Audio Note speakers

[MattHooper]

pt 2.

Pick speakers from the large pool of reasonable designs out there and if sound technicians and producers do the same the circle of confusion might get smaller over time .
its an active choice if everyone has “Toole compliant” speakers or what to call them , we could have a small chance hearing what the producer intended us to hear

I agree with you!

I've argued numerous times here why picking accurate gear makes sense for the goal of "trying to hear what the producer intended."

But this has been in the context of recognizing other goals are justifiable as well.

So to what we are trying to get out of recording on our sound system I think various approaches are reasonable.

1. We want to hear what the producers intended, in the sense of something like what they would have heard in the studio. Some may say that The Circle Of Confusion rules this goal out. But a case can be made that we can move further or closer to what they heard in the studio ( Genelec monitors will get you closer to what many recording studios use than using an old transistor radio!). In this case we don't have to make "perfect" the enemy of The Good. So one may say "I won't attain perfect reproduction of everything recorded, but this approach is Good Enough For Me."

2. Someone else can say: That's not Good Enough For Me. I think that leaves too much variability on the table. I'm not going down the rabbit hole of trying to reproduce what people heard in all sorts of different mixing studios. Instead I'm going to concentrate on the recorded signal itself. Because at least THAT is something I know can be reproduced with a high level of accuracy. And whatever it sounds like, it sounds like in my accurate system.

Both are reasonable...and in this case for the most part both approaches will favour accurate/neutral equipment.

Then there's:

3. I just want a system on which I enjoy listening to my favourite music. I don't need to go down some rabbit hole of trying to reproduce what they heard in the studio...see The Circle Of Confusion making that ultimately unattainable. And I don't care about some intellectual goal of "reproducing the signal with the highest accuracy." My goal is whatever allows me to enjoy the music most on my system. And if artists have any broad intent, it's that the listener ENJOYs their music! So I'm good with that, however I get there.

Speaking to number 3, I was just watching a youtube video with a musician/music producer, who railed against the notion that you, the listener, must listen to his music in some defined method or system. As he put it: "The best or proper way to listen to your favourite artist or your favourite album is defined by you."

And knowing a great many musicians (and having been one) that rings true. I can't think of any musicians I know who fret about what sound system is being used by potential listeners. It's also why you don't see Taylor Swift albums accompanied by photos of her recording studio and a gear list "so you can choose equipment to hear it exactly as we did in the studio!" What the artists care most about is that you enjoy their music, in whatever way that gets you there.

So it's perfectly fine to talk in terms of goals for sound reproduction, and for one's personal system. But we should recognize that this will boil down to PERSONAL goals, not THE WRITTEN IN STONE goal, and that various approaches are reasonable and justifiable.

Some audiophiles have the goal of accuracy, and there are plenty of other audiophiles who share that goal, and plenty of manufacturers who cater to that goal! All good!

Some audiophiles have a goal of finding a sound profile that they personally enjoy the most for their music, which may not be as accurate. And plenty of other audiophiles feel the same. And there are companies that cater to that market too. Which is as it should be in a world where people have different tastes, values and goals.

 

[Sal1950]

I haven’t heard of perceptual accuracy before.

"Perceptual accuracy" is the definition a listener uses to justify having
really crappy speakers and such in his system and ignoring the fact of the matter.

 

[MattHooper]

We really need to get away from this idea that live instruments or voices are some sort of benchmark for the accuracy of playback equipment.

First: that was originally the benchmark for Hi Fidelity, and it made sense. After all, when sound reproduction was invented, what were people trying to "reproduce?" It was the sound of the acoustic source - voice, instrument - recorded at one end, being reproduced on the other end. The more closely you reproduced that sound, the better because that was the goal. And it was often the demands of what it took to reproduce those real sounds, orchestras included, that pushed the direction of the development of sound equipment - so that it COULD reproduce, for instance, the dynamic range of live music, like an operatic singer, or an orchestra.

In other words: accurate reproduction of the sound of live sound sources is certainly in principle a worthy goal for sound equipment.

And along the same lines, it's still reasonable to use live sound as at least one benchmark for "sound quality."

I use live sound as one of my main benchmarks. I find that if a system reproduces certain aspects I detect in real instruments, that I'm a much happier listener.

However, of course if we are talking about strict technical accuracy, of course you are right that "sounds lifelike" is not necessarily the goal or standard. (Since plenty of recordings don't have life-like qualities, or even intent).

If I record a piano where do I put the mic? On top of it? thirty feet away? What's the FR of the mic? What processing do I do to the recording once I have it? None? That's unlikely.

How can we then jump to 'Well the Steinway sounds like a Steinway so it must be an accurate speaker.'?

This is why we measure the speaker. If we could just judge its accuracy from a recording then there would be no need for hundred thousand dollar Klippel. Or million dollar anechoic chambers.

There are some speaker designers who use that method and the result is speakers that render many recordings badly because they have voiced the speaker by ear trying to get Diana Krall's voice to sound 'natural'. The usual result is a big midrange hump.

Now Krall sounds 'enhanced' but Lynyrd Skynard is unlistenable. Oh but it's a 'bad recording'.

No it isn't! It's a bad speaker!

However, someone may find a certain amount of midrange bump enhances a greater number of recordings - of the music they like - than it doesn't. In which case it will be the right speaker for them.

 

[Rõlnnbacke]

its all closed boxes and everything is well damped and resonance free and it sounds the opposite of what one might think .

No but I won’t expect the rendition of a particular record(s) to tell me the whole truth or in some cases not much at all . How to account for records not yet produced or my own limited experience with speakers ? Owning a lot of them and being an audiophile does not count as experience imo, its a serial offence you own a pair or two at the time usually I would have very little reference on my own .

would I even recognise the perfect speaker even if I heard it in front of me ? Due to circle of confusion ? By which record would such a thing reveal itself ?

So for my latest purchase I excluded all woo woo brands that did not follow good science and included brands that could provide a decent spinorama by themselves or in a third party measurements .
so i knew they where making best effort according to current understanding on how this works . So they all where closing in on some “ideal” , no cargo cult tech for me .

then I had a shortlist and also added EQ to my requirements to “make it work” if a chosen speaker did not suite perfectly , god speakers respond well to EQ .

then I looked at all practical concerns and function’s I wanted . And also serviceability and market presence ? Should I venture to import something from the US again ? ( I probably owned Swedens only Rhythmic FV15HP sub for a while ) .

KEF ticked many boxes so I bought a pair of their cheaper actives the LSXII for kitchen duties a loss I could take if they where terrible.
they where not. And KEF can now be bought locally in my own city !

6 months later I booked a listening session at a hifi store to compare R series against LS60 and also how they interact with subwoofers.
i was reluctant on going active again but the LS60 it was . It’s hard to do store demos I thought the LS60 had the edge and also I trusted its technology ( I’m a sucker for this kind of tech ) it’s a very interesting and progressive design . It’s a hobby

but I’m sure a pair of BMR floorstanders or Genelecs or Revels or something else also had been satisfying.
so I’m not expecting it be one perfect speaker for me , I expect that there exists several that would function with a little bit of personality and quirks to either get used to or fix by EQ .

im quite intrigued by listening to them with the subs I have <20Hz to 40kHz coverage without any use of bassreflex its all closed boxes and everything is well damped and resonance free and it sounds the opposite of what one might think .

Nothing to worry about, I guess, with such speakers! About 'closed/opposite what you would think': I had a comparable experience when I added a kef kube 10b to my system: Not sounding 'like a woofer that is being forced to move against a tight air spring', but very effortless and smooth, as if it is bigger.

 

[Anton D]

I haven’t heard of perceptual accuracy before. That sounds like an oxy moron to me. Perception is by definition subjective and undefined. It is therefore impossible for it to be accurate.

Just more nonsense

Maybe this 'perceptual accuracy' thing is a bridge to a new paradigm.

You know how some audiophiles moan and whine about people needing to provide a hearing response curve in order to be allowed to make a statement about the sound of a system?

Well, maybe 'perceptual accuracy' is the next step.

Instead of all this fussing about how to get proper/flat frequency response from our gear, we should be using our own auditory frequency response and have THAT equalized into the system...if we really want 'perceptual accuracy.'

We wear glasses to achieve 'perceptual accuracy' for vision, maybe we need to do that for our ears. How better to properly appreciate the sound than to EQ to our own hearing response curves into the chain of reproduction instead of demanding 'flat response.'

If some old audiophile has frequency response dips, a flat sonic curve from his gear only serves to perpetuate the perceptual inaccuracy of his hearing mechanism. We need a device that we can use like those room microphones, only it equalizes the room to the listeners hearing curve instead of that 'useless' flat curve.

 

[Mnyb]

However, of course if we are talking about strict technical accuracy, of course you are right that "sounds lifelike" is not necessarily the goal
However, someone may find a certain amount of midrange bump enhances a greater number of recordings - of the music they like - than it doesn't. In which case it will be the right speaker for them.

or just EQ the more technically correct and versatile speaker to achieve this in these cases .
there are many botched recordings you can not build a speaker for them all ?

 

[MattHooper]

That's fair comment

I'd say that *for me,* the task of a high fidelity speaker is to reproduce the recordings as truthfully as is possible.

Yes! Bravo! So nice to see this acknowledged, vs imperious declarations that The Goal Of Audio Equipment Is Thus....!!!!!

"For you" As well as for many other audiophiles, and for a good number of audio manufacturers, that task is to reproduce recordings as accurately as possible. So thankfully you can find gear aligned with your goal.

And thankfully other audiophiles can find gear aligned with their own goals.

It is so bogus to compare imperfect musicians or what musical instruments do to what rendering devices for musical playback do. Just wrong on every level.

Go ahead and buy coloured gear, but don’t justify it with this logic. A speaker is not a cello or Bob Marley or the Royal Albert Hall , it’s a speaker

I disagree. I think Richard was making a perfectly good point in his analogy: people have different preferences, whether it's for music, vocalists, or reproduced sound. What is so wrong about that?

Your rejection of this seems based on the assumption that audio gear Can Have Only One Purpose...the one you have for your system (which I infer is seeking the highest possible accurate to the signal). But why should anyone accept that assumption?

Let's go back to the origin of reproducing sound. Those who originated reproduced sound generally saw live sound as the object of reproduction: You had someone singing or playing the violin, and you wanted to reproduce that sound - via recording/loudspeakers etc. The success was rated on how how well you reproduced the sound of the real thing.

But then once recordings became more common, at one point some artistic types said "actually, I don't want to just reproduce the sound exactly as it sounded live. I want to manipulate it, play with it, take artistic licence, ad effects, whatever I want."

What if the early engineers just stomped their feet and said NO! That's Just Not The Goal Of Sound Reproduction! Well...sorry...people really CAN develop new goals and interests for sound reproduction. And now we all of course accept studio manipulation just fine.

And here I can sense the ASR rejoinder clunk right in to place: But THAT is all talking about the creative aspect - sound PRODUCTION. But here we are talking about SOUND REPRODUCTION...and in that case The Correct Goal Is...(insert accuracy to the signal or whatever).

But this is just once again making the same mistake as if the original sound engineers demanded that only one goal for sound reproduction was accurately reproducing the sound in front of the microphone! People develop different goals!

Someone can decide he just really enjoys the various ways sound systems "sound different." And actually enjoy those differences, play with them, rather than seeking One Single Version. Yes, the consumer can if they want become somewhat "artistic" with how they listen to their music! It's the right of anyone to do so! Someone may want to upmix all stereo to surround, because they enjoy that effect and enjoy music in surround more. Someone may be a hard rock fan who just wants their music to "slam" - perfect frequency response be damned. Or a rap fan may want to feel that bass all the time, even if it means boosting the bass. Or you get people enjoying certain pleasures from horn and single ended amp systems, or dipoles, or any number of approaches that may not be strictly neutral. Who are we to declare That Is Just Not Right?
(And notice that most musical artists understand this, and aren't in the business of telling people how they must enjoy their music!)

So it's perfectly reasonable to say "IF you have the goal of reproducing the recorded signal as accurately as possible, THEN this is how you go about doing that."

But I think we have to avoid the dogmatism of making general declarations that "This Is THE Goal Of Sound Equipment" that come off as blinkered to other goals, and dogmatic.

 

[MattHooper]

or just EQ the more technically correct and versatile speaker to achieve this in these cases .
there are many botched recordings you can not build a speaker for them all ?

Sure, that makes sense too.

Although, there are reasons that such an approach may not work in all cases. (E.g. I had a digital parametric EQ for many years and I could not get every speaker to sound identical just using EQ, nor did I find it easy to precisely reproduce the sound of my tube amps, using a solid state amp and EQ).

 

[Svet Angelov]

costing such a pretty penny while looking like a DIYer's 3rd attempt at making a speaker.. meh

 

[Mnyb]

that’s often due to directivity problems , you can’t EQ all speakers to sound like any other speaker . Nr one reason seems to be how they project sound in all directions not just on axis .

a peculiar speaker like the AN could probably not be properly mimicked, but should you ? It’s the sound of music you want not the sound of another speaker that’s not a goal ? How weird .

some speakers personalit/problems/tradeoffs are due to directivity issue's how the speaker interacts with the room and the designers migth have tried to mitigate by introducing other issues and tradeoffs , it’s bewildering.

hence why a sane starting poin is good ..

there are room for plenty of variations in audio . Not just weirdness like AN they actually don’t make sense they can’t be defended by rational arguments , some of the things they “do” actually does not do anything like making you pay for special wires etc .

 

[Rõlnnbacke]

Maybe this 'perceptual accuracy' thing is a bridge to a new paradigm.

You know how some audiophiles moan and whine about people needing to provide a hearing response curve in order to be allowed to make a statement about the sound of a system?

Well, maybe 'perceptual accuracy' is the next step.

Instead of all this fussing about how to get proper/flat frequency response from our gear, we should be using our own auditory frequency response and have THAT equalized into the system...if we really want 'perceptual accuracy.'

We wear glasses to achieve 'perceptual accuracy' for vision, maybe we need to do that for our ears. How better to properly appreciate the sound than to EQ to our own hearing response curves into the chain of reproduction instead of demanding 'flat response.'

If some old audiophile has frequency response dips, a flat sonic curve from his gear only serves to perpetuate the perceptual inaccuracy of his hearing mechanism. We need a device that we can use like those room microphones, only it equalizes the room to the listeners hearing curve instead of that 'useless' flat curve.

"From now on I will allways wear my sunglasses and equalizing headset, except when I listen to my perceptual accurate System".

In fact, there could be something to say for, for example, a bit of extra treble now and then to try to compensate for (age related) hearing loss - but maybe (extra) harmful at high levels, or levels that should be avoided anyhow.

 

[Mnyb]

it would be perceptualy weird .

You hear the world trough the same ears uncorrected why correct when listening to speakers.

Your room does not need the inverse of your hearing problems imprinted on the reflected sound , that would create problems .

The solution are hearing aids if you use them use them while listening to music to ?

 

[DanielT]

Extra boost at lower volumes for certain frequencies via:

..is perfectly ok. At least I think so.

The amplifier in the picture above is?
(too easy?)

Spoiler: Amp?

NAD 3020

Tip:

Should you use Fletcher-Munson loudness compensation?

I know many are familiar with the Fletcher-Munson or equal loudness curves. In a nutshell: “The Fletcher Munson Curve contains a set of graphs that show that when you listen to music at a lower volume, mid-range frequencies will be sound more prominent, whereas high and low frequencies will be...

audiosciencereview.com

 

[Rõlnnbacke]

it would be perceptualy weird .

You hear the world trough the same ears uncorrected why correct when listening to speakers.

That's an argument for neutral/accurate speakers.

The solution are hearing aids if you use them use them while listening to music to ?

Yes, but maybe personal eq'ed speakers would sound better; more natural use of the earlobes. I don't know.

 

[Rõlnnbacke]

Extra boost at lower volumes for certain frequencies via:
View attachment 367792
..is perfectly ok. At least I think so.

The amplifier in the picture above is?
(too easy?)

Spoiler: Amp?

NAD 3020

The level of this kind of loudness compensation depends on the position of the volume knob. In most cases it is too much, especially with cd players. Works better in most cases when the level can be changed (lowered) at the source as well, I think.

 

[DanielT]

The level of this kind of loudness compensation depends on the position of the volume knob. In most cases it is too much, especially with cd players. Works better in most cases when the level can be changed (lowered) at the source as well, I think.

Best is a flexible equal-loudness contour that changes based on the volume/sound pressure level. The curve has been known for a long time:

Equal-loudness contour - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think there are people here at ASR who have tinkered with such a flexible equal-loudness contour solution, if I remember correctly. It may appear in the link I suggested in my previous post.
It's been a while since I read that thread.

 

[CapMan]

But I think we have to avoid the dogmatism of making general declarations that "This Is THE Goal Of Sound Equipment" that come off as blinkered to other goals, and dogmatic.

It is a little too much to suggest that advocating sound equipment which is measurably neutral is dogmatic.

 

[LTig]

Well true - I spoke to the Audio Note dealer in Hong Kong and one of the advantages to selling this brand is you tend to have customers for life - you get repeat business.

With most brands - like Roksan that they carry - the brand has maybe 2 integrated amps a couple of CD players and turntables etc. But a customer comes in buys an amp - probably never see them again - it's a one-and-done sale.

With AN someone may start with level one like it - then want more - - maybe start with an amp - then try the speakers - then you come back and buy a whole system. Other companies do this a little bit - Magnepan sold those $600 MMG speakers online and then you might like it - if you do you then want a bigger one because you want some actual bass response. So they get multiple sales.

I see it rather like this:

• With most brands the customer buys a new device, brings it home and is satisfied with its performance for a very long time.
• With AN the customer comes back again and again because he is never satisfied with its sound.

The latter is certainly good for the dealer but I highly doubt that it's good for customers.

 

[Ron Texas]

@MattHooper you appear to be probing the edges of what the term high fidelity means. What are we trying to do here at ASR? It's the pursuit of an objective standard which sweeps away all the BS and snake oil which permeates audio reproduction. To say one wants to hear it the way they want to hear it instead of how the recording engineers and artists intended is like going to see a famous work of art and viewing it through a pair of strongly tinted glasses because that's how you want to see it, or eating in a famous French restaurant and dousing the food with hot sauce because that's how you want to taste it when the essence of French cuisine is all about natural flavors.

After all, there is scientific support for speakers with a flat frequency response on axis and even response off axis. A statistically significant portion of listeners did prefer those. Which leaves me with the feeling that Audio Note is selling snake oil with nice woodworking.

 

[MattHooper]

It is a little too much to suggest that advocating sound equipment which is measurably neutral is dogmatic.

There's nothing wrong with advocating for measurably neutral gear.

It would be along the lines "here are the benefits of measurably neutral gear...."

It could be for instance "if you want accurate reproduction of the signal." Or perhaps "if you want to get closer to what the artist heard in the studio." Or perhaps "neutral sound has various sonic benefits, like being able to produce more natural sound with good recordings, and also research indicates most people will prefer neutral sound..." etc.

So certainly one can advocate for neutral gear.

But that all still presumes certain goals. The dogmatism is when one assumes a certain Goal as THE Goal, rather than acknowledging people have different goals.
I can talk to my son all day long about neutrality, but when I get in to the car I will still find the tone controls in the "smile" position he left them, because he's a Rap fan and wants to feel as much bass as possible. And if that's his goal, then cranking the bass far from neutral isn't "wrong...." it's "right" to achieve his goal.