Why Not Studio Monitors?

[Tomorrow]

In my mind that's the only real measure of accuracy we can apply to a speaker.

You may think my posts are off the mark and are semantic thread-robbing, Rob...but I ask you to look at the following remarks. THIS is why it's important to know what we mean when we're tossing verbage around about speakers and why one is 'better' (or more accurate) than another for some application.

"The CM1’s sounded bigger than they were, recapturing the majesty of these grandiose pieces in good measure, handling dynamic swings from solo instruments to full orchestra well. The slightly more laid back sound of these speakers put me at mid hall with the orchestra slightly below, consistent with where it should be with the slope of hall seating. Ambience and decay were reproduced with sound staging good enough to recreate the envelopment of the hall from the actual event. At the detail level, inner parts were discernable as well as nuances of detailed interplay between instruments.

Bartok’s ‘Concerto for Orchestra’ also was presented well by the CM1’s. Sound rich with the details of inner parts and hall ambience came through the speakers on ‘Introduzione’. Delicate micro dynamics between low strings to the flutes and upper strings were preserved in quiet sections while fanfares carried dynamics and separation while sounding full. Interplay of dissonant trumpet chords in ‘Presentando le Coppie’ was delicate and detailed. The ‘Finale’ also displayed the CM1’s ability to present detail, hall ambience, and separation simultaneously handling dynamics and transients while providing a full sound."

Nothing in the above segment of an Audioholics speaker review details accurate reproduction of the recording! It's all about being there...live...accurate reality. Where the author saved the day was with the following quote, which I honored him for providing. And I think he states what I've been at in this thread. I've highlighted a key part, as well.

"I will get off the audiophile high horse long enough to say this: absolute reproduction accuracy is an ideal that should be pursued, but realistically, it is not achievable. No equipment is perfectly uncolored and most recordings are less than ideal. For whatever reason: artistic intent, equipment limitations, bad studio acoustics, or technical incompetency, few recordings fit well within the ideal. With bad production, what can we realistically expect from reproduction? Many bad speakers add content in a non uniform fashion that skews the sound; for those rare cases where sound can be enhanced in a uniform way, it may not be all bad.

The ideal is also part of a double standard for if the sound is edited before the speakers, by say digital processing … Dolby Pro Logic IIx, DTS Neo6, stadium, club, etcetera… then it seems to be considered acceptable by many listeners. But these are not part of artistic intent unless the music was actually recorded as multi-channel and one is listening in the studio or a room with identical acoustics, on identical electronics, through identical monitors, then even the most dead on accurate speaker system is part of an editorial of the original production."

With apologies to Bob Sachs if these issues are irrelevant or deviate from your pursuit of information.

 

[JackT]

I assume the bold sections are supposed to be especially significant. Yes, no speaker achieves absolute accuracy, but speakers can be accurate nonetheless. Unless you are of the opinion that the only accurate speaker is a perfectly accurate one. In which case, no rulers are straight, and there is no such thing as a circle.

 

[jaxvon]

You may think my posts are off the mark and are semantic thread-robbing, Rob...[snip]

I still fail to see the point, RJ. Yes, speakers are never perfectly accurate. No one here is trying to push that message. However, modern technology is allowing us to get pretty damn close to ideal, and seeing how that is the limit of our technology at the present time, I would deem such a speaker "accurate".

 

[Tomorrow]

I assume the bold sections are supposed to be especially significant. Yes, no speaker achieves absolute accuracy, but speakers can be accurate nonetheless. Unless you are of the opinion that the only accurate speaker is a perfectly accurate one. In which case, no rulers are straight, and there is no such thing as a circle.

That depends upon how you define accurate. Since you earlier related what I have said to an analogy of camera and/or film, then I believe we mean something different by the term. All speakers color a recorded signal in some way. If you wish to say that some speakers are less colored in their presentation than others, I do not agree. It is not a matter of degree. It's just a representation of a different color.

JackT, have you auditioned high-end, expensive and renowned speakers? I'm thinking of brands like Wilson, Salk, SP Technologies, Aerial, Sonus Faber, etc. If you have, you will agree that they all sound different. (There are dozens of brands in this price class. Why is that if they're all pretty much accurate?) They all possess a quality that's desirable (and expensive), but they are indeed, all different sounding. So where is the miniscule, not-quite-ruler-straight accuracy if they are all different? Why do these highly regarded speakers all represent recordings so well, yet sound so different, even when carefully A/B compared to each other? Are they not accurate? Or are they?

EDIT: Jax...does this answer your question? IF there was a modern science template for speaker asymptotic, near-pure accuracy, why isn't it cloned by all manufacturers (in whatever appropriate price class)? Accuracy is being presented here as a good and wondrous thing, brought to you by modern acoustic science. Show me any two brands of speakers that you consider accurate, and I'll show you two significantly different sounding speakers. How is this term 'accuracy' reflected in the real world of retail speaker making, then?

(It's just my answer to the above query, but I see speaker design as personal preference, experimental, and based upon acoustic trade-offs, and not upon some absolute parameters that spell out ACCURATE.)

 

[Jack Hammer]

This is getting redundant...

...The english language is in a constant state of change. Words are often used in ways that are less than ideal compared to the leteral definitions offered in a standard dictionary. Over time, these new uses become accepted as a new definition of those words and if used long enough, are added as part of the meaning of a word in a new dictionary release. So in current terms, the word accurate, as it applies to speakers is evolving to include a more linear response as a definition, even if the speakers do not create a sound that is 100% like the original sound they are mimicing.

I agree with the gist of what is being said, but I think it's being taken a bit too far. It's like saying that bright is not an acceptable use of speaker's sound because there is no light coming from it.

I'd just say, everyone should agree that they are somewhere on the same page, the only real diagreement seems to be the use of a particular word in the description.

Moving on...

Jack

 

[bandit]

I'll just throw in my .02 here...

As far as utilizing studio monitors for a HT setup - I think much would depend on the layout of your listening/viewing enviroment. It was mentioned that most stuido monitors are more or less designed to be utilized for near field listening. I believe that is true - but in smaller rooms it may work out well. Probably the biggest factor is dispersion. As mentioned earlier - very accurate sound - but focused on one listening location. I imagine it would depend on exactly how the dispersion actually is on the speaker monitor you are looking at.

Keep in mind that in JBL's hay days - they had a studio monitor line and then would follow on with a 'home version" of these systems. They usually had identical drivers but the cabinets were taking the WAF into consideration.

Bandit

 

[Nick250]

Bear in mind that monitors/speakers used during recording/mastering are heavily EQed and the studio is heavily treated as well. So, if you took the exact same speaker used during the recording and placed it in your listen room, the sound will completely different that what was heard during the recording/mastering phase. My take on this topic, buy what sounds best to you because there is no way you are going to reproduce or even know what went on in the studio.

Nick

 

[WmAx]

The different 'sound' from loudspeakers that measure on axis similarly in respect to amplitude vs. frequency, comes down to factors such as non-linear distortion(s), dispersion and cabinet resonance(s). Most waterfall plots, btw, do not have satisfactory resolution into the common bandwidth that cabinet resonances reside(200-1000Hz) due to a limitiation of the measurement method used in most magazines. Most *quality speakers do not have distortion of a high enough magnitude during normal use to become audible[referring to known audibility thresholds of harmonic distortion as presented in credible publication], so that is not usually an issue. Oddly enough, I find that if you record even a moderately decent loudspeaker that measures within +/- 2dB in an anechoic environment, directly on axis, using a linear measurement microphone, and then compare it directly with the original sound source file, comparing the recording and original file on a reference transducer later, that the two will sound very close, a lot closer than many people would probably assume was possible. The real differences begin to emerge in a reverberant(real room) environment. At that point, the dispersion and resonances become a substantial factor, as they have the opportunity to be delayed then arrive at your ear after the initial direct sound. Floyd Toole referred to these issues in his perceptual research published in JAES in the mid to late 80's.

As for the direct subject at hand: others have already made it clear that studio monitors are usually intended for an environment with little to no reverberant field. Unless your environment also has this trait(and this is not a desirable trait for general sound quality according to experts such as Floyd Toole), then it is probably best to choose a speaker that was designed to operate optimally in a normal reverberant field. It is only fair to state that some studio monitors are suited to normal environments; it's just that most are not. Also, some hi-fi speakers are considered nuetral and used in studios routinely. B&W 802N, 802D, 801N and 800D[I might have missed a couple] are commonly found in 'high-end' studios, being used as monitors.

-Chris

 

[Tomorrow]

The different 'sound' from loudspeakers that measure on axis similarly in respect to amplitude vs. frequency, comes down to factors such as non-linear distortion(s), dispersion and cabinet resonance(s). Most *quality speakers do not have distortion of a high enough magnitude during normal use to become audible[referring to known audibility thresholds of harmonic distortion as presented in credible publication], so that is not usually an issue.
-Chris

Chris,

Thanks for your input. I respect your knowledge level on these matters. This hobby is rife with hearsay and bias and I appreciate the technical information.

Certainly, speakers in this class share much in measurable values. And I know you're not limiting the 'sound' difference causitive factors to non-linear distortion, dispersion and cabinet resonance. (But it seems these can be significant issues, even in 'quality' speakers.) Wouldn't you (or Toole...I haven't read him) say, that while still offering a linear presentation, that crossover electronics, driver material, and other such brand/model design differences also may offer reasonable 'sound' variation? Theoretically, can we have two near-identically measured/performing speakers that don't similarly share psychoacoustically tested signatures?

My entire point in this exercise is to understand why some are saying that they prefer listening to a desirable class of speakers that share highly 'accurate' or 'linear' attributes, when the intrinsic design values may make grouping them irrelevant to listening preferences...this being due to acoustic presentational differences as stated (over and above issues of room acoustics or other psychoacoustic reasons).

 

[WmAx]

Wouldn't you (or Toole...I haven't read him) say, that while still offering a linear presentation, that crossover electronics, driver material, and other such brand/model design differences also may offer reasonable 'sound' variation? Theoretically, can we have two near-identically measured/performing speakers that don't similarly share psychoacoustically tested signatures?

If the two speaker examples truly measure near-identical in all of the previously listed parameters that I specified, then their is nothing to suggest that they will sound substantially different from each other.

The crossover topology in a normal multi-way speaker is part of what dictates the off axis response(at and around the crossover frequencies).

Driver material means nothing in itself, but the specific use of particular materials in a particular execution will lead to defined physical behavior(s), which can be utilized for specific purpose(s). Examples of substantial effects are dispersion(in relation to break-up modes/diaphragm flex along proportionate area of the transducer) and frequency response(and in turn phase response and resonances). BTW, most modern drivers are almost always designed with FEA(Finite Element Analysis) modeling software which takes into account almost all base material behaviour(s) and allows for highly accurate prediction(s) in what result will be had by modifying a given variable in the driver design.

It is important to note that most speakers(even so-called high end examples) have substantial dispersion differences when compared to one another, even if the on-axis response is similar.

My entire point in this exercise is to understand why some are saying that they prefer listening to a desirable class of speakers that share highly 'accurate' or 'linear' attributes, when the intrinsic design values may make grouping them irrelevant to listening preferences...this being due to acoustic presentational differences as stated (over and above issues of room acoustics or other psycho-acoustic reasons).

I understand your concerns. But If you have two speakers with identical frequency response(in respect to on and off axis) and cabinet resonance behaviors, and both are operated below thresholds where audible non-linear distortion is present, then both speakers should sound identical. However, such coincidence does not often occur.

-Chris

 

[rsachs]

Monitors in HT/Music

The points about dispersion are well made by Chris and others.

I have a dedicated HT/Music room, so I can add as much acoustic treatment as I want, more or less. I have already installed a number of DIY absorbers at first order reflection points, along with bass traps. So I can make the room pretty dead if I wanted. At least I have the option to experiment with the approach. Darn, more speaker choices!

 

[Buckle-meister]

...most speakers (even so-called high end examples) have substantial dispersion differences when compared to one another, even if the on-axis response is similar.

Would it then be correct to say, generally, that various brands of studio monitor speakers will sound far more alike than non studio monitor speakers because the former are usually listened to on-axis and the latter off-axis but that if non studio monitor speakers were compared on-axis, different brands may well sound alike?!

 

[jaxvon]

Would it then be correct to say, generally, that various brands of studio monitor speakers will sound far more alike than non studio monitor speakers because the former are usually listened to on-axis and the latter off-axis but that if non studio monitor speakers were compared on-axis, different brands may well sound alike?!

That's how I read it. I participated in the listening test that Chris mentions (listening to a speaker recorded in anechoic space). I was astounded by how similar the original recording sounded when compared to the original source file. And this was one of those cheap $50/pr Insignia speakers that use a coaxial driver. But, as was also mentioned, when placed in a reverberent space (ie. your room), the deficiencies become much more apparent. But yes, if speakers measure very similarly in the ways mentioned, they should sound very similar. That said, very few speakers have similar measurements when all of the major factors are compared, and this can be attributed to the different sonic signatures that you perceive.

 

[WmAx]

Would it then be correct to say, generally, that various brands of studio monitor speakers will sound far more alike than non studio monitor speakers because the former are usually listened to on-axis and the latter off-axis but that if non studio monitor speakers were compared on-axis, different brands may well sound alike?!

I would reply, but Jaxvon beat me to it.

-Chris

 

[Tomorrow]

Would it then be correct to say, generally, that various brands of studio monitor speakers will sound far more alike than non studio monitor speakers because the former are usually listened to on-axis and the latter off-axis but that if non studio monitor speakers were compared on-axis, different brands may well sound alike?!

Let us be really clear, Robby. What you are asking is theoretically possible. But practically speaking, on or off-axis, no two speaker designs will sound alike because none share the same design parameters and measured output.

Might they be a lot similar...or a lot different? Well, yes. But that's a little like asking "How high is up?". And it still does not eliminate the need to actually audition speakers to determine which is which (how high the 'up' is ) for someone's tastes and in their particular listening environment. Chris said, "Such coincidence (of relevant measurements) does not often occur." I'd go further and state that it never occurs among different brands. (It's difficult enough for speaker manufacturers to get their same-model individual speakers to perform within some tight performance criteria boundary limit...say +/-2%.)

Otherwise, why even bother with speaker reviews, auditions, sound rooms, etc? One should consider just why there are so many brands. I've been in auditioning rooms and listened to up to 10 different monitor-type speaker pairs...all on-axis listening. Not-a-one of 'em sounded like another. Were they all accurate? Bright? Detailed? Who knows? It depends upon the listener.

(Okay...I'm ready for the pounding, Jax. )

 

[jaxvon]

No pounding necessary, RJ. I'm not sure if it *never* happens, but it is very, very rare that a speaker would measure basically the same in all parameters as one of a different brand.

As for the accuracy thing, I think there are two main definitions of accuracy. The first is how I define accurate, meaning the scientifically accepted and measurable "true" accuracy. "True" accuracy to me would be a speaker that has virtually no colorations due to resonance, a flat frequency response, inaudible distortion, and smooth off axis response. Very few speakers share these characteristics. It seems that your definition of accuracy is that which is perceived by the listener as accurate. This, of course, will vary widely from person to person and is, I surmise, at least part of the reason why we have so many different speaker brands. I think that if you think of accuracy in the sense I have described (two separate definitions), you won't have as much as a beef with the term "accurate".

Also, regarding Joe's experience years back with the orchestra...I believe it was outside, no? If this is the case, then it does not surprise me that the reaction to the sound was "dull" and such. Outside venues lose a lot of the treble due to the distances and the fact that much of the sound is dissipated without ever being reflected back to the audience. If the same thing were to be done in an orchestra hall with proper acoustics, I would wager that the results might have been different.

 

[Tomorrow]

No pounding necessary, RJ. I'm not sure if it *never* happens, but it is very, very rare that a speaker would measure basically the same in all parameters.

As for the accuracy thing, I think there are two main definitions of accuracy. The first is how I define accurate, meaning the scientifically accepted and measurable "true" accuracy. "True" accuracy to me would be a speaker that has virtually no colorations due to resonance, a flat frequency response, inaudible distortion, and smooth off axis response. Very few speakers share these characteristics. It seems that your definition of accuracy is that which is perceived by the listener as accurate. This, of course, will vary widely from person to person and is, I surmise, at least part of the reason why we have so many different speaker brands. I think that if you think of accuracy in the sense I have described (two separate definitions), you won't have as much as a beef with the term "accurate".

Also, regarding Joe's experience years back with the orchestra...I believe it was outside, no? If this is the case, then it does not surprise me that the reaction to the sound was "dull" and such. Outside venues lose a lot of the treble due to the distances and the fact that much of the sound is dissipated without ever being reflected back to the audience. If the same thing were to be done in an orchestra hall with proper acoustics, I would wager that the results might have been different.

Thanks for being *gentle* with me, Jax.

I agree with what you have said in the above...with two minor qualifications. One is that I don't have an issue with the term "accurate" per se...but in its use as a category of speaker (the 'how high is up' problem). My problem lies in the essence of what a speaker is...a transducer that makes sound for the ears to hear. It's essence is not how it measures on some measuring device(s). So any measurement is somewhat secondary to the thing's purpose, function, and impact upon an individual. In other words, if you say "I prefer an accurate speaker", what you're really saying is "I prefer a speaker that measures somewhat like this"...when, indeed, the sounds eminating from it can be all over the map.

Secondly, I think there are probably a number of other definitions of 'accuracy'. Rob mentioned just one, the 'ability to reproduce a recorded signal' was how I read his point. (That's a tough one to defend though, I think.)

I think you're on the right track with your analysis of the AverageJoe story. An interesting side note came from this acquaintance of Joe's. The fellow is/was a reasonably well known artist and recording engineer (name withheld to protect the innocent). He would laugh when bands would come into his studio for recording sessions and demand that he use their preferred speakers when he mixed the recordings. He had to keep a variety of monitors around, just because of their individual monitor brand preferences.

 

[Diapason]

This is an interesting thread. As a PMC owner, I think studio-style monitors can have a place in the home, but many people don't like that particular sound.

Rjbudz, reading through this thread it strikes me that you think "accurate" is an absolute, and that comments like "more accurate" are meaningless. Is this fair to say? I'm surprised at this viewpoint. 100% accuracy in anything is virtually impossible to achieve, but it doesn't mean that some things aren't more accurate than others. For example, suppose I ask you to write the fraction 1/3 in decimals. You can't ever write that to 100% accuracy, but that doesn't mean that every attempt to do so is created equal. After all
0.25 isn't that accurate
0.3 is pretty accurate, and might be okay in some situations
0.33333 is more accurate
0.3333333333333333333333 is more accurate again, and so on.

The speaker's job, whether we like it or not, is to reproduce a waveform. Any musical or emotional responses a listener wishes to attach to it are his/her own business, but in terms of reproducing a waveform, some speakers produce a reproduction that is "closer" to the original than others in some measurable sense. That measure can be whatever you consider appropriate. Of course, personal preference is an entirely separate matter, but that's not the issue here. Some speakers simply *are* more accurate than others.

Si

 

[Tomorrow]

This is an interesting thread. As a PMC owner, I think studio-style monitors can have a place in the home, but many people don't like that particular sound.

Rjbudz, reading through this thread it strikes me that you think "accurate" is an absolute, and that comments like "more accurate" are meaningless. Is this fair to say? I'm surprised at this viewpoint. 100% accuracy in anything is virtually impossible to achieve, but it doesn't mean that some things aren't more accurate than others. For example, suppose I ask you to write the fraction 1/3 in decimals. You can't ever write that to 100% accuracy, but that doesn't mean that every attempt to do so is created equal. After all
0.25 isn't that accurate
0.3 is pretty accurate, and might be okay in some situations
0.33333 is more accurate
0.3333333333333333333333 is more accurate again, and so on.

The speaker's job, whether we like it or not, is to reproduce a waveform. Any musical or emotional responses a listener wishes to attach to it are his/her own business, but in terms of reproducing a waveform, some speakers produce a reproduction that is "closer" to the original than others in some measurable sense. That measure can be whatever you consider appropriate. Of course, personal preference is an entirely separate matter, but that's not the issue here. Some speakers simply *are* more accurate than others.

Si

Diaperson....it's good to see fresh thoughts joining in, here. Welcome.

I think you have misunderstood my thinking, perhaps based upon what others have said in this tread, particularly some inappropriate analogies. I have not included the listener's 'emotions' toward the accuracy of a speaker in any of my discussion. I may simply not be articulate enough to communicate my point.

Nevertheless....I don't feel that a speaker is more or less accurate (except perhaps in Jaxvon's definition) any more than I believe they are intrinsically more or less bright...and I say this in a relative sense....not an absolute one. I have no interest in discussing how a speaker asymptotically approaches some absolute "accurate" performance. Why? Because it serves no valid function to do so. Your percentage analogy does not describe anything relevant to my thinking any more than Jack Hammer's analogies did. Speakers only have attributes such as 'accurate' or 'bright' based upon psychoacoustic factors. Perhaps that's what you meant by "emotions". You may look for an absolute resolution of some particular waveform, but it is you and your hearing that will interject any attribute to the sound.

As Jaxvon pointed out, there are differing definitions of the term "accurate" as it relates to speakers. My point is that in no case (under any definition) is it appropriate to categorize a speaker, or group of speakers as "accurate", because the grouping has no practical meaning.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your particular definition of speaker accuracy seems geared toward the following: A piano (e.g.), in some location, emits a sonic waveform. The waveform is then recorded by some analog and/or digital means (and is engineer-manipulated based upon his or her opinions/equipment/training/ear). The waveform is then processed via some front-end equipment , and ultimately then is reproduced by the speaker...the closer to the original waveform, the more accurate the speaker. (Have I stated your position correctly?)

Here is the problem with that approach. ALL speakers have different sonic signatures (for reasons amply stated by WmAx and Jaxvon). When you go into an audition or comparison of a group of "accurate" speakers (or even 'non-accurate' speakers...your .25 analogy ), they're all going to sound different. Let's just concentrate on two studio monitors, each highly regarded as "accurate"...the SP Technologies Timepiece and the Salk Veracity H3. If you put those in any similar environment and listen to them, they sound very different. Which is more "accurate"? Which is the .333333333333 in your analogy? Who decides? You do...psychoacoustically. You are the one that interposes your opinion. A little modification in waveform can a large opinion make. (And by the way, unless you have the original performance played in your listening room and A/B'ed with your speakers, you can never know which among speakers, by your definition, is more accurate.) Perhaps you even have a waveform monitor on your lap. You happened to be at the original recording of this piece of piano music and you caught the signal as it was recorded. You now overlay that waveform with the reproduced signal from the Salks and the SPs. Now you do a deviation under the curve analysis and find that the Salk and the SP are equally 'accurate' using this measurement. (But one brand will miss the mark on the highs, one misses the lows...one misses the mids...) What to do? They sound so different. So what exactly is the sound of an accurate speaker? Which one is "'closer' to the original"?

Do you see the problem? It has nothing to do with some absolute approach to "accuracy". It has nothing to do with one's emotions when listening. It has to do with variance in speaker design and it's concommitant trade-off approach to reproducing that original sound. All speakers will sound different to your ears. That is the issue.

 

[Diapason]

Thanks rjbudz, I think I understand your viewpoint a little better (I possibly should have spent more time reading the rest of the thread in detail before chiming in!) This sentence is probably the one that I found most interesting:

I have no interest in discussing how a speaker asymptotically approaches some absolute "accurate" performance.

While I absolutely understand this view, I'm not sure that I share it. The fact that something may or may not *sound* more accurate is, in my opinion, not relevant to a discussion of "accuracy". For example, I don't think I agree with this:

Speakers only have attributes such as 'accurate'...based upon psychoacoustic factors

For me, speakers have many attributes that can be decided without even listening. Dynamic range, frequency response, phase coherence can all be quantified, and can all be measured to be more or less accurate than some other speaker. As I said, how they sound to you, and whether your *perception* is of more accuracy is irrelevant to me. (Well, of course it isn't irrelevant but for the purposes of my definition of "accuracy" it is).

We may at this point be talking at cross purposes, but here's a fairly extreme example to demonstrate what I mean. I listen to a lot of organ music, and I know that the bottom C on a 32' stop in the pedals gives a fundamental frequency of 16Hz. Now, if I play a sine wave of 16Hz (and I know that's not the same thing, but this is a thought experiment) through my speakers at home, the response is pretty much zero. Inaudible. However, if I play a sine wave of 16Hz through some state-of-the-art full range setup, there will be some response, and possibly quite a good response, at 16Hz. So, my speakers have an accuracy of zero playing 16Hz, because there is no sound at all. The better speakers are more accurate in the sense I'm referring to, because they can at least reproduce that frequency. Psycho-acoustics don't come into it. One speaker is simply more accurate to the input signal. Similar arguments can be made to other attributes, again in the measured sense.

Note, I'm not referring to speakers being accurate to a waveform heard in the church at the time of recording. I agree that there are too many variables to make that an achievable goal. However, the speaker is a transducer to turn an electrical input signal into an acoustic waveform. That transformation can be done more or less accurately by various measures, irrespective of the sound a listener hears, and their perception of it.

Of course, my speakers at home, for whatever reason, might convey to my ears the effect of being in a cathedral listening to an organ better than the full-range rig, but that is a separate question. I can't quantify accuracy in this case, that *is* a psycho-acoustic phenomenon. Some may argue that that's all that matters, but that, unfortunately, is in the ear of the beholder.

Si