Do We Want All Speakers To Sound The Same ?

[Razorhelm]

I'm definitely from the perfect reproduction camp, the speaker should exactly reproduce the signal and act as a perfect point source.

However as this is currently impossible, all speakers will have to make compromises and different speakers will make different compromises so even if we seek perfect accuracy, speakers will not all sound the same as they will have different approaches to reaching the goal.

I think that as these problems get solved, the audio industry will look to other ways to improve listening, multi channel and more sophisticated active room treatment and correction.

 

[Razorhelm]

Actually I have another point I would like to add, saying you like speakers to sound different is like saying you would like Andrew Jones to come in and change the eq on all your systems to what he likes.

I for one want to hear what the artist created (I understand mastering has a big effect but at least their speakers would sound like mine in this scenario) not a eq'ed version by a speaker designer who thinks they know better.

 

[Sokel]

Yep,accurate and close to the source.
Even if I sometimes wonder if my classical music very old recordings was meant to sound this way mixed with 1950-1960 gear.
At least now we have all the tools to bring it to taste.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

Here is my 2 pence:
As Amir correctly states, we need to have standards, design and manufacturing goals that would suit all music. A tall order, I know.
So what about Amir (and others) tests and reviews? Well, they show mostly if something is Broken!
If there is a resonance that hasn't been addressed, or increasing distortions with frequency and/or level. The rest is up to the listener.
I don't think we are yet at a level of measurement confidence to tell what a transducer IS, purely from test results, we probably can tell what it ISN'T !
Transducers (microphones, headphones included) inter react with their acoustic surroundings and change colour, I think that's why.
We have no choice in the matter, transducers sound different, period!
So for better or worse, unless we actually listen to speakers in the surrounding in which they will be used, we can not have a final word on them. But since trying out speakers at random in our listening rooms is impractical, then the reviews and measurements come handy, as they narrow down the contenders.
My signature on our sister site (Headfi ) is as follows:
. . . Graphs, Charts & Numbers are essential for developers and reviewers.
Always try to listen (after you check the graphs & numbers!).

 

[Digby]

I for one want to hear what the artist created (I understand mastering has a big effect but at least their speakers would sound like mine in this scenario) not a eq'ed version by a speaker designer who thinks they know better.

However, you're not in their room, you're probably not listening on their specific speakers (there will be variations even between the same model), your ears are different from theirs, stereo recording is very limited it what it captures of an unamplified event, and so on.

It isn't truly possible to hear what the artist created, as it was created - it is a fantasy scenario. Too much distortion, of one sort or another, has happened at many steps along the way in the recording process and happen upon reproduction too.

I'd like to hear what the artist created too, but all I got was a crummy stereo recording!

 

[Vacceo]

I want to listen to the source, not what the engineer who designed the speakers thought that sounds better.

Better is up to me and up to the source, not to the gear manufacturer.

Beyond that neutral approach, I can see the interest in SPL difference and room optimization (dispersion pattern, nearfield or fairfield, desktop or ceiling mounted...)

 

[Razorhelm]

However, you're not in their room, you're probably not listening on their specific speakers (there will be variations even between the same model), your ears are different from theirs, stereo recording is very limited it what it captures of an unamplified event, and so on.

I do see what mean about the room but I also think people should focus a lot more on room treatment, trying to correct that with the speaker choice seems like a fool's errand (I suppose there are speaker with different radiation patterns which can help but I would still what a flat on axis response). Also much better to have eq and use that if you are trying to modify the output to fix the room.

 

[YSC]

There is a bit of myth about Yamaha NS10s and studio control room monitors. They were used because they were very considered reliably consistent, rather than accurate. I don't think anyone in the industry considered them an accurate "Studio Monitor". Auratones serve the same purpose - nobody thinks they sound flat or accurate, but a mix tested on one set should sound the same in a different control room.

I don’t think the ns10 was anything accurate, just to say that’s probably where the perception for audiophiles to instantly relate studio monitors to bright, soulless or harsh etc.

 

[Eetu]

I would certainly like all the studio monitors mixing and mastering engineers use to sound the same (nothing).

As for 'listening for pleasure' flat on-axis and smooth directivity should be the starting point. Speakers with different DSP settings a la Buchardt Ax00 are the future. Perhaps speakers with variable directivity as well. Fine tune to your taste and space.

 

[abdo123]

Yes i would appreciate that.

 

[Killingbeans]

It would be nice if we could break the circle of confusion at some point, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

In the end I don't really mind diversity in audio products, as long as the manufacturers are being honest about it. If your product has a specific "flavor", present it as such. Don't try to sell it as something closer to an ideal. The problem with speakers is that there's huge disagreements on what's most important in the quest for approximating a theoretical ideal.

The guidelines that ASR has settled on do however make perfect sense to me.

 

[Thomas_A]

Yeh I want £10 near fields to sound like Quad 989 and a pair of active dsp subs...

The point is, sounding the same as measured at the ear-drum, will need strict standardization of room and listening distance. Going from far to near-field will require different standards if the goal is ”sounding the same”.

 

[Shadrach]

Here is my 2 pence:
As Amir correctly states, we need to have standards, design and manufacturing goals that would suit all music. A tall order, I know.
So what about Amir (and others) tests and reviews? Well, they show mostly if something is Broken!
If there is a resonance that hasn't been addressed, or increasing distortions with frequency and/or level. The rest is up to the listener.
I don't think we are yet at a level of measurement confidence to tell what a transducer IS, purely from test results, we probably can tell what it ISN'T !
Transducers (microphones, headphones included) inter react with their acoustic surroundings and change colour, I think that's why.
We have no choice in the matter, transducers sound different, period!
So for better or worse, unless we actually listen to speakers in the surrounding in which they will be used, we can not have a final word on them. But since trying out speakers at random in our listening rooms is impractical, then the reviews and measurements come handy, as they narrow down the contenders.
My signature on our sister site (Headfi ) is as follows:
. . . Graphs, Charts & Numbers are essential for developers and reviewers.
Always try to listen (after you check the graphs & numbers!).

Yes but...
Matt Hopper didn't ask if we wanted all rooms to sound the same.

 

[olegtern]

Perhaps, there would be a few more consistent answers to the request "speakers + room sound the same". Although there are also different tastes in terms of listening rooms (and even sound engineering rooms). But IMHO high-end speakers + room systems have much more in common than differences.

Even at shows, the best setups have similarities in how they do things. Many people think that it is because of fancy cables and expensive gear... but first of all, these are large rooms (the most expensive setup = the most expensive / big room), speakers are far from the walls, usually some kind of portable stuff like diffusers/absorbers, people fill the room like bass traps

Good off-axis measurements — the way to match the speakers to as many rooms as possible. Possible scenarios when speakers with non-ideal off-axis dimensions + room acoustics = excellent result. Or excellently designed speakers + mediocre room = excellent result. Of course, it's better to have the best of both worlds

 

[james57]

Honestly I don’t think we all want this, point proven by the several house, harman and whatever curve we may prefer but mathematically the easiest and most efficient way to get there, excluding the coloration that our rooms are applying is the have the flatest curve possible and then applying our preferences.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

Yes but...
Matt Hopper didn't ask if we wanted all rooms to sound the same.

If the soup reacts to the spoon, and slurping it was no option, how would I know how the soup tastes?
Or indeed would it matter?!

 

[MattHooper]

Thanks for the replies so far.

If I'm reading things right, it does seem that a majority are skewing towards the idea speakers should sound the same (or very similar - neutral).

But of course the replies have come at this from different angles - some answering in terms of what they personally seek (neutral speakers - which is fairly predictable I'd think, among a majority in ASR) others suggesting it ought to be the goal of any speaker to be accurate/neutral (which if followed through implies a best case scenario where speakers sound essentially the same).

I'd say it is the normative question I'm a bit more interested in following up: the idea that speakers OUGHT to be designed to meet certain narrow goals in terms of a sonic profile (neutral). As I said, having criteria is always helpful. The question is how far does one push one's own criteria.

So for instance, the ASR reviews for speakers could simply measure different speakers and, putting together what is known about the audible consequences of different measurements, perhaps along with Amir's own listening tests, the result could be presented "This is how this speaker sounds." A non-judgemental attempt to just accurately depict the character of a speaker - the results may suggest the speaker might be of interest to the reader, or not.

But instead the speakers are rated on a relatively strict normative criteria and presented with value judgements: this is a GOOD design this is a BAD design (recommended, not recommended etc). And many ASR members seem to agree with this general criteria (the justifications for the criteria being pretty well known here).

Which, again, is completely reasonable. But everything has consequences and implications, which is one reason for this thread. Is one saying "this is the type of speaker I am seeking (or that a group of us here are seeking)," or does it go beyond that to a more normative claim that All Speaker Designers Ought To Design For This Criteria?

If the latter, it does suggest a flattening of the speaker design landscape as a laudable goal. So an important part of my question had to do with whether "we want all speakers to sound the same" in that sense - not just "what I want" but "what speaker designers OUGHT to do."

So for instance, there are audiophiles who have been exceedingly happy with all manner of speaker designs, including many that would fail the ASR criteria, and would fail any goal of getting all speakers to sound (as much as possible) the same. There are for instance devoted fans of Zu speakers, Devore, Maggies, Klipsch and on and on. Far more neutral speakers have been available, and yet many such brands find devoted, happy followings. If we choose to "flatten" the design landscape for speakers based on the more strict criteria, that implies the goal that speakers that sound like those speakers go away. The proposal that all speaker designers ought to seek essentially the same measured goals would in essence remove all sorts of much loved speaker designs from the available landscape. Would we really want to remove the choice for those speakers even though many seem to love them?

Reflecting on what I mentioned in listening to the Klipsch speakers: if all speaker designers adopted the criteria used by ASR to vet speakers, the La Scalas would never exist in that landscape. But, personally, along with many other audiophiles, I'm very glad the DO exist and that I had a chance to hear them, because to me they had some compelling qualities that I don't necessarily get from the more ASR-approved designs. I personally really like the variety of options explored by speaker designers, including ones that don't fall in to the ASR approved box.

Again, this is NOT to say a different view isn't valid. My goals don't mean your goals are "wrong" or unreasonable, and I find the ASR approach to vetting speakers perfectly reasonable and justified. I'm just investigating the implications of the different views held by ASR members (and it's founder).

 

[MattHooper]

Personally, I want all speakers to have flattish and smooth on axis response and smooth off axis response with no horizontal dispersion disruptions at crossover points. If it doesn’t meet those criteria it is not interesting to me except as a subject of design failure analysis.

Got it. So you have replied regarding your personal goals. Do you see this as a "live and let live" approach to speaker design? That is "speaker designers ought to be able to persue any design they want, it's just that I have my own personal criteria in what I'm looking for?"

Or do you use a criteria that is more normative: that a speaker that may be colored in a way that doesn't meet your criteria is "bad design" full stop, rather than "not what I am looking for?"

Does that mean they “sound the same?” No, of course not! Pattern width is a matter of both taste and situation. There’s a continuum from monopole, cardioid, and dipole approaches to different bands, as - well as omni-ish and polydirectional. There are differences due to baffle size, and so on.

Yes I was thinking of those kind of differences left over, even if speakers adopted an essentially neutral sonic profile.

And it still raises interesting questions. If one, for instance, feels all speakers sound be "accurate" then if the different designs you mention result in clearly different sonic presentations...whence "accuracy?"

 

[MattHooper]

Actually I have another point I would like to add, saying you like speakers to sound different is like saying you would like Andrew Jones to come in and change the eq on all your systems to what he likes.

In a sense, yes I agree.

Though many see that as perfectly fine, and I understand that point of view.

For instance I've seen speaker designers, for example John Devore (whose speakers measure in a way often disparaged on ASR), saying he started off by designing speakers to sound the way that pleases himself. The fact it turned out other people also liked the same presentation he did meant he had enough demand to start a speaker company, and there remains a constant demand for his speaker designs (especially the O series).

I get that. When I auditioned his O-series speakers they sounded different than anything I'd heard, in a way that I found utterly wonderful and seductive. I seem to be in the category of "enjoying what John Devore wants out of a speaker."

For someone in those categories, buying a speaker that has been designed by the manufacturer to "sound like what you want out of a speaker too" is essentially a plug-and-play solution. You don't have to spend tons of time learning about speaker design, the consequences of all sorts of measurements, EQ, room EQ, blind testing and all that. You've got a speaker "custom tailored" to your taste. It seems to work for many happy customers for any number of speaker brands that wouldn't meet the ASR design criteria.

I for one want to hear what the artist created (I understand mastering has a big effect but at least their speakers would sound like mine in this scenario) not a eq'ed version by a speaker designer who thinks they know better.

Perfectly justifiable! That goal also makes sense.

(I myself do not want sound so colored that it makes most recordings sound the same. Part of the joy for me in having a big music collection is not only the music, but the sound, the different distinct qualities of recordings and production choices).

 

[MattHooper]

Thanks for weighing in Amir!

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.

As per my response to jhaider: That has interesting implications if one is concerned about accuracy. On what grounds does one select the "more accurate" speaker (among those with similar frequency response) if those designs still differ "massively" such that personal taste will still be the deciding factor?

I infer that you suggest we want speakers to sound similar, not identical. But still, the question above seems to hang in the air.

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.

So there seems to be a fairly strong normative bent in what you've written there. Which brings up the question: Is it your view:

1. The criteria you mention are what you personally seek (and many ASR members may join you in seeking?)

or, the stronger claim:

2. That is the criteria that essentially any speaker manufacturer OUGHT to meet?

Which implies we really ought to reject designs that don't meet that criteria.

Which implies an eventual goal of flattening the speaker design space so that many "non-ASR-approved" designs currently beloved by some audiophiles - and any future such designs - would no longer be an option.

(Yes I know the research on which you base your criteria...just looking at implications of selecting any criteria...)