Why most users here HATE all very expensive speakers?

[delta76]

hate is the strong word. we just don't praise them for the poor return on investment in sound quality.
very expensive speakers tend to associated with snake oil non sense like expensive DAC or cables, something ASR is particularly not fond of

 

[MaxwellsEq]

However, there are also exceptional speakers that are very costly but deliver phenomenal sound quality at least in some categories like sound stage, live like dynamics

Says who?

This is the problem - when you listen to a speaker, in the low frequencies you are principally hearing the room. At higher frequencies you are hearing how directional a speaker.

And you are reacting to how it looks...

So if you listen in a room, you can know almost nothing about the speaker. If you tell me about it (i.e. you are a subjective reviewer) all you are doing is describing that speaker in that room on that day. Totally useless for anyone else.

 

[ahofer]

Hello,

from my experience on ASR, almost no very expensive speaker receives broadly positive recognition. A recent example is the new flagship model from Wilson Audio, which is extremely costly. I understand that many people here prefer to rely on measurements or “proof” on paper to validate a speaker’s performance and only a few manufacturers provide such data.

But even brands with a generally good reputation in this community, such as JBL or Genelec, often receive more negative feedback when it comes to their higher-end or flagship models. Their measurements are frequently scrutinized in great detail, sometimes to the point where every possible flaw is highlighted. At the same time, actual listening tests (which could put these measurements into a more meaningful context) are often avoided or dismissed.

There are many threads where not a single participant has heard the speaker in question, yet dozens of people still offer negative judgments.

This makes me wonder why that is the case. Of course, there are expensive speakers that do not perform well, and sometimes this can indeed be identified through the standard measurements. However, there are also exceptional speakers that are very costly but deliver phenomenal sound quality at least in some categories like sound stage, live like dynamics or... To truly appreciate their capabilities, it is necessary to listen to them in person and experience what they can do!

My somewhat critical assumption is that many people here may have limited experience listening to a wide range of state-of-the-art loudspeakers, and possibly also limited exposure to the sound of real instruments. Only a small number seem to regularly visit dealers, manufacturers, or live acoustic concerts to explore different approaches to audio reproduction.

Nevertheless, many participants appear very confident in judging speakers—often in a negative way.

I don’t intend to offend anyone with these remarks. However, I do feel that this approach may lead people in the wrong direction and prevent them from ever experiencing great sound.

Best regards
Thomas

There’s a lot of engineering mentality on this site, and the pointless, or even counterproductive, abuse of resources is often amusing or jarring to the engineering mindset.

 

[MayI]

At the same time, actual listening tests (which could put these measurements into a more meaningful context) are often avoided or dismissed.

No. Decades of research have created a set of measurements that are highly predictive in listener preference for speakers. This is what enables us to critique a speaker from measurements.

Agree for good vs bad forward radiating speakers. Disagree for good vs good forward radiating speakers. Not aware of any published Harman tests of say JBL vs Genelec or Revel vs KEF, etc, especially >say 2010, when most of the Harman tests were already concluded. At least the published ones. Would love to see those kinds of listening tests, but alas those days are past unless another company/McGill etc resumes. If you have some inside scoop please share!
Listening sighted at a dealer or show like Axpona you attended, is a data point vs none FWIW.
As for Wilson, well....

 

[Ropeburn]

In a way it's funny mentioning acoustic instruments in a hifi context, because nowadays they're by far the worst, lowest quality, and hardest to record. The other end of the scale would be a software synthesizer that creates sound from pure math, at even higher resolution than the typical playback system. 32bit float 96kHz or higher audio generation can't be beat by anything acoustically recorded in quality. Even an old hardware synth is still better than a microphone simply because it's a line source without a transducer involved.

A prominent example of bands using that to great effect would be Kraftwerk. Their concerts are nothing short of epic, and they've been using exclusively software for long years. 2016 (?) I saw them live, and the opener band was Air - typical hybrid band setup, drums, guitars, synths, and whatnot. They sounded okay to my ears and Kelly Watch The Stars was a lot of fun... but then Kraftwerk started, and the difference was unbelievable. Suddenly, massive wall of tight as hell bass, clearest zaps and zoinks ever, lovely leads, clear strings. They seemed way louder and still easier on the ears (way less middy/shouty). Same venue and system, the contrast was striking. It's skill too of course, but both bands are veterans and know what they're doing, including the live engineers. Electronics make great sound a lot easier.

Of course all that is easy to say as an electronic music fan. If you like acoustic sound, you have to make do with difficulty and expense for recording. Hehe.

 

[Dialectic]

My somewhat critical assumption is that many people here may have limited experience listening to a wide range of state-of-the-art loudspeakers, and possibly also limited exposure to the sound of real instruments. Only a small number seem to regularly visit dealers, manufacturers, or live acoustic concerts to explore different approaches to audio reproduction.

This is a common rhetorical move of the audiophile crowd - "you don't think that [six-figure audiophile speakers du jour] are good, so you must be poor and ignorant and have sour grapes."

With respect to me, your "somewhat critical assumption" is wrong.

I've heard lots of expensive speakers and am currently selling my venerable Dutch & Dutch 8Cs, which most users here find to be outrageously expensive.

You are partially correct - I do not regularly visit audio dealers. But, of all people, audio dealers are the people whom I should seek out to learn about sound reproduction? (There are a handful of good audio dealers in the world, and nearly all of them are on ASR!)

With respect to manufacturers, I am not sure what anyone would learn about sound reproduction by visiting audio companies' tiny factories. The factory visits so popular with rags like the Absolute Sound and Soundstage are an exercise in commodity fetishism. ("Oh, look how carefully they twist the copper in the cables!") It has nothing to do with sound reproduction.

I don't understand what live acoustic concerts have to do with "different approaches" to audio reproduction. I've been to well over 500 classical music performances in my life. I have professional musicians at my house on a regular basis and have several friends and acquaintances who are members of "Big Five" orchestras. I have more in musical instruments than I do in stereos or cars. (Had a Steinway technician here at the house yesterday!) I've heard almost every major orchestra in the world play in its own concert hall. None of that has anything to do with understanding sound reproduction! It's a non sequitur.

When I went to the only audio show I've visited, my conversations and listening were repeatedly interrupted by older technical illiterates who thought I was dumb and poor and lusted after garbage that they blew their kids' inheritance to buy. You're one of those guys.

 

[kharan]

Interpreting spin data CORRECTLY requires quite some knowledge about acoustics and knowing what your room does.
Let's face it, there might be a handful of members that can. The rest just looks for 'imperfections', looks at the price and concludes if it is worth it.
There is no room for 'taste' nor how it might really sound where it is placed and how.

Where does one find a resource wrt in interpreting spin data correctly?

Assuming there is a single "correctly" to begin with. I've read endless debates about what matter and what doesn't matter, and what the optimal DI is between Amir, Arindal, Chris A, Duke, Sigberg Audio, Vera Audio... And even Floyd Toole, Lars Risbo or Jack Oclee-Brown occasionally chime in.

 

[Karmacoma]

Hello,

from my experience on ASR.

Hello, don't trust your ''experience'', make a survey.

 

[Ropeburn]

Hello, don't trust your ''experience'', make a survey.

Oh my. That would approach being... scientific!

 

[Mort]

From my point a view, reviewing a speaker can hardly lead to a valid verdict if no listening to music was included.

Reviews of a car can’t come to a valid verdict if no one took a ride with it.

Oh, interesting. A car analogy. Haven't seen that before.

 

[Audionaut]

There are a handful of good audio dealers in the world, and nearly all of them are on ASR!

Two bold claims

 

[Dialectic]

Two bold claims

I've been around. I've visited all the major dealers in NYC, London, DC, the Bay Area, and Chicago. But they're all tiny compared to what one finds in East Asia.

You spent any time at the Adelphi Mall?

Sham Shui Po or Mongkok?

The Yongsan electro mall?

Akihabara?

So, yeah, I have a pretty good sample size.

 

[Jiraya369]

Hello,

from my experience on ASR, almost no very expensive speaker receives broadly positive recognition. A recent example is the new flagship model from Wilson Audio, which is extremely costly. I understand that many people here prefer to rely on measurements or “proof” on paper to validate a speaker’s performance and only a few manufacturers provide such data.

But even brands with a generally good reputation in this community, such as JBL or Genelec, often receive more negative feedback when it comes to their higher-end or flagship models. Their measurements are frequently scrutinized in great detail, sometimes to the point where every possible flaw is highlighted. At the same time, actual listening tests (which could put these measurements into a more meaningful context) are often avoided or dismissed.

There are many threads where not a single participant has heard the speaker in question, yet dozens of people still offer negative judgments.

This makes me wonder why that is the case. Of course, there are expensive speakers that do not perform well, and sometimes this can indeed be identified through the standard measurements. However, there are also exceptional speakers that are very costly but deliver phenomenal sound quality at least in some categories like sound stage, live like dynamics or... To truly appreciate their capabilities, it is necessary to listen to them in person and experience what they can do!

My somewhat critical assumption is that many people here may have limited experience listening to a wide range of state-of-the-art loudspeakers, and possibly also limited exposure to the sound of real instruments. Only a small number seem to regularly visit dealers, manufacturers, or live acoustic concerts to explore different approaches to audio reproduction.

Nevertheless, many participants appear very confident in judging speakers—often in a negative way.

I don’t intend to offend anyone with these remarks. However, I do feel that this approach may lead people in the wrong direction and prevent them from ever experiencing great sound.

Best regards
Thomas

everyone talks of the revel salon and genelecs (especialyy unobtainium ones) as some gift from the lord

ur here to stir things up or ur fav speaker got dunked on

 

[Imakeller]

ASR is a site guided by science and measurements, which is great. I just wish all members maintained some neutrality regarding speakers they haven’t heard and for which measurements aren’t yet available. Sure, you can judge the aesthetics and price, but the clairvoyance with which some members pronounce judgement on the sound quality seems hypocritical to me.

 

[NTK]

ASR is a site guided by science and measurements, which is great. I just wish all members maintained some neutrality regarding speakers they haven’t heard and for which measurements aren’t yet available. Sure, you can judge the aesthetics and price, but the clairvoyance with which some members pronounce judgement on the sound quality seems hypocritical to me.

It is not clairvoyance, it is physics. Physics dictate which geometries work well, and which don't. Therefore, you can make educated predictions from appearance only. See for example:

...
A feature of the 800 series not commonly appreciated is that its behavior is predictable from visual inspection. The midrange speaker is quite large, meaning that it is becoming significantly directional before it crosses over to the tweeter. When the tweeter comes on, it has wide dispersion which is enhanced by its unbaffled mounting, which aggravates the problem. Today, it is becoming common to see tweeters on baffles with waveguides to improve the directivity match with the midrange speaker at the crossover frequency - thereby achieving what is widely regarded as a desirably smooth directivity index as a function of frequency.

I am confident that the B&W engineers know all of this, but by now the 800 has achieved a certain status among consumers and professionals and the attractive physical form and appearance are iconic symbols. Sadly they make good acoustical design very challenging. Wise studios would have an alternative, neutral loudspeaker, to audition as well, and many do.
...

 

[Ropeburn]

What I really like about our member collective is besides all focus on the science of audio, there's also a lot of enthusiasm for music, and a wide variety of tastes. Way more enthusiasm and variety than in the stereotypical "audiophile" circles focusing on gaudy freejazz and boring acoustic "high end" recordings. I'm exaggerating for the point.

After all, the science is a means to an end. It's a lot of fun nerding out over technical details, but in the end the music really counts.

 

[Mort]

What I really like about our member collective is besides all focus on the science of audio, there's also a lot of enthusiasm for music, and a wide variety of tastes. Way more enthusiasm and variety than in the stereotypical "audiophile" circles focusing on gaudy freejazz and boring acoustic "high end" recordings. I'm exaggerating for the point.

After all, the science is a means to an end. It's a lot of fun nerding out over technical details, but in the end the music really counts.

Here is seems like classic rock and classical rule. Although of course there are other genres represented.

 

[Dialectic]

It is not clairvoyance, it is physics. Physics dictate which geometries work well, and which don't. Therefore, you can make educated predictions from appearance only. See for example:

I had missed that excellent comment from Dr. Toole.

Having looked at lots of speaker measurements on ASR over the last few years, I constantly do the same thing - looking at the size of the midrange and the presence or absence of a tweeter waveguide - whenever I see an unfamiliar loudspeaker. It almost always predicts measured performance. (The correlation is not perfect. Some unusual midranges and coaxial drivers go high, and some tweeters go low.) Drives the "high-end" crowd crazy!

 

[MayI]

In a way it's funny mentioning acoustic instruments in a hifi context, because nowadays they're by far the worst, lowest quality, and hardest to record.

That makes no sense.

The other end of the scale would be a software synthesizer that creates sound from pure math, at even higher resolution than the typical playback system. 32bit float 96kHz or higher audio generation can't be beat by anything acoustically recorded in quality. Even an old hardware synth is still better than a microphone simply because it's a line source without a transducer involved.
A prominent example of bands using that to great effect would be Kraftwerk. Their concerts are nothing short of epic, and they've been using exclusively software for long years. 2016 (?) I saw them live, and the opener band was Air - typical hybrid band setup, drums, guitars, synths, and whatnot. They sounded okay to my ears and Kelly Watch The Stars was a lot of fun... but then Kraftwerk started, and the difference was unbelievable. Suddenly, massive wall of tight as hell bass, clearest zaps and zoinks ever, lovely leads, clear strings. They seemed way louder and still easier on the ears (way less middy/shouty).

So "fidelity" for you electronic music fans is a stack of the same type PA speakers, in your room???

 

[MayI]

It is not clairvoyance, it is physics. Physics dictate which geometries work well, and which don't. Therefore, you can make educated predictions from appearance only.

I agree. Where it gets murky is "good" vs "pretty good" measuring speakers and decisions made with/without listening, IMO.