Do We Want All Speakers To Sound The Same ?

[fineMen]

That's interesting. For me I wouldn't choose speakers that made me feel "fed up" with recordings and which would reduce the number of music tracks I enjoyed. My aim is to increase my enjoyment - I enjoy virtually anything I play on my system.

I wonder though, are you sure your speakers are actually causing your dissatisfaction because they are "accurate?" It's been a long cliche among some audiophiles that "accurate" speakers are no fun to listen to, and that they so ruthlessly reveal the nature of recordings that one can no longer enjoy some recordings. But I am skeptical of this. A good neutral speaker should be easy to listen to and any good speaker should be able to dig out whatever a recording has to offer. I'm wondering if perhaps your speakers might measure accurately on axis, but there are some issues off axis that cause them to exaggerate "problems" in recordings?

My speakers are very accurate especially regarding HD and IM distortion, on axis linearity is a bit compromised +/-1,5dB and reverberation included the system (lol) pretty much complies to Harman's preference optimum. As it comes to bass I easily realize a clean, powerfull low limit @27Hz from that cute 7" sealed ;-) Proof: The Residents' new issue "Tripple Trouble", second track ... ( I re-recorded the reproduction ... )

I'm so proud of it, sure. But already earlier with my previous quite huge speakers I felt, that a further optimization of sound quality wouldn't yield any benefit for the enjoyment of music, yes music. I could celebrate the system for itself, but that isn't the purpose of it.

I acknowledge the studio's work as being a natural part of a recording, no problem with that. Music has a lot to say beyond hifi.

To answer your question: yes, should sound the same in the particular room. Except one is after listening to vintage recordings. Then an older model may fit better, but an equalizer could help out.
Most contemporary recordings of pop/ music are so boring, though, that they need the support of perticularly bad speakers. As to add some drama ;-)

 

[olegtern]

As it comes to bass I easily realize a clean, powerfull low limit @27Hz from that cute 7" sealed

Some magic is happening here!

 

[tomtoo]

The best place to EQ is the EQ not the speaker imo. What means if your speaker is flat on axis and also has a good directivity it cant have major flaws and will be good to eq. Than you have to decide how much SPL you need. Thats for the basics. There are more things you can prefer or not. But for me thats the basis. If this is not right, the speaker is not right.
Will speakers that follow this idear sound all the same? No, but at least its a speaker without major flaws. I like this as a orientation. Much more than the taste of a self proclaimed hifi guru. And if i want my own sound from time to time, besides a linear sound i have a peq.

 

[goat76]

So what do you guys do if you have 10 speakers at home for testing and clearly prefer one pair of speakers before the others, and afterward when you see the measurements of them all you realize the ones you preferred the most was the worst one when it comes to the measured parameters that are considered the most important ones. Do you change your mind and choose the objectively best measuring one and try to equalize it to your liking or do you go for the one you liked the most subjectively "out of the box"?

 

[Digby]

So what do you guys do if you have 10 speakers at home for testing and clearly prefer one pair of speakers before the others, and afterward when you see the measurements of them all you realize the ones you preferred the most was the worst one when it comes to the measured parameters that are considered the most important ones. Do you change your mind and choose the objectively best measuring one and try to equalize it to your liking or do you go for the one you liked the most subjectively "out of the box"?

Dangerous question!

 

[tomtoo]

So what do you guys do if you have 10 speakers at home for testing and clearly prefer one pair of speakers before the others, and afterward when you see the measurements of them all you realize the ones you preferred the most was the worst one when it comes to the measured parameters that are considered the most important ones. Do you change your mind and choose the objectively best measuring one and try to equalize it to your liking or do you go for the one you liked the most subjectively "out of the box"?

Dont think that the most worst measuring would sound the best to me. To be honest iam absolut sure it would not. So this question is at least for me useless. This it measures so bad but sounds so good, is talking about fairy tailes or strange taste. Both not my prefered soup.

 

[goat76]

Dont think that the most worst measuring would sound the best to me. To be honest iam absolut sure it would not. So this question is at least for me useless. This it measures so bad but sounds so good, is talking about fairy tailes or strange taste. Both not my prefered soup.

I didn't say it measured "bad", that's your choice of word. I said out of the 10 speakers it measures the worst, or if you prefer it that way, the other speakers measure better when it comes to the measurements that are considered the most important parameters.

 

[steve59]

I'm with the French on this one.

 

[Thomas_A]

So what do you guys do if you have 10 speakers at home for testing and clearly prefer one pair of speakers before the others, and afterward when you see the measurements of them all you realize the ones you preferred the most was the worst one when it comes to the measured parameters that are considered the most important ones. Do you change your mind and choose the objectively best measuring one and try to equalize it to your liking or do you go for the one you liked the most subjectively "out of the box"?

The research points towards good measurements correlate with preference. Now if varations are allowed within +/- 1.5 dB or so, I am quite sure that the results will be less clear with respect to preference.

Does anyone else prefer a dipped midrange?

Again, Toole says there is a flaw with stereo. A ”flat”speaker preferred in mono will sound different in stereo. The solution according to Toole is to go multichannel. For stereo you are left with uncertanties in the 1-5 kHz region. There is nothing in Tooles book that contradicts this fact.

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Digby]

The research points towards good measurements correlate with preference. Now if varations are allowed within +/- 1.5 dB or so, I am quite sure that the results will be less clear with respect to preference.

Does anyone else prefer a dipped midrange?

Again, Toole says there is a flaw with stereo. A ”flat”speaker preferred in mono will sound different in stereo. The solution according to Toole is to go multichannel. For stereo you are left with uncertanties in the 1-5 kHz region. There is nothing in Tooles book that contradicts this fact.

www.audiosciencereview.com

Do you have a link to the Harman research that resulted in the preference score, is it freely available to read online?

 

[fpitas]

The research points towards good measurements correlate with preference. Now if varations are allowed within +/- 1.5 dB or so, I am quite sure that the results will be less clear with respect to preference.

Does anyone else prefer a dipped midrange?

Again, Toole says there is a flaw with stereo. A ”flat”speaker preferred in mono will sound different in stereo. The solution according to Toole is to go multichannel. For stereo you are left with uncertanties in the 1-5 kHz region. There is nothing in Tooles book that contradicts this fact.

www.audiosciencereview.com

Some (a lot, actually) prefer accentuated bass or a mid-bass hump, too.

 

[Purité Audio]

So what do you guys do if you have 10 speakers at home for testing and clearly prefer one pair of speakers before the others, and afterward when you see the measurements of them all you realize the ones you preferred the most was the worst one when it comes to the measured parameters that are considered the most important ones. Do you change your mind and choose the objectively best measuring one and try to equalize it to your liking or do you go for the one you liked the most subjectively "out of the box"?

Personally I would discount any poor measuring designs long before the evaluate at home stage.
Better measurements equals more transparency which is what I value.
Keith

 

[fpitas]

Without a Klippel setup at home I'd be hard-pressed to make any claims about my measurements vs Amir. But maybe that's just me.

 

[goat76]

The research points towards good measurements correlate with preference. Now if varations are allowed within +/- 1.5 dB or so, I am quite sure that the results will be less clear with respect to preference.

Does anyone else prefer a dipped midrange?

Again, Toole says there is a flaw with stereo. A ”flat”speaker preferred in mono will sound different in stereo. The solution according to Toole is to go multichannel. For stereo you are left with uncertanties in the 1-5 kHz region. There is nothing in Tooles book that contradicts this fact.

www.audiosciencereview.com

Well, in this scenario I'm giving you your subjective preference is clearly not exactly the same as "average Joe's" preference. You have already preferred the speaker that goes outside that +/- 1.5 dB variable. So my question is to you: What do you do, do you go with the speaker you preferred subjectively, or do you go for the one with the best measurements and EQ that one to your liking?

 

[goat76]

Personally I would discount any poor measuring designs long before the evaluate at home stage.
Better measurements equals more transparency which is what I value.
Keith

So in other words, you are prepared to suppress your own subjective preference, and rather go for the speakers that are considered better by the standard set of measurements and the average person's liking?

 

[NTK]

So in other words, you are prepared to suppress your own subjective preference, and rather go for the speakers that are considered better by the standard set of measurements and the average person's liking?

Many here are well passed FOMO.

 

[tomtoo]

I didn't say it measured "bad", that's your choice of word. I said out of the 10 speakers it measures the worst, or if you prefer it that way, the other speakers measure better when it comes to the measurements that are considered the most important parameters.

I would always go with what i like most. Isnt that natural? Would i buy a speaker where the measurements show me i wont like? No, thats also natural or? If a speaker measures right it will sound right. Than you can look for minor preferences.

Its easy if a speaker measures shit its shit. There is no speaker with +4db,q1,4khz that sounds good to me. Thats a reality.
Having a minor fault could be ok, but why i should by when i can see the fault in the messurements?

 

[Purité Audio]

So in other words, you are prepared to suppress your own subjective preference, and rather go for the speakers that are considered better by the standard set of measurements and the average person's liking?

My subjective preference is for transparent loudspeakers, over the years I have discovered that colouration is correlated with poor measurements.
You can hear when something is not right and that is explained when you look at the speaker’s measurements.
Keith

 

[goat76]

Many here are well passed FOMO.

Yes, and who doesn't want to consider themself a "Harman Trained Listener"?

 

[steve59]

A lot of reviewers would prefer speakers that would end up with exaggerated bass. now I see many stereophile reviewers using measurements to help with 'placement' before listening, but I believe we were dealing with journalists employed to write 1000 words about an audio product and guys like John Atkinson were the exception not the rule. I single out stereophile only because they're the only mag I subscribe to and tbh I think I enjoyed their reviews more before they were held accountable by this forum.