MC-1000: Best Speaker in the World?

[HammerSandwich]

And don't you think that people's actual preference (the speakers people buy) should also be taken into account?

Are you saying we should boost McDonald's score just because they sell the most burgers?

 

[tuga]

Are you saying we should boost McDonald's score just because they sell the most burgers?

Yes please.
If you don't change people's habits and taste the scoring is of little use to them.

 

[amirm]

But I would like to raise the question of an ideal or target anechoic performance taking into account that the most prominent designers don't agree on what the best dispersion pattern should be, particularly due to the fact that, if I'm not mistaken, Toole's research is focused on loudspeaker response preference.

Many designer's don't follow the best audio science. So that doesn't mean anything. And no, that is not the focus of Dr. Toole's research. That was the outcome.

No matter how controlled or scientific the method, the object of the study was personal taste.

Which is what matters if we are to sell speakers to humans.

In other words, Toole's ideal response resulty from a scientific study but the result is not based on science but personal preference.
Had this study been performed in Germany, where speakers generally show somewhat exaggerated treble, and the results might have been different. Or in the UK where wide dispersion doesn't work so well in the typical 11x12ft domestically furnished sitting room. And room construction also plays an important part on how much room gain one gets.

You are conflating what sells with what is good and preferred. The number one factor in how well a speaker sells is its marketing and looks. Best speaker in the world can fail without that. Reminds of talking to a major speaker company that was telling us about half a dozen lines of speakers they had. I observed that there is almost no difference between them. Their answer? "Well, look at the silver ring around the woofer in this series. That makes the customer think it is higher end!"

Perform a test blind though and this factor vanishes. And so does myths like what you are repeating about cultural preferences. See this article from Sean Olive on when he and Dr. Toole first arrived at Harman: http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html

When I first met Sean he said there was quite a lot of resistance inside Harman when he and Dr. Toole arrived. All fell by the wayside after a few controlled tests like this.

In later meetings, he talked about a major car OEM who was being sold on using a different car audio system than Harman from an Asian company. Their pitch was that they better knew what people in China would prefer than the research based designs of Harman. Sean studied this by capturing the sound in the car using binaural recording and then performing preference testing in both US and China. Result was that the preference as the same. The chinese did not have a different taste.

Bottom line is that the only thing that matters is controlled testing. What you read online, what speaker sells, what this or that designer thinks is junk science. The real science comes from controlled testing where the only factor is the sound of the speaker. Quick comparisons between speakers is critical in developing preference scores. This is why I strive to do AB tests in my speaker testing. And test in mono where the difference is far more apparent than stereo where you love in speakers due to imaging and such which have little to do with the sound of the speaker.

 

[tuga]

Many designer's don't follow the best audio science. So that doesn't mean anything. And no, that is not the focus of Dr. Toole's research. That was the outcome.


Which is what matters if we are to sell speakers to humans.


You are conflating what sells with what is good and preferred.

I didn't say that what sells is good, but is it not what is preferred? People are mostly buying speakers that they don't like?
That doesn't sound right.


Does, in you opinion, any designer follow the best audio science besides Toole? Paul Barton? Who else? There must be a few more.

What do you mean by "the best audio science"? Is it preference scores?

Well, that is disappointing...

 

[mhardy6647]

I didn't say that what sells is good, but is it not what is preferred? People are mostly buying speakers that they don't like?
That doesn't sound right.
...

FWIW, I think that folks buy loudspeakers that they think they like.

In the 1970s heyday of hifi (one of several, of course), it was not uncommon for hifi vendors to play some loudspeakers louder than others (and, of course, some loudspeakers are more sensitive than others anyway). Empirically (and perhaps this has been objectively studied -- I dunno) any arbitrary set of ears tends to prefer the louder of two sets of loudspeakers when compared head-to-head. Those establishments, just perhaps, were "pushing" certain brands/models of loudspeakers over others? I am, of course, speculating here. I mean, something must explain the fact that at least some Cerwin-Vega! loudspeakers were actually purchased by persons who were, perhaps, not high on drugs?

On the other hand, some of the more scrupulous (?) emporia of the era went to some lengths to level the playing field (or, at least, claimed to).

Scan0023 by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

source: https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Audio/70s/Audio-1978-11.pdf

 

[amirm]

I didn't say that what sells is good, but is it not what is preferred? People are mostly buying speakers that they don't like?
That doesn't sound right.

They are buying with their eyes as well as ears. They are never afforded a proper AB of one speaker against the other in controlled environment. This makes their selection of speaker not a reliable indicator of what sounds good to them, or others.

Before I sat in Harman's blind test, I thought certain speaker sounded good. In blind tests, I graded them really low. Clearly the latter is my preference, not the former.

 

[tuga]

They are buying with their eyes.

Buying sighted is not the same as buying with your eyes.

 

[edechamps]

I didn't say that what sells is good, but is it not what is preferred? People are mostly buying speakers that they don't like? That doesn't sound right.

The studies and measurements we're discussing here are focused solely on the sound quality of the loudspeaker. That is of course not the only criteria for buying loudspeakers. Other factors include price, size, aesthetics, reliability, marketing, brand, availability, connectivity, not to mention the many psychological biases that come on top of that. It's not that surprising that sound quality correlates poorly with sales volume, as it's just one factor among many others. Keep in mind many people see loudspeakers as living room furniture that just happens to make sound too.

By the way, before wasting your time here, I suggest you read this book. The questions you've been asking have been debunked in this forum (and said book) many times already. The arguments you're making are basically PRATTs at this point.

 

[Sancus]

Buying sighted is not the same as buying with your eyes.

Buyers in hi-fi stores aren't even told how to listen correctly(to a single speaker, not in stereo) let alone level matched or blind. Plus they are typically being pressured by a sales person who is likely clueless.

And that's for the people who are going to stores. Nowadays, I bet far more speakers are purchased unheard, based on Amazon ratings and subjective media reviews(which mostly act as a marketing engine for manufacturer) than they are purchased based on an exhaustive comparison.

It's no wonder that people are surprised when they participate in blind tests, how often do we even do sighted, level-matched fair comparisons with a mono speaker next to another mono speaker?

 

[amirm]

Buying sighted is not the same as buying with your eyes.

If you only knew how wrong that statement is. Given my company, I often go in as a "dealer" to audio shows. At one cable vendor, we had a long talk about the heatshink tube on the cable being one of *the* most important selling features of them!

People often ask: "if this speaker is so great, why doesn't it sell better?" Answer: good sound quality is a minor bit in what sells speakers. Hopefully we can change that here over time.

As for you, try to organize a blind test among local audiophiles and report back on whether your preferences held when testing without your eyes.

 

[tuga]

The studies and measurements we're discussing here are focused solely on the sound quality of the loudspeaker. That is of course not the only criteria for buying loudspeakers. Other factors include price, size, aesthetics, reliability, marketing, brand, availability, connectivity, not to mention the many psychological biases that come on top of that. It's not that surprising that sound quality correlates poorly with sales volume, as it's just one factor among many others. Keep in mind many people see loudspeakers as living room furniture that just happens to make sound too.

By the way, before wasting your time here, I suggest you read this book. The questions you've been asking have been debunked in this forum (and said book) many times already. The arguments you're making are basically PRATTs at this point.

What do you mean by sound quality, is it the accurate reproduction of the recorded signal?
Anechoic or in-room?
Domestic or treated?

I get the point about bias, but do you truly believe that for an audiophile sound quality is not the predominant factor driving loudspeaker choice?
He's into furniture then.

 

[tuga]

Buyers in hi-fi stores aren't even told how to listen correctly(to a single speaker, not in stereo) let alone level matched or blind. Plus they are typically being pressured by a sales person who is likely clueless.

And that's for the people who are going to stores. Nowadays, I bet far more speakers are purchased unheard, based on Amazon ratings and subjective media reviews(which mostly act as a marketing engine for manufacturer) than they are purchased based on an exhaustive comparison.

It's no wonder that people are surprised when they participate in blind tests, how often do we even do sighted, level-matched fair comparisons with a mono speaker next to another mono speaker?

Most audiophiles choose speakers because of the way they sound when playing their favourite music in stereo.
They don't do observational listening assessment nor blind AB comparisons.
I agree that they should do observational listening assessment (quick AB comparisons not really).

I don't understand your point about Amazon. Do audiophiles buy speakers from Amazon?

I don't understand @edechamps mention of "sales volume" either. This may make sense for a manufacturer but we are discussing sound quality. I have no interest in speaker sales, or speaker manufacturing as a business.

 

[tuga]

If you only knew how wrong that statement is. Given my company, I often go in as a "dealer" to audio shows. At one cable vendor, we had a long talk about the heatshink tube on the cable being one of *the* most important selling features of them!

People often ask: "if this speaker is so great, why doesn't it sell better?" Answer: good sound quality is a minor bit in what sells speakers. Hopefully we can change that here over time.

As for you, try to organize a blind test among local audiophiles and report back on whether your preferences held when testing without your eyes.

Again, I didn't say that people buy speakers produce good sound, but they buy speakers that they like, that sound good to them. It's a matter of taste, of preference.
The fact that removing the sighted bias or educating them about how to listen would result in different choices is phylosophically interesting but far remoced from reality. Reality is the speakers people are buying sighted because they like how they sound.

But since you've mentioned "good sound quality" would you mind addressing the questions I've raised in previous posts?
One regarding speakers which produce a horizontal flat off-axis response, another regarding wide vs. narrow directivity and the differences between North American and European rooms, or one about driver resonances?

 

[tuga]

I am not questioning the elaboration of a Preferences Chart (even if personally I see a lot more use in the measurements than in a simplistic conclusion extracted from them) but I think that the criteria overlooks important issues regarding speaker-room interaction and perhaps matters of taste as well (classical listeners don't have the same requirements nor expectations as techno or rock listeners and this will likely lead to different preference).

 

[Purité Audio]

A very high percentage of potential clients I visit have the speakers their partner or room will allow, boomy bass then replace the speakers for a pair with less bass extension.
Many listeners simply do not experience that many designs , a case of better than the last one, add in marketing and the stock held by the nearest , perhaps only hi-Fi shop in the immediate vicinity .
Keith

 

[Sancus]

Most audiophiles choose speakers because of the way they sound when playing their favourite music in stereo.

No, they don't. They choose speakers because of what they think they sound like in stereo compared to a limited number of alternatives, in a contrived situation, with many factors other than the actual sound included.

There's a substantial amount of evidence that conducting tests the way audiophiles typically do(sighted, in stereo, not level matched, with only long term memory for comparison) produces inconsistent results, and your preference in the moment of making a decision under those conditions has little to do with the actual sound quality of the speaker.

I'll echo others and say: Read the book. Without it, your points are very boring and not worth refuting any further.

 

[restorer-john]

Buyers in hi-fi stores aren't even told how to listen correctly(to a single speaker, not in stereo) let alone level matched or blind.

And why should they? The premise is ridiculous if that HiFi store is going to survive. Buyers aren't remotely interested in being strapped to a chair with a blindfold listening to a single speaker, while some 'expert' who read a book, dribbles on about 'correct listening techniques'. They'd run for the door, and rightly so.

 

[Sancus]

And why should they? The premise is ridiculous if that HiFi store is going to survive. Buyers aren't remotely interested in being strapped to a chair with a blindfold listening to a single speaker, while some 'expert' who read a book, dribbles on about 'correct listening techniques'. They'd run for the door, and rightly so.

HiFi stores have max a couple of decades left in them before they're all dead anyways, because the industry ate itself with its incompetence.

 

[Purité Audio]

I have been encouraged in the last few years by the appearance of a younger more technically educated customer, younger guys who havent been subjected to or simply haven’t believed the audiophile BS that has been propagated for the last forty years.
I can’t believe the power cable/linear power supplies, earthing box dealerships will be around once the boomers are gone.
Keith

 

[restorer-john]

HiFi stores have max a couple of decades left in them before they're all dead anyways, because the industry ate itself with its incompetence.

No. Most people are inherently lazy and cheap. They don't want to put effort into something they regard now as a commodity. It's not a passion or a pursuit except for crazies like us and we represent a tiny proportion of the entertainment buying public.

When people stopped actually being prepared to pay for quality audio and shifted their focus to other pursuits, the margins fell out of consumer electronics and we ended up in a death spiral race to the bottom. The HiFi stores closed one after another as they burned through the money they had made in the decades before. Sold their buildings, rented them back, then closed altogether when the exclusive brands or ranges disappeared or ended up everywhere and their point of difference ceased to exist.

Look at the crap AVRs and AVPs we've had for nearly 2 decades. People don't care- it does the job until the next giant TV and system replaces it.