Evidence-based Speaker Designs

[Kyle / MrHeeHo]

There are several non-coaxial 2-ways that perform better, the main reason why I raised the Technics example (apparently to some ire in this and another thread) was for the apples-to-apples comparison of a coaxial 2-way.



Make no mistake, the companies I've listed by both sales volume and market share make up a very small minority of loudspeaker production - with the possible exception of Harman and PSB. There are many more retrograde, regressive companies out there. Are there any designs that interest you?

Any designs I'm interested in? I'm probably going to to replace my current JBL LSR305s with Kalis since a front ported design suits my room much better. I figure if a studio monitor is properly designed it will work just as well for domestic use.

 

[Ilkless]

Change for today (6/2/19):

Wrote the Danley entry, and placed it in the main list.

Do feel free to share of any designs (especially from relatively obscure brands/manufacturers) that might deserve to be on this list!

 

[JJB70]

For the sake of clarity - I didn't compare LS50 to McDonald's hamburgers. I merely wanted to point out that not eveything that sells well is a good product.

Indeed not, but I think it is also true that analytical design and scientific product development does not necessarily mean something would be good according to our terms either. McDonald's are a classic example, we may not like them (to be honest, although I wouldn't wax lyrical about them I do think they serve a useful purpose) but I'd bet a lot of money that everything they do is based on analytical processes and they know exactly why their product is what it is. Similarly with Beats, I don't like Beats headphones and find them bass heavy one trick ponies but they clearly understand their target market and their products are designed to serve that market, I don't think there is anything ad-hoc or amateurish about their product. Is it good? Not to me, but a lot of people would differ, and ultimately if people like them then it's their preference. There is lots of very cleverly designed stuff which is superbly engineered but which has been designed to appeal to preferences which I don't share.

 

[Krunok]

Indeed not, but I think it is also true that analytical design and scientific product development does not necessarily mean something would be good according to our terms either. McDonald's are a classic example, we may not like them (to be honest, although I wouldn't wax lyrical about them I do think they serve a useful purpose) but I'd bet a lot of money that everything they do is based on analytical processes and they know exactly why their product is what it is. Similarly with Beats, I don't like Beats headphones and find them bass heavy one trick ponies but they clearly understand their target market and their products are designed to serve that market, I don't think there is anything ad-hoc or amateurish about their product. Is it good? Not to me, but a lot of people would differ, and ultimately if people like them then it's their preference. There is lots of very cleverly designed stuff which is superbly engineered but which has been designed to appeal to preferences which I don't share.

The fact that McDonalds and Beats are finding their target buyers doesn't disprove that their products are objectively of poor quality. Sure, people are entitled to buy them as they are entitled to believe these are good products, but sheer number of them doesn't prove anything, as explained by "argumentum ad populum". And yes, most of the folks buying those products would be offended when you tell them they are buying shit_y products, but again, by objective and measurable criterias those products are shit_y. Unfortunately we live in times when folks get easilly offended and are even more easilly mixing the fact that although they are entitled to an opinion that opinion doesn't necessary be correct. When we have different opinions somebody simply has to be wrong as most of the things are not personal taste, they are technical fact.

Did I mention we live in a shit_y times? O tempora, o mores..

P.S. the fact that somebody adjusted the software on this forum to replace word "shit_y" with asterisks proves that people get easilly offended these days, and that is shit_y.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

P.S. the fact that somebody adjusted the software on this forum to replace word "shit_y" with asterisks proves that people get easilly offended these days, and that is shit_y.

What asterisks? I don't see ******!

 

[RayDunzl]

I think we touched on this topic before, the forum software has a default set of "bad" words that it doesn't like...

 

[JJB70]

The fact that McDonalds and Beats are finding their target buyers doesn't disprove that their products are objectively of poor quality. Sure, people are entitled to buy them as they are entitled to believe these are good products, but sheer number of them doesn't prove anything, as explained by "argumentum ad populum". And yes, most of the folks buying those products would be offended when you tell them they are buying shit_y products, but again, by objective and measurable criterias those products are shit_y. Unfortunately we live in times when folks get easilly offended and are even more easilly mixing the fact that although they are entitled to an opinion that opinion doesn't necessary be correct. When we have different opinions somebody simply has to be wrong as most of the things are not personal taste, they are technical fact.

Did I mention we live in a shit_y times? O tempora, o mores..

P.S. the fact that somebody adjusted the software on this forum to replace word "shit_y" with asterisks proves that people get easilly offended these days, and that is shit_y.

I didn't say McDonald's and Beats were good, I said they apply analytical processes (or as some might say,evidence based design) in their product development and that they will be fully aware of why they make decisions. Which is the whole point, companies apply rational and analytical processes to achieve a desired aim, it does not necessarily mean a product is good.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I didn't say McDonald's and Beats were good, I said they apply analytical processes (or as some might say,evidence based design) in their product development and that they will be fully aware of why they make decisions. Which is the whole point, companies apply rational and analytical processes to achieve a desired aim, it does not necessarily mean a product is good.

Yes food companies do lots of blind testing. They definitely are an evidence based industry. Now they find foods sell best with certain tastes, mouthfeel and smell. Artificial flavorings combined with smells have been investigated heavily. They also find people crave food with certain fat, sugar and salt ratios. Those ratios are all bad for our health, but good for the bottom line. But that doesn't mean their products equal a gourmet meal prepared by an excellent chef. That is not their aim. McDonalds especially has done lots of such research. They have compounds to release smells when their burgers are cooked which enhance how people react to them.

 

[Ron Texas]

McDonalds is good in the sense that it offers cheap, fast, tasty food. It isn't as tasty or healthy as a lot of other options and you can make a healthier better tasting meal at home for less money, but it takes time. Some people don't have time.

I find it hard to come up with a framework where Beats is good. It's a so so headphone at a high price. A triumph of marketing over reality. This happens in many areas. Some of my favorite examples are Jack Daniels Whiskey, Absolute Vodka, Rolex Watches, Oakley Sunglasses, most super expensive audio gear, and the list is long. If you like those products you aren't dumb, but you are probably overpaying for what you have.

 

[JJB70]

Yes food companies do lots of blind testing. They definitely are an evidence based industry. Now they find foods sell best with certain tastes, mouthfeel and smell. Artificial flavorings combined with smells have been investigated heavily. They also find people crave food with certain fat, sugar and salt ratios. Those ratios are all bad for our health, but good for the bottom line. But that doesn't mean their products equal a gourmet meal prepared by an excellent chef. That is not their aim. McDonalds especially has done lots of such research. They have compounds to release smells when their burgers are cooked which enhance how people react to them.

I quite agree. Scientific and analytical processes can be applied to serve any application or desired output. In the world of speakers I get the impression that there has been a lot of solid development invested in BT speakers and sound bars. Whether or not audio enthusiasts like such products does not detract from the expertise invested in such their development.

 

[Ron Texas]

Yes food companies do lots of blind testing. They definitely are an evidence based industry. Now they find foods sell best with certain tastes, mouthfeel and smell. Artificial flavorings combined with smells have been investigated heavily. They also find people crave food with certain fat, sugar and salt ratios. Those ratios are all bad for our health, but good for the bottom line. But that doesn't mean their products equal a gourmet meal prepared by an excellent chef. That is not their aim. McDonalds especially has done lots of such research. They have compounds to release smells when their burgers are cooked which enhance how people react to them.

Salting is a science and I completely agree the large food chains do their homework.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I quite agree. Scientific and analytical processes can be applied to serve any application or desired output. In the world of speakers I get the impression that there has been a lot of solid development invested in BT speakers and sound bars. Whether or not audio enthusiasts like such products does not detract from the expertise invested in such their development.

Couldn't agree more, and feel like you're one of the few people in the audiophile world saying this.

IME the sound quality of some of the better BT speakers in 2019 is light years ahead of then more-expensive "mini systems" and boomboxes of 20 years past.

 

[JJB70]

Couldn't agree more, and feel like you're one of the few people in the audiophile world saying this.

IME the sound quality of some of the better BT speakers in 2019 is light years ahead of then more-expensive "mini systems" and boomboxes of 20 years past.

Indeed, I know I've said this before but I've listened to a few sound bars recently that were very good. Would I say they were better than good conventional speakers? Probably not. But I would say that the sound was very good and that I found listening to music played through them to be very enjoyable, which after all is the objective of an audio system.

 

[Krunok]

What asterisks? I don't see ******!

LOOL

 

[Krunok]

I didn't say McDonald's and Beats were good, I said they apply analytical processes (or as some might say,evidence based design) in their product development and that they will be fully aware of why they make decisions. Which is the whole point, companies apply rational and analytical processes to achieve a desired aim, it does not necessarily mean a product is good.

Of course they do, that is one of the reasons their products sell well. But that has nothing to do with the original "argumentum ad populum" point which said that if many folks are buying a product then product must be good. In fact, it's usually the opposite, because statistically speaking "average Joe" isn't a very bright person so it's not hard to sell him schiit using appropriate clever techniques but selling that same schiit to bright folks is very hard to do so it doesn't happen often.

For that reason "argumentum ad populum" is actually frequently used as a counter argument by folks who better understand logic and life around them than "average Joe".

 

[JJB70]

Of course they do, that is one of the reasons their products sell well. But that has nothing to do with the original "argumentum ad populum" point which said that if many folks are buying a product then product must be good. In fact, it's usually the opposite, because statistically speaking "average Joe" isn't a very bright person so it's not hard to sell him schiit using appropriate clever techniques but selling that same schiit to bright folks is very hard to do so it doesn't happen often.

For that reason "argumentum ad populum" is actually frequently used as a counter argument by folks who better understand logic and life around them than "average Joe".

I would certainly agree that something being popular does not necessarily mean it is good. However, neither does popularity mean something is bad. Going down the road of assuming that popularity = bad is just as silly and erroneous as assuming that popularity = good.

 

[Krunok]

I would certainly agree that something being popular does not necessarily mean it is good. However, neither does popularity mean something is bad. Going down the road of assuming that popularity = bad is just as silly and erroneous as assuming that popularity = good.

I disagree. Due to the fact that average Joe is not very bright but statistically is very frequent popular things are usually not far from schiit as they were made popular because average Joe likes them.

 

[JJB70]

I disagree. Due to the fact that average Joe is not very bright but statistically is very frequent popular things are usually not far from schiit as they were made popular because average Joe likes them.

What metric have you used to determine that average Joe's are not very bright?

 

[Krunok]

What metric have you used to determine that average Joe's are not very bright?

By statisitical definition of average average Joe has average IQ. He is neither very bright nor very dumb, simply average. I would expect IQ to have Gaussian distribution among population. It would be interesting to know SDEV..

 

[JJB70]

Average doesn't mean dumb or not very bright. If looking at a quantified metric for anything the absolute values are as important and in many ways more meaningful than the distribution. The concept of IQ is quite a limited one IMO. Similarly using educational attainment as a proxy for brightness /dumbness is deeply flawed. These days dumb appears to be a synonym for "has a different opinion".