree. Most rooms are adequate for sound reproduction. Unless you're in a huge high ceilinged room with no carpeting, furniture, pictures or drapes, just bare walls and windows and wood floor, then yes, you'd get some horrible reflections. But I dont know anyone who has a room like that or who would even bother using said room for sound.

We all spend our times in living rooms, great rooms, family rooms, rec rooms that have furnishings adequate enough in most instances to deaden those reflections.

Therefore, assuming we live in a normal house with normally furnished rooms, the speakers are much more important than the room acoustics. In most instances, many of us don't even need to THINK about the room acoustics.

But even so, I can tune out my wife and kids, tuning out some unwanted reflections is child's play.

 

[cornelius]

Hey Audiosouse - I understand about listing equipment, I don't like to judge people on their systems - tastes and budgets vary. But...it does make me wonder when people start talking about neutrality and accuracy. That's a very difficult area, one that cannot be settled by the NRC. One measurement that I never see from them is the Step Response, which to me, and many others is THE most important measurement for speakers. A smooth frequency response on your typical speaker does not guarantee accuracy.

Don't feel sorry for me about missing out on the accurate speaker experience, I've heard some very "accurate" speakers, it's just been in mastering labs and mixing rooms - not at home. My rig and listening room will never be perfectly accurate, but it does hold it's own with some of the best that I've heard.

Also, don't whittle down more expensive speakers as only having nicer cabinets and more bass - I've heard some very expensive speakers that strive for accuracy. I do not buy into most of the esoteric stuff - as you know, there is WAY too much Hi-End BS out there - but it's not ALL B.S.

 

[sploo]

Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree. Most rooms are adequate for sound reproduction. Unless you're in a huge high ceilinged room with no carpeting, furniture, pictures or drapes, just bare walls and windows and wood floor, then yes, you'd get some horrible reflections. But I dont know anyone who has a room like that or who would even bother using said room for sound.

It's a fairly normal living room, though 'minimalist' - i.e. painted walls without too much clutter and wood floors. There's furniture, shelves, books, TV (the usual stuff).

Apparently these problems are fairly normal for rooms; take a look at some of the info over at www.realtraps.com.

In most instances, many of us don't even need to THINK about the room acoustics.

I seem to remember reading a quote - probably on this site - about room acoustics being the last thing we consider, when it should be the first. I'm as guilty as anyone, and spent a while trying to work out if it was my amp, CD player etc. etc. With a little education you realise than a couple of hundred $$ (or ££ in my case) of fiberglass panels with do more for your sound than any CDP, amp, new speakers or cables that are gold-plated-platinum-coated-oxygen-free-waxed-in-the-finest-Lampropeltis-oil and hand crafted by Brazilian virgins in country retreat .

 

[Audiosouse]

But...it does make me wonder when people start talking about neutrality and accuracy. That's a very difficult area, one that cannot be settled by the NRC. One measurement that I never see from them is the Step Response, which to me, and many others is THE most important measurement for speakers. A smooth frequency response on your typical speaker does not guarantee accuracy.

But it was settled 30 years ago when the most important criteria of a good sounding speaker was found to be flat, on-axis frequency response with wide bandwidth. I don't understand what's difficult about it, it's the one universal measurement of a speaker everyone agrees on.

Would you explain Step Response to me and it's relevance to good sound? How is it measured and how does it relate to what an individual hears?

By definition, a smooth frequency respone (flat on-axis) IS accurate, where accuracy is defined as the least deviation (dips and spikes) of the source and shown graphically as a flat line between the frequency range the speaker is able to reproduce.

 

[Buckle-meister]

...a couple of hundred $$ (or ££ in my case)...

Hey boy, looks like we can have that fight after all!

Gotcha!