Speakers are all subjective!

[Seth=L]

I wonder what specifications you look at when purchasing speakers AcuDefTechGuy.

 

[no. 5]

While it may be true that in blind controlled tests, the majority of people will choose a sound with certain characteristics, that is a far cry from what happens when someone chooses speakers.

Peer values, company reputation, bragging rights, loyalty and many other human characteristics come into play. Why do we see posts saying you can't go wrong with brand x (yes, marketing really works)? Why does Bos sell so many speakers (yes, spin marketing really works too)? Why do people post "brand a is bad and brand b is the ultimate? Why do people post "I didn't like the sound of this speaker but I really liked that one"?

Testing in a controlled environment should not be confused with decision making in the real world.

Fred

If I am understanding you post correctly, I agree to an extent. In the paper "Audio, Science in the Service of Art" (page 10 - link) Floyd Toole touches on that to a degree; in a blind test, a plastic sub/sat system was subjectively rated somewhat higher than a highly rated product 'from a competitor'. But in a sighted test the product 'from a competitor' was subjectively rated a good deal higher than the sub/sat system. However, in both test the two large expensive (and presumably, high performance) speakers retained the highest subjective ratings.

Also, one could add that for speakers that do not perform well (that is, below the standards that mtrycrafts and avaserfi mentioned), the tolerability of its audible deficiencies may vary from person to person. To be correct, the thread could perhaps be: "poor performing speakers can be subjective", rather than all speakers are subjective.

 

[mtrycrafts]

If we compare 2 speakers in the same price range or quality, it would be harder to pick the winner, don't you think?

Like comparing the RBH Signature to a Linn Komri $40,000/pr or a KEF $20,000/pr?

Well, price is not a guarantee of anything except that you may be poorer
Toole also demonstrated this. Some expensive speakers are just that, expensive and have horrible sound when the curtains are closed
So, there is not an easy way to find good speakers, especially when you see the speakers

 

[WmAx]

Would bi-polar fall in the omni-polar camp?

Not usually. Typically, an omni-polar speaker has an even and wide dispersion at all angles, including the treble band. A bi-polar speaker is usually two typical monopolar speaker arrays back to back. So, while the bi-polar might have a similar rear radiation as an omni-polar, the bi-polar would have limited horizontal dispersion, just like a mono-polar system. If one used a front/back bi-polar set of drivers that had a flat and wide dispersion into the treble, then theoretically, it could act as an omni-polar speaker in the room. But I don't know of any retail bi-polar speakers that meet this set of conditions.

-Chris

 

[RickH]

Amen!!! Relying on someone else's reccomendation is like going into a nice restaurant and letting the waiter order for you. You might like it ... you might not. I had a friend who had a hearing defect wherein his recognition of higher frequencies was almost absent. When I would go to visit him it was like he had everything in his system turned off except the sub! (ok, I overstated that a little.) But the point is: your hearing, Room accoustics, power and pre amps, literally everything in your system is going to alter the end signal emitting from your speakers. That's why it's great that there are so many to choose from. And hey,if the absence of a little plastic logo does'nt give you any preconcieved notions....you can get some great plans online for some incredible quality speakers.....which will save you some big bucks. Or.....find some old high quality AR or infinity cabinets with blown drivers. try designing your own crossover and installing new drivers. They are readily available on line. Play around...experiment....you'll learn a lot too! Most of all have fun and enjoy the music "cause" thats what it's really all about!!!!

 

[jonnythan]

Most of the time, when I go to really nice restaraunts, I do let the waiter order for me!

They know what's good.

 

[gus6464]

I also found that blind testing speakers can be a crock sometimes as well. The Dali and B&W exhibited such a different sonic signature that we could tell which one was playing every time. So in these so called shootouts it's impossible to decide what speaker is better, just what speaker sounds best to each person. Hell at one point my friend went outside his apartment to get something from the car and when he returned he said "ohh I see you are listening to the Dali". You didn't have to cover them or blind fold us in order to not know which one was playing.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I wonder what specifications you look at when purchasing speakers AcuDefTechGuy.

I know you are just trying to make fun of me!

I looked at the 5-point-axis average frequency response done by Home Theater Magazine (BP7000SC) and the frequency response done by Tom Nousaine/Sound & Vision Magazine (BP7001SC & CLR3000). But I auditioned the
speakers at Ultimate Electronics before buying.

 

[Seth=L]

I know you are just trying to make fun of me!

I looked at the 5-point-axis average frequency response done by Home Theater Magazine (BP7000SC) and the frequency response done by Tom Nousaine/Sound & Vision Magazine (BP7001SC & CLR3000). But I auditioned the
speakers at Ultimate Electronics before buying.

I always take my shots, I guess I missed on this one.

 

[3db]

Until you close the curtains and cannot see the product

maybe I missed the boat on this ...but closing curtains doesn't hide poor speaker design or build qualities. I would think it would acctentuate the problem. If cabinet resonance is an issue for an example and you did not ahead of time which speakers you were auditioning, you should be able to say no, don't like that speaker as it sounds muddied and unclear.

Something tells me we may be arguing the same thing, just said differently

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I always take my shots, I guess I missed on this one.

Maybe next time.

 

[WmAx]

Fun Accounts of Listener Bias

maybe I missed the boat on this ...but closing curtains doesn't hide poor speaker design or build qualities. I would think it would acctentuate the problem. If cabinet resonance is an issue for an example and you did not ahead of time which speakers you were auditioning, you should be able to say no, don't like that speaker as it sounds muddied and unclear.

Something tells me we may be arguing the same thing, just said differently

What mtrycrafts means, is that Toole has discovered that psychological bias can mask, to an extent, a better sounding product. For example, in a referenced test in one of Toole's papers(I don't remember which paper, specifically), they had a group of test subjects rate a number of speakers in completely blinded conditions, where no knowledge of the speaker brand or model was present. The test was later repeated under sighted conditions. The listeners consistently picked famous/reputable speaker models as being superior as compared to less known units in the sighted listening conditions, even though listeners consistently picked the speakers in a different order(where lesser known/lesser reputable models were consistently picked) when the test was performed under blinded conditions. Now, the report of this did not specify HOW MUCH difference was scored by the subjects in that article that I read. I would speculate that their is probably some threshold level of 'better'/'inferior' that the psychological bias can no longer mask - but this was not covered in the review.

There was another Toole article that discussed when he had multiple trained listeners score the sound quality of something in blinded conditions. The listeners scored with the standard ratings, giving of course, some measure of flawed 'reproduction' comments in the test results; examples being imprecise imaging, lack of some clarity, etc.: the end results looked a lot like the scoring given a too a good quality hi-fi speaker system subjected to the same blind test methodology. The catch is, the listeners assumed it was a speaker system. In reality, it was a live acoustic band playing behind the curtain, yet it still received several critical scores that rated it below 'perfect' reproduction quality.

-Chris

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

The catch is, the listeners assumed it was a speaker system. In reality, it was a live acoustic band playing behind the curtain, yet it still received several critical scores that rated it below 'perfect' reproduction quality.

WOW.

That is extremely interesting!

So if a live acoustic band cannot be "perfect", how can any speaker be perfect?

Did the article correlate "flat frequency response" with having the best perceived sound?

 

[WmAx]

Did the article correlate "flat frequency response" with having the best perceived sound?

No.

Various researchers in this field have measured the frequency response at the listening position, and nearly all have found that a slight roll off in the treble should be present in the listening position, for commercial recordings to sound 'neutral' in tonal balance to subjects.

Here is a graph of the ideal response, as measured at the listening position, comparing the results of several highly respected researchers in the field. I tend to give the Toole response(the least aggressive curve on top) the most credibility, as he has historically produced the most important and credible series of scientific research in the field of loudspeaker and room sound reproduction:

http://www.etymotic.com/ephp/images/er4-old-graph.gif

-Chris

 

[Diapason]

The catch is, the listeners assumed it was a speaker system. In reality, it was a live acoustic band playing behind the curtain, yet it still received several critical scores that rated it below 'perfect' reproduction quality.

I find this interesting for lots of reasons, but it lends credence to a pet theory of mine that the vast majority of "audiophiles" don't really know what real instruments sound like, and this is especially true of acoustic instruments.

At a piano and sax concert, an audiophile friend remarked at the interval how bad he thought the sound was. He complained of a lack of clarity, really poor imaging and the sax having an odd balance. He simply wasn't used to hearing real instruments in real spaces, and had grown accustomed to the hyper-fi super-detailed sound that systems offer.

Regarding speaker subjectivity, it stands to reason that if sighted bias exists for other components, it's going to exist for speakers too. That said, it's interesting that when I sample CD players or amps in the company of others, we nearly always reach a consensus, but rarely do we agree on speakers (I am a believer in CD player and amp sound, even though I know that's a contentious issue). The question of "better" or "worse" certainly seems to be in the ear of the beholder when it comes to speakers, although maybe not in the broad categories that the hifi media would have us believe. Certainly, the interaction with the room seems to render a lot of the night-and-day differences into dusk and twilight.

Si

 

[3db]

I find this interesting for lots of reasons, but it lends credence to a pet theory of mine that the vast majority of "audiophiles" don't really know what real instruments sound like, and this is especially true of acoustic instruments.

At a piano and sax concert, an audiophile friend remarked at the interval how bad he thought the sound was. He complained of a lack of clarity, really poor imaging and the sax having an odd balance. He simply wasn't used to hearing real instruments in real spaces, and had grown accustomed to the hyper-fi super-detailed sound that systems offer.

Regarding speaker subjectivity, it stands to reason that if sighted bias exists for other components, it's going to exist for speakers too. That said, it's interesting that when I sample CD players or amps in the company of others, we nearly always reach a consensus, but rarely do we agree on speakers (I am a believer in CD player and amp sound, even though I know that's a contentious issue). The question of "better" or "worse" certainly seems to be in the ear of the beholder when it comes to speakers, although maybe not in the broad categories that the hifi media would have us believe. Certainly, the interaction with the room seems to render a lot of the night-and-day differences into dusk and twilight.

Si

You raise a good point but I think maybe that the room acoustics that the band was playing was marginal and smeared the sound a bit. When listening to recordings, the band playing are put into treated rooms that deal with reflections etc that could muddle up the clarity. Just a thought here.

 

[Diapason]

I'm sure you're right 3db, and I know that the room has as much of an effect on live performers as it does on speakers, but I still feel that the kind of hyper-detailed, pinpoint imaging presentation that many people expect is never really available in reality (and by reality I mean outside of the constraints of a studio).

Basically, I think many people would be disappointed with the sound of a real instrument in their listening space. Of course, maybe this shouldn't surprise us, since a full orchestra in my diminutive listening room would sound very unpleasant indeed!

 

[Joe Schmoe]

I keep going back and forth between two pairs of speakers that ech have their own assets but are quite different from one-another.
One is a pair of omnipolar towers with a huge soundstage and powerful bass. The other is a pair of tiny monitors with laserlike imaging precision and seemingly infinite layers of detail.

 

[3db]

I'm sure you're right 3db, and I know that the room has as much of an effect on live performers as it does on speakers, but I still feel that the kind of hyper-detailed, pinpoint imaging presentation that many people expect is never really available in reality (and by reality I mean outside of the constraints of a studio).

Basically, I think many people would be disappointed with the sound of a real instrument in their listening space. Of course, maybe this shouldn't surprise us, since a full orchestra in my diminutive listening room would sound very unpleasant indeed!

I agree. I never could get the imaging right in my head when listening to an orchestra playing full boil being seated in the 3rd balcony sitting back ohhhh I dunno, maybe 50 rows back

 

[Joe Schmoe]

I agree. I never could get the imaging right in my head when listening to an orchestra playing full boil being seated in the 3rd balcony sitting back ohhhh I dunno, maybe 50 rows back

But what is "right". Isn't an actual performance (presumably unamplified) as "right" as it is possible to get, almost by definition?