• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Do We Want All Speakers To Sound The Same ?

OP
MattHooper

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
The fi in hi-fi: if the fidelity is high, the transparency is high, the realism is high, the similarity is high, the sameness is high.

The tone of a hi-fi component, superimposed over the tone of a musical instrument, is no longer the tone of a musical instrument. I want to experience the tone of musical instruments in my home.

Makes sense!
 

changer

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 4, 2020
Messages
557
Likes
601
To my understanding, he finds his speakers to sound better with everything he throws at them, he never mentioned anything else to indicate the opposite.

I undestood that he would exclude any speakers from his choices which would not reproduce a certain instrument, his acoustic guitar, in a - to his ears - faithful manner, from the beginning. But that he was also aware of a dilemma, that I had written about in my last post.
If a non neutral speaker would faithfully benefit the reproduction of any instrument, this would take the same position as the standards that where established with CTA/ANSI 3024-A. A generalized fidelity.
This however was not implied, at least from how I have read this thread, rather that certain speakers might be more involving with certain genres and instruments and the issues this means for stereo hifi listening.
 
OP
MattHooper

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
Well, since there's been all this discussion on the coloration thing:

I don't go seeking colorations per se. In fact when I evaluate speakers and gear I'm usually listening for a lack of (perceived) coloration. I don't want to be too aware of a speaker imposing it's coloration on the sound!

Among my favorite speakers I've had in my home were the Waveform Mach Solo speakers. They were measured for a review in, I believe, the Audio Ideas Guide and they found the speaker to measure extraordinarily well - super flat across the frequency spectrum with good off axis performance. They sounded very "good studio-monitor-like" and I loved them!

The last bunch of speakers I've owned - Thiel 3.7, Harbeth SuperHL5+, Thiel 2.7 and Joseph Audio Perspectives may not measure as textbook as a Revel, but they also aren't exactly abominations of coloration! (Even the Devore O/96 speakers I often cite are actually pretty even on axis).

The only reason I will often bring up Devore speakers, or my tube amps, is because they are convenient examples of gear that doesn't measure in what most here would consider "best practices" in design, but which I nonetheless find compelling, sonically. I also like many other speakers!

I don't "seek" coloration but I'm ok IF a component introduces some coloration IF I happen to perceive that it enhances the sound in some way I like. I did find the character of the Devore speakers to enhance the "feeling of live sound" vs many other speakers I listened to. On the other hand, it could also sound more "speakerly" with some stuff - that is a sense of the sound coming from big resonating boxes. It was a weird back and forth - mostly I found whatever coloration was there to be quite cannily integrated so I didn't notice it. But I noticed some issues enough that I ultimately went for the Joseph Audio speakers, which sounded to my ear less colored in that respect. It could be that if I'd bought the Devore I'd acclimate so any coloration. Or it could have been it would be come more and more obvious and annoying over time. I didn't care to take the chance, especially without a home audition. :) (The proposition that imperfections in the Devore design would *necessarily* become annoying over time isn't necessarily born out by user experiences. It seems the vast majority of O/96 speakers express utter contentment years after the purchase, the O/96s don't show up often in the used market relative to their popularity, and the O/96 sell faster on the used market than just about any other speaker).

As to the idea that, enjoying some level of coloration would therefore entail someone would need 'a different set of speakers for different genres of music' or that it would 'smother the differences in recordings' I find that quite overblown.

As I've said, in regard to the slight distortion from my tube amps (presuming for sake of argument that is what is happening), the only reason I have kept the amps for 20 years is because they sound good with ALL genres of music. For me it (slightly) enhances almost everything.

And even the Devore speakers were far from being only good with one genre or making everything sound similar. Recordings utterly changed quality - in just the way they did on plenty of neutral speakers. And I found that their palpable, propulsive, weighty presentation sounded wonderful for every genre of music I threw at them, from classical to jazz to pop, heavy metal, electronica etc.

YMMV of course.
 

dshreter

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
794
Likes
1,226
The perfect speaker is an elusive concept as all reproduction comes down to some form of compromised reproduction. Between different types of music and home theater, the types of compromises that best recreate the desired sound effect also varies.

Take the sound of a single violin playing. Sound radiates from all directions from the instrument, perhaps primarily from the f-holes. Would this ideally be played back with a single omnidirectional speaker? Perhaps. If listening to an orchestra or most music we have prioritized location though, so we use stereo that locates instruments in the horizontal plane.

But still, many say they enjoy the sound of envelopment and speakers with wider directivity.

With surround audio we have more speakers that are able to recreate more of the sound field. In that case, multiple speakers are able to contribute to providing this envelopment, and wide directivity is likely not as important (or perhaps even detrimental).

Reading back this was quite meandering, but I think that's the point. An ideal speaker is only ideal for a certain form of playback that depends both on the source material and also the recording/playback method. Wide frequency response and low distortion I believe are universally positive attributes, but where you go from there sure seems subject to interpretation.
 
Last edited:

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,448
Likes
4,209
To the general readership, I repeat, of dire necessity: the only way to know if a speaker is sonically, for oneself, "a favourite", "sonically compelling", "loved them", "non-transparently enhancing", (the list goes on forever), is to listen to them under controlled conditions and in comparison with no less than 2 other speakers, ideally at least one of which has a 'better spinorama (long explanation withheld)'.

Any other listening test method is dominated by non-sonic factors, aka sighted listening. Repeat, in vain hope of it sinking in, dominated by non-sonic factors. And that's fine by me, after all we are going to listen to them at home with those non-sonic influences switched on in our brains - BUT - please don't come on here reporting it as if it was due to the sound waves themselves. You might be corrected if you do.
 
OP
MattHooper

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
To the general readership, I repeat, of dire necessity: the only way to know if a speaker is sonically, for oneself, "a favourite", "sonically compelling", "loved them", "non-transparently enhancing", (the list goes on forever), is to listen to them under controlled conditions and in comparison with no less than 2 other speakers, ideally at least one of which has a 'better spinorama (long explanation withheld)'.

Which virtually no audiophile does, including ASR members (even Amir does his listening portion sighted in his reviews). All you have to do is read about what Harman Kardon had to go through and construct for blind testing, in order to address all the variables. Utterly impractical for the vast majority of audiophiles.

Any other listening test method is dominated by non-sonic factors, aka sighted listening. Repeat, in vain hope of it sinking in, dominated by non-sonic factors. And that's fine by me, after all we are going to listen to them at home with those non-sonic influences switched on in our brains - BUT - please don't come on here reporting it as if it was due to the sound waves themselves. You might be corrected if you do.

"might" is the operative word. One can't assume that sonic descriptions from sighted descriptions are, de facto, inaccurate. If you want to call out someone's sonic impressions of a speaker as implausible or inaccurate, you'd better bring a very solid technical case. It can't be dismissed "just because it was under sighted conditions." (For instance, from what I've seen, nobody has actually made the technical case that my sonic impressions/descriptions I've given for speakers like the Devores, Joseph Audio, MBL omnis are implausible).
 

dshreter

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
794
Likes
1,226
To the general readership, I repeat, of dire necessity: the only way to know if a speaker is sonically, for oneself, "a favourite", "sonically compelling", "loved them", "non-transparently enhancing", (the list goes on forever), is to listen to them under controlled conditions and in comparison with no less than 2 other speakers, ideally at least one of which has a 'better spinorama (long explanation withheld)'.

Any other listening test method is dominated by non-sonic factors, aka sighted listening. Repeat, in vain hope of it sinking in, dominated by non-sonic factors. And that's fine by me, after all we are going to listen to them at home with those non-sonic influences switched on in our brains - BUT - please don't come on here reporting it as if it was due to the sound waves themselves. You might be corrected if you do.
I'm not sure if this agrees with or disputes your point, but I would go so far as to say that you are more likely to select a speaker you like over a longer timeframe by choosing via spinorama and specs appropriate to your use case than you are by choosing via an audition. Audition preferences can be highly inconsistent. I'm of the opinion that we all have human ears and brains, and auditory preferences that are more alike than unique.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,448
Likes
4,209
  • Like
Reactions: MAB
OP
MattHooper

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
I'm not sure if this agrees with or disputes your point, but I would go so far as to say that you are more likely to select a speaker you like over a longer timeframe by choosing via spinorama and specs appropriate to your use case than you are by choosing via an audition.

The thing is, that is exactly the data that seems to be missing.

If one is thinking in a scientific frame of mind, we know that scientists are always rightly cautious about extrapolating what can, or can not be, extrapolated under controlled lab conditions. Because the real world is suffuse with variables that may skew results. "This is how things look in our controlled lab results, but we need to see how this plays out in the real world, before we can be confident in extrapolating to those different conditions."

The speaker research people so often refer to here is that done under blinded conditions. That is certainly informative. It tells you how people respond when the variables are dropped down (almost) to only "just the sound." You can certainly build confidence as to what speakers people will choose as satisfying under the control conditions of those tests. But the question remains "how does this port to the real world" - that of how consumers will be listening at home, in sighted conditions?

Are there all sorts of equally strong studies that the speakers chosen under blinded conditions are more popular with consumers? Studies that show that choosing those speakers results in longer term satisfaction? If they exist, I haven't seen them. (And I've mentioned this before - haven't been directed to any such studies). So there is this big gap still from lab experiment to in field/real world results.

So, yes, reference to the blind testing is certainly relevant to uncovering trends if we don't see the speakers. But one should be much more cautious in leaping to an inference like "therefore this predicts greater/longer consumer satisfaction with X speakers that inched out Y speakers in blind testing." Lacking strong data for this, caution and humility are recommended. The anecdotal evidence we have is that are people who have found long lasting satisfaction with just about every speaker design type you can mention.
 
OP
MattHooper

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
@MattHooper "impractical" doesn't change truth.

Of course not. But rational actions are guided by practical considerations.

If there are two different speaker designs I'm interested in, and there is no way to blind test them, nor any spin data on them, then in pragmatic terms I'm left
to auditioning those speakers and seeing which one I like best.

When it comes to the sonic characteristics I seem to perceive between them, is it possible that my impressions of the difference is inaccurate, totally swayed by non-sonic influences? It's possible. But it's also plausible the speakers sound different in the way I perceive them to sound different. Unless someone can present some technical case that it is MORE plausible that the speakers did not differ in the way I perceived, then pragmatically speaking, I'm justified in going on my impressions. Just as I am justified in going with my sonic impressions to get my work done.


As I've said: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is a heuristic that does a lot of useful work. If I were comparing AC cables and reporting sonic differences, you'd be able to make a very good case why it was implausible there were indeed those sonic differences.
But that same skepticism does not scale reliably as we enter the realm of real sonic differences. Not everything can just be dismissed as "imagined" "a result of bias, and not that of the actual sound."

If I audition a pair of KEF LS50 and huge Wilson Audio WAMMs in the same store, and I report that when listening to the KEFs I really missed the impact and larger scale of the WAAM, it is quite plausible my perception is getting at real sonic differences. If you were to claim that I shouldn't rely on my impression "because it's JUST as likely your perception was swayed by the sighted conditions" then you'd better bring a good technical case for why, on sonic/technical grounds along, my impression of differing scale is implausible. Once we enter the realm of plausible sonic differences, pragmatism can justify coming to conclusions based on the means we have at our disposal for checking our reactions to different speakers.

Not to mention: a sighted audition of speakers is also actually more tightly linked to the conditions I'll be listening, than blind testing would be.
 

dshreter

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
794
Likes
1,226
The thing is, that is exactly the data that seems to be missing.

If one is thinking in a scientific frame of mind, we know that scientists are always rightly cautious about extrapolating what can, or can not be, extrapolated under controlled lab conditions. Because the real world is suffuse with variables that may skew results. "This is how things look in our controlled lab results, but we need to see how this plays out in the real world, before we can be confident in extrapolating to those different conditions."

The speaker research people so often refer to here is that done under blinded conditions. That is certainly informative. It tells you how people respond when the variables are dropped down (almost) to only "just the sound." You can certainly build confidence as to what speakers people will choose as satisfying under the control conditions of those tests. But the question remains "how does this port to the real world" - that of how consumers will be listening at home, in sighted conditions?

Are there all sorts of equally strong studies that the speakers chosen under blinded conditions are more popular with consumers? Studies that show that choosing those speakers results in longer term satisfaction? If they exist, I haven't seen them. (And I've mentioned this before - haven't been directed to any such studies). So there is this big gap still from lab experiment to in field/real world results.

So, yes, reference to the blind testing is certainly relevant to uncovering trends if we don't see the speakers. But one should be much more cautious in leaping to an inference like "therefore this predicts greater/longer consumer satisfaction with X speakers that inched out Y speakers in blind testing." Lacking strong data for this, caution and humility are recommended. The anecdotal evidence we have is that are people who have found long lasting satisfaction with just about every speaker design type you can mention.
You're absolutely right. I should have stated "I believe....." followed by whatever I said ;)

However, there is a reasonable amount that is known about objective qualities for loudspeakers, even if there aren't longitudinal studies. It's not perfect, but the price of used products is a longitudinal study of sorts.

I feel confident that without listening to a speaker I could choose one I would like quite easily based upon speakers I have previously liked and application of what I know about those to selecting others.
 

MarkS

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 3, 2021
Messages
1,062
Likes
1,502
Any other listening test method is dominated by non-sonic factors, aka sighted listening. Repeat, in vain hope of it sinking in, dominated by non-sonic factors.
What is your evidence for this claim?

It would appear to mean, for example, that Harman's trained listeners lose all their ability as soon as they open their eyes.

I think this is nonsense.
 
OP
MattHooper

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
What is your evidence for this claim?

It would appear to mean, for example, that Harman's trained listeners lose all their ability as soon as they open their eyes.

I think this is nonsense.

Yup. Some people overreach in their conclusions from the available data.

Are all our perceptions outside of controlled conditions 'dominated by non-sonic factors' such that we should regard perception as always inaccurate and untrustworthy? That is clearly a ridiculous, untenable conclusion. It's self refuting (even typing a response entails some rational confidence in what your senses are showing you). But then, the person making these overreaching claims would have to start explaining why sighted impressions are so useless in the case of listening to speakers, but reasonable to rely on in so many other real world use. And...where is the line where sighted impressions cross in to more/less reliable?
As I keep saying, that sighted listening is "less reliable" does not equate to "false," "worthless," "totally unreliable."

From what I remember, even in the blind vs sighted tests usually cited to show the influence of sighted bias, some relationships/trends carry through from the sighted to blind testing.
 
Last edited:

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,448
Likes
4,209
Yet again, Matt, your blind spot is showing (pun).
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,448
Likes
4,209
What is your evidence for this claim?

It would appear to mean, for example, that Harman's trained listeners lose all their ability as soon as they open their eyes.

I think this is nonsense.
Then you need to read more. Start with Sound Reproduction by F E Toole, PhD.

If you absorb its lessons with an open mind, each of your opinions expressed above will be revised.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,521
Likes
37,049
Of course not. But rational actions are guided by practical considerations.

If there are two different speaker designs I'm interested in, and there is no way to blind test them, nor any spin data on them, then in pragmatic terms I'm left
to auditioning those speakers and seeing which one I like best.

When it comes to the sonic characteristics I seem to perceive between them, is it possible that my impressions of the difference is inaccurate, totally swayed by non-sonic influences? It's possible. But it's also plausible the speakers sound different in the way I perceive them to sound different. Unless someone can present some technical case that it is MORE plausible that the speakers did not differ in the way I perceived, then pragmatically speaking, I'm justified in going on my impressions. Just as I am justified in going with my sonic impressions to get my work done.


As I've said: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is a heuristic that does a lot of useful work. If I were comparing AC cables and reporting sonic differences, you'd be able to make a very good case why it was implausible there were indeed those sonic differences.
But that same skepticism does not scale reliably as we enter the realm of real sonic differences. Not everything can just be dismissed as "imagined" "a result of bias, and not that of the actual sound."

If I audition a pair of KEF LS50 and huge Wilson Audio WAMMs in the same store, and I report that when listening to the KEFs I really missed the impact and larger scale of the WAAM, it is quite plausible my perception is getting at real sonic differences. If you were to claim that I shouldn't rely on my impression "because it's JUST as likely your perception was swayed by the sighted conditions" then you'd better bring a good technical case for why, on sonic/technical grounds along, my impression of differing scale is implausible. Once we enter the realm of plausible sonic differences, pragmatism can justify coming to conclusions based on the means we have at our disposal for checking our reactions to different speakers.

Not to mention: a sighted audition of speakers is also actually more tightly linked to the conditions I'll be listening, than blind testing would be.
Well, those Harman tests were done sighted at times. One thing they showed is pretty much you cannot count on sighted impressions. Your knowledge of reputations or in the case of sighted employees speakers that were from their company and a host of other biases like the usual price and appearance all distorted rankings badly. This in the same room with the ability to switch between speakers very quickly. I believe there is evidence we mostly hear thru the room at least down to 500 hz and even lower frequencies in large rooms.

Has left me wondering about sighted listening and especially those done different places and different times removed from each session. I've also mentioned that I'm pretty confident I could identify the bass of a large panel vs box speakers using this method having lived with panels for years. It is so hard however, you get stronger feelings about what is a good sound vs bad when sighted than when blinded. I've done what everyone else does out of a lack of alternatives. Go listen and see what I think about the sound of speakers. Maybe a cautionary phrase since I instinctively typed "see" what I think.

I found all early Thiele speakers to sound brightish. The designer was shooting for flat measured response (not the downward slope) which makes sense. I found early Vandersteen speakers to sound a little slow, lacking detail and soft. The designer also was shooting for flat measured response. What limited data there is indicates the Vandy's were probably much less peaky up and down off axis. Thiele speakers pretty much nailed the perfect Q on the woofer, and Vandy speakers had that Acoustic Coupler that sort of added low end. Maybe those explain the difference or not. Both could do a pretty good square wave though not as good as a Quad ESL63.

I had read so many good things about the Quad ESL63 without hearing them. A friend purchased some and said I needed to come listen to them. I already owned some Acoustat Twos. When I heard the ESL63 it seemed well beyond any speaker I'd heard. I said right then I had to have some. Within a few months I did. I used them happily for 12 years until one malfunctioned. Were all of these opinions close to useless due to bias that became more reinforcing the more I listened? I don't think any of us want to answer that question with a yes. The big scary question is whether the correct answer is yes.

Obviously some sound is so far from the realm we can say so without blind comparisons. You would think living with a speaker would work too. How far can bias cover up for differences in sound? Not far enough to like what most sound systems in bars and concert arenas sound like. Not enough to like what lots of rap fans want their car stereo to sound like. Maybe much further than we'd like to think with home stereo however. It is almost impossible to answer isn't it?
 

YSC

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
3,194
Likes
2,570
Yup. Some people overreach in their conclusions from the available data.

Are all our perceptions outside of controlled conditions 'dominated by non-sonic factors' such that we should regard perception as always inaccurate and untrustworthy? That is clearly a ridiculous, untenable conclusion. It's self refuting (even typing a response entails some rational confidence in what your senses are showing you). But then, the person making these overreaching claims would have to start explaining why sighted impressions are so useless only in the case of listening to speakers. And...where is the line where sighted impressions cross in to more/less reliable?
As I keep saying, that sighted listening is "less reliable" does not equate to "false," "worthless," "totally unreliable."

From what I remember, even in the blind vs sighted tests usually cited to show the influence of sighted bias, some relationships/trends carry through from the sighted to blind testing.
Actually from what I read thus far, what your own experience is already an evidence of sighted bias which changes over genres over time, or certain colouration make some instruments to sound “more real” to you than other, the favourite or “preferred” speaker list didn’t measure the same, on or off axis, so if A make kick drum sounded “more real” and B make “The live performance feel of violin” etc. goes, it does sound to me like: I love colouration A for kick drum and B for violin”, which, won’t sound as “real” when changing the music.

Psychological influences is actually easier to perceive than expected, I take it this way in a very simple form: when a plasticky, $100 trendy speaker like any computer speaker brand or HomePod etc. is being used, even if it got the best sound over all, one would think: this is tiny, and plasticky with more focus on toyish design choice to please the general Joe, not audiophile/ pros. So one in serious listening as in choosing of the right speaker where he got a budget would just focus in what it didn’t do right, as in “look! Isn’t the violin just so ever lack the woody tone”

While with a huge speaker in artistic, perfect woodwork, huge drivers with bad ass looking materials which looks like aliens tech or bullet proof, even if the tonality isn’t right, would focus more on things it excels, like deeper bass, even if it’s bloated.

Pun intended, it’s much like how one feels your own lover is the best looking in the world
 

kemmler3D

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 25, 2022
Messages
3,008
Likes
5,601
Location
San Francisco
in regard to the slight distortion from my tube amps (presuming for sake of argument that is what is happening), the only reason I have kept the amps for 20 years is because they sound good with ALL genres of music. For me it (slightly) enhances almost everything.
FWIW when I produce electronic music, I usually add harmonic distortion to everything, or nearly everything. Makes the sound fuller, richer, etc. I am far from alone in this... the "warm analog" sound is highly sought after even among the majority of people producing digital first and only.

As such it's not surprising that people like a dash of extra THD in their systems, it just goes against the ideology of capital-F "Fidelity".
 

MarkS

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 3, 2021
Messages
1,062
Likes
1,502
Then you need to read more. Start with Sound Reproduction by F E Toole, PhD.

If you absorb its lessons with an open mind, each of your opinions expressed above will be revised.

Here's the relevant plot from that book:

toole.jpg


As you can see, the only significant change in going from blind to sighted listening was the drop in the ranking of a small cheap sub-sat system, vs three tower systems. The relative rankings of the three towers were unchanged.

IMO, this refutes your claim that sighted listening is "dominated by non-sonic factors".
 
Top Bottom