Andrew Jones’s new speaker brand - Jones and Cerreta

[Duke]

They would "know it" when you send a new speaker to them. That is, they would expect a change when there could be none.

Such was not the case.

They had no reason to suspect a crossover change in the new pair versus the pair owned by one of the beta-testers. The listening session was a function check following final assembly; I had intentionally concealed the fact that I'd made a crossover change.

Nor was I present to possibly give off subconscious cues.

 

[SigbergAudio]

Where I think listening has a solid place is assessment of distortion and playback capability. Focus your energy here instead of messing with tonality. We can fix tonality. But it is hard to extract more linear response in a broken design.

Agreed on distortion and playback capability.

Tonality is a bit complicated when you put a speaker in a room, given that it's more than the on-axis response that affects the result. So a flat speaker can still end up sounding off depending on directivity and placement. And secondly we have things like imaging and soundstage that we don't know exactly how to just read out of the measurements yet.

We should probably have a different thread for this topic.

 

[2440]

I don't care what was mentioned in that video. Unless I see clear evidence of AJ's speakers putting measurements front and center, and controlled listening tests performed, I am going to criticize his approach. To wit, I don't hear him say such things in his presentation at shows.

There is no question in my mind that AJ's designs would improve if he followed these strict guidelines. He doesn't want to go there as it lowers what he is good at: selling his reputation as the reason to hire him to design. And of course, his superb skills at presenting his products at shows.

Are you getting to where science ends and religion takes over?

 

[amirm]

Are you getting to where science ends and religion takes over?

What you quoted from me said the opposite. We follow science that says certain measurements predict listener preference. And industry norm (outside of audio) where standards are highly desired. Religion takes over when you dismiss all the science and go by the belief that you are better than them all...

 

[Timcognito]

The variability in human hearing is huge factor not only from person to person but in a single person, with age, for sure, but day to day as well. A calibrated sensitive microphone used under a protocol in with the same environment will surely capture any variation from speaker to speaker and design changes of single speaker. In science and engineering having standards, controls and baselines is fundamental to assessing effectiveness and accuracy. That effectiveness and accuracy are baked into those measurements and not accepting that is not understanding or not studying the work of previous research in transducer design and acoustic science leaving one with only a less calibrated, and untrained instrument their ears and biases. I'll will say that AJ, Erin and Amir will hear things that others do not and will more quickly identify it, relating it back to specific part of the data set than the less educated, untrained, initiated or denier will. Measurements are quantifiable common baseline and language derived from decades of acoustic science.

 

[Curvature]

I slipped in a crossover slope change without my beta-testers knowing about it. One version had better measured frequency response, and the other had better time-domain behavior but was less smooth.

My beta-testers all detected the change and all preferred the version with the improved time-domain behavior. This information has since informed my approach to system design, to enable the configuration with the better time-domain behavior without having to make a trade-off in frequency response smoothness.

This is the kind of thing I view with skepticism. The main difference between your products and the majority of the market is that they aren't traditional monopoles. So there is a greater emphasis on listening assessment regardless, although I do think the basic directivity principles hold.

The assessment of small changes and impairments is not something anyone has an analytically tight, rigorous answer for yet (apart from controlled listening sessions), so it makes sense that you and others use listening as an input to the process, I would just, you know, hope that one of the eventual outputs you produce (apart from publishing speaker measurements ) is a white paper or something similar about how you define technical targets for your products.

 

[Duke]

This is the kind of thing I view with skepticism...

Someone on ASR views my unsubstantiated claim with skepticism??

Seriously, no problem! I don't expect anything less!

I would just, you know, hope that one of the eventual outputs you produce (apart from publishing speaker measurements ) is a white paper or something similar about how you define technical targets for your products.

I hadn't really thought about doing a white paper, but maybe that would be useful. Thank you very much for the suggestion!

 

[Mr. Widget]

I am not sure why AJ is not using the Klippel system to verify his designs or to help him speed up his development process, but it wouldn't surprise me if he added Klippel to his testing regime in the future. The Klippel system is being used by more and more audio companies every year.

Even custom install speaker companies are using it for their in-wall and on-wall speakers. Here is photo of James Loudspeakers, a division of Sonance, measuring an on-wall TV speaker.

 

[Newman]

I slipped in a crossover slope change without my beta-testers knowing about it. One version had better measured frequency response, and the other had better time-domain behavior but was less smooth.

My beta-testers all detected the change and all preferred the version with the improved time-domain behavior. This information has since informed my approach to system design, to enable the configuration with the better time-domain behavior without having to make a trade-off in frequency response smoothness.

...@Duke 's experiment with the crossover is way more interesting.

I thought so too. However....

Two systems with different frequency responses were presented and one was preferred. That could be the whole story. The experimental evidence on how insensitive we are to all-pass time domain changes supports an initial interpretation of the result as being all about the FR change. Therefore it may have been premature of Duke to change his approach to system design to favour the time domain. In particular, since the change was to a crossover, the change in FR would also have changed off-axis sonics and the room contribution.

Nevertheless, I continue to praise Duke for making the effort to conduct a listening panel with some controls. Wonderful!

cheers

 

[kemmler3D]

I thought so too. However....

Two systems with different frequency responses were presented and one was preferred. That could be the whole story. The experimental evidence on how insensitive we are to all-pass time domain changes supports the initial interpretation of the result as being all about the FR change. Therefore it may have been premature of Duke to change his approach to system design to favour the time domain. In particular, since the change was to a crossover, the change in FR would also have changed off-axis sonics and the room contribution.

Nevertheless, I continue to praise Duke for making the effort to conduct a listening panel with some controls. Wonderful!

cheers

I did think of the off-axis thing later, good point. But still, agree, testing with listeners is not done often enough and it's good to see.

 

[PristineSound]

I am not sure why AJ is not using the Klippel system to verify his designs or to help him speed up his development process, but it wouldn't surprise me if he added Klippel to his testing regime in the future. The Klippel system is being used by more and more audio companies every year.

Even custom install speaker companies are using it for their in-wall and on-wall speakers. Here is photo of James Loudspeakers, a division of Sonance, measuring an on-wall TV speaker.

View attachment 556099

Pretty sure he was just being polite. What he meant was "it is not worth it to him". Note that Audio First, Ascilabs, Ascend Acoustics all designed good sounding and measuring speakers BEFORE they bought their Klippel NFS. The Klippel is a great tool to have but is neither NECESSARY nor SUFFICIENT to design a high performing speaker. Good tools are nice to have. I wish I had a shop full of Festool stuff, but alas my Dewalt stuff does pretty much the same thing.

I am pretty confident too, that either AJ does think it's worth it or he just doesn't think it's necessary to achieve his goals. Some Brits I know are incredible penny pinchers.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

he just doesn't think it's necessary to achieve his goals

of course he doesn't--he's incredibly successful and his name has so much value that people will take it on faith that speakers with his name on them are awesome. ASR has a strong tendency to expect a bit more from speaker designers, though, as befits its name and raison d'etre.

 

[Duke]

Two systems with different frequency responses were presented and one was preferred.

"Different" frequency responses, yes.

However in my opinion the one frequency response was objectively and unambiguously better and the other objectively and unambiguously worse. Not hugely so, but clearly so.

That could be the whole story. The experimental evidence on how insensitive we are to all-pass time domain changes supports an initial interpretation of the result as being all about the FR change. Therefore it may have been premature of Duke to change his approach to system design to favour the time domain.

Yes, I could be mistaking correlation for causation.

Nevertheless, I continue to praise Duke for making the effort to conduct a listening panel with some controls. Wonderful!

Thank you. I wasn't expecting that!!

 

[amirm]

If a company wants to invent its own approach to design, they should be mindful of where AI is taking us. As far as I can see, shortly search will disappear and get replaced with interaction with AI. To that end, I just asked this from Google Gemini:

Query: "according to science what kind of speaker should I buy"

According to audio science—pioneered by researchers like Dr. Floyd Toole and Dr. Sean Olive at Harman International—you should buy a speaker that features a flat on-axis frequency response, smooth off-axis dispersion, and low harmonic distortion. [1, 2]

Extensive double-blind listening tests show that when human bias is removed, listeners across all demographics overwhelmingly prefer speakers that measure neutrally. [3, 4]
Key Scientific Criteria for a Good Speaker

• Flat On-Axis Response: The direct sound coming straight from the speaker's tweeter and woofer should have a balanced, uncolored amplitude across the entire audible frequency range (20 Hz to 20 kHz) when measured without room reflections.
• Smooth and Wide Dispersion (Directivity): Sound doesn't just go to your ears; it bounces off your walls, floor, and ceiling. Science proves that a great speaker radiates off-axis sound with the exact same tonal balance as the direct sound, just quieter. Look for speakers with consistent horizontal and vertical dispersion patterns.
• Low Distortion: The speaker must reproduce loud sounds cleanly without generating unwanted frequencies or harmonic distortion.
• In-Room Tilt: While a speaker should measure flat in an anechoic (echo-free) chamber, its total in-room response should feature a slight, smooth downward tilt in the highs and a gentle rise or reinforcement in the bass. This matches human psychoacoustics and room interaction. [7]

Brands and Models that Follow the Science
Many well-regarded audio companies engineer their products explicitly around these acoustic measurements and preference formulas. You can explore objective data-driven recommendations and reviews on platforms like Audio Science Review Forum, or look into researched line-ups from brands like KEF, Revel, Genelec, Neumann, and JBL. [9, 10]
To narrow down a specific recommendation, please tell me:
What is your primary use case (music/home theater/desktop)?What is your approximate budget?Once you reply, I will suggest a science-backed model that fits your space!
AI responses may include mistakes.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/audiophile/comments/31t6y0/if_its_been_established_that_speakers_are_by_far/
[2] https://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/measure-loudspeaker-performance
[3] https://www.reddit.com/r/audiophile/comments/10xz7h1/subjective_reviews_matter_because_audio_is/
[4] https://thenextweb.com/news/how-to-understand-speaker-measurements-and-why-they-matter
[5] https://www.reddit.com/r/audiophile/comments/12x5ci8/asr_understanding_speaker_measurements/
[6] https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/trying-to-understand-neutral-reference.31666/
[7]

[8] https://flora.tech/science-of-loudspeakers-objective-measurements-and-performance-metrics/
[9] https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-%E2%80%9Creal%E2%80%9D-speaker-preference-test.70359/
[10] https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/recommended-speakers.29966/

Folks may have been able to cook up their own recipes in the past. But my prediction is that selling against the above will get harder and harder in the future.....

 

[Flaesh]

Flat On-Axis Response: The direct sound coming straight from the speaker's tweeter and woofer should have a balanced, uncolored amplitude across the entire audible frequency range (20 Hz to 20 kHz) when measured without room reflections.

This must be done immediately!

 

[Duke]

If a company wants to invent its own approach to design, they should be mindful of where AI is taking us...

Well, some of us who aspire to develop our own approach to design are also mindful of what the humans have to say:

"The inherent design of the loudspeaker is not the primary issue. The important factors are how they sound - that is the final criterion of excellence. The hundreds of loudspeakers and listeners that have been involved in decades of careful research indicate that, when non-auditory biasing influences are controlled or eliminated, most people most of the time prefer non-resonant, uncoloured, neutral, technically accurate loudspeakers. Such loudspeakers can be dipoles, forward-firing cone and dome/horn, bipolar or omnidirectional." - Posted by @Floyd Toole on August 5, 2026, emphasis mine.

 

[NTK]

Dr Toole also said this (source):

...​

Personally, now that we have truly excellent "conventional" loudspeakers, and the option of supplemental surround/multichannel loudspeakers and processors I do think we have moved on. These days there is little or nothing to be gained in distinctive transduction processes beyond marketing claims. Loudspeakers with bipole, dipole, and omnidirectional behavior are not involved with the creation of the art in the professional audio domain, so their involvement in playback is that of adding a "sound effect" that people find pleasurable - it all comes down to attempts to extract more satisfaction from stereo. Whether it is real or imaginary is unimportant. I had monster bipole loudspeakers in one of my systems, as discussed and shown in my book. It was done deliberately for a special listening room (Figure 7.19). They would not be optimum for my existing listening circumstances (Figure 7.21) - references to Figures in the 3rd edition of my book.​

​

 

[Flaesh]

inherent design of the loudspeaker

What if we test identical speakers with MDF\plywood\X-material\aluminum enclosures?)))

 

[Newman]

Folks may have been able to cook up their own recipes in the past. But my prediction is that selling against the above will get harder and harder in the future.....

Hmmm, wouldn't that be nice. It would require somewhat of a trend reversal, especially in America, if people are to start typing queries that begin with "according to science" and then give much credence to the answer that comes out.

 

[HeadDoc12]

If a company wants to invent its own approach to design, they should be mindful of where AI is taking us. As far as I can see, shortly search will disappear and get replaced with interaction with AI. To that end, I just asked this from Google Gemini:

Query: "according to science what kind of speaker should I buy"

According to audio science—pioneered by researchers like Dr. Floyd Toole and Dr. Sean Olive at Harman International—you should buy a speaker that features a flat on-axis frequency response, smooth off-axis dispersion, and low harmonic distortion. [1, 2]

Extensive double-blind listening tests show that when human bias is removed, listeners across all demographics overwhelmingly prefer speakers that measure neutrally. [3, 4]
Key Scientific Criteria for a Good Speaker

• Flat On-Axis Response: The direct sound coming straight from the speaker's tweeter and woofer should have a balanced, uncolored amplitude across the entire audible frequency range (20 Hz to 20 kHz) when measured without room reflections.
• Smooth and Wide Dispersion (Directivity): Sound doesn't just go to your ears; it bounces off your walls, floor, and ceiling. Science proves that a great speaker radiates off-axis sound with the exact same tonal balance as the direct sound, just quieter. Look for speakers with consistent horizontal and vertical dispersion patterns.
• Low Distortion: The speaker must reproduce loud sounds cleanly without generating unwanted frequencies or harmonic distortion.
• In-Room Tilt: While a speaker should measure flat in an anechoic (echo-free) chamber, its total in-room response should feature a slight, smooth downward tilt in the highs and a gentle rise or reinforcement in the bass. This matches human psychoacoustics and room interaction. [7]

Brands and Models that Follow the Science
Many well-regarded audio companies engineer their products explicitly around these acoustic measurements and preference formulas. You can explore objective data-driven recommendations and reviews on platforms like Audio Science Review Forum, or look into researched line-ups from brands like KEF, Revel, Genelec, Neumann, and JBL. [9, 10]
To narrow down a specific recommendation, please tell me:
What is your primary use case (music/home theater/desktop)?What is your approximate budget?Once you reply, I will suggest a science-backed model that fits your space!
AI responses may include mistakes.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/audiophile/comments/31t6y0/if_its_been_established_that_speakers_are_by_far/
[2] https://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/measure-loudspeaker-performance
[3] https://www.reddit.com/r/audiophile/comments/10xz7h1/subjective_reviews_matter_because_audio_is/
[4] https://thenextweb.com/news/how-to-understand-speaker-measurements-and-why-they-matter
[5] https://www.reddit.com/r/audiophile/comments/12x5ci8/asr_understanding_speaker_measurements/
[6] https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/trying-to-understand-neutral-reference.31666/
[7]

[8] https://flora.tech/science-of-loudspeakers-objective-measurements-and-performance-metrics/
[9] https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-%E2%80%9Creal%E2%80%9D-speaker-preference-test.70359/
[10] https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/recommended-speakers.29966/

Folks may have been able to cook up their own recipes in the past. But my prediction is that selling against the above will get harder and harder in the future.....

The question I have, since most speaker buyers care more about being happy than science, is what happens if you ask AI "What speakers should I buy to make me feel like I'm 5th row center at a concert?" or "What speakers should I buy to make my clothes flap from the bass?" and so forth... I am a science-driven buyer/listener, and it makes me happy to know I am hearing something approximating perfect accuracy to source. But LOTS of people just want things to sound "good," whatever that means to them. I'm rooting for you, Amir; I really am, but based on the news sources I read, science has quite a difficult time overcoming irrational, knee-jerk, uninformed belief.