Loudspeakers that measure bad but sound good

[Ajani]

Should loudspeakers that don't have a flat frequency response of -/+3dB 60Hz - 20kHz these days be considered Hi-FI (High Fidelity)? Seems like a simple requirement for every speaker to enter the Hi-Fi club. Make it uncolored and without any nasty cabinet and driver resonances. Everything above that may be considered premium and should gradually climb the performance vs bling vs price ladder.

Any examples where coloration simply didn't matter for you because everything sounded so good? This seems the default buyer mode and then comes the box swapping to fix the initial error of buying into fun coloration. This box swapping is conveniently called 'components synergy'. I don't know should I even call it 'error' as it seems it has become a policy, to always comprise a system with inaccurate components and whatever is the end result calling it 'character'.

......................................................................................................................................................................

How can a loudspeaker designer kiss another mother's cheek with those lips of bitter shame for designing intentionally colored speakers selling as audiophile premium products? I wonder and so should you.

Hey Vlad,

Your post was obviously designed to allow me to rant about my major pet peeve with HiFi. Thanks for that. So without further ado:

I believe the reason for poor FR is simple; despite the claims made by about every HiFi manufacturer that their aim is accuracy or reproducing the live sound, accuracy is not really their aim. IMO, The focus of many brands is to create a subjectively pleasing house sound. This is why we see such wicked variances in measurements and, of course, sound.

The usual argument for all the variances in measurements and sound is that compromises have to be made to fit a certain budget etc… The problem with that argument is that it would imply that as you spend more on expensive HiFi, the differences should decrease as there are fewer compromises. Yet, by all accounts, most ultra-expensive statement products do not sound similar and can vary as widely in sound as budget components.

While, I have no issue with consumers choosing to buy HiFi simply because they like the house sound of the brand, I think many persons are misled into believing that all this upgraditis is about chasing accuracy, when it’s really just about changing house sound.

 

[davedotco]

I am very serious, listen to the track on YouTube.

The CD version is stunning.

Except for the obnoxious amounts of echo/delay/hall reverb effect on her voice, the album is pretty good. Love the groove on the bass player.

It's all done in post production, you can even hear the 'gates' on the reverb, that is so Phil Collins. There is no natural acoustic whatsoever around the piano, could even be electric/sampled.

 

[lindsayt]

Ajani, do you know what the biggest reason is for the most common large variation in frequency response is?

I'll give you a clue. The reason isn't because the manufacturers are trying to "create a subjectively pleasing house sound." It's something else.

Another clue. This reason doesn't really exist in amplifiers, nor digital nor analogue sources.

 

[Vladimir]

Mind you the bass hump is because JA has no anechoic chamber to do the measurements so his quasi-anechoic measurements add 6dB bass boost.

£12,000 KEF Reference 207/2 (4 stars on WHF)

£18,000 B&W 800 Diamond (5 stars on WHF)

 

[Thompsonuxb]

tt

I am very serious, listen to the track on YouTube.

The CD version is stunning.

Except for the obnoxious amounts of echo/delay/hall reverb effect on her voice, the album is pretty good. Love the groove on the bass player.?

It's all done in post production, you can even hear the 'gates' on the reverb, that is so Phil Collins. There is no natural acoustic whatsoever around the piano, could even be electric/sampled.

Yes but it sounds superb - realism is overrated anyway.

I mentioned this track simply because for all its fakery - it's a truely immersive experience. Great demo track too.

It's how you'd imagine it to sound it's hifi. And the track would lose so much if recorded flat.

 

[Vladimir]

And the track would lose so much if recorded flat.

We aren't discussing how things should be recorded or produced, but I understand your point. As long as something sounds good to you personally, then it is high fidelity to you, and that is all that matters. Every teenager with Kicker subs in his room agrees with you.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

And the track would lose so much if recorded flat.

We aren't discussing how things should be recorded or produced, but I understand your point. As long as something sounds good to you personally, then it is high fidelity to you, and that is all that matters. Every teenager with Kicker subs in his room agrees with you.

The point is music is not recorded/mastered flat the whole point of a speaker is not to flatten a 'recording' to give an accurate rendition of a piano or acoustic guitars, it's to just present the music.

You want to dictate to others what's a good speaker.....

The graphs of those high end speakers look rubbish they're all over the place with dips and troughs..... Yet they cost a fortune.

The mission look like the ideal speaker looking at the smoothness of its graph by comparison.

I don't care for graphs but it looks like there is more coloration in hi-end speakers, probably less accuracy but in the real world they'd no doubt trounce the Mission 782se.

Hi-fidelity is what it is - what is the point you are trying to make?

 

[davedotco]

And the track would lose so much if recorded flat.

We aren't discussing how things should be recorded or produced, but I understand your point. As long as something sounds good to you personally, then it is high fidelity to you, and that is all that matters. Every teenager with Kicker subs in his room agrees with you.

The point is music is not recorded/mastered flat the whole point of a speaker is not to flatten a 'recording' to give an accurate rendition of a piano or acoustic guitars, it's to just present the music.

You want to dictate to others what's a good speaker.....

The graphs of those high end speakers look rubbish they're all over the place with dips and troughs..... Yet they cost a fortune.

The mission look like the ideal speaker looking at the smoothness of its graph by comparison.

I don't care for graphs but it looks like there is more coloration in hi-end speakers, probably less accuracy but in the real world they'd no doubt trounce the Mission 782se.

Hi-fidelity is what it is - what is the point you are trying to make?

You neither have the faintest idea of the recording process, nor do you understand the meaning of the words 'High Fidelity'.

Artists go to considerable lengths to get the sound that they want on their finished product, High Fidelity equipment simply attempts to reproduce it.

Unlike h-fi, which is now a generic term for any kind of home audio, High Fidelity has a meaning, once summed up by Peter Walker as "the closest approach to the original sound".

It gives us an objective standard to evaluate equipment, the closer it gets to the original sound, the better it is, simple.

You are not expected or required to like the results, that is not the point.

 

[Vladimir]

In the KEF vs B&W comparison I posted FR measurements of individual drivers and how they blend together, as well as a photo of the crossovers. It is obvious KEF put more effort and got better results at blending drivers into one neutral flat FR, without any driver break-up interfering with others. Their crossover is quite complicated and with off the shelf parts, unlike the B&Ws that employ a simple crossover and premium parts, resulting with not as well blended drivers and break-up modes of woofers interfering with midrange and treble.

You could say doesn't matter what measures how, as long as you like the sound. Perhaps you would like the B&Ws more despite all its design issues. But B&W advertises these as premium studio grade loudspeakers, placing them as main monitors in well regarded studios such as Abbey Road (where Thompson's beloved tune Diamonds was recorded and produced).

This is the FR of the Neumann KH 420 midfield active studio monitors, costing £5,600 for a pair.

I couldn't find a PR photo of them being used in famous studios, so here is a pic from some guy's living room.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Sorry Dave but that's pure nonsense - understanding the recording process..... Prrrrft!

Wiki explains hi-fidelity pretty well.

The imagination of most artist most likely is way beyond your comprehension - greats have expanded the envelope of music not by making a guitar sound like a guitar or drum beating to a single beat. 'Closest approach to the original sound'.... my eye.

Seriously you guys need to get off this snobbish nonsense you are trying to contaminate this forum with.

Oh.....there is no objective standard.

 

[Vladimir]

You guys meant the original studio version, which I didn't know about and didn't hear untill now. I went by accident immediately on the orchestral version. Yes, I agree with what Dave said.



Read the orchestral version album info.

 

[Vladimir]

Seriously you guys need to get off this snobbish nonsense you are trying to contaminate this forum with.

Using Phil Collins as conversational insult doesn't make you a snob. It makes you a decent human being and a patron of music.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Lol.....strange tangent, but seriously you don't think I would have explored her work?

The deluxe version of the CD contains some of the orchestral versions .....

That said - this was not an album/track to dissect merely to listen to.

 

[davedotco]

I suggested that as an indication of accurracy, a well recorded piano an instrument that many of us are familier, would be a good test.

You offer a recording of a piano (and voice) from the album 'Sing to the Moon', which is a CD.

The voice is heavily processed and the piano probably electric, complete nonsense. Only goes to prove that you really do not have the faintest idea of what is under discussion here.

 

[davedotco]

Seriously you guys need to get off this snobbish nonsense you are trying to contaminate this forum with.

Using Phil Collins as conversational insult doesn't make you a snob. It makes you a decent human being and a patron of music.

Just wait till I get started on side-chain compression and Taylor Swift.....*crazy*

 

[Thompsonuxb]

I suggested that as an indication of accurracy,  a well recorded piano an instrument that many of us are familier, would be a good test.

You offer a recording of a piano (and voice) from the album 'Sing to the Moon', which is a CD.

The voice is heavily processed and the piano probably electric, complete nonsense. Only goes to prove that you really do not have the faintest idea of what is under discussion here.

I did not offer anything as an indication of accuracy.....

Infact there are no 'accurate recordings' of instruments out there not since..... before Elvis.

Even the great music venues are 'tuned', I'm sure that's touched on in this thread.

I recently bought John Medeski 'A different time' - piano solo throughout ...... Check that out, same thing.

Flat response speakers for processed to death music..... That's my query throughout.....

 

[Vladimir]

 

[ID.]

 

[ID.]

I suggested that as an indication of accurracy, a well recorded piano an instrument that many of us are familier, would be a good test.

You offer a recording of a piano (and voice) from the album 'Sing to the Moon', which is a CD.

The voice is heavily processed and the piano probably electric, complete nonsense. Only goes to prove that you really do not have the faintest idea of what is under discussion here.

I did not offer anything as an indication of accuracy.....

Infact there are no 'accurate recordings' of instruments out there not since..... before Elvis.

Even the great music venues are 'tuned', I'm sure that's touched on in this thread.

I recently bought John Medeski 'A different time' - piano solo throughout ...... Check that out, same thing.

Flat response speakers for processed to death music..... That's my query throughout.....

Lol. The master strikes again.

You get us every time.

And yet, here I go, feeding the troll .

You are (purposely?) Mixing up various points made. The original reference to unprocessed voice or instrument was just giving an example of something one's ears are familiar with and that it can serve as a tool to easily assess a speaker. At no point did anyone argue for capturing as natural a piano as possible when recording.

You argue that everything is processed to achieve a certain sound as if that has anything to do with the merits of accurate reproduction at home, then ignore the fact that it what people are striving for is to accurately reproduce the sound that they've gone to the trouble of trying to achieve. of course there are crap recordings where that crap will also be reproduced.

Even on my albums that are purely electronic I want to hear what the artist is trying to communicate rather than having certain artifact from my speakers that will be there on all recordings making them all sound kind of the same in a certain way.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

ID, you confirm the point....

A designer makes a speaker which adds its own flavour to the music you listen too.

More pronounced mid-range, metal tweeters for sharper top end etc....

This does not take away the fact the material you listen to is not 'accurate'.

The speakers only purpose is to make what you hear as pleasant as possible -in their opinion of what music should sound like.

Audiophiles demanding 'flat response' speakers to achieve maximum fidelity/accuracy is a nonesense.

As the numerous graphs show a flat response is a myth.

The 'bass humps' alone seen in the hi-end graphs should tell you this.

To suggest only the owners of flat response speakers are the only ones who qualify to call themselves audiophiles is ridiculous.

A set capable of presenting a track like Diamonds in all its processed glory in hi-fidelity - doing what it's designed to do is hi-fi.

How it 'measures' is neither here nor there, how it sounds is what matters.

And if it sounds good enough the owner of that set is well within his/her rights to call themselves an audiophile that owns an audiophile system.

You listen to a group of people in a room playing instruments together - a trumpet, double bass, drum kit, piano - no mics, no equalizing, then get someone to sing over it......

'Hear what the artist is trying to communicate'..... I swear, you guys....lol

 

[ID.]

Master. Troll.

Im sure your speakers sound lovely-audiophile even. Not being sarcastic.

 

[ID.]

The Harman Curve

"A flat in-room target response is clearly not the optimal target curve for room equalization. The preferred room corrections have a target response that has a downward slope with increasing frequency." - Dr. Sean Olive, Head of Acoustic Research at Harman International

Which is confirmation of research done in the 70's by Brüel & Kjær. "Optimum curve for Hi-Fi equipment. Measured in the actual listening room".

getting back on track, I thought this was interesting. Sounds like a strong argument against using studio monitors tuned for a flat response in an untreated listening room. So potentially my monitors, made for a flat response in a treated room, could perform worse in a living room than something with the Harmon curve.

 

[The_Lhc]

It's 3.30 in the morning, don't you guys ever sleep?

I have nothing to add to this thread, in fact, I haven't even read it, I'm listening to Absolute 80s through a single mono ceiling speaker fed from an old Sky box (and loving every minute of it!).

I AM bored however. Unlucky...

 

[ID.]

It's 3.30 in the morning, don't you guys ever sleep?

I have nothing to add to this thread, in fact, I haven't even read it, I'm listening to Absolute 80s through a single mono ceiling speaker fed from an old Sky box (and loving every minute of it!).

I AM bored however. Unlucky...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gated_reverb

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_gate

interesting. I knew a bit about noise gates and their use by the Aphex Twin, but the gated reverb I'd heard in tracks, particularly from the 80's, but never new the name for.

some of the explanations of effects are interesting, like in Heroes.

BTW, I'm in a completely different time zone. Currently eating an early lunch and looking after my kids.

 

[Vladimir]

The Harman Curve

"A flat in-room target response is clearly not the optimal target curve for room equalization. The preferred room corrections have a target response that has a downward slope with increasing frequency." - Dr. Sean Olive, Head of Acoustic Research at Harman International

Which is confirmation of research done in the 70's by Brüel & Kjær. "Optimum curve for Hi-Fi equipment. Measured in the actual listening room".

getting back on track, I thought this was interesting. Sounds like a strong argument against using studio monitors tuned for a flat response in an untreated listening room. So potentially my monitors, made for a flat response in a treated room, could perform worse in a living room than something with the Harmon curve.

The speakers should measure flat, but the in-room response should have that mild downward slope for pleasant listening with most people. Accent on pleasant and preference by most people in done research. There is no place for anything but 180 degree flat for studio work or if you want to hear 100% without coloration. That mild slope produces less fatigue IIRC. However, live music produces fatigue, so again, pleasant and realistic don't always fall on common ground.