There is a best of the best hi-fi speaker....

[b_panther_g]

I recently read a review where the reviewer listened to 2 pairs of speakers. He found them both pleasing but they sounded very different from one another.

He compared the speakers to 2 beautiful women – one slim the other curvy. His conclusion was that no one could say which woman was better – just like the sound from the speakers.

He then goes on to say that they are both great speakers and he couldn't decide which one is better. In terms of hi-fi, this reviewer is wrong!

When it comes to hi-fi speakers, there is a definite winner. The more accurate the hi-fi speakers, the better they are. So the most accurate speaker, is the best speaker - end of the story!

It's like the Olympics. The sprinter who runs the fastest gets the medal.

If you, the listener, do not like the most accurate speakers, that's fine. But you are no longer in search of hi-fidelity. You are looking for something else. You are looking for some sort of pleasing departure from the original. I'll repeat it, that is not hi-fi.

Bottom Line...Accurate sound reproduction is the goal!

In regards to the reviewer and his speakers...The more accurate speaker is the best speaker – the winner. If neither speaker is more accurate than the other (they show equal flaws but in different ways) then the speakers are flawed designs.

Just my thoughts.

Enjoy,
B

 

[zumbo]

Personal preference. That is how the winner is decided for me. Nothing is perfect, except for my wife.

Coming dear!

 

[MBauer]

Question

There are a lot of variables about accuracy. Really.

For example, is the recording of a live performance that most accurately reproduces the performance accurate? I think so, but which performance, if there is more than one? Given that today, so much of a perfoamnce is virtual, ie., produced by electronics, how accurate can it be if we don't use identical electronics?

A scenario for you. I go to see a performance by a major symphony one evening, you go two nights later, same program, but the humidty is differnet, the first chair oboe player is different, etc. So we, with our edetic musical memories we compare notes, you say my accurate lodspeakers are inaccurate, but in fact, the performance is different.

Second scenario, I think product XYX has the best amplifier, you think it's ABC, we have identical loudspeakers, they sound different on the same program materials? So which one is accurate.

I could go on and on (I won't) and your premise is good, but to really define accuracy we have to have a baseline, no varibles (including room acoustics) other than the speakers and perfect hearing.

My bottom line, I'll take the curvy one, matter of personal taste, a lot like speakers

 

[zumbo]

Yes. The curvy one. B&W

 

[b_panther_g]

Hello Mbauer.

You're right in that accuracy is not easily defined. There has to be a baseline.

But your example doesn't really work for me.

There are 2 parts to the system – the recording and the playback. Each part needs a different set of standards to ensure accuracy.

For example. Let's assume I am trying to record a live performance as faithfully as possible. If I'm recording a piano solo, the system I use needs to be setup in such a way so that it's distortion is below the threshold of human hearing (or as close to that as possible). That is the goal of the recording. And a system(s) need to be devised that ensures that I meet that goal.

Now for the playback. I need to listen to the recording as it was recorded. The playback system does not really need to be concerned with the recording system (how the event was recorded), it only needs to faithfully reproduce the recorded information.

Even if a middle C is recorded badly, and speaker A1 plays back the recording more accurately than speaker B1, then A1 is a better hi-fi speaker. Even though, in this case, it may sound worse.

I hope this makes sense...

Enjoy,
B

P.S. I like the curvy one too. The anorexic stick model look doesn't do anything for me.

 

[mustang_steve]

Exactly, the curvy woman wins, reasons why best belong in the minds of perverted young guys like me.

Well, to me, there are two schools of thought about audio. The "purist", and the "enthusiast", each picked for lack of better words. These are gross generalizations, I'll admit it, but it does seem to sum things up at least as a basic point.

Purist: his prime goal is to come as close to the end recording as possible, period. He goes for amps/gear with distortion factors, sometimes in the three or even four zero ranges (0.00x, 0.000x), and his speakers have to pretty much be the epitome of proper design. These are often the guys who dispell cable myths and so on,using them primarily for cosmetic purposes, although there are a slim few who still buy into the cable myths. A Purist would rather spend X amount of cash for teh greatest gain.

Enthusiast: These are teh guys who believe music should be about enjoyment, not worrying about specs. These are the guys who make the purists want to gouge their eyes out, due to their beliefs that cables should have a sound, they use vintage solid state and tube gear, which could possibly have distortion levels as highg as whole perctages. BUT, their systems DO sound quite pleasing, otfen with a wide range of music, including some bad recordings.

It's pretty much a toss up....I know a guy with a vintage setup, running JBL horn loaded drivers, and his system sonds gorgeous...however, it is not accurate...his THD was about 1% on his gear. My gear has a THD of 0.05 or something to that effect, but my speakers are the weak link...they pretty much bring out every last detail you DONT want to hear...but that's also the crappy recordings I have

 

[shokhead]

Just cant ask for a best of best in a market where there is so much best. You'll get 10 different best.

 

[b_panther_g]

Mustang Steve,

I agree with your description of the 2 audio camps.

I'll go as far as saying that enthusiasts are not into hi-fidelity. Their goal seems to be a personal quest for an individual's ideal sound. It's the auditory equivalent of viewing the world through custom colored glasses. Although the glasses may be pleasing, they are not true.

The purists are into hi-fidelity. They want everything as is. Don't sugar-coat or water-down their audio.

I think that we need to take a purist's view of audio if we are to come up with rules to make audio reproduction sound closer to live music (it would be ideal if audio reproduction and live music were sonically indistinguishable from one another). Hi-Fidelity is a science because fidelity can be measured.

Personally, I think that it'll be great when the average person walks by a bar and can't tell if the music they hear is from a live band or not. Now that's accurate audio.

Enjoy,
B

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

MBauer et al are needlessly confusing the overall accuracy of the whole recording/playback chain (where we are at the mercy of the guys twiddling the knobs in the studio) with the comparatively simple matter of determining the accuracy of a single component (speaker, amp, whatever). In the case of a single component the "baseline" is simple:

The output signal should match the input signal. This is determined by measurements.

Granted, the speaker/room interface is very complicated with zillions of variables, but even then there is a general consensus on what constitutes an "accurate" speaker: flat on-axis frequency response that is maintained over a fairly wide angle with smooth rolloff beyond that (as measured in anechoic conditions, which removes the room variables), and low distortion. Such speakers will "sound good" to the vast majority of listeners regardless of their audio sophistication, according to the oft-cited work of Toole and Olive.

Still, within that general consensus there is room for preferences even among us "purists", especially in how the speaker interacts with the room: wide (or omnidirectional) dispersion vs. "controlled directivity", monopole vs. bi/dipole, line source vs. point source, and so on. (For the record, I'm a "point-source dipole" guy.)

As to which speaker is best, the answer to that is also simple: MINE!!

I think b-panther-g nicely describes the two audiophile types, btw.

 

[miklorsmith]

I just got some new speakers

Zu Druids. 101 db efficient. They are the best I've heard. This discussion is an interesting one. I have become very interested in high-efficiency speakers because of the realism they provide, which I suppose puts me in the purist camp. However, very few high-efficiency speakers will provide exemplary upper and lower extension, focusing on the range from 80 hz or so to maybe 14k. Of course, this is a Gross generalization but does convey the point.

In their areas of strength, even a modest hi-eff pair will outperform very expensive types with multi-drivers and big crossover networks. I recently had an opportunity to hear some very expensive Spendor monitors which were ruler-flat across the spectrum, along with others. Low distortion? Yep. Flat response? Absolutely. Fun to listen to? Not in the least.

I suppose this redirects me to the enthusiast camp. I posit there is a lot more to the accuracy of speakers than flat response and low distortion. Anybody who's heard a good hi-eff setup knows exactly what I mean. They portray significantly better transient response (Snap!) and delicacy through the midband that no big amp/multiway I've heard has been able to convey.

Now, I haven't heard them all and don't pretend to be an expert. However, many people are discovering the real prowess this paradigm allows. If you think the two-way test is all there is, find a good small-amp setup to scope. You might just change your stripes.

 

[MBauer]

Ah, the debate continues

MBauer et al are needlessly confusing the overall accuracy of the whole recording/playback chain (where we are at the mercy of the guys twiddling the knobs in the studio) with the comparatively simple matter of determining the accuracy of a single component (speaker, amp, whatever). In the case of a single component the "baseline" is simple:

The output signal should match the input signal. This is determined by measurements.

Granted, the speaker/room interface is very complicated with zillions of variables, but even then there is a general consensus on what constitutes an "accurate" speaker: flat on-axis frequency response that is maintained over a fairly wide angle with smooth rolloff beyond that (as measured in anechoic conditions, which removes the room variables), and low distortion. Such speakers will "sound good" to the vast majority of listeners regardless of their audio sophistication, according to the oft-cited work of Toole and Olive.

Still, within that general consensus there is room for preferences even among us "purists", especially in how the speaker interacts with the room: wide (or omnidirectional) dispersion vs. "controlled directivity", monopole vs. bi/dipole, line source vs. point source, and so on. (For the record, I'm a "point-source dipole" guy.)

As to which speaker is best, the answer to that is also simple: MINE!!

I think b-panther-g nicely describes the two audiophile types, btw.

My expereince tells me that most "golden ears" wax profoundly about this performance or that performance, or how well a system reflects a performance. That was the point I was making, and the baseline I was describing.

So, I don't think, in my humble opinion, that I was describing a anything but the real world usage, always a product of the system.

And I still would take the curvy one

 

[JoeE SP9]

As speakers go higher efficiency does not mean higher accuracy. Higher accuracy means just that. The most accurate speakers I have ever heard were a pair of Quad ESL57's driven by Quad tube amps. No bass very smooth high end and an inability to play loudly. The midrange was to die for.

 

[bumblebee]

the best speakers for me should have this spec:

20Hz-20KHz +/-0dB

i'd take the curvy gal anytime

 

[Rob Babcock]

I don't think any speaker can perfectly reproduce music. Given that they're all a compromise, it's fair to say two speakers can sound different but be equally as accurate. Let's say, hypothetically, one was very linear thru the midrange but not so accurate in the treble, vs a speaker with very extended and linear treble but running a little ragged in the midrange. Which is "better" between these two? If hypothetically each deviated from flat by the same amount, which would you choose?

 

[miklorsmith]

Correctamundo

Agreed. No speaker is perfect. Otherwise, they would have quit innovating. It's all a matter of taste. I'd rather "see" string leaving finger than a flat graph.

Quads and planars are an excellent example of this. However, as noted, they have significant limitations. The Druids don't. They whisper, they shout, they'll play dance club techno or Willie Nelson without favoritism. They sound real. Everyone says this about their favorite though.

They don't need power, but they do need a quiet amp. My Clari-T, at about 2 pounds and 6 watts had them playing at 105 db 3 feet from the speaker last weekend, according to my RadioShark. This was on thunderbass techno music. No compression, no strain, no clipping. It was truly something to behold. It sounded like being at the club, aside from the lowest bass.

Speakers are about compromises. With these, they are very, very few.

 

[annunaki]

I would say that the Martin Logan Statements and B&W Nautilus would be tops on my list with Halcro amplification.

 

[sjdgpt]

Apogee Diva's if I had a house big enough to properly showcase those babies.

And speaking of Babe's. I prefer the curvy ones. The more the merrier.