Why Not Studio Monitors?

[Buckle-meister]

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.

I disagree Rjbudz.

In essence:

• All a speaker does is mimic a signal.
• Some speakers are more able at mimicking a signal than others. The more able, the more accurate.
• How able the speaker is, is independant of human listening.

This post is accurate.

 

[Nuglets]

Redundant, but oh well...

I am enjoying this thread very much and the argument's from everybody are very interesting. Now for my input...I agree that a more accurate speaker would be one that takes an input signal and reproduces it as accurately as possible. I don't think that you can define an accurate as one that can reproduce the original sound in the venue/studio/etc. before it enter's the microphone. Like many have said, there are far too many variable's in this description of accurate. I think most people are coming to this conclusion also, so it is not 'inaccurate' to say that a speaker can be accurate in a sense that it takes the signal going in and reproduces it as accurately as possible.

 

[Jack Hammer]

Actually, the one thing you said, RJ, that I kind of see what you're getting at was that there is no really definition of what the term 'accurate' means in reference to speakers. Maybe there should be a more widely accepted definition of exactly what that term encompasses.

BTW, I saw a tv commercial the other night for a Bose Lifestyle system. One of the first things they said was that it is one of the most accurate systems you can buy. Not to change the subject, there are more than enough threads on their systems. But, it got me thinking about what you had said and how there really should be a standard acceptance of what that term means.

Jack

 

[Tomorrow]

I disagree Rjbudz.

In essence:

• All a speaker does is mimic a signal.
• Some speakers are more able at mimicking a signal than others. The more able, the more accurate.
• How able the speaker is, is independant of human listening.

This post is accurate.

LOL, Robby. Is this post accurate independent of human listening?

Seriously now, how does one measure whether one speaker mimics a signal better than another?

 

[jaxvon]

LOL, Robby. Is this post accurate independent of human listening?

Seriously now, how does one measure whether one speaker mimics a signal better than another?

With a calibrated measurement microphone.

 

[Buckle-meister]

Firstly, in the interest of accuracy, my name's spelt Robbie, not Robby. Says it right there at the bottom.

...how does one measure whether one speaker mimics a signal better than another?

If one speaker possesses measureably better properties than another in terms of the ideal, that speaker will mimic a signal better than the other because it'll be able to 'map' the signal closer than the other.

 

[Tomorrow]

Firstly, in the interest of accuracy, my name's spelt Robbie, not Robby. Says it right there at the bottom.



If one speaker possesses measureably better properties than another in terms of the ideal, that speaker will mimic a signal better than the other because it'll be able to 'map' the signal closer than the other.

Sorry, I forgot you enjoyed the..er..gentler spelling of the name, Robbie.

But you didn't answer my question. I asked HOW do you measure the mimic ability of a speaker. You just restated your opinion.

 

[Buckle-meister]

Sorry, I forgot you enjoyed the..er..gentler spelling of the name...

Hey, it's got nothing to do with me. Speak to my folks; they gave me it!

...you didn't answer my question. I asked HOW do you measure the mimic ability of a speaker. You just restated your opinion.

Well, I'm not an expert on speakers Rjbudz. It's not like I have an electrical or mechanical degree and/or work in the speaker testing/manufacturing industry. You know this.

I can't understand what the confusion is here. We're trying to reproduce something, a signal in this instance, as close as possible to what is inputted. The better the measurable electro-mechanical performance of the speaker, the closer the reproduction will be. And still this has nothing to do with listening.

 

[Tomorrow]

I can't understand what the confusion is here. We're trying to reproduce something, a signal in this instance, as close as possible to what is inputted. The better the measurable electro-mechanical performance of the speaker, the closer the reproduction will be. And still this has nothing to do with listening.

Ah, but there is the snag, Robbie. Listening has everything to do with it if you're talking about sound reproduction (mimicking a piano, for example). You might want to reread Jaxvon's and Chris' comments and my reply to Jax concerning accuracy definitions. One simply cannot state that one speaker is a better mimic (accuracy) of a signal by measurements alone. Why? Because speakers all have different sonic signatures. (There is NO template of an 'accurate' speaker design.) Measurements may be similar, but sonic output may not be so similar.

And in practical terms ("what's the confusion here"?)...I know you've been in audio stores, auditioned and compared high priced, well courted speakers. Did any pair sound alike? You selected Mission Elegantes...beeeea-u-tiful speakers, I might add. Beyond their styling and price point, did you buy them (I assume you bought them and they weren't a gift) for the way they sounded (good mimickry?) or how they measured on some waveform monitor?

 

[jaxvon]

One simply cannot state that one speaker is a better mimic (accuracy) of a signal by measurements alone. Why? Because speakers all have different sonic signatures. (There is NO template of an 'accurate' speaker design.) Measurements may be similar, but sonic output may not be so similar.

I beg to differ. I already mentioned what an accurate speaker would be. The different sonic signatures that you hear are measurable, and therefore you can guage accuracy with measurements. The problem is that often people only consider *one* type of measurement, rather than the whole set. A speaker might have ruler flat frequency response, but if it has resonances or high distortion, it isn't accurate, and will not sound the same as another speaker with identical FR, but lower distortion and lower resonance levels.

 

[Tomorrow]

I beg to differ. I already mentioned what an accurate speaker would be. The different sonic signatures that you hear are measurable, and therefore you can guage accuracy with measurements. The problem is that often people only consider *one* type of measurement, rather than the whole set. A speaker might have ruler flat frequency response, but if it has resonances or high distortion, it isn't accurate, and will not sound the same as another speaker with identical FR, but lower distortion and lower resonance levels.

I think we agree, Jax, but I also feel like we're both starting to talk in circles on slightly different issues. Perhaps Jack Hammer had it right, and we just need to carefully examine the language and definitions within our hobby. And definitely, more DBT's are required!

EDIT: And oh, by the way....GO WOLVERINES!!!!

 

[Buckle-meister]

Phew! Okay, after re-reading the previous posts...

One simply cannot state that one speaker is a better mimic (accuracy) of a signal by measurements alone. Why? Because speakers all have different sonic signatures...Measurements may be similar, but sonic output may not be so similar.

To me it's pointless judging the accuracy of a speaker based upon how it sounds in a room because of the latter's influence. To me, accuracy of a speaker is about the performance of the speaker's components as compared to ideal component behaviour. Whether or not the presentation you hear - that's hear, not necessarily what the speakers are actually delivering - is perceived to be close to the original is something else.

The sound in my room changed drastically with the introduction of my room treatment. I believe that your argument, that (as far as I can tell) it's what we hear that determines whether or not a speaker is accurate falls down because using the above example, first my speakers weren't accurate then they were, or more correctly stated, that they were simply more accurate with the introduction of room treatment than without, and that's clearly not the case - the speakers hadn't changed at all - only the sound changed.

...I know you've been in audio stores, auditioned and compared high priced, well courted speakers. Did any pair sound alike? You selected Mission Elegantes...beeeea-u-tiful speakers, I might add. Beyond their styling and price point, did you buy them...for the way they sounded...or how they measured on some waveform monitor?

Like most folk, I bought them for a number of reasons which included sound, looks and budget. I can't really comment on their sound apart from to say that I bought them for their sound from the point of view that I liked it, not because I thought the sound was accurate.

My current (3rd) system was bought before I came to know about Audioholics. I knew from having heard previous systems of mine in a variety of rooms that the room had an effect on the sound but I didn't fully appreciate just how much. I auditioned my speakers in the shop's carpeted, untreated room. My own room is uncarpeted, treated and dimensionally smaller.

I will never buy speakers in the future without demoing them in my own room.

 

[Tomorrow]

Phew! Okay, after re-reading the previous posts...

To me it's pointless judging the accuracy of a speaker based upon how it sounds in a room because of the latter's influence. To me, accuracy of a speaker is about the performance of the speaker's components as compared to ideal component behaviour. Whether or not the presentation you hear - that's hear, not necessarily what the speakers are actually delivering - is perceived to be close to the original is something else.

The sound in my room changed drastically with the introduction of my room treatment. I believe that your argument, that (as far as I can tell) it's what we hear that determines whether or not a speaker is accurate falls down because using the above example, first my speakers weren't accurate then they were, or more correctly stated, that they were simply more accurate with the introduction of room treatment than without, and that's clearly not the case - the speakers hadn't changed at all - only the sound changed.

Aha...Robbie, we almost agree. But there is still the one point you aren't hearing from me. No, no, I'm not saying a speaker is more or less accurate based upon any parameters...hearing, measuring, whatever. To the contrary. That was my argument against others who were suggesting it. (It is the common thinking, I think you'll agree, that when someone speaks of 'accurate' speakers, they generally mean "sounds like real life".) I too disagree that that is a good definition of accurate.) What I said from the very beginning (check the thread) is that ACCURACY as a categorization, as in "I prefer accurate speakers", is irrelevant to speaker selection...using any definition of the term! Why? Because they all sound different. Rob accused me of nitpicking differences, but hear me out.

Suppose you define accuracy using all the parameters that Jax suggests. One can say that they prefer 'accurate' (Jaxvon's definition, which I'll accept but do not use) speakers....but that category becomes meaningless for the non-speaker related issues that you wrote of, OR WITHIN ANY ENVIRONMENT because even small variations from some ultimate, absolutely desirable measured accuracy (Jaxvon's definition) may result in meaningful auditory variation. So yes, you can define speakers as approaching measurement 'accurate'. But in real life, these similarly accurate speakers do not sound alike. If they do not sound alike, why would (or how could) one "prefer" a class of accurate speakers? They will differ in sound reproduction, in design, and within potentially significant measured parameters. It becomes the issue of how high is up? that I mentioned. Just what does an accurate speaker sound like?

Here I go, repeating myself again. I guess by now the point either has gotten to the reader or won't. Uncle.

 

[Buckle-meister]

...It is the common thinking, I think you'll agree, that when someone speaks of 'accurate' speakers, they generally mean "sounds like real life.

I do.

...ACCURACY as a categorization, as in "I prefer accurate speakers", is irrelevant to speaker selection...using any definition of the term!

If the definition of accurate was with regard to the measurable properties of a speaker's components, we listen blindly and you are right, then logically there'd be no reason to buy, other than for taste, anything than the cheapest speakers available and I don't agree with that.

No doubt we choose the speakers we do because we like their particular sound, but blinded, I believe I am right in saying that people can distinguish between speakers that measure poorly compared to those that measure well without enjoyment of the sound forming the basis of that decision. I believe that how lifelike the sound is, is directly related to how well the speaker measures. Yes, that's it; it's the speaker that's accurate and the sound that's lifelike, therefore the first quote above hit the nail on the head. We agree!

The crux of your argument appears to me to rest on the premise that there's a seeming contradiction that different speakers that say measure accurately sound different, whereas I'm personally quite comfortable with the notion that speakers can sound different and yet still be accurate.

 

[Rob Babcock]

Overall, I think it's important for a speaker to be accurate. But as I get older, I will concede I'm more interested in how good it sounds to me. If a speaker is 'editorializing', so be it, so long as I like the sound. That said, a certain coloration may be pleasing on one CD, but will it sound as good applied to another? That's where accuracy comes in.

 

[Nick250]

Good point Rob, the media varies enormously and it's not a subtle thing. Dynamic range, or the lack there of, is one of the most noticeably things to me and can be a make or break deal for me as to whether or not a CD gets a second listen.
Nick