• Welcome to ASR. 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!

A Broad Discussion of Speakers with Major Audio Luminaries

Just to be clear, the centre you refer to here is the centre of the tweeter, or the centre of the driver array?
The directivity of both the woofer/midrange and the tweeter are defined by the transducers and their mounting. What I was referring to was that frequency range in which both transducers are radiating energy, the addition of which at any vertical angle depends on their mounting locations and the specifics of the crossover. The "reference" axis is normally the tweeter or midway between the drivers, but at any reasonable listening distance the angular change is small.
 
As a method of eliminating one boundary effect the Lyngdorf makes absolute sense.
Lyngdorf, Lyngdorf....didn't Pedersen do some work with Lyngdorf on establishing more natural-sounding bass correction target responses? Maybe he was collaborating, or an employee there? The flat response targets being used at the time in early room correction products were attracting subjective disfavour, and Pedersen made measurements of naturally-occurring room gain in small rooms, and proposed that retaining these gain curves would be subjectively superior.

I remember being impressed at the time, and made sure to mention it when invited to make a presentation on the topic to the local AES chapter about 20 years ago. (As a layman, I was astonished that they would want to hear from me on the topic, just because I kept bringing it up in barstool conversation.)

I always wondered whether he was a pioneer in the development of the modern bass response room correction target, or just a laggard who I happened to notice. Any thoughts, Floyd?

cheers
Newman
 
Lyngdorf, Lyngdorf....didn't Pedersen do some work with Lyngdorf on establishing more natural-sounding bass correction target responses? Maybe he was collaborating, or an employee there? The flat response targets being used at the time in early room correction products were attracting subjective disfavour, and Pedersen made measurements of naturally-occurring room gain in small rooms, and proposed that retaining these gain curves would be subjectively superior.

I remember being impressed at the time, and made sure to mention it when invited to make a presentation on the topic to the local AES chapter about 20 years ago. (As a layman, I was astonished that they would want to hear from me on the topic, just because I kept bringing it up in barstool conversation.)

I always wondered whether he was a pioneer in the development of the modern bass response room correction target, or just a laggard who I happened to notice. Any thoughts, Floyd?

cheers
Newman
Pedersen's work is discussed in Section 13.3.2. It is a method for smoothing the sound power radiated into a room, and is evaluated by measurements done at numerous locations in the room. It does not take into account the room modes that affect what is heard at any specific location. It addresses a problem, but not the one that most affects what is heard by a single listener.
 
Floyd, You seem to be an expert on acoustics and sound etc. For the average 2 channel system user do we need to learn about acoustics 101 and more to choose speakers for our components and listening room or should we just trust our ears that it just 'sounds right', or is this discussion more of an academic one rather then practical one for most music lovers building a sound system ? When the BBC designed the Ls3/5 speaker did they have or care to have all this scientific knowledge that is being discussed here? Most so-called audiophiles are not schooled is such deep science when building a system, what should we do ?
 
Floyd, You seem to be an expert on acoustics and sound etc. For the average 2 channel system user do we need to learn about acoustics 101 and more to choose speakers for our components and listening room or should we just trust our ears that it just 'sounds right', or is this discussion more of an academic one rather then practical one for most music lovers building a sound system ? When the BBC designed the Ls3/5 speaker did they have or care to have all this scientific knowledge that is being discussed here? Most so-called audiophiles are not schooled is such deep science when building a system, what should we do ?
BBC might not have the same scientific understanding as we have today, but they were very serious in using the science available at the time to guide their designs. See for example the BBC report on their LS3/5A design and development.

 
BBC might not have the same scientific understanding as we have today, but they were very serious in using the science available at the time to guide their designs. See for example the BBC report on their LS3/5A design and development.

Interesting for sure, the selection of the wood for the speaker cabinet was an important consideration as well. I guess the current Ls3/5's are somewhat different then the original BBC designed ones. What would Floyd say about this BBC Ls3/5 speaker, was it flawed or did give the intended results that the BBC wanted for mobile usage ? Interesting that Ls3/5 became so popular for home stereo systems.
 
Floyd, You seem to be an expert on acoustics and sound etc. For the average 2 channel system user do we need to learn about acoustics 101 and more to choose speakers for our components and listening room or should we just trust our ears that it just 'sounds right', or is this discussion more of an academic one rather then practical one for most music lovers building a sound system ? When the BBC designed the Ls3/5 speaker did they have or care to have all this scientific knowledge that is being discussed here? Most so-called audiophiles are not schooled is such deep science when building a system, what should we do ?

That is a question for you, not for Dr. Toole. Do you believe in making educated purchases? Do you want to be an informed consumer, or are you the kind of guy who is content with buying whatever the salesman recommends? There is nothing wrong with the latter. Plenty of people make consumer purchases without in-depth research, including me. How much you feel you want to learn is up to you.

The problem with Dr. Toole's book (if I am allowed to say so) is that it is aimed at the serious enthusiast or academic. It is not what you would call "easy reading". It's a textbook. You have to WANT to learn before you sit down and slog through it. And believe me, the first time you read it, it IS a slog. I had to read it over and over before I understood some of what he said, and even now I still don't have the whole book in my head. Maybe Dr. Toole should consider writing a simplified book aimed at the general audience. Acoustics is pretty simple once you get the hang of it, and you don't need anything more than a high school understanding of maths and physics.
 
Floyd, You seem to be an expert on acoustics and sound etc. For the average 2 channel system user do we need to learn about acoustics 101 and more to choose speakers for our components and listening room or should we just trust our ears that it just 'sounds right', or is this discussion more of an academic one rather then practical one for most music lovers building a sound system ? When the BBC designed the Ls3/5 speaker did they have or care to have all this scientific knowledge that is being discussed here? Most so-called audiophiles are not schooled is such deep science when building a system, what should we do ?
(Your question seems to go from acoustics to speaker design, which are two separate but related things. I'll address acoustics)

I'm no Floyd Toole, but I'd say the 'average 2 channel user' -- i.e. one lacking the low bass source positioning options that subwoofers offer, and lacking certain ameliorating effects of having more than 2 loudspeakers -- is more at the mercy of room acoustics than others. Even if it's just one listener at the MLP.

The room is part of your sound system! There are things that can be wrong with it, and often are, that can be addressed.
Sticking to two channel, addressing them could include some 'room treatment' (either literally purpose-built, or achieved by thoughtful furnishing) and 'room EQ' now commonly available in AVRs.

There are even different arrangements of two speakers that might improve sound, depending on the room.

Or we can trust to luck and 'our ears'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpw
@mpw, you might enjoy a lecture that Floyd Toole gave to the school of music at McGill University:

Here's the summary from google ai.
This is a solid intro for consumer levels.

This lecture by *Floyd Toole*, a renowned expert in acoustics and sound reproduction, explores the intersection of **science and art** in high-fidelity audio. Toole argues that subjective opinions often dominate audio discussions, but meaningful progress requires rigorous **scientific measurement and double-blind listening tests** (0:49 - 6:27).

Key takeaways from the presentation include:

  • The Circle of Confusion (44:53):** Toole explains the cyclical problem in the industry: recording engineers create music based on their specific monitoring systems, while consumers listen on wildly different home systems. He emphasizes that neutral, accurate loudspeakers are essential in both the studio and the home to break this cycle.
  • The Spinorama (23:06):** Toole details the importance of anechoic measurements (the 'spinorama'), which capture how a loudspeaker radiates sound in all directions. This data is a powerful predictor of how a speaker will perform and be perceived in a real room.
  • Listening Test Reliability (5:56 - 11:15):** The speaker presents evidence that when controlled, double-blind tests are used, listeners—regardless of their level of expertise—are highly consistent in their preferences, often favoring speakers with flat and smooth frequency responses.
  • The Role of the Room (17:00 - 32:21):** While room acoustics (standing waves/modes) significantly impact low-frequency performance, Toole maintains that human perception is remarkably adept at 'streaming' sound, effectively separating the loudspeaker's performance from the room's character at higher frequencies.
  • Future of Audio (1:02:26):** He argues that active, digitally-controlled loudspeakers represent the future, as they allow for precise corrections that passive systems cannot achieve.

Throughout the lecture, Toole stresses that **good sound is the goal**, and by using scientific measurements to achieve neutrality, we can finally stop guessing and start experiencing the art as the performers and engineers intended.
 
Interesting for sure, the selection of the wood for the speaker cabinet was an important consideration as well. I guess the current Ls3/5's are somewhat different then the original BBC designed ones. What would Floyd say about this BBC Ls3/5 speaker, was it flawed or did give the intended results that the BBC wanted for mobile usage ? Interesting that Ls3/5 became so popular for home stereo systems.
The best LS3/5A loudspeakers were good "for their time". The worst were simply bad loudspeakers at any time. The problem with the several BBC designs I have experienced over the years is that they were inconsistent, being manufactured under license by different manufacturers not all of whom obviously cared much about quality control - i.e. meeting the BBC standard. There is a measurement of LS3/5A in Figure 17.3(f) in the 4th edition, and also in the 3rd. I did not show two other "versions" of the LS3/5A that could not have sounded very good. Rumor has it that transducers were substituted for the original KEF units in some versions - naughty. The very expensive LS5/8 is shown in Figure 3.11(f). Both of these examples do reasonably well on axis (direct sound) but poorly off axis (reflected sound in normal rooms). This did not matter much to the BBC because their broadcast mixers operated in acoustically dead or reflection-controlled rooms. Harwood took me on a personal tour of their facilities years ago. Some of the rooms were uncomfortably dead to be in, but apparently served the broadcast purpose well.

The much debated BBC dip was in these examples caused by poor matching of directivity in the woofer/midrange to tweeter crossover range. Something that horn/waveguide tweeters have all but eliminated in modern designs. It is a flaw, not a feature.

So, when these designs got used in homes results varied. Some notable designs, e.g. the KEF 105.2 used in the example of Figure 2.6 followed that guidance, were carefully designed to have superbly flat on-axis response, but neglected to pay attention to the off-axis reflected sounds. The result is that sound quality was compromised in normally reflective rooms.
 
Last edited:
That is a question for you, not for Dr. Toole. Do you believe in making educated purchases? Do you want to be an informed consumer, or are you the kind of guy who is content with buying whatever the salesman recommends? There is nothing wrong with the latter. Plenty of people make consumer purchases without in-depth research, including me. How much you feel you want to learn is up to you.

The problem with Dr. Toole's book (if I am allowed to say so) is that it is aimed at the serious enthusiast or academic. It is not what you would call "easy reading". It's a textbook. You have to WANT to learn before you sit down and slog through it. And believe me, the first time you read it, it IS a slog. I had to read it over and over before I understood some of what he said, and even now I still don't have the whole book in my head. Maybe Dr. Toole should consider writing a simplified book aimed at the general audience. Acoustics is pretty simple once you get the hang of it, and you don't need anything more than a high school understanding of maths and physics.
Are you suggesting "Sound Reproduction for Dummies":D?

Actually, you are correct that the basics are simple if one has access to accurate and comprehensive anechoic data - a spinorama for example - which is not so simple to acquire, and an understanding of how to interpret it. A while ago I put together a slide show that I thought moved in the direction of simplifying the explanation. You can download it at: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...on-book-is-coming-discount.63666/post-2579817

Even this was not enough, it seems, and greater simplification was requested. I have considered ways of doing it, and I may yet do it, but I always run up against the problems of oversimplification, and my observations and contributions to this forum relate to problems that are often are traced to only having understood part of the story. This simply leaves gaps in understanding that are easily filled by marketing rubbish or opinions. The operation is simple in principle, but it helps to have the attention span to understand the underlying rationale. That done understanding what needs to be done becomes almost intuitive.

Have a look, and let me know what you think.
 
Are you suggesting "Sound Reproduction for Dummies":D?

Actually, I am. Many textbooks have simplified versions which only contain the essentials. Some are written in a light and breezy manner so that students can quickly understand the concepts, but they will need to consult a more serious text if they want deeper knowledge. These books are heavy on colourful graphics and diagrams and get the point across very quickly. I can think of no such equivalent in the audio world, but you could look at Kumar and Clarke's textbook of Clinical Medicine for an example from my field. The "serious textbook" version is Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, which many of us consider the definitive text (yes, that is the same Dr. Fauci on the list of editors as the guy who is famous in the USA right now). Note that it comes in several editions, including a "dummies" edition.

One problem with writing a scientific book on audio is that for most people, audio is a hobby and not an academic pursuit. If you want to reach those people, you would be writing at the level of Jim Smith's Get Better Sound which gets quoted a lot in subjectivist forums. That book is a dangerous mish-mash of real phenomena and audiophile folklore. There is enough real stuff in there to make the text seem credible, but the casual reader can't tell the difference between what is real and what isn't. The key reason why that book is successful (in terms of reaching the lay audience) is that it is written in an approachable manner.

If I might be so bold, your book assumes a certain level of technical competence and knowledge on the part of the reader. Hobbyists don't know what an Energy-Time Curve is. Hardly anybody outside of ASR knows what we mean by "minimum-phase", and I would wager a large number of people here don't know either.

If our goal is to expand scientific thinking amongst audiophiles, it has to be clear that acquiring such knowledge will benefit them.
 
Last edited:
So, when these designs got used in homes results varied. Some notable designs, e.g. the KEF 105.2 used in the example of Figure 2.6 followed that guidance, were carefully designed to have superbly flat on-axis response, but neglected to pay attention to the off-axis reflected sounds. The result is that sound quality was compromised in normally reflective rooms.

Very interesting!

My dad was an audiophile and I grew up listening to KEF 195.2 speakers (with Carver amplification… including the Carver C-9 preamplifier with “ Sonic holography” settings. A fun parlour trick, often I preferred the sound with that feature turned off).

I wasn’t perceptive enough to notice issues, so my friends and I just thrilled to the massive holographic reproduction of bands like rush and Earth Wind and Fire in my living room.
And it was with those speakers that I experienced for the first time suggestions of sonic realism - e.g. the sensation of listening into a separate acoustic space to a voice or instrument - something that I didn’t even know existed until then.
 
That is a question for you, not for Dr. Toole. Do you believe in making educated purchases? Do you want to be an informed consumer, or are you the kind of guy who is content with buying whatever the salesman recommends? There is nothing wrong with the latter. Plenty of people make consumer purchases without in-depth research, including me. How much you feel you want to learn is up to you.
Beyond what a "salesman" recommends, over the last decades we've run into the issue that Peter Aczel wrote decades ago in my signature,
"How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information?"
There was a time we had publications in the industry that "Joe HiFi" read and mostly trusted, that recommended gear on it's good/improved measurements. Then came the day of the undergrounds, some published by honest sources, others by folks more interested in earning big advertisement dollars from the sellers of very expensive gear, and the days of "it sounds good to me" were born. Much of the last few decades has been in a void for honest objective reporting, and the bible of "more $money = better sound" has been the info available to 90% of those showing any interest in buying some new quality hi-fi gear. No wonder the hobby has fallen off a cliff for the non-very-wealthy customer :(
 
Hardly anybody outside of ASR knows what we mean by "minimum-phase", and I would wager a large number of people here don't know either.

Such people can find the answer to that in layman's terms in the first 3 paragraphs of section 1.5 of the 4th edition of Floyd's book.
 
Floyd, You seem to be an expert on acoustics and sound etc. For the average 2 channel system user do we need to learn about acoustics 101 and more to choose speakers for our components and listening room or should we just trust our ears that it just 'sounds right', or is this discussion more of an academic one rather then practical one for most music lovers building a sound system ? When the BBC designed the Ls3/5 speaker did they have or care to have all this scientific knowledge that is being discussed here? Most so-called audiophiles are not schooled is such deep science when building a system, what should we do ?
I've heard hundreds of examples of the BBC LS3/5a. In a heavily acoustically treated control rooms. In these circumstances they were good and sometimes astonishingly good on voice reproduction.

Compared to most speakers designed at the time a significant amount of trial and anechoic measurements as well listening tests took place. The R&D department included many brilliant engineers. The manufacturing specifications were hard to maintain by suppliers over the multiple years of manufacture. The products available for public purchase did not go through the rigorous testing that the studio-use ones went through. Despite this, LS3 means a 2nd-class monitor, LS5 was the designation for grade A monitors.
 
If I might be so bold, your book assumes a certain level of technical competence and knowledge on the part of the reader. Hobbyists don't know what an Energy-Time Curve is. Hardly anybody outside of ASR knows what we mean by "minimum-phase", and I would wager a large number of people here don't know either.
Absolutely correct. The books are indeed written with assumptions of some technical knowledge, or at least curiosity. The reason is the the first audience needing persuasion that science exists and is potentially useful are those designing loudspeakers. If that audience is convinced the result will be what we are beginning to see: increasing numbers of basically neutral loudspeakers. This trend reduces the probability that average, fundamentally uninformed, consumers will make unfortunate loudspeaker choices. But it is a trend, not yet universal. As illustrated in my slide shows, there are some inexcusable outliers, often at high prices.

As for understanding what information a spinorama contains, both Amir and Erin have done decent, simplified explanations - with color and verbal commentary. All that is missing is the subjective side of the research, without which it would not have succeeded.

What is often not put into perspective is a message in a slide in the show I referenced, shown below. No thought is required in these examples of linear product performance for consumers to experience neutral sound reproduction. Subjectivists and marketing departments work hard at creating "differences" but those are unreliable opinions. When put to double-blind evaluations, the "'differences" tend to disappear.

In these devices a single number or curve has meaning. Loudspeakers are different. They radiate sound in three dimensions, so the target performance is more complex to describe, but if the professionals in the loudspeaker industry do their jobs, consumers won't have to struggle with challenging technical concepts to select timbrally neutral loudspeakers. Reviewers like Amir and Erin have the huge advantage of having the necessary technical data, understanding it, and communicating it in attractive formats. Unfortunately they cannot keep up with the flow of new products entering the marketplace. An educated customer base still needs trustworthy anechoic data to assist their choices.

The job is not yet done, though, because the listening room determines bass quality (about 30% of sound quality judgements) and it must be dealt with. Fortunately, the right application of equalization can alleviate the worst problems for a single listener - some, not all, equalization algorithms can do this without damaging the rest of the spectrum. Satisfying multiple listeners is more complex, as detailed in Chapter 14. That is not for the faint of heart, nor those averse to technical solutions that necessitate measurements.

This is the reality, which is slowly improving. Meanwhile, between pleasurable travel episodes, I will continue to think about simplified explanations of what I believe is the necessary information without dumbing it down to the point that it doesn't really solve the problem. Colourful diagrams and cartoons broaden the appeal, which is why I like slide shows and there are several in the website associated with the 4th edition.

Meanwhile, ASR will continue to provide a welcoming Q and A conduit.

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Keith. The simplified medical text you reference is an entry level student tutorial, not a guide to diagnosing specific ailments in patients for graduated physicians. I can understand that at this level a "for dummies" approach is useful. At the point of delivery, my experience has been that the medical problems I have seem not to be completely understood. Some trial and error methods still apply. Statistically verified answers to some key questions don't exist, and "for Dummies" versions of what is known that one finds on the internet often just add confusion. The science is still developing.

Audio is simple, mistakes are not life threatening, and, by comparison, it is a relatively "exact" science - now including loudspeakers.
1782846975272.png
 
Back
Top Bottom