Do We Want All Speakers To Sound The Same ?

[Axo1989]

actually subjectively, when IRL you can always see the speakers, especially the floor standing ones, this is a good effect, at least one after spending a ton of hard/easy earned money ended up enjoying is a good thing. but then it's another thing before purchase to go for that option, and it's actually funny, when say, we know the speaker in question (insert your fav bashing brand) isn't objectively good, in audition it almost surely sound even more crappy.

Yes, I'd be unlikely to buy speakers I didn't like looking at. But not looking helps reduce pre-judgement.

For this I think I could chime in a bit.

Personally when I closed my eyes, with those mix with pin point sound staging/poistioning, or even say, like FPS games, the sound staging from my desktop 2.1 feels phenominal, like in shooting games the sound can remind me someone is on the right side 30 degrees or so. But once my eyes are opened for music or the same game sound is playing but the monitor goes off, all those staging disappears. at least to me personally I think my brain is ok in sound staging "detail filling" thing but the top priority is to the eyes, if my eyes seeing something not inline with the sound, visual clue takes dominance. If in my case in a dedicated hifi room, sitting with a glass of wine, since I am seeing the speakers and the room, the sound stage is non-existing.

So we are a bit different, I certainly get the stereo image and the 'disappearing act' even with my eyes open. But I agree with @MattHooper that closing your eyes is useful to focus on the sonics with less visual distraction/orientation. Sometimes that's surprising. The game scenario is probably like that.

 

[Mnyb]

Regarding comparing voices in room compared to speakers reproducing voice .

Unless carefully recorded in the exact same room this can hardly be expected to work out .

A human body radiate sounds quite differently from a speaker or worse 2 speakers with comb filter effects all over thus interact with the room differently , the brain can figure this out .

What the speaker tries to do is to reproduce the voice in that local where it was recorded , if the recording engineer did his job very well this can be a good approximation .
Microphones are not ears either so there's that complication too ? it might not even be possible to capture and then ofcourse also sound wrong on any speaker.
But good engineers found ways to give musically pleasing recordings of voice anyway .

How speakers mitigate the room interaction is interesting . Our resident speaker designers usually speaks of 2 illusion's you can hope to achieve "They are here" or " You are there" depending on how much of listening room you can "hear".

It's here an imersive multichannle setup in a very dampened room can do better .

I think we are at the reach for stereos inherent limitations and have to pick something we can tolerate in our own room.

 

[DavidMcRoy]

Frequency response sets the tonality of the speaker. Speakers still differ massively in other aspects from dynamics to dispersion. And of course come in all sizes, shapes and prices. So there is no danger of the audiophile life becoming boring that way.

On tonality, we must insist on flat anechoic and similar off-axis. When this happens we have a standard that production and consumption can be based on. Without it, it is wild west. Who here wants skin tones to be blue or pink if we were talking about displays? There was a time when that was true. Today, display technology has advanced so much that even random displays come with very close calibration to standards. Yes, standards. What we lack in audio.

I test many speakers as you know. It is such a delight when a speaker is neutral enough to sound like all the ones before it. It is a relief and pleasure that needs to come to every audiophile and not the select few of us.

Finally, EQ is mandatory if you want to have good response in bass. Once there, you can overlay a target curve to your liking.

I'm certain that Amir is aware of this: consumer TV sets have a "store display mode" buried in the menu to be used by the retailer on the display models in the store that makes the video look as blindingly bright and contrasty as possible so it stands out among the other sets. (You might be able to find it in your own TV if you dig deep enough. I stumbled across it accidentally on my Sony Bravia.) It occurs to me that the makers of DSP-equipped active speakers could theoretically cook up a "store mode sound" preset to make their speakers bright and boomy to "stand out" from the crowd in the showroom to appeal to the average customer, something that could easily be bypassed when desired. They could even have a manufacturer's "house curve" and a "laboratory curve" for Amir's Klippel unit. Many of us know first hand that DSP can make any halfway decent speaker chameleon-like to some degree.

 

[MattHooper]

The first iteration (let's call it N1) quotes @MarkS and asserts that speaker which don't "measure good" only "sound good" if you can see/identify them. The repetition (N2) is ambiguous, as it follows your descriptive text. It may relate to something you said, or it may not, I'll wait and see.

Basically: Throwing snark at the wall to see what sticks.

 

[prerich]

I listen to quite a mix of music (which I think is pretty typical, especially among audiophiles).

When it comes to music featuring acoustic instruments and voices, I do want those to sound as much as possible like my experience of those instruments in real life.

As I've said before, I very often carefully listen to acoustic instruments and voices to get a sense of the character of instruments played live - a gestalt if you will.
And also, I only have to please myself. So even if my later memory of how things sound isn't quite accurate, that nevertheless is the impression I carry around with me, and that's the impression I seek to satisfy in my audio system.

And that statement explains personal listening paradigm perfectly....as two people can actually hear the same thing differently (hearing issues, seating positions, mental paradigms).

 

[prerich]

That's always tricky, isn't it? And that's the great mystery about "high fidelity" - high fidelity to a reference we never heard? We weren't there in the recording studio right?

Also - many like to uphold live performances as a reference, but I don't. I think most audio venues are compromised, and often the studio recording sounds waaaaay more refined than the live version of it, but I understand if some opt for live authenticity. Hard as that definition is - like many things in audio, so I focus on enjoying rather than over-thinking.

The "real" thing - is that the most clinical and well-recorded in a studio, or is it the same artist in a decently recorded live environment when they were "on" and drove the audience into raptures? I don't have the answer. I much prefer George Benson's renditions of "Weekend in LA" to the studio versions, with an exception or two. Then again, I was live in Yoshi's when Brian Culbertson recorded an album, and while I had a blast... at home I listen to the studio versions of the song. "It's complicated" :-D

There are things in a sensory world we'll never find universal rules for. I always regard equipment -no matter what the cost- as a bit of a crutch. Don't get me wrong - I wouldn't be here if I didn't want to keep learning and reviewing my opinions. Just like great musicians live a successful symbiotic relationship with *their* instruments, us music fans have a similar relationship with our gear.

Bravo, bravo!!!

 

[prerich]

That's overcomplicating it a bit. The reference doesn't have to be a completed music recording. It could be as brief and simple as a live -vs- recorded triangle ding, tambourine shake, spoken words, anything. Which speaker sounds like the real thing? Why isn't that a part of testing?

I get what you're saying ...but is that measurable? You would need the triangle with the exact same conditions...right? It would still be under scrutiny of a persons flawed receptors. I see that Amir has started adding subjective views to reviews on speakers. I actually think that it's a good thing, as it opens the world to his own listening paradigm....he did recommend a Wilson product once...if I'm not mistaken.

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

Do We Want All Speakers To Sound The Same?

The thread title may seem a tad hyperbolic, and clearly there will be plenty of nuance involved in replying to such a question.

The question arises first of all because I've seen some criticize Amir and ASR along these lines "That place is boring, they want all speakers to sound the same!"

That strikes me as a caricature. After all, I know members have owned all sorts of different speakers over their audiophile career, and it seems there is some nice variety in member's current speaker set ups.

On the other hand...might there be, in some sense, some element of truth in the proposal "we want all speakers to sound the same?"

After all, any effort to evaluate something like speakers, based on an engineering (and sometimes science) heavy approach will tend to arrive at some sort of "best practices" for speaker design, upon which speakers will be evaluated. It would seem that the general characteristics arrived at from research from Floyd Toole and others have provided such standards for this forum - so ones that are neutral (with the proper off axis response) are selected as "good" and those departing as "poor" to one degree or another.

And since an underlying goal for many ASR members seems to be "accuracy" the logical extension of this would seem to be that the more speakers tend to meet that goal, the more alike they will sound. Which at least implies that if all speaker manufacturers adopted these same goals "ideally" speakers (for any given frequency response) would sound closer to indistinguishable.

It's my impression that some (many?) on ASR would in a sense prefer the speaker to "sound like nothing" in the same sense that a good solid state amp would "sound like nothing." No character of it's own, just neutral, so one isn't 'listening to the system' or thinking about "how the system/speaker sounds" but is simply listening to "the recording."

If much of that does indeed capture some people's goal here, it would imply that..yeah, in some sense, "Ideally, all speakers would sound the same."

I'm not writing any of that to IMPOSE this view on anyone here, only as some talking points to get off the ground. This forum isn't a monolith, it's made of individuals with varying views, so I'm interested in YOUR response to any of these questions:

Would it be THE ideal, or your ideal, that all speakers eventually sound the same, if you could wave your magic wand and send things in that direction? If so why. If not, why not? Should they sound roughly the same, like most should sound close to neutral but you are good with variation in X, Y parameters? Or are you happy with the essentially "Wild West" approach as it has been - some manufacturers striving for neutrality/Toole-approved performance, many heading off in different directions? Do you see the general approach by Amir's approach to evaluating speakers as too narrowly defined and limiting in terms of vetting "bad" from "good" - or does it match your own ideals for performance?

If you mean the same as whatever speaker was in my parents medium wave radio in 1955, no.
If, Ascend Acoustics Sierra LX, by all means!

 

[Robh3606]

Would make shopping for them a lot easier!!

Rob

 

[krabapple]

What's amazing to me is that speakers that measure badly, even extremely badly, can still "sound good" to lots of people.

*people*, ugh, they're the worst

 

[enricoclaudio]

If all speakers and headphones sounded the same, audio would be the most boring hobby ever. While headphones and speakers could share almost identical measurements, tonality is going to be different. As an example, I have Neumann KH150s on my desk, Ascend Acoustics Sierra Towers with RAAL in my living room and Revel Performa3 M106s in my bedroom, and while I love all of them, they sound totally different even after EQ. Same for my Sundaras and HD660s. We want all speakers to have good measurements, good predicted in room response, directivity, etc... what is 100% sure is that they are not going to sound the same. I guess that's the main reason we keep looking for the best speaker or "upgrading" speakers....

 

[Benedium]

1 million songs for 1 speaker.
Or
1 million speakers for 1 song.

 

[Killingbeans]

While headphones and speakers could share almost identical measurements, tonality is going to be different.

We want all speakers to have good measurements, good predicted in room response, directivity, etc... what is 100% sure is that they are not going to sound the same.

But it's not impossible to make a same model stereo pair of speakers, or the two cups/plugs of a headphone have the same perceived tonality?

I mean, you can definitely make all speakers on the market sound the same. It "simply" requires that there's only a single design available

I think it's safe to say that if two speakers have truly identical measurements, they'll sound the same. If they don't, you're missing something in your measurements.

But I get that the speakers will be a part of the auditory experience, no matter what we do.

The real question is whether they should be embraced as such, or whether it should be seen as an unfortunate compromise in the attempt of creating a tool with a specific job.

 

[Urvile]

Different speakers are aimed at different purposes, if the speaker serves it's specific purpose, in a measurable way, and god forbid at a affordable cost? Yes, yes we do.
I'd like to imagine a day that, speakers are a mostly solved problem, do what I need them to do, and don't cost as much as a car.

 

[Benedium]

Speakers are like clothes for music?

 

[Holmz]

But it's not impossible to make a same model stereo pair of speakers, or the two cups/plugs of a headphone have the same perceived tonality?

Sure with EQ one should be able to do it.
But once the speakers are moved into a room then it could change.

I mean, you can definitely make all speakers on the market sound the same. It "simply" requires that there's only a single design available

I think it's safe to say that if two speakers have truly identical measurements, they'll sound the same. If they don't, you're missing something in your measurements.

That would also need to include the radiation pattern.

But I get that the speakers will be a part of the auditory experience, no matter what we do.

The real question is whether they should be embraced as such, or whether it should be seen as an unfortunate compromise in the attempt of creating a tool with a specific job.

If one is listening with friends, then we sort are left with using speakers.
And the tool and the room rely on each other or influence each other.

 

[Killingbeans]

Sure with EQ one should be able to do it.

Are manufacturing tolerances on speakers really that big?

But once the speakers are moved into a room then it could change.

Well duh But then we'er no longer talking about making all speakers sound the same, but instead making all speakers + rooms sound the same. Different game.

(I assume you mean that stereo pairs won't sound the same in rooms that aren't perfectly symmetrical)

That would also need to include the radiation pattern.

Of course. Why wouldn't they? When people talk about speakers that "measure the same", I thought that also implied identical radiation patterns?

If one is listening with friends, then we sort are left with using speakers.
And the tool and the room rely on each other or influence each other.

True. But again, when people say "measure the same", in my mind, that includes the assumption that they will also interact audibly identically with any given room when placed in the same position. Otherwise they aren't really measuring the same. Only somewhat similarly.

 

[Newman]

If all speakers and headphones sounded the same, audio would be the most boring hobby ever.

I thought this hobby is for listening to great music, sounding great? If all speakers and headphones delivered that, it would be the most fantastic hobby ever.

While headphones and speakers could share almost identical measurements, tonality is going to be different. As an example, I have Neumann KH150s on my desk, Ascend Acoustics Sierra Towers with RAAL in my living room and Revel Performa3 M106s in my bedroom, and while I love all of them, they sound totally different even after EQ.

Show us the identical measurements in your room, unsmoothed.

... We want all speakers to have good measurements, good predicted in room response, directivity, etc... what is 100% sure is that they are not going to sound the same. I guess that's the main reason we keep looking for the best speaker or "upgrading" speakers....

In one short post, you moved the discussion from all speakers sounding the same, to no two speakers ever sounding the same. All good fun.

 

[Holmz]

Are manufacturing tolerances on speakers really that big?

No - I meant make the frequency responce of the speaker be the same as the headphones.

Well duh But then we'er no longer talking about making all speakers sound the same, but instead making all speakers + rooms sound the same. Different game.

Exactly… and the room sort of dominates

(I assume you mean that stereo pairs won't sound the same in rooms that aren't perfectly symmetrical)

Nope I mean the speaker compared to the headphone could only sound the same maybe in no room- like outside or a chamber.

Of course. Why wouldn't they? When people talk about speakers that "measure the same", I thought that also implied identical radiation patterns?

It appears we are on the same page, but many people look at the frequency response and stop there.

True. But again, when people say "measure the same", in my mind, that includes the assumption that they will also interact audibly identically with any given room when placed in the same position. Otherwise they aren't really measuring the same. Only somewhat similarly.

As above.

 

[Mnyb]

I include the radiation pattern what I've learned here is that its very important . And with the radiation pattern sugested by the research we shall have a bit less room dependency even if its still there ?

I certain sameness should be apparent in good speakers , they are a bit wild west sometimes their still to many obviously wrong and weird variants out there

Point is to somehow break the circle of confusion , If there where a standard "target(s)" for stereo speakers things would be better imo. If all tried for similar estimated in room response and directivity and all other valid target ive forgot the names off sorry . My 1c not just a simple fr response target.
We would still have speakers that sounded a bit different but also more the same in both studio and home ?