Superior? Snob appeal mostly. The most expensive does not correlate to superior.
Suggest you read Toole's papers on what makes a great sounding speaker. You will find that you can both build or buy great sounding speakers for a lot less than you think 🙂
but we do believe accuracy is the goal no? and if all those hifi reviewers and manufacturers believe in accuracy as the goal, there shouldnt be divergence. However what we find is divergence. we find measurements that don't correlate with what we had thought makes a good sounding speaker. And think about it, if accurate speakers were being produced by so many different companies, there would be no room for all of them to exist on the market. Instead there are dozens of high end models to choose from.
we could eventually find a way to measure the movement of individual air molecules. Then there would be a way to determine if the speaker is accurately reproducing the waveform
I want to address the original question from a different standpoint.
I suggest that even if "all things were equal" we would still not agree. It is not just natural variations in biology, cultural expression etc but much more deep seated than that. The reason is "human nature". Either the philosophers or psychologists (I forget which) suggest that to function reasonably well most of us need security and significance. So to gain significance some people will disagree merely to be distinctive and so be significant. (And we are also less rational than most of us want to believe too.) If we monitor our own conversations most of us will have the experience of dialoguing with someone who is just plain "contrary" and will argue with you no matter what you say.............
I tried an experiment one day with someone who was in a particularly combative mood and made a statement that I knew he would strongly AGREE with. I said that a well known public figure was "a good guy" and waited for the reply. In response my interlocutor instantly responded with: "Yes. But not good enough!"
So I don't think we will ever get to the stage where "we will all agree".
Or does someone want to argue with that...?
Btw if we ever did get to that pleasant state where we all got along and everything was "peace and light" I would be out of a job.
I am a clergyman.
Cheers JB
I suggest that even if "all things were equal" we would still not agree. It is not just natural variations in biology, cultural expression etc but much more deep seated than that. The reason is "human nature". Either the philosophers or psychologists (I forget which) suggest that to function reasonably well most of us need security and significance. So to gain significance some people will disagree merely to be distinctive and so be significant. (And we are also less rational than most of us want to believe too.) If we monitor our own conversations most of us will have the experience of dialoguing with someone who is just plain "contrary" and will argue with you no matter what you say.............
I tried an experiment one day with someone who was in a particularly combative mood and made a statement that I knew he would strongly AGREE with. I said that a well known public figure was "a good guy" and waited for the reply. In response my interlocutor instantly responded with: "Yes. But not good enough!"
So I don't think we will ever get to the stage where "we will all agree".
Or does someone want to argue with that...?
Btw if we ever did get to that pleasant state where we all got along and everything was "peace and light" I would be out of a job.
I am a clergyman.
Cheers JB
can you explain why people need security and significance? and secondly what you say isn't very surprising because people are here to debate and discuss. If we all agreed, there would be nothing to discuss or debate.
You see, we do find that measurements correlate with what "most" people judge as "accurate sound". They correlate very well. They won't correlate if you want to place your personal "preference" above "accuracy", but that's the point here isn't it.
Unless you agree to allow accuracy to be the final determinate and not what you like personally we will just go around in circles. A sound system that makes a bad recording sound good is a bad sound system. Most people simply can't give up the power to say "Yea, but I like it that way.' So around and around we go.
Hi lilun,
(1) No, I can't explain that other than in Christian, religious terms and I don't want to go there out of respect for the Forum guidelines. The evolutionary psychologists would have an interesting approach to it I guess but I haven't followed them up. I suppose if we Googled it we could find the original source. Its just that I have heard said it a few times over the years and experience seems to confirm that is fairly accurate.
(2) I thought it did actually offer one answer to the original question posed in #1 that's all.
Cheers, JB
(1) No, I can't explain that other than in Christian, religious terms and I don't want to go there out of respect for the Forum guidelines. The evolutionary psychologists would have an interesting approach to it I guess but I haven't followed them up. I suppose if we Googled it we could find the original source. Its just that I have heard said it a few times over the years and experience seems to confirm that is fairly accurate.
(2) I thought it did actually offer one answer to the original question posed in #1 that's all.
Cheers, JB
We can't agree because the hifi art is still very primitive with a long ways to go...
Because of that it is possible to build 2 completely valid systems that sound WAY different.
dave
Because of that it is possible to build 2 completely valid systems that sound WAY different.
dave
We will still go in circle. Accurate dispersion? Accurate transient? Accurate anything?
Because speakers are not perfect so people will ought to have preference. Perfect bass but imperfect treble, or perfect treble but imperfect bass??
Look at any one brand of driver (Scan-Speak or Seas). As their product progressing in price you can see lighter cone, more rigid cone, stronger motor, etc. This kind of rigid cone material can create sound that is very transparent. You will find this trait in almost expensive speakers that use the drivers.
Opposed to the transparency, rigid cones tend to have distortion quality that is often difficult to "measure". And there you have another preference: distortion or tonal accuracy versus transparency.
Things get worse when not all speakers can go the same low in frequency.
If you want a low level of disagreement, make sure
1) Agree on the lowest frequency necessary.
2) Agree on the maximum level of distortions measured in common way.
3) Agree on the electronics (amplifier)
4) Agree on the number of drivers
5) You can add more here
What about agreeing on how reflective the listening room is and its dimensions?
A highly reflective room can make a flat frequency response sound too bright. The dimensions of the listening room can also give peaks in the bass response making a speaker with a limited bass response sound better.
So, in my room, which has a strong peak at 50Hz, a speaker which doesn't go there sounds cleaner than one that does irrespective of price.
Brian
A highly reflective room can make a flat frequency response sound too bright. The dimensions of the listening room can also give peaks in the bass response making a speaker with a limited bass response sound better.
So, in my room, which has a strong peak at 50Hz, a speaker which doesn't go there sounds cleaner than one that does irrespective of price.
Brian
Because FLAT sounds like crap. I have worked in multimillion dollar recording studios that were technically perfect. Sounded awful! So many things come into play and our ears and brains are a major factor. Nobody hears the same, Flecher Munson curves, SPL and personal taste. Just because a piece of gear is expensive doesn't make it good. Just because it's inexpensive doesn't make it bad. I think that might be based more on greed and marketing than reality. What ever floats your boat. That's what's good. 😎
But what do I know?
But what do I know?
"expensive audiophile brand speakers" are nicer furniture!
I agree, and believe that it indicates that all HiFi is far from good enough for everyone, with peoples differing opinions on what is not acceptable.
The most "expensive audiophile brand speakers" are nicer furniture, which should not be overlooked.
Electrostatic speakers are a different set of compromises from moving coil loud speakers. In my opinion electrostatic speakers have much more in common in terms of sound with each other than moving coil speakers. I also believe Electrostatic speakers sound much better in general.
I agree, and believe that it indicates that all HiFi is far from good enough for everyone, with peoples differing opinions on what is not acceptable.
The most "expensive audiophile brand speakers" are nicer furniture, which should not be overlooked.
Electrostatic speakers are a different set of compromises from moving coil loud speakers. In my opinion electrostatic speakers have much more in common in terms of sound with each other than moving coil speakers. I also believe Electrostatic speakers sound much better in general.
now that is highly subjective
IMO ... I think most are just more ugly
but I also find it highly suspective when more time and money are spent on appearence rather than sound
or maybe its like when people who buy expencive art really have no clew about art at all
but seems like good carpentry is still worth more than good sound
and I like real good carpentry
nothing wrong with that
The studies promoted by Harman show that there is remarkably strong agreement between people on what sounds good under blind controlled listening conditions. Under sighted conditions people's preferences for speakers are wider for a range of reasons. Sometimes one can identify what people are getting enthusiastic about with a speaker and sometimes not but I fail to see why this might be considered worrying.
I have noticed in my trials (and tribulations) that a speaker that sounds coloured on speech and pink noise can sound surprisingly uncoloured with music. Almost like a different speaker. I feel that this shows that flatness of frequency response is not the be all and end all of music reproduction. But if a speaker has compromised transients and dynamics, it will always sound dead and unengaging. So if efforts to achieve "accuracy", compromise transients and dynamics (which I think is often the case), the speaker ends up as lifeless and boring. This applies to expensive speakers too.
The question of why there is disagreement over speakers is probably a mix of technical, psychological, social, physiological, and other conditions and it would likely be a mistake to want to reduce the issue to a single cause.
When it comes to the goal of sound reproduction, I think accuracy is a reasonable ideal (as long as one keeps in view the legitimate epistemological and other issues associated with this ideal). Viewed in this rather simple respect a good sounding speaker will be one that accurately reproduces or represents the original recording. But I suspect the aim at accuracy is actually part of a larger question that has not been addressed (at least not here).
The one point that hasn't been made yet is the degree to which many speakers actually function as instruments for the production of a 'sound' rather than simple vehicles of sound reproduction. As we all know, most if not all speakers have their own sound or 'colour' that plays a direct and integral role in how a speaker 'sounds.' This added 'colour' can turn out to be an enjoyable aspect of the sound one actually hears. I suspect that many disagreements over speakers may actually rest upon the qualities of a speaker's 'signature sound' (e.g. whether a speaker's signature colour is is more or less enjoyable--kind of like whether one violin sounds better than another).
Now I'm sure some will counter here by claiming that speakers are supposed to reproduce sound rather than produce a 'signature sound' of its own, but hidden here, I suspect, is another tacit source of disagreement, namely, a poorly articulated disagreement over the actual and proper function of a speaker. Put simply, while many will want to reduce a speaker's function to the sole goal of accurate sound reproduction, others may frame the purpose of a speaker in broader terms that place more emphasis on the actual qualities of the sound produced. The former may view speakers purely as an instrument for the accurate reproduction of sound (which includes the goal of removing any and all colouring), while the latter may see the 'colouring' produced by a speaker as an interesting and in some cases enjoyable facet of the sound being heard. This will give rise both to disagreements over which speaker's 'signature sound' is more enjoyable (this colour or that colour), as well as disagreements over the actual function of a speaker (simple sound reproduction, or some combination of sound reproduction/production).
Since the aim at sound reproduction is fraught with so many difficulties, I suspect many speaker manufacturers actually settle on trying to find a combination of speaker sound reproduction/production that is found to be highly enjoyable by a large portion of listeners, and many disagreements rest on whether one signature sounds better than aother (butterscotch or chocolate?).
When it comes to the goal of sound reproduction, I think accuracy is a reasonable ideal (as long as one keeps in view the legitimate epistemological and other issues associated with this ideal). Viewed in this rather simple respect a good sounding speaker will be one that accurately reproduces or represents the original recording. But I suspect the aim at accuracy is actually part of a larger question that has not been addressed (at least not here).
The one point that hasn't been made yet is the degree to which many speakers actually function as instruments for the production of a 'sound' rather than simple vehicles of sound reproduction. As we all know, most if not all speakers have their own sound or 'colour' that plays a direct and integral role in how a speaker 'sounds.' This added 'colour' can turn out to be an enjoyable aspect of the sound one actually hears. I suspect that many disagreements over speakers may actually rest upon the qualities of a speaker's 'signature sound' (e.g. whether a speaker's signature colour is is more or less enjoyable--kind of like whether one violin sounds better than another).
Now I'm sure some will counter here by claiming that speakers are supposed to reproduce sound rather than produce a 'signature sound' of its own, but hidden here, I suspect, is another tacit source of disagreement, namely, a poorly articulated disagreement over the actual and proper function of a speaker. Put simply, while many will want to reduce a speaker's function to the sole goal of accurate sound reproduction, others may frame the purpose of a speaker in broader terms that place more emphasis on the actual qualities of the sound produced. The former may view speakers purely as an instrument for the accurate reproduction of sound (which includes the goal of removing any and all colouring), while the latter may see the 'colouring' produced by a speaker as an interesting and in some cases enjoyable facet of the sound being heard. This will give rise both to disagreements over which speaker's 'signature sound' is more enjoyable (this colour or that colour), as well as disagreements over the actual function of a speaker (simple sound reproduction, or some combination of sound reproduction/production).
Since the aim at sound reproduction is fraught with so many difficulties, I suspect many speaker manufacturers actually settle on trying to find a combination of speaker sound reproduction/production that is found to be highly enjoyable by a large portion of listeners, and many disagreements rest on whether one signature sounds better than aother (butterscotch or chocolate?).
Last edited:
... probably very true 
The most "expensive audiophile brand speakers" are better finished furniture.
I stated, the most "expensive audiophile brand speakers" are nicer furniture, which should not be overlooked.
I agree, this is highly subjective, but then when I go to a sculpture show I dont expect all works of "art" to be to my taste. With this view I was not correct as many do in my opinion also look very much more ugly, but some do look impressive and would fit in some rich peoples houses.
The most "expensive audiophile brand speakers" are better finished furniture. So we agree here 🙂
I stated, the most "expensive audiophile brand speakers" are nicer furniture, which should not be overlooked.
I agree, this is highly subjective, but then when I go to a sculpture show I dont expect all works of "art" to be to my taste. With this view I was not correct as many do in my opinion also look very much more ugly, but some do look impressive and would fit in some rich peoples houses.
The most "expensive audiophile brand speakers" are better finished furniture. So we agree here 🙂
- Status
- Not open for further replies.