Is a totally flat speaker really what we want for home reproduction?

[coonmanx]

A totally flat speaker frequency response just means that what you will hear is the same as the source... no coloring of the sound. If you like coloring the sound then there are these things called tone controls and equalizers. If that is what someone prefers then have at it.

Not everyone is goig to like the exact same thing. Not everyone is going to listen to music the same way. Having a flat frequency response just gives you the baseline and you can always go from there. Consider it like adding spices to food. The food should taste good to begin with, yet you are free to add spices if it suits your fancy...

 

[coonmanx]

What "we want"... Who even knows what that means since what I want may not be what you want...

 

[Digby]

What "we want"... Who even knows what that means since what I want may not be what you want...

Maybe you don't know what you want. Do I know what you want, I'm not even sure I know what I want!

 

[sigbergaudio]

A totally flat speaker frequency response just means that what you will hear is the same as the source... no coloring of the sound. If you like coloring the sound then there are these things called tone controls and equalizers. If that is what someone prefers then have at it.

But this is the kind of simplification that cause problems. Depending on the off-axis response. you may not get a balanced sound with a flat on-axis response.

 

[coonmanx]

But this is the kind of simplification that cause problems. Depending on the off-axis response. you may not get a balanced sound with a flat on-axis response.

That really is not too much to ask at all. A well designed speaker IMHO has flat frequency response along with good dispersion, which allows for good off-axis response. That is also the kind of speakers that I use.

I do have a problem with threads like this that ask questions for all of us, even though we may not all like the same thing. I do know what is good for me. I do know what kinds of speakers I like. I have in fact built three pairs of speakers and they all perform quite well, sound good and have good off-axis response. That is good enough for me. I have no idea if that is good enough for someone else...

 

[coonmanx]

If someone wants to go out and buy a Soundesign all in one and hook up some Panasonic Thrusters to it and call it the best sound in the world then they are free to do just that.

 

[Chromatischism]

To me, this "flat EQ speaker" concept is a bit like determining the perfect PH level for a good wine, and evaluating every wine on PH alone. I already imagine priceless bottles being emptied in the toilet because the PH level is "off-axis and unacceptable". There are other metrics obviously.

I like the rest of your post but this analogy of human taste preferences to human hearing isn't the best. This post on ribbon tweeters by one of the leading audio researchers may be enlightening regarding other metrics:

The "quick decay" you speak of is totally predictable from amplitude vs. frequency responses because transducers are minimum-phase devices. Impulse response plots are impressive, but the reality is that humans do not respond to phase shift so these time-domain plots are misleading. We humans do not hear waveforms. I am an engineer and had to learn this myself, fortunately at an early stage.

It is interesting that one of the first loudspeakers I tested in the anechoic chamber at the NRCC in 1967 (52 years ago!!!!) was a ribbon tweeter, the Kelly Ribbon from the UK. I just looked at the measurements in my personal archive. At the time it was promoted for the same reasons that ribbons and electrostatic loudspeakers are today: "massless" diaphragms, "Instant" transient response, etc. etc. It was a learning experience for me, and only definitively provable in double-blind listening tests. Of course, nothing back then was as good as things are now, but the implied superiority simply was not heard. As time passed and measurements and knowledge improved, nothing has changed. There are good loudspeakers and not-so-good loudspeakers, and the method of moving the air has not revealed itself as being the dominant factor. If any one method was obviously superior, it would dominate the products we can buy.

As far as the "massless" consideration is concerned, I have a Tesla S P90D in my garage that accelerates from 0-60 mph in 3.2 s. It is a heavy four door, potentially 7-passenger, sedan that is much quicker than most two seat sports cars - and I have owned a few. The secret is in the motor, and that is also the relevant factor in loudspeaker transducers. Ribbons and electrostatic speakers typically have relatively weak motors compared to what can be put behind a cone or dome. In the end, frequency response is king.

 

[sigbergaudio]

That really is not too much to ask at all. A well designed speaker IMHO has flat frequency response along with good dispersion, which allows for good off-axis response. That is also the kind of speakers that I use.

I do have a problem with threads like this that ask questions for all of us, even though we may not all like the same thing. I do know what is good for me. I do know what kinds of speakers I like. I have in fact built three pairs of speakers and they all perform quite well, sound good and have good off-axis response. That is good enough for me. I have no idea if that is good enough for someone else...

There's no such thing as a perfect speaker with perfect on-axis and off-axis response, there's always some kind of compromise. A resonably even on-axis response is obviously preferred and to be strived for. A perfect on-axis response may not necessarily always be the right compromise.

This again is the problem with superficial discussions and superficial understanding of graphs (not necessarily talking about you but in general). Everything becomes simplified and black and white.

 

[Axo1989]

The 21st century is the age of misinformation. The liars and the crooks are weaving information with some truth and some half truths. Too much information is dangerous. You'll be influenced to consume more products through targeted ads and sponsored media. Social media and cable TV are nudging your political beliefs with 24/7 news commentary. Conspiracy theories are harmful. Case and point: you watch a few camping videos and YouTube algorithms nudge you into watching doomsday preppers. And this is where you ask yourself "Am I smarter or am I influenced?".

In the audio world this could translate into buying expensive DACs and speaker cables which (probably) won't make a perceivable difference in your system.

"It would be nice to just trust someone" <= In many situations you should trust people more qualified than you to get the job done. You're not going to perform surgery on yourself. You're not going to skip on a lawyer in court. You're not going to design the passenger aircraft you fly in. You're not going to self-diagnose and prescribe yourself medicine.

I would rather trust an expert over 3 graphs I don't understand and basic commentary when purchasing a speaker. The hype over certain products on the forums leads to buyers remorse. You don't want that.

To me, this "flat EQ speaker" concept is a bit like determining the perfect PH level for a good wine, and evaluating every wine on PH alone. I already imagine priceless bottles being emptied in the toilet because the PH level is "off-axis and unacceptable". There are other metrics obviously.

Maybe I'm arriving at the same conclusion as previously stated which goes something like "frequency response is insufficient in evaluating the performance of a product". Perhaps speaker manufacturers have transcended the goal of achieving flat frequency response. And it would take a Phd to understand the 100 other factors involved in engineering a speaker.

So yeah, I love the idea of trusting an expert.

You know what they say: tell someone a fish story and fool them for a day, own the fish market and sell them fish forever.

 

[clearnfc]

Just been doing some thinking, so thought I would try thinking out loud with the help of the forum, those of you in a helpful mood anyway .

A lot of music, older music in particular, is not mastered on speakers that are as flat in FR as we might want. If the engineer is mastering to what sounds good on his speakers - which I suspect, more often then not likely had some kind of dip in the mids (BBC dip) and perhaps a bit of bass boost - could it be that on reproduction of this music on a speaker with flat FR, it may be lacking in bass and too forward in the mids?

A flat FR is accurate to the recording, but is it accurate to the balance the mastering engineer was trying to achieve, if he was using speakers that are not completely flat. Perhaps accuracy shouldn't be to the recording as such, but to the intent of the engineer (much harder to quantify, I know) and does a ruler flat FR get us nearer to or further away from this. I hope this makes sense.

Thoughts?

I just saw this thread... I have to say things are a little more complex than just what the audio engineer wants.

Flat FR will help only if everyone else has the same gear and setup. But since thats not the case, its going to sound different on different gear/setups. Even environment makes a difference to the sound. Due to this, does it really matter whether the engineer's speakers have flat FR or not?

Then we have the audience.. one good example is that music on streaming platforms tend to have poor dynamic range and i would say this is done on purpose to cater for the intended audience and the equipment they are likely using.

 

[clearnfc]

If only it was the case that recordings (and masterings) are being produced in the hope of sounding good on our speakers. I think there's almost no chance of that, perhaps with the exceptions of classical music and some acoustic jazz. The listening environments that matter economically are ear pods/buds, headphones, Echo/Homepod, and car audio. Most home speaker listening consists of movies and television. Dedicated audio listening has become a niche market, and I'd be surprised if most recording producers don't treat it that way.

Yup! Fully agreed. The audio engineer has to cater for the intended audience.

Btw, this is also why physical media sounds different from streaming ones (esp. the dynamic range). Streaming music main audience are those who are using earphones or headphones or bluetooth speakers etc.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I just saw this thread... I have to say things are a little more complex than just what the audio engineer wants.

Flat FR will help only if everyone else has the same gear and setup. But since thats not the case, its going to sound different on different gear/setups. Even environment makes a difference to the sound. Due to this, does it really matter whether the engineer's speakers have flat FR or not?

Then we have the audience.. one good example is that music on streaming platforms tend to have poor dynamic range and i would say this is done on purpose to cater for the intended audience and the equipment they are likely using.

There's nothing wrong with the dynamic range of streaming platforms. Reference? Source?

 

[Geert]

Flat FR will help only if everyone else has the same gear and setup. But since thats not the case, its going to sound different on different gear/setups. Even environment makes a difference to the sound. Due to this, does it really matter whether the engineer's speakers have flat FR or not?

Yes it matters sound engineers use a speaker with flat frequency response, because logically that gives the most chance a mix translates best to all kinds of other speakers and setups. Especially since the design of most high quality speakers also targets a close to flat frequency response. (Some designs deviate a small bit because of specific reasons like cater for room boundery effect or add a bit of extra sparkle we know some people like, but then you as a customer decide if that fits your needs).

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

To me, this "flat EQ speaker" concept is a bit like determining the perfect PH level for a good wine, and evaluating every wine on PH alone. I already imagine priceless bottles being emptied in the toilet because the PH level is "off-axis and unacceptable". There are other metrics obviously.

The point of measurements is twofold:
1) Weed out the duds. Many popular products are actually horribly priced an designed. (This is the easy part)
2) Narrow down the selection if you know your own preference (this is the hard part, because you must be able to interpret the data)

The whole point is that: if you can do 2), experiencing buyers remorse will be a lot less likely than going in blind and grabbing what's popular with subjective reviewers, because many of us don't have the ability to demo every speaker we potentially like.
Even if you can go to a show room: different room, often untreated, listening with time constraints / other people being there ... doesn't tell you much of practical use. I've heard 27.500 € Focal Utopias that sounded worse than my 500€ Focal Arias due to being stuffed into a tiny, untreated room. Modal bass goes BooooOOOOOm! >.<

Of course there are other factors involved than just raw anechoic on-axis frequency response. Dispersion and off-axis response have been mentioned and lets not forget aesthetics too. Most speakers are large objects that get prominent positions in the room. To be frank: a speaker could have the worlds best technical performance, if it looks butt-ugly, I don't want it in my living room. (Genelec .... *cough*) :'D

Personally, I find a healthy mix of measurements and other people's descriptions of the sound the most helpful in deciding. So far, that approach has not steered me wrongly. Naturally I do know what I like and can read the data, even if I am not a professional like some of the kind folks in this forum.

One of the most beautiful things of ASR is the knowledge though. It cuts through Audio marketing bovine excrements like a white glowing knife through butter. It can save you so much money and disappointments... and be pretty entertaining to boot. So I recommend sticking around and keeping an open mind.

 

[clearnfc]

There's nothing wrong with the dynamic range of streaming platforms. Reference? Source?

Below is an example. OF course, its done for a reason.

Will streaming return dynamic range to recordings?

There was recent article by Steven Stone titled "How Streaming Killed The Loudness War": https://audiophilereview.com/audiophile-news/how-streaming-killed-the-loudness-war.html It is interesting and seems plausible with automated volume leveling normalization. Here the referenced video "The...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[dominikz]

Below is an example. OF course, its done for a reason.

Will streaming return dynamic range to recordings?

There was recent article by Steven Stone titled "How Streaming Killed The Loudness War": https://audiophilereview.com/audiophile-news/how-streaming-killed-the-loudness-war.html It is interesting and seems plausible with automated volume leveling normalization. Here the referenced video "The...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Loudness normalization done by streaming platforms is not decreasing dynamic range since it is not compression.
Normalization is actually helping the market steer away from "loudness wars" we had before, since normalization will anyway turn down very compressed masters to the same LUFS target as those that are much less compressed - meaning that now there is more incentive to produce less compressed masters.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Below is an example. OF course, its done for a reason.

Will streaming return dynamic range to recordings?

There was recent article by Steven Stone titled "How Streaming Killed The Loudness War": https://audiophilereview.com/audiophile-news/how-streaming-killed-the-loudness-war.html It is interesting and seems plausible with automated volume leveling normalization. Here the referenced video "The...

www.audiosciencereview.com

That link talks about the opposite happening, streaming helping us move away from highly compressed recordings.

 

[Waxx]

The problem with streaming is not the dynamic range, but the lack of resolution. Most streamingservices are streaming in lossy formats today. And an other problem i have is that the music is only there as long as the streaming services are there and you pay your monthly fee. While buying music gives it to you whatever happens, and also offline.

But of course, each their preference.

 

[IPunchCholla]

The problem with streaming is not the dynamic range, but the lack of resolution. Most streamingservices are streaming in lossy formats today. And an other problem i have is that the music is only there as long as the streaming services are there and you pay your monthly fee. While buying music gives it to you whatever happens, and also offline.

But of course, each their preference.

It doesn’t have to be one or the other. I pay for streaming to use it like the old record store days, when they had headphones and you could listen before you bought. Then I purchase (usually an LP with download), those I want in my collection.

In terms of resolution, aren’t most services moving to lossless at the paid tier? And before that my understanding was the compression was invisible to most people.

 

[Killingbeans]

While buying music gives it to you whatever happens, and also offline.

Not if you have a house fire... unless you have good insurance and can rebuild the collection