What role should listening play in speaker design

[SigbergAudio]

I thought I was clear on your design method, but now I'm not so sure now.

If you feel that the designer gets to decide what is "correct" in face of uncertainty in the accuracy of measurements, then I think that is where many here are in disagreement, including myself. . .at least for expensive, reference level speakers.

You seem to imply that by default, the decision of the designer is wrong. What if he actually IS correct? And not to get too philosophical but what IS correct in the context of speaker design? That is where we seem to have a hard time discussing the same thing.

As AJ points out in the interview, everything is a compromise. This means, very often when you make something better, something else gets worse. So what is the "correct" compromise in any given situation? Isn't it strange that some random people on this forum apparently find this to be obvious, while AJ apparently does not find it equally obvious? Is AJ then just stupid or ignorant? Probably not, right?

For few hundred dollar speakers, I would be ok with that the designer getting to decide what is "correct" or not.

Anyway, this conversation goes on and on. But I think we know where each other stand in terms of opinion and this thread is a great conversation.

I think it's a good discussion as well, and I am happy that we are able to remain reasonably civil. I can be somewhat direct, but please know I am only discussing the subject at hand at all times, nothing personal in any way.

 

[SigbergAudio]

AJ: *Makes a speaker that's not perfect*
Internet: "You should have made it perfect!"
AJ: "Oh, why didn't I think of that?"

 

[RickS]

Why would anyone not use well-known reference materials in a case like developing a loudspeaker?

I'm pretty sure AJ is developing his loudspeakers using all the necessary measurements, and after that, he probably listens to them using well-known reference material, songs that he has heard on many great loudspeakers over the years, and therefore has a pretty good sense of whether it sounds overly bright, too dense, lacks body, is recessed, or sounds too way forward. Things like that.

When I set up my speakers, I start by letting the REW measurements dictate the EQ filters. After that, I listened to all my favorite reference tracks for weeks, reference tracks I've been listening to for the last 30 years or so, which I have a pretty good idea of how they sound on other great audio systems. This is the period when I fine-tune the EQ settings and the overall balance, until all my reference tracks sound as I've heard them and how I know they should sound. I suspect this approach is fairly similar to how AJ fine-tunes his loudspeakers, as it's actually not that hard to hear if something doesn't sound quite right when using well-known reference material.

While having reference tracks can be helpful, it is the human factor of trusting one person's hearing (notably as they age)...

 

[JPA]

I agree with you. But it's probably closer to say that the source (i.e. recordings) likely follow a normal distribution curve of tonal tilts with the mean being absolute neutrality. The problem is that there is no objective standard for neutrality for recordings. If this AJ guy happens to have a selection of recordings in the upper 25% that leans bright, and he adjusts his speakers to restore neutrality, that will mean that the speakers will sound too dark for the remaining 75% of recordings.

The ONLY source that can be GUARANTEED to be neutral are test signals. I have heard so many REW sweeps that I can tell from listening to the sweeps alone what the tonal balance is likely to be (I use that as a pickup line for women I meet in bars).

Listening to pink noise is highly underrated. I wonder if AJ ever does.

 

[pablolie]

".. As AJ points out in the interview, everything is a compromise. This means, very often when you make something better, something else gets worse. .."

I don't believe *everything* is a compromise. With enough budget (time, money) you can be pretty uncompromising and shoot for the moon (excited abut the Artemis launch in 2 hours). The project goals (launch time, market focus, target cost, etc) determine the compromises an experienced designer would likely encounter, unless they come up with a disruptive design decision. But to claim everything is always compromised goes to far.

I find it bizarre that in audio we still accept that some leading designers still act/work/design as craftsmen that defend obsolete design trends and refuse to fully accept thorough measuring as a *mandatory* design tool. Audio reproduction is about repeatabilty, not about magically crafting a one off Stradivarius once a year.

 

[PristineSound]

I think it's a good discussion as well, and I am happy that we are able to remain reasonably civil. I can be somewhat direct, but please know I am only discussing the subject at hand at all times, nothing personal in any way.

I thought you were super civil and I didn't sense any hostility from you whatsoever, more importantly you took time out to interact with the community and in such an honest and direct way. I for one am very appreciative of it.

I would to hear your speaker at a non audio show setting one day!

 

[SigbergAudio]

While having reference tracks can be helpful, it is the human factor of trusting one person's hearing (notably as they age)...

View attachment 521634

Just so we don't discount everyone, according to the stats, 3 out of 4 people between the age of 60-69 does NOT have speech-frequency hearing loss.

 

[a4eaudio]

I find it bizarre that in audio we still accept that some leading designers still act/work/design as craftsmen that defend obsolete design trends and refuse to fully accept thorough measuring as a *mandatory* design tool.

But this is the myth being propagated in this thread. Andrew Jones knows a ton about, and utilizes, measurements. I think very few people are (1) watching the (long) videos and (2) asking themselves in what ways could AJ be right that they had not considered. Considering AJ is one of the premiere speaker designers in the world with DECADES of proven results (proven results that usually measure well?) .

 

[a4eaudio]

3 out of 4 people between the age of 60-69 does NOT have speech-frequency hearing loss.

I looked it up a few days ago and the typical person in their 70's can hear up to 8-10 kHz. If AJ is missing the ONE octave with very little musical content 10-20kHz, this line of argument seems like scaremongering.

 

[RickS]

Just so we don't discount everyone, according to the stats, 3 out of 4 people between the age of 60-69 does NOT have speech-frequency hearing loss.

Might be one takeaway, but some of the other charts I found online were even uglier.

As mentioned earlier, we have a luminary in JJ. His AES presentation is enlightening.


P.S. note that chart is just speech-frequency (500-4000 Hz) hearing loss. Above 8000 Hz, hearing loss is much more common.

 

[SigbergAudio]

I don't believe *everything* is a compromise. With enough budget (time, money) you can be pretty uncompromising and shoot for the moon (excited abut the Artemis launch in 2 hours). The project goals (launch time, market focus, target cost, etc) determine the compromises an experienced designer would likely encounter, unless they come up with a disruptive design decision. But to claim everything is always compromised goes to far.

Few if any commercial speaker designers have enough time and money.

Perhaps we have a different understanding of the word compromise. I also think it's easy to lose sight of the fact that "perfect measurements" typically isn't the only goal when designing a commerical speaker.

I find it bizarre that in audio we still accept that some leading designers still act/work/design as craftsmen that defend obsolete design trends and refuse to fully accept thorough measuring as a *mandatory* design tool. Audio reproduction is about repeatabilty, not about magically crafting a one off Stradivarius once a year.

But AJ (if that is still the topic) designs commercial speakers that are sold in large quantities, and I would suspect each unit is pretty much the same as the last unit. So I'm not sure who you are directing this at.

 

[pablolie]

But this is the myth being propagated in this thread. Andrew Jones knows a ton about, and utilizes, measurements. I think very few people are (1) watching the (long) videos and (2) asking themselves in what ways could AJ be right that they had not considered. Considering AJ is one of the premiere speaker designers in the world with DECADES of proven results (proven results that usually measure well?) .

I'd like to note I was not talking about Andrew Jones and questioning his track record, which is pretty stellar (that said, I bet his collaborators don't get enough credit - AJ clearly gets hired to stamp his personal brand approval on a product... probably for a premium). I can accept when designers defend the essential nature of listening to equipment. I probably wouldn't buy a car that was just virtually modelled and wasn't put through rigurous real-world tests for driveability, safety and reliability. But to express any remote doubt about the validity of measurements in tech design is simply ignorant in this age and time.

 

[a4eaudio]

Here is an animated GIF of 34 xo variations (only On-axis, PIR and SP shown to keep it clean). Almost all are within +/- 1.5 dB On-axis from 100Hz to 12kHz. Some changes may be inaudible (literally just a small change in one resistor), some very obvious.
Why so many variations?

• Differences in baffle step compensation.
• Different emphasis on LW, ER, PIR, SP as well as different levels and slopes.
• Changes in crossover points, acoustic slopes and phase tracking around crossover points.
• Changes in xo components for values more readily available or lower cost (e.g., smaller values for some of the large inductors)
• etc.

 

[Mort]

Which step is 'voicing'? That was the controversy.

 

[Duke]

I am asking for perfect on-axis, not off-axis. If you can't manage this, then better get out of the kitchen:

What are your thoughts about listening from somewhat off-axis?

For instance someone might use the normal 60-degree listening triangle, but only toe their speakers in a little bit, or perhaps not at all. In the latter case, the listener would be 30 degrees off-axis, and thus the first-arrival sound would be the frequency response at 30 degrees off-axis.

Is it the on-axis response that matters most, or the first-arrival sound that matters most, in situations where the two are not the same?

 

[a4eaudio]

Which step is 'voicing'? That was the controversy.

When the designer A/B switches between xo variation X and Y and decides which one "sounds" better.

 

[goat76]

While having reference tracks can be helpful, it is the human factor of trusting one person's hearing (notably as they age)...

If we are speaking specifically of Andrew Jones, do you see any general trend in the measurements of his latest loudspeaker designs that indicates his hearing can't be trusted?

And by the way, I'm sure he's not the one and only person listening to the speakers while they are in development; he probably has other people around him, whom he trusts, who also have a say in how they think the speakers sound in the final stages of the development.

 

[RickS]

I looked it up a few days ago and the typical person in their 70's can hear up to 8-10 kHz. If AJ is missing the ONE octave with very little musical content 10-20kHz, this line of argument seems like scaremongering.

Watch your tone. My comment may apply to AJ, but also to any one individual. One sample does not make a trend.

As for hearing up to 8-10 kHz, many instrument harmonics are above that. So, not a convincing claim that is only ONE octave.

 

[a4eaudio]

Watch your tone. ...

The scaremongering comment wasn't in reply to you. There were earlier comments suggesting people in their 70's basically were incapable of "voicing" a speaker.

 

[a4eaudio]

So, not a convincing claim that is only ONE octave.

? 10-20kHz, which is what would be "missing", is literally one octave.