Are speakers actually already a solved problem?

[Sokel]

I like the electric live paradox.
Everything there comes from speakers,right?
Is it the same with home listening?Nope.

Not solved then,not by a long shot.Is it the room,their size,their I-don't-know-what?
It will be solved when they will learn to adapt in rooms perfectly and can stand all the power one needs.

(Yes,a little like big mains monitors but way smarter)

 

[krabapple]

Given that the net result at the listening position includes room interaction, whether "proper" or not, loudspeaker design that takes anticipated room interaction into account probably a good idea.

Rooms -- and listening positions in them -- vary enough that 'anticipating' this seems an utterly fantastical proposition. But no doubt a marketable one.

There is very good reason speaker performance is tested in anaechoic conditions.

An 'ideal' speaker would have variable room compensation technology that relies on feedback from the MLP. But that's not what you're talking about.

 

[Palmer]

Do we know that is a playback problem and not a recording problem? There are a million speakers that have come out over the decades, but most professional recordings use the same handful of microphones that have existed for decades.

Is it possible that top of the line speakers in 2024 can reproduce a Nuemann u87 recording of a piano perfectly, but that u87 (which came out in 1967) just may not be capturing it as it was in the room?

That's even a pretty extreme example. Most pro audio gear is leagues below what hifi enthusiasts use. Plenty of engineers are mixing and mastering on headphones like ATH MX 50s, DT-1990s, Yamaha HS-8s etc. If that gear can't reproduce the recording gear 1:1, then how were they expected to account for that in the recording? At what point are we hearing the limitations of recording capabilities vs limitations of sound reproduction?

Let us leave the poor recording engineers out of it. Not only does one have to be content with crappy equipment, as you state, it is always the engineers fault when the recording doesn't live up to the discerning listener. Have mercy, please...

 

[kemmler3D]

Rooms -- and lsitening positions in them -- vary enough that 'anticipating' this seems an utterly fantastical proposition. But no doubt a marketable one.

There is very good reason speaker performance is tested in anaechoic conditions.

Hmm, I don't really agree with this.

In-room performance is accounted for in every good speaker design by moderating the width of the tweeter's dispersion, more or less. Full-width (such that in-room response is totally flat) is considered bad. Treble dispersion almost always narrows intentionally to account for reflected sound.

Now, they only anticipate a certain range of typical rooms, nothing specific, but a room of some kind is certainly anticipated from the ground up, even among studio monitors.

 

[EJ3]

Although not identical, the better ones do sound sufficiently similar, that any of them would be fine in a home system. The choice is then one of cosmetics, price and reputation rather than sonic differences.

S

I would edit that to say: A few (probably a very few) of the possibly better ones (and what makes it that their particular sound is "right"). For you or for me?

 

[krabapple]

Hmm, I don't really agree with this.

In-room performance is accounted for in every good speaker design by moderating the width of the tweeter's dispersion, more or less. Full-width (such that in-room response is totally flat) is considered bad. Treble dispersion almost always narrows intentionally to account for reflected sound.

Now, they only anticipate a certain range of typical rooms, nothing specific, but a room of some kind is certainly anticipated from the ground up, even among studio monitors.

Yes *nothing specific*, because of course, home speakers are intended to be played in rooms (boxes), but alas the specifics of the acoustics at the MLP in that box matter quite a lot. And vary quite a lot.

So, again, objective performance comparison comes from anaechoic performance, and is compared to results of research into listener preference in rooms, for a reason. And that's where Olive's 'mature technology' part comes in.







.

 

[goat76]

If those comparisons are done sighted the onclusions aren't worth the pixels they're printed on.

We all should know that by now!

I'm talking about a general trend, not just a few conclusions. If you look around the net, you will notice that many people prefer Genelec speakers over Neumann speakers because they often find them a bit on the dull side. The opposite is true for fans of Neumann speakers, who often find the higher frequencies of Genelec speakers to be a bit too much.

What could it be with the appearance of the Genelec speakers that makes so many people think they sound brighter than the Neumann speakers, and vice versa? I'm pretty sure that is truly the difference between those two brands' "house sounds", and most people simply go for the brand that suits their preference to one of those "house sounds". No, sighted listening is not completely useless as you seem to believe.

 

[krabapple]

The advanceable future is in loudspeaker technology that adapts to room conditions and gets better at 'realism'. The path to the former is through DSP using sensing at and feedback from the listening position. The path to the latter is through multichannel or clever emulation of same.

Both of these paths are already being taken.

 

[krabapple]

I'm talking about a general trend, not just a few conclusions. If you look around the net, you will notice that many people prefer Genelec speakers over Neumann speakers because they often find them a bit on the dull side. The opposite is true for fans of Neumann speakers, who often find the higher frequencies of Genelec speakers to be a bit too much.

And I couldn't care less what 'many people' (around the net!) who are doing sighted comparisons (and are already fans of one brand or another, to boot) prefer, and neither should anyone who cares about audio science.

What could it be with the appearance of the Genelec speakers that makes so many people think they sound brighter than the Neumann speakers, and vice versa? I'm pretty sure that is truly the difference between those two brands' "house sounds", and most people simply go for the brand that suits their preference to one of those "house sounds". No, sighted listening is not completely useless as you seem to believe.

Science seems to believe otherwise; if you disbelieve, try getting a research paper on speaker sound published, that relies only on sighted evaluations..

And if it is true that one is 'brighter' than the other, it would show up in measurements.

 

[kemmler3D]

What could it be with the appearance of the Genelec speakers that makes so many people think they sound brighter than the Neumann speakers, and vice versa?

If you look at the spinoramas there is a significant difference in treble dispersion between 3-10 KHz on the 8030c and KH120II, which I would regard as the most comparable units from the two brands.

Genelec has a bit of a hump off-axis in that region that IMO is more than large enough to explain different subjective impressions of the speakers, especially in line with what you're saying.

I'm not going to go as far as to start talking about house sounds or whatever, but there are clearly measured and almost definitely audible differences here.

Measurements for speaker Genelec 8030C

www.spinorama.org

Measurements for speaker Neumann KH 120 II

www.spinorama.org

 

[sigbergaudio]

Rooms -- and listening positions in them -- vary enough that 'anticipating' this seems an utterly fantastical proposition. But no doubt a marketable one.

There is very good reason speaker performance is tested in anaechoic conditions.

An 'ideal' speaker would have variable room compensation technology that relies on feedback from the MLP. But that's not what you're talking about.

This might be a bit interesting. I've removed below 200hz as that will necessarily vary quite a bit, and I've smoothed to 1/6th to easier see the overall trend and tonality. This is the very same speakers (averaged left+right for both measurements) in two completely different rooms.

Room 1 (green):
Around 40m^2 opening up to the left to another space, total maybe 60m^2. No real wall for several meters on either side. Decay around 400-450ms. 2.4m below ceiling.

Room 2 (red)
Around 18-20m^2, walls on both sides. Decay around 200-250ms. 2.1m below ceiling.

I'd say it's remarkably similar in overall response and tonality. It's also easy to recognize the sound signature and presentation of the speakers in both rooms. I've had traditional speakers in those two rooms as well in the past. They do to a much higher degree sound like two completely different speakers in these two rooms due to the room interaction.

 

[Everett T]

Since the introduction of the CTA-2034 in 2015, scientific speaker design has made significant strides. The availability of more affordable measurement equipment—both hardware and software—for professionals and consumers alike has played a crucial role in this advancement.

Today, manufacturers like KEF, MoFi, Genelec, Neumann, and Kali offer speakers that are nearly perfect for their specific use cases and budgets. These speakers consistently demonstrate:

• Highly linear frequency response
• Excellent directivity
• Inaudible distortion, even at high SPL levels
• Deep bass extension relative to their size

Moreover, most of these companies publish their performance data, providing transparency and showcasing their commitment to honesty with customers.

This leads me to wonder: Are speakers, much like amplifiers and DACs, now a solved problem—even for budget options? If so, what innovations remain to be explored?

I’ve also noticed that the top-performing speakers today are predominantly coaxial. Do you think coaxial designs will eventually replace conventional tweeter-woofer arrays if they continue to prove superior?

I’m essentially thinking out loud here, but it’s an exciting time for music and movie enthusiasts.

To me it's like the difference between a classic SEAS drivers vs their Excel line, both can measure closely but there is definitely an audible difference across a wide range of testing.

New driver technology can push the envelope another 10-15% at any given time, materials another small percentage. I don't think speakers are finished maturing but are not far off given our history.

 

[goat76]

And I couldn't care less what 'many people' (around the net!) who are doing sighted comparisons (and are already fans of one brand or another, to boot) prefer, and neither should anyone who cares about audio science.



Science seems to believe otherwise; if you disbelieve, try getting a research paper on speaker sound published, that relies only on sighted evaluations..

And if it is true that one is 'brighter' than the other, it would show up in measurements.

So you think that fans of Genelec speakers just out of the blue think that Genelec speakers generally have more "sparkle" up top than comparable Neumann speakers?

Yes, the differences would show up in measurements, but as long as people prefer the sound of one or the other, loudspeakers are not a solved problem.

 

[goat76]

If you look at the spinoramas there is a significant difference in treble dispersion between 3-10 KHz on the 8030c and KH120II, which I would regard as the most comparable units from the two brands.

Genelec has a bit of a hump off-axis in that region that IMO is more than large enough to explain different subjective impressions of the speakers, especially in line with what you're saying.

I'm not going to go as far as to start talking about house sounds or whatever, but there are clearly measured and almost definitely audible differences here.

Measurements for speaker Genelec 8030C

www.spinorama.org

Measurements for speaker Neumann KH 120 II

www.spinorama.org

Exactly, and people tend to hear that difference 'even' in sighted listening. How can that be possible, it's sensational!

I find it interesting that some of us prefer loudspeakers with a wider dispersion, while others prefer narrower dispersion. As I see it, one of them should be more correct than the other, and as long as we don't come to the same conclusion about that I don't think we can say that loudspeakers are a solved problem.

 

[kemmler3D]

one of them should be more correct than the other, and as long as we don't come to the same conclusion about that I don't think we can say that loudspeakers are a solved problem.

This immediately gets into a question of what "correct" really means (philosophically impossible to say, conclusively, IMO) and whether we even need to care about total correctness.

I think we can say with on-axis FR, flatter is always better.

I think we can say that with dispersion, smoother is always better.

I think we can say that with low or high frequency extension, more is better.

I think we can say that with distortion, less is always better.

But when it comes to width of dispersion / directivity, I don't think there is any real consensus on whether wider, narrower, or closer to a certain angle is better. As you note, preferences seem to vary quite a bit, the same person might even be in different moods on different days in this regard.

 

[dasdoing]

I will dream a little; though it will probably sound like a nightmare to most here:
I think of a speaker with a dispersion of a few cm without expanding that would fire at your ear, and only your ear (they actually kind of exist but terrible sound).
It could further track your ear and follow it while adjusting its delay to the other one firing at your other ear, always giving you a perfect center image.
You could have a set of these for every person in the room.

 

[Duke]

There is very good reason speaker performance is tested in anaechoic conditions.

Of course. And there is very good reason to include the off-axis response in those measurements.

In my opinion, a speaker should get two things right: The direct sound, and the reflections. Beneficial interaction with the room is part of "getting the reflections right".

Rooms -- and listening positions in them -- vary enough that 'anticipating' this seems an utterly fantastical proposition.

Here are some questions which imo are worth considering at the loudspeaker design stage:

What do we want the spectral balance of the reflections to be?

How strong do we want the reflections to be relative to the direct sound?

What directions would we like the first lateral reflections to arrive from?

How much time delay do we want between the direct sound and the strong onset of reflections?

The speakers get a vote in each of these areas.

An 'ideal' speaker would have variable room compensation technology that relies on feedback from the MLP. But that's not what you're talking about.

Actually, making manual adjustments to what the speaker is sending into the reflection field (independent of the direct sound) is something I have been doing for over a decade. So in a way that's what I'm talking about, but probably not in the way you have in mind.

 

[krabapple]

So you think that fans of Genelec speakers just out of the blue think that Genelec speakers generally have more "sparkle" up top than comparable Neumann speakers?

Yes, the differences would show up in measurements, but as long as people prefer the sound of one or the other, loudspeakers are not a solved problem.

By that token, neither are DACs or cables.

If an audibly significant difference shows up in measurements, that's good evidence.

What a bunch of 'fans' claim, isn't good evidence. It's anecdotes awaiting good evidence. Like measurements, or blind comparisons.

You're on Audio Science Review, how do you think science works?

 

[ChrisG]

I find it interesting that some of us prefer loudspeakers with a wider dispersion, while others prefer narrower dispersion. As I see it, one of them should be more correct than the other, and as long as we don't come to the same conclusion about that I don't think we can say that loudspeakers are a solved problem.

Spend some time here: http://soundmedia.jp/nuaudk/

And then reconsider.

Leaving aside the recording side of the chain: what is the ideal loudspeaker dispersion pattern?

Based on excellent resource above, we can hear that violins tend to project lots of upper-mid/treble energy upwards, while a cello projects those frequencies forwards.
Timpani are bright from above, too.

So, a conventional 6.5" 2-way speaker will probably represent a vocal or cello reasonably well, since the radiation pattern will share some characteristics.
For a solo violin, however, we might wish to have a small mid-high driver aimed upwards to throw more of that energy towards the ceiling.

We can conclude: the "ideal" dispersion pattern is heavily dependent on the program material.


Chris

 

[kemmler3D]

I will dream a little; though it will probably sound like a nightmare to most here:
I think of a speaker with a dispersion of a few cm without expanding that would fire at your ear, and only your ear (they actually kind of exist but terrible sound).
It could further track your ear and follow it while adjusting its delay to the other one firing at your other ear, always giving you a perfect center image.
You could have a set of these for every person in the room.

I think this is possible in principle with those ultrasonic beamforming devices? But as you note I am not sure how far along the fidelity is or can get.