• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

"They will also tell you that the better a system gets, the more recordings that become unlistenable."
Is that not the contention of all pro monitors manufacturers?
I share your dislike for the Klipsh Cornwalls, as with the majority of speakers I have auditioned at shows, they are neither Hi Fi nor accurate pro monitors. The lively sound you mention is easily attained with Highly efficient light weight paper cone drivers costing a fraction of the price of Klipsh The horns are made by electrovoice, not the greatest.
It should be clear to all audiophiles by now, that there are HiFi speakers and monitoring speakers, make your choice and live with it.
I think the 'official' ASR approach is to get active professional monitors that measure as near perfect as possible in every parameter, and EQ them into whatever you want them to be.

I don't do that myself, but it's hard to argue with the logic.
 
I think the 'official' ASR approach is to get active professional monitors that measure as near perfect as possible in every parameter, and EQ them into whatever you want them to be.

I don't do that myself, but it's hard to argue with the logic.
You can do the same with HI Fi speakers.
 
As a general rule when there is an actual difference which matters, science/engineering develops the means to measure and objectively quantify it.
In almost all areas of audio, the limiting factor is the human element.

Take for example the claim that a $$$ coaxial cable has a 'big improvement'. Modern test equipment can measure it's coefficient of transmission to sub 0.01 dB amplitudes with a bandwidth well into the GHz. aka Bandwidth and accuracy out the wazzu.

If a company claims something is better sounding, yet makes no attempt to justify it with actual measurements; then its highly probable it's snake oil.
 
It should be clear to all audiophiles by now, that there are HiFi speakers and monitoring speakers, make your choice and live with it.
I haven’t found that to be true, though I did kinda assume it to be true when I was first getting into the hobby. As I’ve gotten more experience, my thoughts have shifted closer to the opposite, in fact. These days, I tend to think monitor speakers make the best HiFi speakers at most price points, at least when aesthetics are left out of the picture.

Speaking of aesthetics, that’s actually the biggest distinction I see between the two markets. HiFi speakers often cost a bit more for the same sound quality, but they also generally look nicer, and blend in better to a home environment.

HiFi speakers are also less consistent in their design philosophy. Some are basically monitor speakers in a pretty cabinet(Kef, Revel, Magico), while others are doing their own thing entirely (Zu).
 
Last edited:
I haven’t found that to be true, though I did kinda assume it to be true when I was first getting into the hobby. As I’ve gotten more experience, my thoughts have shifted closer to the opposite, in fact. These days, I tend to think monitor speakers make the best HiFi speakers at most price points, at least when aesthetics are left out of the picture.

Speaking of aesthetics, that’s actually the biggest distinction I see between the two markets. HiFi speakers often cost a bit more for the same sound quality, but they also generally look nicer, and blend in better to a home environment.

HiFi speakers are also less consistent in their design philosophy. Some are basically monitor speakers in a pretty cabinet(Kef, Revel, Magico), while others are doing their own thing entirely (Zu).
Pro studio and home speakers should be converging regarding how they make sound given that our knowledge has expanded and ( studio acoustic too ) .

There where probably the Zu of pro speakers back in the days too ?

The differences are mostly connectivity and other utilities ( dante adat ? etc ) and robustness . The Kef i own may be neutral enough but if someone fast forward tape at full volume the tweeter is going to fry :) and they are pretty . Pro speakers are often built to be kicked down a flight of stairs and survive .
 
I haven’t found that to be true, though I did kinda assume it to be true when I was first getting into the hobby. As I’ve gotten more experience, my thoughts have shifted closer to the opposite, in fact. These days, I tend to think monitor speakers make the best HiFi speakers at most price points, at least when aesthetics are left out of the picture.

Speaking of aesthetics, that’s actually the biggest distinction I see between the two markets. HiFi speakers often cost a bit more for the same sound quality, but they also generally look nicer, and blend in better to a home environment.

HiFi speakers are also less consistent in their design philosophy. Some are basically monitor speakers in a pretty cabinet(Kef, Revel, Magico), while others are doing their own thing entirely (Zu).
Reading your reply it's hard to tell whether you agree or disagree, Many manufacturers do their own thing you say, this is true. Of course Zu is the worst example.
Many specialist companies do their own thing very well. I have never heard a Revel speaker but referring to Kef and Magico in the same sentence is quiet a stretch.
It is well known in professional studios circles that when they don't like a speaker their comment is often " it sounds HI Fi".
So make a choice: Monitoring with active filters or HIFi with passive crossovers (bad).
I own both: Genelecs and double tri-amplified NS 1000 for monitors (my substitutes for the large ATC's which I can't fit or afford) and various confections of Hi Fi speakers for casual listening in the living room (wife approved).
 
I think the 'official' ASR approach is to get active professional monitors that measure as near perfect as possible in every parameter, and EQ them into whatever you want them to be.

I don't do that myself, but it's hard to argue with the logic.
That what I do in 1 system...with emphasis on the later. So after that is done your right back to someone's hifi signature house sound. It doesn't take much EQ to totally change things.. I could care less about "Accurate " What I want is a good time across the board & that is not a flat line speaker in my house. The measurements will help some navigate to a greater goal. We all hear/process different anyway so the entire hifi industry marketing is silly including flat line speakers & .00000 distortion amps.
 
That what I do in 1 system...with emphasis on the later. So after that is done your right back to someone's hifi signature house sound. It doesn't take much EQ to totally change things.. I could care less about "Accurate " What I want is a good time across the board & that is not a flat line speaker in my house. The measurements will help some navigate to a greater goal. We all hear/process different anyway so the entire hifi industry marketing is silly including flat line speakers & .00000 distortion amps.
Pedant here:
I understand people who have different tastes or English isn't their language but HiFi in English is short for High Fidelity which means matching the recording as closely as possible so actually means "Accurate", so if you are looking for something non-accurate that pleases your particular taste better to call it a "home sound generator" or something, not HiFi.
;)
 
Last edited:
That what I do in 1 system...with emphasis on the later. So after that is done your right back to someone's hifi signature house sound. It doesn't take much EQ to totally change things.. I could care less about "Accurate " What I want is a good time across the board & that is not a flat line speaker in my house. The measurements will help some navigate to a greater goal. We all hear/process different anyway so the entire hifi industry marketing is silly including flat line speakers & .00000 distortion amps.
Yes… and no. Some of what you said is too much of a stretch.

Two things have emerged from carefully controlled listening tests into personal preferences for sound quality. #1 is that our preferences in sound waves are highly uniform, so it is a mistake to assume that we all have unique preferences. #2 is that the uniform preference is for accuracy. These two things are often a big surprise to the uninformed subjectivist assumption-maker.

That's why Dr Floyd Toole, the premier researcher on subjective audio, says that there is only one scale, and it measures both accuracy and emotional gratification.

Cheers
 
Pedant here:
I understand people who have different tastes or English isn't their language but HiFi in English is short for High Fidelity which means matching the recording as closely as possible so actually means "Accurate", so if you are looking for something non-accurate that pleases your particular taste better to call it a "home sound generator" or something, not HiFi.
;)
What dictionary uses the adjective "accurate" to define High Fidelity?
 
What dictionary uses the adjective "accurate" to define High Fidelity?
It's not difficult to get there:
1. Merriam Webster, second definition states: "accuracy in details : exactness [The movie's director insisted on total fidelity to the book.]"
2. Jump to Exactness in the same dictionary: first adjective is Accurate

High Fidelity always meant, from the start, high accuracy to the recording captured in the available medium.
 
Pedant here:
I understand people who have different tastes or English isn't their language but HiFi in English is short for High Fidelity which means matching the recording as closely as possible so actually means "Accurate", so if you are looking for something non-accurate that pleases your particular taste better to call it a "home sound generator" or something, not HiFi.
;)
No argument there.
I'll live in peace with my "home sound generator's" ;)
 
Yes… and no. Some of what you said is too much of a stretch.

Two things have emerged from carefully controlled listening tests into personal preferences for sound quality. #1 is that our preferences in sound waves are highly uniform, so it is a mistake to assume that we all have unique preferences. #2 is that the uniform preference is for accuracy. These two things are often a big surprise to the uninformed subjectivist assumption-maker.

That's why Dr Floyd Toole, the premier researcher on subjective audio, says that there is only one scale, and it measures both accuracy and emotional gratification.

Cheers
I have no problem with Mr. Toole's work. I just think there is more....... to it regarding the human hearing end of it . There is so many interesting studies on neuro end of it that it would take a very long time to get thru it all, let alone understand it. Yale just published an interesting read a few days ago. I would link it if I could remember how, maybe after coffee.
You are more than welcome to fly to my residence & be unsighted during an entire listening session without ever seeing my gear before or after. I will measure the session. It would be interesting to hear your subjective thoughts on the session afterwards compared to my measurements.

Yale physicists have discovered a sophisticated, previously unknown set of “modes” within the human ear that put important constraints on how the ear amplifies faint sounds, tolerates noisy blasts, and discerns a stunning range of sound frequencies in between.
 
Pedant here:
I understand people who have different tastes or English isn't their language but HiFi in English is short for High Fidelity which means matching the recording as closely as possible so actually means "Accurate", so if you are looking for something non-accurate that pleases your particular taste better to call it a "home sound generator" or something, not HiFi.
;)
OK, so we are referring to the accuracy of the transcription as directed by the mixing and mastering, not the accuracy of the music being played, because that is entirely dependent on the quality of the microphones and placement of.
 
OK, so we are referring to the accuracy of the transcription as directed by the mixing and mastering, not the accuracy of the music being played, because that is entirely dependent on the quality of the microphones and placement of.
The accuracy of the recording, of course. That is all you have.

I made recordings for decades and agree that microphone and placement have an important influence on the recording, I also don't own any recordings as realistic as my own since mine have not been compressed or mixed - just time spent positioning the microphones before the performance. Picking up background noise is the downside.

OTOH whilst things like stereo image and frequency response are effected the musicality of the musicians and the music itself is not.

Technically historic recordings of great performances of fabulous music fully maintain the musicianship even if the recording is noisy, poor speed stability and limited frequency response. The sound may be awful but the music and musicianship is unaffected.

A HiFi should reproduce the recording as accurately as possible, that is all.
 
The accuracy of the recording, of course. That is all you have.

I made recordings for decades and agree that microphone and placement have an important influence on the recording, I also don't own any recordings as realistic as my own since mine have not been compressed or mixed - just time spent positioning the microphones before the performance. Picking up background noise is the downside.

OTOH whilst things like stereo image and frequency response are effected the musicality of the musicians and the music itself is not.

Technically historic recordings of great performances of fabulous music fully maintain the musicianship even if the recording is noisy, poor speed stability and limited frequency response. The sound may be awful but the music and musicianship is unaffected.

A HiFi should reproduce the recording as accurately as possible, that is all.
Recording a chamber orchestra with one microphone in a church can also give great results.
 
Pro studio and home speakers should be converging regarding how they make sound given that our knowledge has expanded and ( studio acoustic too ) .

There where probably the Zu of pro speakers back in the days too ?

The differences are mostly connectivity and other utilities ( dante adat ? etc ) and robustness . The Kef i own may be neutral enough but if someone fast forward tape at full volume the tweeter is going to fry :) and they are pretty . Pro speakers are often built to be kicked down a flight of stairs and survive .
I think there will always be a separation in the requirements between near-field and far-field speakers.
 
Back
Top Bottom