A Broad Discussion of Speakers with Major Audio Luminaries

[Arindal]

There are a lot of examples. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

No, I would really like to know which example of a successful mass-market product you mean.

I did not mean to sound anyhow hostile or rude, and I think Dr. Toole has got the essence of my posting, highlighting that we share the same ideals and express the same frustration about the market. If not, I hereby apologize to him.

Looking back, this is probably the most frustrating fact of all. The fundamental answers were evident in my 1966 experiments, and greatly reinforced with competent anechoic measurements in 1986/86 that visually correlated with double-blind subjective sound quality ratings. The answers were published for all to see, but buried in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, not being discussed in real time on an Internet forum or presented in lectures on YouTube. The means of communication were primitive, and the world was slow to realize that the research existed.

We totally agree on the outcome of this process and the potential for frustration to any competent engineer it would pose. Admittingly I was too young to really follow the publication history you are mentioning, but I am aware of many examples of printed publications, interviews and articles by manufacturers from the 1970s and 1980s whom I would see in line with your position. You might be aware of what Karl Breh was doing at the time, for example, so I don't think it was really a secret which parameters were defining sound quality and which rather not.

From how I understand it, something started changing audio-related in the 1990s, making a lot of people more or less deliberately walk away from solid engineering and scientific findings. This not only led to a vast number of transducers which we both would find questionable, it also gave way to a lot of pretty unfounded beliefs among audiophiles, which are frequently discussed in any of the ´Snake oil´ threads on this board.

It was obvious to me and others, that sales did not correlate well with sound quality.

When you mentioned your research on double blind testing of sound quality, I already wondered, why? Maybe this sounds like a very naive marketing perspective, but I would expect products showing high preference levels with some significance in controlled tests, to be equally successful in laymen's tests hence selling successfully.

I see you only recently joined this forum, but surely you have become aware of the obvious trend within the industry - at least the parts of it that respect science and competent engineering. The answer is of course, Yes.

I have been following the forum prior to registering, and had some discussions with Amir on another board, so I am aware of these tendencies. And although I fully support the idea of science and competent engineering, I have my doubts that even a noticeable, increasing minority of the market is really following.

From my perspective it was interesting to see how science was accepted among the Harman brands - some jumped at the new guidance, while others were more attached to the power of marketing to move product. The automobile engineers associated with our automotive audio business respected the science and that business grew dramatically, expanding into virtually all automobile services other than the drivetrain itself.

Thanks for your insides. That is really interesting to me, as I myself recently bought a new premium car equipped with a Harman-provenance sound system which obviously had been tuned not following the science you are mentioning (really way too much bass).

Their products may or may not be in the minds of everyday audio enthusiasts, but they exist. Both facts and unsubstantiated marketing claims are in the faces of consumers, and time will tell which is the more powerful motivator for purchasers.

Never meant to doubt the existence of competently engineered loudspeakers, and I might want to add several more manufacturers who have done amazing things in the last 20 years. Nevertheless I have my doubts that these represent a majority of the audio market or have gained market share in recent years since there is more of a public discussion on measurements, science and competent engineering.

In contrary, I have the impression that my car system´s tonality is rather a typical example of the direction the successful mass-market audio products seemingly follow these days. Whenever I meet people who buy a new car with premium sound, portable speakers, soundbars or headphones, the majority likes really unhealthily boosted bass and prefers products with such tonality. Lots of Harman brands among those products, btw.

We want to believe that what we think we hear at the moment is an absolute truth. Opinions matter more than facts." Add in some good marketing, a persuasive salesman and memories of forum chatter and opinions can take many forms only loosely connected to the sound actually heard. Anything can be sold in the absence of a controlled, blind, listening test or a belief in measurements.

I am fully aware that such mechanisms are at play with a whole lot of audio purchases, and a lot of people buy things which would not stand a double blind test.

On the other hand, if controlled tests are mainly about subjective preference, I would expect the products succeeding in such environment, also to be preferred under sighted conditions typically found in living rooms and at dealerships, at least in the majority of cases. Even if conditions are non-ideal and listeners are biased this or that way, why wouldn't they choose the very same speaker as best-sounding they had preferred under controlled conditions? It is kind of counterintuitive to me assuming the majority would buy speakers they would not prefer.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Even if conditions are non-ideal and listeners are biased this or that way, why wouldn't they choose the very same speaker as best-sounding they had preferred under controlled conditions? It is kind of counterintuitive to me assuming the majority would buy speakers they would not prefer.

Please re-read this portion of Dr. Toole's post. I believe it answers your question quite well:

Meanwhile, audiophiles trust their ears and that is a problem, because subjective evaluations, opinions, about sound quality are not trustworthy under normal listening conditions. I posted this earlier in an ASR forum: " the real "weak link"in audio is human nature. We want to believe that what we think we hear at the moment is an absolute truth. Opinions matter more than facts." Add in some good marketing, a persuasive salesman and memories of forum chatter and opinions can take many forms only loosely connected to the sound actually heard. Anything can be sold in the absence of a controlled, blind, listening test or a belief in measurements.

 

[MattHooper]

Rather like 50+ years old, maybe dating back to your first experiments. Looking back, this seems to have failed spectacularly in the past, paving the ground for all sorts of audiophile beliefs, expensive high end audio, renaissance of outdated tech like vinyl records or stereo.

What makes you think that this time things will work out? Hi-fi folks who have their beliefs, in the vast majority seemingly stick to them, tend to ignore what is presented as scientific findings, and in the end of the day believe what they experience in own listening tests.

Not that this would satisfy what you’re looking for but….

A lot of the action for many audiophiles has moved to YouTube, and there’s been a distinct increase in the number of YouTube review channels adopting measurements as at least part of their review.
Whether we’re talking gold standard like Erin (Erin’s Audio Corner) or previously more informal reviewers like Andrew Robinson and many others who at least often provide in room measurements of a loudspeaker (we can quibble with the method, but at least it’s in the direction of giving credence to measurements). Even Darko often throws in room measurements to make some points.

So this seems to be satisfying, a newer desire to get up to speed in terms of the relevance of measurements.

Also, it seems to me places like the audiophile subreddit generally skews to a newer generation of audiophiles - not entirely, but much more than most other longtime audio forums. And many don’t seem, therefore to have been inculcated in the old school golden ear world of woo woo. I seem to observe, generally less patience with bullshit technically implausible claims among the members there.

It might also be worth pointing to the great success of companies like KEF who are now near the forefront of high-quality speaker engineering, and seem to have had a significant impact on the market. The LS50s are ubiquitous - sort of like the “new BOSE” for aspiring new audiophiles… but actually measuring much better.

Thinking back the first were startup Canadian manufacturers who were attracted to me and the NRC for what was offered to them by their government: knowledge and acoustical measurement facilities. In the '80s PSB, Paradigm, Axiom Energy, Mirage and several other branded loudspeakers were designed using NRCC facilities I had created for the research.

And John Otvos’ Waveform speaker brand!

Apparently, when John met you at the NRC and discussed some of his ideas for loudspeakers, it was you who said he needed a good engineer and suggested two names:
Paul Barton of PSB fame and Dr, Claude Fortier of S.O.T.A.

And John went on to employ those fine men in creating the iconoclastic looking Waveform speakers which got much acclaim, including from The Audio Critic Peter Aczel.

They were some of my favourite loudspeakers ever, especially this one that I had in my room for quite a while:

 

[Newman]

Exactly. Well spotted Jim.

 

[MattHooper]

Please re-read this portion of Dr. Toole's post. I believe it answers your question quite well:

Indeed I think that does address Arindal’s comment.

But just to take this portion:

“Meanwhile, audiophiles trust their ears and that is a problem, because subjective evaluations, opinions, about sound quality are not trustworthy under normal listening conditions.”

…at least raises the prospect, as I’ve mentioned before, of a conundrum in purchasing speakers based on blind testing preferences in the first place. If there’s that big a gulf between perception under normal listening conditions at home versus blind listening conditions, how are the results of blind listening tests relevant to what we’ll actually perceive in our normal listening conditions?
How would blind listening preferences translate to the actual typical use case for loudspeakers?

My own view is that there is no conundrum:
It’s not the case Dr Toole’s work has been all in vain. Quite the opposite:
Purchasing loudspeakers based on measurements that have been correlated to high preference scores in blind listening is very sensible.

But it’s only sensible if the gulf between perception in informal “normal listening” conditions vs blind conditions isn’t exaggerated too greatly. We must acknowledge that variables associated with sighted conditions mean sighted conclusions are significantly less reliable than those found under carefully controlled blind testing. If you are seeking truly reliable information about the subjective interpretation of gear, you use blind testing. If you’re seeking reliable information about the objective performance you use measurements. And of course, you try to correlate the two. Full stop.

But if the “less reliable” results of sighted listening become depicted as “Wholly unreliable or never accurate”** the conundrum intrudes, and the relevance of blind listening impressions to our everyday sighted listening use cases becomes more tenuous.

Anyway… tons of wonderful stuff in Floyd’s reply.

** (and I’m not presuming dr Toole means this, but it seems to be sometimes suggested or implied by some on this forum)

 

[MarkS]

But if the “less reliable” results of sighted listening become depicted as “Wholly and always unreliable” the conundrum intrudes, and the relevance of blind listening impressions to our everyday sighted listening use cases becomes more tenuous.

I believe that Dr. Toole has never said that sighted listening is "wholly and always unreliable", or anything close to that.

Which is good, because it is obviously untrue.

That of course has not stopped some posters here from saying it loudly and often.

 

[Mart68]

An objectively good speaker should sound better than the rest in any room shouldn't it? The worse the speaker the more sensitive it will be to placement and to the acoustic environment.

We don't know that more customers are not buying objectively good speakers. They might be.

I can think of a number of reasons they wouldn't, which have nothing to do with sound. Dealer doesn't stock any good speakers, or those he has are over budget, or he pushes the worse speaker as there's more margin in it, or it's old stock he wants to shift.

Or the customer has already made up his mind what he wants from watching a Youtube review and just goes in and buys it. No dealer is going to force an audition on him.

 

[Newman]

I believe that Dr. Toole has never said that sighted listening is "wholly and always unreliable", or anything close to that.

The critical factor is that the listening tests must be blind or double-blind - sighted tests cannot be trusted. - Floyd Toole #285

From the perspective of sound quality, I would trust my interpretation of a “spinorama” presentation of anechoic measurements more than my subjective judgment in a typical consumer listening circumstance. - Floyd Toole #604

...and from other esteemed audio researchers:-

If you want to obtain an accurate and reliable measure of how the audio product truly sounds, the listening test must be done blind. - Sean Olive https://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/

I have done many blind tests, way too many, sometimes it seems, but it's the only way to accurately establish an audible difference, even of differences described as "large" or "obvious". - James D Johnson #197

What humans are really good at is incorporating all senses. Even when they don't want to be, or are trying not to be. - James D Johnson #8,140

Which is good, because it is obviously untrue.

Sure, sure.

That of course has not stopped some posters here from saying it loudly and often.

...and with references!

[To third parties reading this: don't be surprised if MarkS continues to make his false assertions, because this has been pointed out numerous times. I have posted the above quotes in several locations, including threads that he appears to be reading.]

cheers

 

[MattHooper]

The critical factor is that the listening tests must be blind or double-blind - sighted tests cannot be trusted. - Floyd Toole #285

From the perspective of sound quality, I would trust my interpretation of a “spinorama” presentation of anechoic measurements more than my subjective judgment in a typical consumer listening circumstance. - Floyd Toole #604

...and from other esteemed audio researchers:-

If you want to obtain an accurate and reliable measure of how the audio product truly sounds, the listening test must be done blind. - Sean Olive https://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/

I have done many blind tests, way too many, sometimes it seems, but it's the only way to accurately establish an audible difference, even of differences described as "large" or "obvious". - James D Johnson #197

What humans are really good at is incorporating all senses. Even when they don't want to be, or are trying not to be. - James D Johnson #8,140

Note that sensible interpretation of the above is fully consistent with what I wrote here:

We must acknowledge that variables associated with sighted conditions mean sighted conclusions are significantly less reliable than those found under carefully controlled blind testing. If you are seeking truly reliable information about the subjective interpretation of gear, you use blind testing. If you’re seeking reliable information about the objective performance you use measurements. And of course, you try to correlate the two. Full stop.

It’s only overzealous interpretation of those type of quotes that leads some folks (*ahem*) to incoherent levels of scepticism about informal listening impressions. (And to the conundrum I referenced)

 

[Axo1989]

I believe that Dr. Toole has never said that sighted listening is "wholly and always unreliable", or anything close to that.

Which is good, because it is obviously untrue.

That of course has not stopped some posters here from saying it loudly and often.

It's been some time—maybe a year—since I've deliberately un-hidden and read a @Newman post. I'm going to hold you responsible. Not wrong (and not solely) but responsible.

 

[MarkS]

It's been some time—maybe a year—since I've deliberately un-hidden and read a @Newman post. I'm going to hold you responsible. Not wrong (and not solely) but responsible.

My sincere apologies!

 

[SigbergAudio]

Yes, but given the variability of commercial recordings (some bass-heavy, some light-in-the-loafers, no real standards at work here), wouldn't it be nice to have a couple of simple bass and treble controls available, to bring them back to "neutral"?

I find the same as @MattHooper, on a well balanced / dialed-in system, I rarely feel like I need to adjust the sound. If you constantly feel like something's off, the system is probably not properly balanced.

I also would rather just enjoy the music than adjust the sound for (potentially) every song or album.

That being said, I'm also not against tone controls from a philosophical standpoint, I think both the tone controls and loudness button (for low level listening) is something that should have stayed.

I think the Pure direct buttons of the 90s ruined the idea of "neutral" for a whole generation, as I think the resulting sound in many systems back then was a sound that was too lean and anemic rather than truly neutral.

 

[Jiraya369]

dB SPL @ 1 watt @ 1 m iis the "traditional" statement of sensitivity, but it needs elaboration, and it has been replaced.

Today the standard method of measuring loudspeaker sensitivity is to use an input of 2.83 volts and measure the sound pressure level in an anechoic space in the far field of the source. 2.83 volts generates 1 watt into 8 ohms. a number that was selected because 8 ohms is the nominal load for defining the power output of amplifiers. For consumer and monitor loudspeaker systems the far field is typically 2 m or more, depending on the size of the loudspeaker, and the measured SPL is adjusted by calculation to what it would have been at 1 m. So, the measured SPL level at 2 m is lifted by 6 dB (a factor of 2 in distance in this example) to give us the sensitivity at the standard distance of 1 m. Only single transducers and small loudspeaker systems yield valid measurements at 1 m. Sensitivity should be specified as the average SPL over a frequency range, such as 300 Hz to 3 kHz (there are other possible ranges) to avoid manufacturers picking a peak in the frequency response to get a favorable specification. Ignore any specifications that do not specify how sensitivity was measured, and absolutely ignore in-room measurements.

But this statement alone is not enough information. We need to know the impedance characteristics.

Loudspeaker systems and transducers do not have constant impedance, even though manufacturers specify a "nominal" impedance. A lot of "8 ohm" loudspeaker systems have impedances that more correctly would be described as 4 ohms, and they may have minimum impedances even lower at some frequencies, and maximum impedances much higher. That means that the power into the loudspeaker varies with frequency, so there is no meaningful power sensitivity except at specific frequencies, which is a useless situation, but the charade goes on. Loudspeakers with real impedances lower than the specified number extract more power from the amplifier which is a problem for customers. Many inexpensive power amplifiers cannot drive lower impedances, leading to clipping and protective circuit activation - distortions we want to avoid. To be safe, choose power amplifiers that are designed to safely drive 4 ohms, and even better, 2 ohms. The best ones will double power into halved impedances, but many do not, but are still stable. In multichannel amplifiers be careful to note how many channels are driven for the power specification, and over what frequency range the specification holds.

The current standard is a voltage sensitivity, which for solid state amplifiers (constant voltage sources) is appropriate. It works so long as the impedance minimum does not result in current limiting of the output stages, so a full impedance specification needs to include a minimum impedance. Some incompetent system designs have had impedances that drop to under 1 ohm. Ignorant reviewers thought that such loudspeakers were able to "reveal" differences between power amplifiers, when in fact they were the problem. The result has been generations of massive monoblock "arc welder" power amps that can drive very low impedances and remain stable - expensive solutions for problems that should not exist.

Efficiency is a measure of acoustical power out compared to the electrical power in, and the percentages are low. Measuring the acoustical power out is complicated so it is almost an academic concept. In addition, a percentage is not very helpful in practical applications. The word "efficiency" is widely misused in common parlance.

i know this is random but i just wanted to say thanks for all you've done in the past and continue to do so in these forums, it feels like each post you make gives new insights and i find that not only helpful but also quite intriguing.

Can't imagine how the audio world would look without your groundbreaking research. the GOAT

 

[Juhazi]

Some thoughts from a 66yo audioholic,
95% of people that I know (including many musicians) are not critical about their audio gear. Decent price and sound are enough - headphones, soundbars and boomboxes are ok. Most of them don't even touch tone controls (unlike in 70-80's) with exception of bass boost! The 5% are somehow interested in "hifi"- most of them are gadget freaks who are never satisfied and endlessly update their gear, even speakers. Many are critical about sound and have learned about basic principles behind electronics and acoustics. But still they have their special priorizations and preferences that are diverse. Most likely all these 50+ yo men have impaired hearing...

I am in the last mentioned old hifist group, so when setting up diy speakers I use measurements to reach good objective perforrmance. But after that I make some subjective tone adjustments. I am happy with decent commercial electronic gear. In the car and with headphones I have to use tone contols always.

Audio manufacturing companies and salesmen have different priorities than a single consumer or diyer. A small company can have a branded sound or esthetic signature, but megas must give options. That's business.

Scientific studies done in universities and big companies are very important and research is utilized widely in industry. In large scale audiovisual gadgets have evolved to very good level and even low-moderate price category is mostly fine.

 

[Arindal]

I believe it answers your question quite well:

With all due respect, it does not. I did not mean to doubt that skilled salesman and communicators can sell whatever product would not stand a controlled test. But i was referring to a not so hypothetical scenario in which a loudspeaker model superior from engineering perspective is subjectively preferred in a controlled test with great certainty, while a technically inferior model by a competitor is greatly preferred under field conditions, i.e. a sighted test, hence leading to a market dominance of the latter.

Three decades of B&W is a bright example of this happening. They made some pretty solidly engineered products in the 1990s, to a certain degree following Dr. Toole´s standards, and eventually switched to a deliberately kinked, effect-laden ´house sound´ in some generations released in the last 25 years. While taking the market by storm particularly with dealerships offering comparison tests to their customers, they were found to be greatly inferior in controlled tests undertaken by Dr. Toole´s successors at the same time, if I understood Amir's and Dr. Olive´s data correctly.

Why is that so?

A lot of the action for many audiophiles has moved to YouTube, and there’s been a distinct increase in the number of YouTube review channels adopting measurements as at least part of their review.

Certainly true, and I really welcome this movement if it is bringing awareness for phenomena of room acoustics and speaker properties. I have my doubts, though, if this is really moving the market in the sense of a majority of people switching to a preferrence of linear, solidly engineered speakers for the sake of excellent measurements.

An objectively good speaker should sound better than the rest in any room shouldn't it?

No it is not expected to do so. Given the fact that room acoustics, directivity behavior, speaker placement, listening distance and music material used for the test greatly vary, it is to be expected that a speaker succeeding under controlled lab conditions, might loose to a technically inferior product which is simply a better choice under home conditions.

I would go so far to say that ´objectively good´ cannot be defined under lab conditions without knowing the acoustic conditions of the actual application.

The worse the speaker the more sensitive it will be to placement and to the acoustic environment.

Don´t really subscribe to that. There are excellent speakers like dedicated nearfield monitors or bass-heavy speakers ideal for open-air sound reinforcement, which spectacularly fail under living room conditions. Does this sensitivity make a speaker bad? I don't think so.

Or the customer has already made up his mind what he wants from watching a Youtube review and just goes in and buys it. No dealer is going to force an audition on him.

Lots of dealers try. And I don't think people who are in the market for speakers costing several thousand bucks, trust a YT reviewer without conducting own listening tests. Trade shows are full of people who actually want to know how speakers sound in the real world. And in many cases they opt for speakers which are anything but ideal from a technical perspective.

I don't mean to say that speakers should not be measured or judged from technical point. Just pointed out that Dr. Toole´s comment on ´We just need to educate the public to choose loudspeakers solely based on technical aspects´ is overly optimistic IMHO.

 

[Mart68]

Three decades of B&W is a bright example of this happening. They made some pretty solidly engineered products in the 1990s, to a certain degree following Dr. Toole´s standards, and eventually switched to a deliberately kinked, effect-laden ´house sound´ in some generations released in the last 25 years. While taking the market by storm particularly with dealerships offering comparison tests to their customers, they were found to be greatly inferior in controlled tests undertaken by Dr. Toole´s successors at the same time, if I understood Amir's and Dr. Olive´s data correctly.

Have B&W taken the market by storm? I thought they were making a loss, at least in recent years.

No it is not expected to do so. Given the fact that room acoustics, directivity behavior, speaker placement, listening distance and music material used for the test greatly vary, it is to be expected that a speaker succeeding under controlled lab conditions, might loose to a technically inferior product which is simply a better choice under home conditions.

Whilst there's always going to be edge cases my understanding is that a speaker with good on and off axis performance is less sensitive to room acoustic and placement. Is this not what the research indicates? I thought I had read that but maybe I'm mistaken.

And I don't think people who are in the market for speakers costing several thousand bucks, trust a YT reviewer without conducting own listening tests.

We're talking about the mass-market I thought? So speakers costing several hundred not several thousand. But I accept I am speculating there.

don't mean to say that speakers should not be measured or judged from technical point. Just pointed out that Dr. Toole´s comment on ´We just need to educate the public to choose loudspeakers solely based on technical aspects´ is overly optimistic IMHO.

I agree.

 

[Sokel]

If I had to do a poll by what attracts people the most at audio shows, I would narrow it down to what I call "low distortion" ones.
Everyone wants clean, loud enough, tight and deep lows speakers.

Which speakers do that effortlessly? Usually bigger ones, that's why we see the rooms with big speakers (and I mean big, by my definition) packed with people at these shows while maybe nicer speakers, with lower clean SPL ability though get no so many people.

The sole wow factor of a speaker is its ability to effortlessly output SPL without signs of strain.
This can even beat a proper FR sometimes, depending the conditions. What good is a nice FR for example if the speaker falls apart at every beat?

Companies use nice tricks these days, specially to boost lows, this does not come for free though.
Low distortion through audio band is a real thing, not just at mid-highs.

Think musicians and bands, it's the mains at the control room that do the sale.

 

[Arindal]

Have B&W taken the market by storm? I thought they were making a loss, at least in recent years.

After walking away from what is regarded to be solid engineering, and the launch of their N800 series with first order crossovers, around 25 years ago, I would assume that yes. Which appeared to be a bit ironic to me, as Dr. Olive and Amir were stating that one of these models around the year 2008 miserably lost in controlled blind testing to Harman´s own high end speakers at the time, which seemingly did not gain any traction in the market (actually it was close to impossible to find a dealer to demo them).

I have no information about recent years, though, and in the meantime they have been acquired by Harman, if I am not mistaken.

my understanding is that a speaker with good on and off axis performance is less sensitive to room acoustic and placement.

Having experience both with sound reinforcement and studio speakers, I would not subscribe to this conclusion. A speaker with good on and off axis performance is in many cases a broad-radiating, low directivity index speaker, optimized for nearfield listening or studio-grade room acoustics (or overdamped home cinemas). This certainly means high sensitivity to phenomena of room acoustics such as higher reverberation time, and a pretty high risk of failing spectacularly under typical home conditions.

On the other hand, high directivity index speakers might succeed under lively home conditions or at greater listening distances, simply for the fact of narrow radiation, despite showing other flaws which would make them inferior under studio or lab conditions.

We're talking about the mass-market I thought? So speakers costing several hundred not several thousand.

For the mass market you are talking about, I guess there is good indication what people are actually buying, by looking for example at Amazon's bestseller lists. If you exclude the very cheap models or those being solely bought for connectivity reasons (such as Amazon's own products), I would assume that people seem to opt first and foremost for models delivering a fair amount of bass and SPL, not flawless measurements or technical superiority.

If you happen to listen to some recently successful models by JBL, Sony, Soundcore, Tronsmart, Bose and alike, you might come to a similar conclusion.

The sole wow factor of a speaker is its ability to effortlessly output SPL without signs of strain.
This can even beat a proper FR sometimes, depending the conditions. What good is a nice FR for example if the speaker falls apart at every beat?

That is certainly true to many demos at shows, but not to all of them. Some play at decent levels.

I would agree that a surprising percentage of people seemingly don't care for tonal accuracy but for overwhelming bass, high SPL and subjective dynamics. By which demos they are attracted at shows, though, I would not take as an indication of actual purchasing preference, as they might simply visit the rooms of the biggest, the most expensive and the most famous speaker companies out of curiosity.

 

[Sokel]

That is certainly true to many demos at shows, but not to all of them. Some play at decent levels.

I would agree that a surprising percentage of people seemingly don't care for tonal accuracy but for overwhelming bass, high SPL and subjective dynamics. By which demos they are attracted at shows, though, I would not take as an indication of actual purchasing preference, as they might simply visit the rooms of the biggest, the most expensive and the most famous speaker companies out of curiosity.

Curiosity is the same at whatever trends around but does not last long.
We see it at shows with every new, enough advertised design.

Agree to the fact that many people just want the experience or want to see what a high quality cabinet feels like for example, but that's secondary.
What I wrote above is not confined only to very expensive speakers (worth is another, separate factor) but to all, no matter the price.

Edit: Sometimes I feel that the whole audio hobby thing depends not on these big designs, one does not often change such speakers, but on regular bookshelves or small-ish 3-ways.
Why? Because people get them and no matter how good they are, they feel the same as the ones they ditched after the honeymoon period and once they are conditioned to them.

 

[Mart68]

I have no information about recent years, though, and in the meantime they have been acquired by Harman, if I am not mistaken.

£8 million loss, sales are up but only in the headphone area.

Bowers & Wilkins Pivots Amid Mixed Results, Eyes Future Growth

Bowers & Wilkins, the premium audio equipment manufacturer, has navigated a challenging fiscal year with a strategic pivot that could signal a robust path forward, despite recent setbacks. The company’…

thefinancialanalyst.net