I've been pondering over this question for a while now
Being quite familiar (for a person without a background in audio from a technical pov) with the known research, obviously we want to tick all the boxes. Neutral direct sound, excellent directivity properties, lack of resonances, lack of distortion, etc.. The whole package.
What makes good and what makes great I wonder? "It depends" is very likely the answer, as with most things.
Without quoting specific posts. I've read (sometimes heated) discussions over budget loudspeakers with good measurements sounding less good than more expensive models with similar numbers, to which distortion is often brought up. On the other hand, we've also had (sometimes heated) arguments about that aspect when a loudspeakers with non-exemplary distortion numbers is perceived as audibly good, or great even. While sighted bias is often a factor, this is not always the case.
Another recent example, to which we're still awaiting Amir's review, is the JBL 4349. Harman's spinorama was posted in the thread, and while good, on paper it's not spectacular. Yet it would seem odd to me, that they would release a loudspeaker in this price range that didn't go through the blind test protocol. We weren't dazzled with the numbers however.
The Revel Salon2, while producing excellent measurements, technically speaking has been surpassed by several models from Revel themselves, as well as other manufacturers. I've yet to hear to read about anyone not favoring the Salon2 compared to those other Revel models though, apart Harman marketing.
Have any of you ever had experiences where the, technically speaking, better loudspeaker left you less satisfied in a direct comparison, and that beyond suspicion, there are no hard facts as to why this is? Or have the listening experiences always followed suit.
Where exactly are we with regards to the research? What have those +100 measurements and reviews told us so far?
I think a lot about this quote from Dr. Toole's book, and it's fundamental to my perspective on speaker reviews:
"How do listeners approach the problem of judging sound quality? Most likely the dimensions and criteria of subjective evaluation are traceable to a lifetime accumulation of experiences with live sound, even simple conversation. If we hear things in reproduced sound that do not occur in nature, or that defy some kind of perceptual logic, we seem to be able to identify it. By that standard, the best sounding audio product is the one that exhibits the fewest audible flaws. Perhaps this is how we are able to make such insightful comments about sound quality based on recordings that either had no existence as a “live” performance, or that we have no personal experience with."
Emphasis mine.
Most audio reviews and impressions tend to be written in an additive sense. Before reading Dr Toole's book, that's how I approached things too. I thought the best product would be the most euphoric, the one at which I could throw the most positive adjectives. "Transparent," "like a live concert," "the most detailed treble," "the smoothest midrange I've heard," "I heard things I'd never heard before," It plays well with the naive misconception that more expensive products
have to sound better. But I think there's a rough limit to how "good" or "real" a speaker can sound, after which the best you can do is "different."
So now I think of things differently. If the best speakers are the ones with the fewest audible flaws me that means the ones least likely to break the illusion of real music. So when I think about products I'd consider to be among the best I've heard over extended listening, like the D&D 8C, I think of the products that do everything right.
For example, the Neumann KH80 is a fantastic speaker, but compared to the 8C, its obvious flaws are bass extension and SPL handling. Inevitably, those flaws will make themselves known when I try to play music with lots of bass loudly. And without very good room correction, the 8C automatiaclly beats everything else I've heard by virtue of having such controlled room interaction built in.
Basically, I'm not looking for something to blow my mind, just for something that doesn't break my suspension of disbelief.
I think it's made me a better audiophile, honestly. Instead of looking for speakers that deliver audio nirvana, I look for the speakers that most let me just listen to the music without the distraction of something sounding "off." The best a speaker can really do, after all, is just sound convincingly real.
All the measurements in the world will never tell you if you'll like the sound or not.
I strongly disagree with this. Perhaps my perspective is different because I get to listen to and measure more speakers in my own home than the average person but I can very much get a good idea of how much I'll like a speaker based on comprehensive measurements alone.
I do measure after listening, but in cases where measurements are already available correlating impressions with the data is really feels like second nature at this point. And 99 percent of time impressions can be explained by Frequency respnose, Directivity, and power output.
The one thing I sometimes have trouble fully quantifying is "dynamics," but that's more likely simply because dynamics can be a combination of multiple measurable factors (distortion, compression, directivity, maybe other stuff).
I think it's just a matter of having the right measurements and knowing how to interpret them based on your preferences and listening environment. And I do not think the relationship between measurements and sound is so complicated that they can't be understood by the average audio enthusiast.
