Do We Want All Speakers To Sound The Same ?

[audiofooled]

My DIY setup sounds like nothing, most of the time it's not even there and I absolutely love it that way. No two instruments or recordings of them sound the same and to me that's the beauty of it.

 

[goat76]

I think that conclusion is a bit rash. Plenty of speakers have "lots of detail." But I've been trying to describe a particular blend of clarity and smoothness. Zero "roughness" especially in the midrange/highs. Not just "detailed" but super clean/smooth, free of grit, un-mechanical. Subtle variations in instrumental timbre seem notably clear.

Numerous JA owners have cited the same quality. In fact someone who owns Harbeth speakers and recently recieved the JA Perspectives started his remarks with: "The very first thing that made me sit up and take notice when playing the Perspectives was the utter lack of grain. The SHL5+ are very accomplished in this aspect, but I feel the Perspectives just take it several notches above and beyond."

And the above characteristics were noted over and over in reviews of the JA Pulsar and Perspective speakers, which share that same sound:

-----------------------------------------------------


Stereophile: Herb Reichert review of JA Pulsar: In show reports, I've described Joseph Audio speakers as "quiet"—mainly because, through them, no fuzzy, blurry, grainy stuff happens between 1 and 4kHz. Unlike most two-way box speakers, the Pulsar's sound in that region fades to silent "black," not a gray haze.

Fremer's review of the Pulsar:
but the picture was clear and clean from top to bottom of the audioband,

The Pulsar's high-frequency performance was sweet yet fast and airy, and minus even the slightest hint of edge, etch, or glare. In fact, the Pulsar was among the least mechanical-sounding speakers I've ever heard, regardless of price,

Absolute Sound, on the Pulsar:

The first thing I noticed about the Pulsars was their midrange purity and lack of grain.

The Pulsar’s midrange speed and clarity reminded me more of a planar or electrostatic speaker than a dynamic-driver-based transducer.
The Pulsar’s upper frequencies walk the fine line between dark and light. This tweeter has a sweet character that portrays upper frequencies in a very natural and relaxing way. First violins and piccolos had sparkle and shimmer without sounding forward or metallic.

From the Soundstage review of the Pulsar:

Play something like Shakti’s Natural Elements (CD, Columbia 4897732), and the speed of Zakir Hussain’s tabla playing, wrapped together with guitar god John McLaughlin’s steel-string guitar, was a mind blower, never once tripping into leading-edge hardness.

PartTime Audiophile:

There’s an overall smoothness to the sound that’s distinctive—I feel like this is a speaker I could identify blindfolded in a room full of other speakers.


John Atkinson reviewing the Perspectives:

very clean and articulate,

midrange clarity and lack of coloration

I was again impressed by the Josephs' ability to play loud but without the sound becoming harsh or the small details of the scoring being blotted out.

-----------------------------------------

I suppose someone might blow all those reports of the smoothness/clarity of the sound as...I don't know...coincidence? Maybe the speakers don't actually sound clean and clear as they describe but, somehow, the speakers caused the very same bias effect in all those listeners? Not impossible...but...is that the most plausible inference? Isn't it plausible that the speakers actually DO sound very clean and clear, which is why they are reporting that characteristic?

I heard the Joseph Pulsar first at a dealer, before I knew much at all about the brand, and before I'd read any reviews. The exact qualities described above stood out to me. Then I heard the Perspectives the same day. Same thing. Then I found out most listeners seem to be struck by those characteristics too. We aren't talking about AC cables here: speakers do sound different from one another. I personally don't want to be quick to just wave away lots of similar impressions by lazily attributing it all to sighted bias or presuming "no reason to think the speakers really do sound like that." (Not saying you have necessarily done this).

Cheers.

That is why written subjective reviews are still needed, you should probably not put all your egg's in the same basket and just trust one single reviewer, but when the same characteristics are mentioned in several reviews and by "real users" in their reports of how they receive the sound from a speaker, it's most likely true that the speaker does sound like it's described.

Until someone puts together something like a chart for all the different measuring aspects, a chart that people can use in an easy way to identify exactly the aspects that are the most important sound aspects for that particular listener, we still need either subjective reports and reviews telling us this, or we must have a listen ourselves.

The big hope, or a strong will (as it seems) from a lot of people here at ASR is that it was much easier than it really is, they want to be able to know they will like how the speakers sound just by looking at the usual set of measurements (who wouldn't like it to be that easy). But just by looking at the frequency response graph, the dispersion pattern, the off-axis response, the distortion levels, and so on will most likely just give an indication that the particular speaker may have a problem with some specific aspects, but to know if these problems are even heard or if they are really getting in the way of the overall performance and your subjective view of how YOU think a speaker should sound like, you still have to go having a listen before the final decision is made whether you like the speaker or not.

Everything can be measured, but as we all know there is no such thing as the perfect speaker, so it's also about weighing in all the compromises and which ones are the most important aspects that will be different for different people.
Personally, I'm happy to sacrifice some linearity for a more dynamic representation, that's the thing I think speakers in general have the most "improvement potential" compared to real acoustic sounds. And to be clear, by more dynamic I don't mean sheer loudness capability, more of that real sensation of clean/pure dynamic that acoustic instruments have when they are played live in front of you, it doesn't necessarily sound that loud even if it probably is. I like how the Revel speakers sound and I know they measure better in the frequency response than my ATCs, but still, I choose them over the Revels because they have that sensation of a more dynamic sound and therefore sound more real to me.

So in short, I choose speakers that represent the music in a more convincing way to me, I'm not too concerned about what speakers the "average Joe" finds sounding the best. This is a "one-man sport" and I only have to satisfy myself, how egoistic isn't that?

 

[kemmler3D]

two speakers can measure the exact same response and be identical off axis also

Yes, this is why you also need the CSD / GD and THD plots.

if I can't hear distortion in pure tone generator and in the sine sweeps during my measurement runs, the speaker should be fine

Indeed, I usually use tones as well if I'm seriously auditioning a speaker. If nothing else it makes it easier to hear uneven FR.

Also, for those saying that FR plots don't give you a good idea of what a speaker sounds like... I think they do, but people underestimate how much small variations in FR actually contribute to a 'character' of a sound. In fact, it's popular to say here that small variations in FR are inaudible. Yes and no. I've voiced speakers and headphones with EQ for manufacturing (bluetooth stuff has EQ built in... makes life a lot easier) and +/- 2dB in certain spots can really change your feeling about a headphone or speaker. Do you boost 60hz or 80? Do you cut the peak at 2700hz by 8 or 9dB? Things feel different with those small variations IME. They have downstream effects in distortion and decay time also.

So I think the FR plot can tell you almost everything, it's just very hard to interpret and imagine what your subjective reaction to those small variations will be.

That is a long way of saying the FR plots do tell us almost everything, but you need to listen anyway because our ability to imagine what an FR plot sounds like is pretty limited.

 

[kemmler3D]

I think that conclusion is a bit rash. Plenty of speakers have "lots of detail." But I've been trying to describe a particular blend of clarity and smoothness. Zero "roughness" especially in the midrange/highs. Not just "detailed" but super clean/smooth, free of grit, un-mechanical. Subtle variations in instrumental timbre seem notably clear.

Numerous JA owners have cited the same quality. In fact someone who owns Harbeth speakers and recently recieved the JA Perspectives started his remarks with: "The very first thing that made me sit up and take notice when playing the Perspectives was the utter lack of grain. The SHL5+ are very accomplished in this aspect, but I feel the Perspectives just take it several notches above and beyond."

And the above characteristics were noted over and over in reviews of the JA Pulsar and Perspective speakers, which share that same sound:

-----------------------------------------------------


Stereophile: Herb Reichert review of JA Pulsar: In show reports, I've described Joseph Audio speakers as "quiet"—mainly because, through them, no fuzzy, blurry, grainy stuff happens between 1 and 4kHz. Unlike most two-way box speakers, the Pulsar's sound in that region fades to silent "black," not a gray haze.

Fremer's review of the Pulsar:
but the picture was clear and clean from top to bottom of the audioband,

The Pulsar's high-frequency performance was sweet yet fast and airy, and minus even the slightest hint of edge, etch, or glare. In fact, the Pulsar was among the least mechanical-sounding speakers I've ever heard, regardless of price,

Absolute Sound, on the Pulsar:

The first thing I noticed about the Pulsars was their midrange purity and lack of grain.

The Pulsar’s midrange speed and clarity reminded me more of a planar or electrostatic speaker than a dynamic-driver-based transducer.
The Pulsar’s upper frequencies walk the fine line between dark and light. This tweeter has a sweet character that portrays upper frequencies in a very natural and relaxing way. First violins and piccolos had sparkle and shimmer without sounding forward or metallic.

From the Soundstage review of the Pulsar:

Play something like Shakti’s Natural Elements (CD, Columbia 4897732), and the speed of Zakir Hussain’s tabla playing, wrapped together with guitar god John McLaughlin’s steel-string guitar, was a mind blower, never once tripping into leading-edge hardness.

PartTime Audiophile:

There’s an overall smoothness to the sound that’s distinctive—I feel like this is a speaker I could identify blindfolded in a room full of other speakers.


John Atkinson reviewing the Perspectives:

very clean and articulate,

midrange clarity and lack of coloration

I was again impressed by the Josephs' ability to play loud but without the sound becoming harsh or the small details of the scoring being blotted out.

-----------------------------------------

I suppose someone might blow all those reports of the smoothness/clarity of the sound as...I don't know...coincidence? Maybe the speakers don't actually sound clean and clear as they describe but, somehow, the speakers caused the very same bias effect in all those listeners? Not impossible...but...is that the most plausible inference? Isn't it plausible that the speakers actually DO sound very clean and clear, which is why they are reporting that characteristic?

I heard the Joseph Pulsar first at a dealer, before I knew much at all about the brand, and before I'd read any reviews. The exact qualities described above stood out to me. Then I heard the Perspectives the same day. Same thing. Then I found out most listeners seem to be struck by those characteristics too. We aren't talking about AC cables here: speakers do sound different from one another. I personally don't want to be quick to just wave away lots of similar impressions by lazily attributing it all to sighted bias or presuming "no reason to think the speakers really do sound like that." (Not saying you have necessarily done this).

Cheers.

BTW I read a little about the puslar and found that they have ~100dB/octave crossovers. This is a really interesting concept... I was always under the impression that you wanted a smooth-ish handoff between drivers to avoid jumps in directivity. But I guess there's some logic in avoiding lobing / phase cancellation near the speaker, and avoiding having the drivers operate outside their optimal ranges. My guess is that very steep crossovers are hard/expensive to do analog, but there's no reason you couldn't do it in DSP... Do you know much about or have thoughts on this?

 

[posvibes]

because our ability to imagine what an FR plot sounds like is pretty limited.

Yep that's me to a T, it's a real shortcoming and it goes into a basket of shortfalls I have, limited ability to read a map, can't read music, mathematical abstractions are a complete mystery although reading about the description of elegant equation I intuitively understand, imagining a two dimensional floor plan in 3D is a chore and is likely to send me up the imagined wall.

I'm a sucker for good descriptions of how a system sounds, but they no longer inform my purchasing decisions.

 

[JayGilb]

That is why written subjective reviews are still needed, you should probably not put all your egg's in the same basket and just trust one single reviewer, but when the same characteristics are mentioned in several reviews and by "real users" in their reports of how they receive the sound from a speaker, it's most likely true that the speaker does sound like it's described.

Unless they read/watched a review before before they produced their own. The pressure to not be the one out of left field is very powerful.

 

[goat76]

Regarding the topic from the title of this thread - I'd personally very much love it if all loudspeakers sounded the same. It would give us a standard reference at all points (from music creation to reproduction) and would remove much of the complexity for the end-user, leaving only music enjoyment. While I enjoy audio technology itself, I much more enjoy music and definitely wouldn't mind obsessing (even) less about the equipment!

It's not that simple and you are missing the most important point of them all. Just having a standard reference speaker doesn't mean the music productions will be standardized tonally-wise.

 

[goat76]

Also be reminded your own recordings using X mic and Y system can be acoustically coloured, so this could be the non-transparent source

I don't think "acoustically colored" was the best choice of word for what you wanted to say.

I really hope the recording was "acoustically colored" in the same way as how the overall sound of the instruments was "acoustically colored" by the room it was recorded in, and that MattHoopers speakers could reproduce that "acoustically colored" recording so that it sounded exactly the same way as the instrument actually sounded in the room, including the "acoustically coloring".

 

[dominikz]

It's not that simple and you are missing the most important point of them all. Just having a standard reference speaker doesn't mean the music productions will be standardized tonally-wise.

The point I was trying to make is that simple. You are of course free to disagree.
Your point is IMO a valid one as well, but I don't see it to be in conflict with mine.
I'd just add that IMHO tonal balance of a recording can be a part of the artistic expression and therefore should not be standardized anyway.

 

[goat76]

The point I was trying to make is that simple. You are of course free to disagree.
Your point is IMO a valid one as well, but I don't see it to be in conflict with mine.
I'd just add that IMHO tonal balance of a recording can be a part of the artistic expression and therefore should not be standardized anyway.

If the end goal with a speaker standard is not a more even and natural-sounding tonal balance between different music productions, why on earth do you care if the person in the studio had the same reference-sounding loudspeakers as you do?

The mixes will be "all over the place" tonally-wise anyway, and the only comfort you will get from that is that the person in the studio heard the same screwed-up mix too.

 

[dominikz]

If the end goal with a speaker standard is not a more even and natural-sounding tonal balance between different music productions, why on earth do you care if the person in the studio had the same reference-sounding loudspeakers as you do?

The mixes will be "all over the place" tonally-wise anyway, and the only comfort you will have is that the person in the studio heard the same screwed-up mix too.

Which would be comforting enough for me.

 

[YSC]

I don't think "acoustically colored" was the best choice of word for what you wanted to say.

I really hope the recording was "acoustically colored" in the same way as how the overall sound of the instruments was "acoustically colored" by the room it was recorded in, and that MattHoopers speakers could reproduce that "acoustically colored" recording so that it sounded exactly the same way as the instrument actually sounded in the room, including the "acoustically coloring".

You seems mistook my point, by acoustically coloured I mean the recording he made in his room is not transparent to the sound of the instrument in that room where he and the mic are in.

It’s simple as that: when you find the recording and playback don’t sound like the same, either it’s the speaker being not faithful to the recordings or the recording isn’t faithful of what it is recording, usually it’s both, give or take

 

[MattHooper]

Thanks YSC. I appreciate your replies!

thing is, how you know what the distortion really sound like? without a standard for transparency, you just don't know, much like saying colour, without a well calibrated monitor, with a standard colour chart, how do you know the blue in the screen is really blue, or off? By experience 99.9% just don't do it right, in photography, standard calibration is done for serious jobs, so when in audio, why it just becomes different, why not the in record FR profile of music should be just reproduced the closer the better

I've heard the tracks in question on countless different speakers, including those that measure quite neutral.

 

[MattHooper]

This thread by now has departed from its more worthwhile question, to which degree we can also trust our sighted listening, into the territories of pure subjectivism. I do appreciate Matt's inquiry: After all, I claimed to hear differences between two bit-perfect DACs and I hold my claim.

Agreed, after my reply I'll personally try to get back to the essential subject of my OP. (It just seemed like most answers had been given to the main question).

But by now, Matt's question is basically directed against the belief that the methodology behind spinorama is founded on, and we are in a rather boring culture war with little insight.

I think you may have misinterpreted my stance. Far from questioning the methodology the spinorama is founded on, I fully agree with the method. I've been at pains to explain that I'm not trying to dismiss the research, instead I'm actually trying to make some case for why it hopefully translates to sighted listening! And I've constantly said I believe it's entirely reasonable for anyone to choose to evaluate speakers based on spinorama, and even buy speakers "just on those measurements." It's not my particular approach per se, but that doesn't for a second mean I argue against it!

I have very often defended the research cited by Toole et all on the "subjectivist" forums!


Just to finish off on this, as I don't want to keep going on this subject in this thread...re the Joseph speaker reviews etc:

Could it be they had read what others had written before? And chatted at their favorite audio fair, with one another and the original producer, who had minced an original ascription in informal talks?

Well...it's not impossible. But is that really the most plausible scenario? Like all those reviewers from different magazines got together and they happened to want to discuss, of all the speakers they review, the Joseph Audio speakers? And if such coincidence happened, if it wasn't the case they didn't hear a similar character...did one review convince the rest to adopt his review impressions? And they just happened to exactly match my own impressions before I'd read any reviews? (And the impressions of many others who have owned the speakers?)

That seems to be, to say the least, a real stretch simply to avoid the more parsimonious explanation that..yes..these speakers actually do sound quite clear and clean, as they described. (They do! I own them! And as far as I can see, the measurements don't suggest they wouldn't sound that way either)

( I'd also say that as I was briefly reviewing speakers years ago, and still know people in the industry, it is not typical for reviewers to want to repeat what another reviewer has written. In fact, like many industries, reviewers can be disparaging of others in the industry. As well, some reviewers I still know refuse to read anyone else's review of a speaker that they have in for review).

Cheers!

 

[TheFrator]

This is why I add 2nd harmonic distortion to my playback via DSP,

How does one do this? Is it possible through Roon? I did some cursory googling and couldn't really find anything. Thanks in advanced to whoever answers

 

[MattHooper]

You seems mistook my point, by acoustically coloured I mean the recording he made in his room is not transparent to the sound of the instrument in that room where he and the mic are in.

It’s simple as that: when you find the recording and playback don’t sound like the same, either it’s the speaker being not faithful to the recordings or the recording isn’t faithful of what it is recording, usually it’s both, give or take

The recordings worked fine for my purposes. I recorded using more than one mic/recorder over time.

They were fine for getting an overall impression of the sound through a speaker.

I was most impressed I think with those recordings played through my (previous) Thiel CS3.7 speakers and MBL 121 Omni Radialstrahler speakers. The recording of me playing acoustic guitar especially could sound uncannily like I had been transported in front of myself playing the guitar in the room, and the essential timbre was close to bang on. The MBLs could produce sound so close to the real thing that I actually fooled some people with recordings of my son playing saxophone. From outside the room they thought he was in there practicing. It sounded astonishingly life like!

 

[YSC]

Thanks YSC. I appreciate your replies!



I've heard the tracks in question on countless different speakers, including those that measure quite neutral.

yea I don't actually doubt your impression or experience, but then maybe my background is more data based, I do believe that while the tracks you used (which I assume you really liked, so you used as a reference) sound better on the JA speakers, or any other speaker you prefer (or to say, sounded more real to you) over a neutral one, perfectly fine for personal prefence as much as prefer a more neutral speaker, somehow I just think logically, those minor variations in all these well measured speakers contribute to the subjective difference.

Yet tuning A sound nicer for recordings from particular genre, era, or even specific studio could be just the combination of deviation from transparent in the mixing/recording end + your room + speaker tuning, while a speaker closer to transparent in your room, more of the colouration in the recording can be heard, but if one don't prefer say, a particular tonal balance, as transparent in our playback chain as possible should be the goal IMO.

As for subjective reviews all come to similar descriptors and why I still don't put it on the "trusting" side, with my tin foil hat on coz:
1) if it's paid review, it is quite common enough for any vendors sending to reviewers to go along with hint or even request about "you can review whatever you want to say, but add this "xxxxxx" and "YYYYY" into your impression

2) brand reputation could jump in influencing the impression a lot, much like "leica lens must be sharper than Nikon, while Sigma was the poor man's budget choice" which, can hold some truth in the past with different competition but might not be fact at present, but since the brand is famous for X attribute, it's easy enough to make the subjective impression to be aligned with that, especially the speaker is a good one to begin with, where all you look for, are really minor differences.

3) visual bias, much like how big, panal drivers sound big when you saw it.

Just my 2 cents, we all have our choice and preference and limitations, and also, I would say that technically "better" should be in line with neutrality on axis, good directivity and low distortion. while personal preference is a completely different matter, much like food or colour preference in other things in life

 

[MattHooper]

Unless they read/watched a review before before they produced their own. The pressure to not be the one out of left field is very powerful.

Per my reply to "changer"...what your wrote is certainly an element in human psychology to watch out for. But far from the only one. It's also human psychology, often enough, to not want to be led by the nose, or feel like you aren't an individual with your own opinion. Especially when your opinion is your business. I certainly don't discount that there can be trends of thought through audiophile communities. There are numerous dubious audiophile tropes for example. But on the other hand, there are countless examples of just how opinionated audiophiles are, with disagreements over reviews etc. And the reviewers I've known pride themselves on attempting to discern the characteristics as best they can of a product, and many won't look at a review of the same product before they have written their own. I certainly never felt any pressure to "not write what I thought about a speaker" or not dare to write something different from some other reviewer, when I had one to review.
So we can always toss out "possibilities" but we can't necessarily rely on floating some hypothesis as if it were sufficient to dismiss some confluence of sonic impressions.


If you are trying to infer characteristics of a speaker from user reports or subjective reviews, there's obviously lots of noise in the system. So it's understandable that someone will decide "f*ck that! Give me something more direct and reliable - measurement!" Totally justifiable approach.

On the other hand, if you really do enjoy exchanging sonic impressions of gear, and get a kick out of hearing the impressions others have, I find it possible to carefully pick a way through the "noise" to find trends, and those have very often been "reliable" once I myself have heard the gear in question.

Think of it this way: Another area where people discuss sonic impressions is in different album releases, re-masters etc. For instance, right now reviews are popping up all over the place for the new Mo-Fi remaster of Jackson's "Thriller." There, people are discussing their sonic impressions using all the same inferences one would hear in, say, comparing the presentation of different speakers. People are comparing the original pressing to the new one, and saying things like "the new one is more sedate, less compressed and punchy, but it's wider and more spacious, more detailed in terms of discerning what instruments and background vocals are doing, etc.

Is it unwarranted for people to discuss these sonic differences? Is this something one could ONLY be justified in doing, by expressing the differences via measurements? There seems to be a distinct trend in the difference people are reporting with the new Mo-Fi vs the older pressings. I see no good reason not to think it's likely people are really identifying the same sonic differences. Just as I see the trend for the Joseph (and other) speakers.

 

[MattHooper]

Ok, back a bit more square on the nose to the OP subject:

So let's say we want speakers to generally converge in performance and hence sound. If we want to allow any variation in the sound...what would be left over to desire?

I think the most obvious would simply be options for different sizes of speaker - both for whatever fits our environment, or for the scale of the sound we want to experience.

But aside from that, what else? "Basically neutral but variations should be allowed for...?....."

Dispersion characteristics, e.g. narrow to wide?

Anything else.?

 

[VenVile]

To be honest, and speaking solely to myself, yes! Yes! Yes! All I want is accuracy, imperceptibly low distortion at low/high volumes, power, extreme detail, as little ringing as possible, prefect time-aligned, exceptional stereo separation and extension on both ends of the freq spectrum, all the time! In fact, I want my speakers/monitors to completely disappear!

Give me character through the content. The content is what I care most about, and all the speaker has to do is represent that as true to the source as possible. If I want character, the manufacturer can put some knobs/sliders on the box, for all I care; I'll dial in/out to change the tone or sound as I see fit. Hell, that's why we have EQ. If I want bass, I'll engage my sub with the foot pedal, or crank up the lower band. Give me accuracy over everything!