Thought of the day

[StephenM]

Note: These thoughts are based on some commentary I read on another forum of which I'm not a member, but stirred a little activity in my brain.

Loudspeaker accuracy. It's a topic that some audiophiles take very seriously, perhaps a little too seriously for their own good.

How does one go about defining loudspeaker accuracy?

Some people like to point to the studies done at the NRC indicating that people tend to like speakers with flat frequency response and good off axis dispersion, and proudly proclaim that is an accurate loudspeaker. Here's my problem with this train of thought: to the best of my knowledge, the NRC experiments compared speakers with each other to determine preference. Problem is, comparing loudspeakers to each other is a poor way to form a judgement of which loudspeaker does a better job of actually reproducing the original event. If you want an opinion of which loudspeaker does a better job of reproducing the experience of a full orchestra, surely during the comparison, actually hearing the orchestra live as a reference would be useful.

So how do you define an accurate loudspeaker? IMO that's asking the wrong question. If you want to hear what the artist intended (as accurate as things get), two key things have to happen:

1. Your acoustic space needs to match that of the recording studio. Obviously, this is rarely feasible, and thus you've already hit a non-starter.

2. You need speakers that reasonably match the characteristics of the professional monitors they use at the studio. Since this can vary among studios, you've hit another roadblock.

From where I stand, two things can help, although perfection is obviously never possible. A set of standards in speaker design (such as THX standards), and software that helps adjust for differences in rooms (like Audyssey), are a big step forward in hearing what the artist intended.

Comments and corrections are appreciated.

[Chris A]

I prefer PWK's solution...and I believe that you are referring to that approach...One way to do it is to place real musicians behind the screened portion of the blind listening room, using pre-recorded passages reproduced on various speakers to test against. [] I believe it's been done before, but note that this could get embarrassing for the "reviewers" if they turn out preferring some set of speakers more... []

If you want to hear what the artist intended (as accurate as things get), two key things have to happen:

1. Your acoustic space needs to match that of the recording studio. Obviously, this is rarely feasible, and thus you've already hit a non-starter.

2. You need speakers that reasonably match the characteristics of the professional monitors they use at the studio. Since this can vary among studios, you've hit another roadblock.

From where I stand, two things can help, although perfection is obviously never possible. A set of standards in speaker design (such as THX standards), and software that helps adjust for differences in rooms (like Audyssey), are a big step forward in hearing what the artist intended.

I agree that your comment on your point #1 is basically correct. The problem is that most of those recording rooms are not like our listening rooms in size and acoustic properties. Note that some recording venues will never match our listening rooms (I'm thinking orchestras and concert halls here).

I guess that I have a problem with your #2 - in that there are too many mixing/mastering studios using high TIM direct-radiating loudspeakers that shave off the edges of the music and introduce their own sounds - but only for the ears of the engineers - those distortions in sound in the studio are not impressed on the mastered final product, but the biases and even EQ they apply to make that music sound the way they heard it IS on the finished product.

So for me, one way to deal with this is to partially "un-EQ" the finished product to reproduce more accurately on the speakers that I own (which are often better REproducers than the ones in the mixing/mastering studios). That is an approach that I believe Mike Beasley (mikebse2a3) also recommends.

Bottom line: if you want live music reproduction off of bought recordings, the solution is probably a very good home EQ unit to go with your very accurate Klipsch setup. (...Now wasn't that counter-intuitive...? [] )

Chris

[StephenM]

I prefer PWK's solution...and I believe that you are referring to that approach

Yup. Comparing speakers to each other without a true reference is rather pointless. You've got to have a baseline if you're going to attempt that experiment.

Of course, I think even that system has a flaw, namely variances in recording & mastering techniques that could yield differing results. That's why I posited another reference: what is heard in the recording studio, which is (hopefully) what the artist intended. Not even close to perfect obviously, but I think it's as close as we can come.

I believe it's been done before, but note that this could get embarrassing for the "reviewers" if they turn out preferring some set of speakers more...

Ever on a large scale that you know of, ala the NRC research?

[Chris A]

Ever on a large scale that you know of, a la the NRC research?

I didn't find a paper on the subject when I had a subscription to the JAES a couple of years ago. That doesn't mean that someone didn't do one, either in JAES or elsewhere.

We have at least one guy on the forum (PrestonTom) that is knowledgeable this general field -- maybe he might know of a study on that subject...?

Chris

[Marvel]

In my far distant past, I owuld on occasion do jingle work at a small studio in central Illinois. They had a set of EV monitors in the control room, and did the studio recording for a Styxx album. I don't remember which one. They borrowed my JBL 4311s to use as a refence for their producer to use to compare the EVs. Made sense to me.

Bruce

[russ69]

1. Your acoustic space needs to match that of the recording studio.

2. You need speakers that reasonably match the characteristics of the professional monitors they use at the studio.

You are assuming I want to hear what they heard in the studio. I don't. I want to hear it on my own system.

My system doesn't sound like studio monitors, thank God.

My system sounds the way I want it to sound, I could care less what other people want it to sound like.

[garyrc]

One way to do it is to place real musicians behind the screened portion of the blind listening room, using pre-recorded passages reproduced on various speakers to test against. I believe it's been done before, but note that this could get embarrassing for the "reviewers" if they turn out preferring some set of speakers more...

I heard that PWK reported the results of a test something like this, I believe in a good size room or hall, in Hartford in the very early '60s. I don't believe it pitted different speakers against each other, but did pit Klipschorns against a live orchestra, with both behind a screen. Most people in the large audience could not succesfully tell the difference. At the time one criticism was that many potentially competing speakers could not pass a similar test only because they wouldn't have been able to produce a high enough clean SPL in a hall that size to match the SPL coming from the orchestra (well, yeah, SPL is an important part of accuracy), and had similarly efficient JBLs, Electrovoices, etc. been tried, they might have done equally well. The Klipschorns v.s. Orchestra test became a part of a Klipsch advertisement in about 1966.

Berkeley Custom Electronics ran Klipschorns against a very small group of players at about the same time, with similar results.

Preference is a different animal than accuracy for some people. There was another test (in Europe, I think -- I couldn't read Chris's repo of The Dope from Hope, so I hope that this same test wasn't reported in that DFH) in which reality didn't come in first in preference.

I think a good starting point would be to use room treatments and something like Audyssey to try to reduce any quirky effects of the listening room, then use EQ to season to taste, realizing that you might be deviating from the sound intended by the producer, engineer and artist, which in some cases would be a distinct improvement. IMO, the elimination of tone controls from most pre-amps was one of the biggest mistakes in the history of audio. Makers of high end electronics seem to assume that the people who make and market the recordings know what they are doing. This is a mistake much of the time.

[Chris A]

I couldn't read Chris's repo of The Dope from Hope

Here it is in pdf (enclosed).

I heard that PWK reported the results of a test something like this, I believe in a good size room or hall, in Hartford in the very early '60s.

Clearly, testing speakers in a large room is a very different animal than testing in small rooms, like our home listening rooms. Virtually any speaker can be made to sound pretty good (with EQ) in a large room if it can handle the SPL without power compression. The real problem is doing the test in a small room.

pwklivemusic.pdf

[StephenM]

You are assuming I want to hear what they heard in the studio. I don't. I want to hear it on my own system...My system sounds the way I want it to sound, I could care less what other people want it to sound like.

I don't believe I've made any such assumption. My qualifier was "If you want to hear what the artist intended". You're free to have your own preferences above and beyond "reference".

[russ69]

You're free to have your own preferences above and beyond "reference".

Studio monitors are built for a single purpose, use in a studio. They must, by design, fit into the average studio control room, be sturdy, and usually used in the near-field. Super exotic, large, fragile and complex, home loudspeaker systems don't work in this environment. Studio monitors are the tools of studio and are not the the ultimate in sound reproduction, nor are they the desired direction for home loudspeakers. The best comparison, I guess, is a rental car vs a supercar. In a business situation the rental car is the tool to have but it is far far away from what a really good car can be.

Cat Stevens, took his master tapes out of the studio and down to the local hi-fi shop so he could hear what the music really sounded like. Few artist are that serious about the sound quality of their product. Just saying...

[russ69]

Yup. Comparing speakers to each other without a true reference is rather pointless.

No, not really. Sometimes the differences are so great, it's really a no-brainer. I totally reject the Absolute Sound reference to live music. I can't play the Philharmonic Orchestra in my living room and I really don't want to try. The goal is to make your music system sound they way you want it to sound, hopefully that sound will be close to a realistic presentation. But we are so far from a real world sound, that I never though for one minute that the complete Mormon Tabernacle was in my living room. No how, no way. The goal (my goal) is to get the presentation close to what I like and accept the limitations of the system (all systems are flawed). As long as you enjoy the music you play, you have done your best.

[Quiet_Hollow]

No, not really. Sometimes the differences are so great, it's really a no-brainer. I totally reject the Absolute Sound reference to live music. I can't play the Philharmonic Orchestra in my living room and I really don't want to try. The goal is to make your music system sound they way you want it to sound, hopefully that sound will be close to a realistic presentation. But we are so far from a real world sound, that I never though for one minute that the complete Mormon Tabernacle was in my living room. No how, no way. The goal (my goal) is to get the presentation close to what I like and accept the limitations of the system (all systems are flawed). As long as you enjoy the music you play, you have done your best.

I also agree in large part.. A significant portion of my music collection is ambient, downtempo, chill, electronic type stuff. Stuff frequently composed entirely in the digital domain. There is no "real-world" analog to XXXX slider settings on a Yamaha CS-80 for instance. Without an amp and some sort of listening device, the instrument has no audible voice. However, things change back in favor the debate for home theater duty. Then, it's back to trying to replicate sounds I'm more familiar with to some degree. I've spent many, many years listening to headphones (which is why I don't get bent out of shape over imaging), so some traits I got very accustomed to were a ridiculously low noise floor, nearly-perfect transient response, and the absence of the room during playback. My 2 channel system reflects the desire to replicate that sound. Liquid vocals and synths contrasted by absolute silence. To this day, I still listen to my beat up, 11 year old walkman CD player more often than my home system.

[StephenM]

A significant portion of my music collection is ambient, downtempo, chill, electronic type stuff. Stuff frequently composed entirely in the digital domain. There is no "real-world" analog to XXXX slider settings on a Yamaha CS-80 for instance.

But there is what the artist who composed the work heard in the studio. In your case, that is the one and only reference, and that is what you are trying to reproduce (or not...).

[StephenM]

Studio monitors are the tools of studio and are not the the ultimate in sound reproduction, nor are they the desired direction for home loudspeakers.

I never claimed that studio monitors were technical masterpieces. However, the sound they produce in the recording studio is oftentimes the only "reference" we have.

[StephenM]

No, not really. Sometimes the differences are so great, it's really a no-brainer

What makes one speaker better than another if it isn't how much more realistic it sounds compared to the other? How do you know how realistic something sounds without a reference to live music/sounds???

The goal is to make your music system sound they way you want it to sound

I want my system to sound such that I hear what the artist intends me to hear. Nothing more, nothing less. I want to preserve the art as much as possible, not pervert it. Similarly, I don't go to Ruth's Chris Steak House to enjoy a ribeye and proceed to douse it with ketchup.

[Chris A]

Problem is, comparing loudspeakers to each other is a poor way to form a judgement of which loudspeaker does a better job of actually reproducing the original event.

Stephen...storytime...

We had a mono Khorn from before my birth: my father built the bass bin/top cabinet then installed the drivers from Klipsch and used the test equipment in the engineering labs at the university at which he was teaching (EE) to check them out and tweak them (mid-1950s). My father knew PWK; I got the hear all the stories of PWK's corner horn design that used the corners of the room for their final horn fold. No one else from my childhood had seen Khorns or had heard them. BTW: my mother was backup church organist for a large denomination with an outstanding pipe organ, and she also was an organ major in grad school.

Later, after graduating high school I elected to take a music scholarship (woodwind) offered since I didn't have a good idea of what I wanted to do. I could now openly express my experiences with great music to my peers. However, economic reason prevailed, i.e., future income as a musician vs. engineer. I shortly thereafter changed universities to a good engineering school, but I never forgot some of the most thrilling experiences of my life playing music in ensembles and solos, listening to some of the world's best pianists playing weekly programs, and experiencing operatic performances almost as often. It was like an extended vacation in paradise - total immersion.

A few years went by, and after I graduated engineering school, I visited a hi-fi store that had two Khorns and Belle setup along with other speaker types for good A-B comparisons. The salesman played Harry James direct-to-disk for us (...I don't own any Harry James albums...). A buddy from school was with me at the time, and he mentioned that the Khorns sounded great when playing horns but they otherwise were "colored" in their sound. Of course that comment immediately dissuaded me from considering Klipsch any further. I eventually bought a pair of floorstanding tower speakers (ARs), then later traded in for Magnepan MG-IIIAs. They were nice and quiet for apartment living and were a conversation piece at the time. Something was still missing.

One thing that I noticed from my buddy's hi-fi opinions: he had never played an instrument in an orchestra, and was content with his home-brew box speakers that reproduced heavy bass, forward midrange, and the somewhat spicy treble of stage bands, i.e., amplified music. However, when I discussed the artificial sound of string orchestras, solo violin, human voice, and concert piano on his and my speakers, he didn't take much notice. He said that he didn't "...listen to that kind of music".

Years later after having a family and sending kids to college, etc., I returned to accurate sound reproduction with huge soundstage I heard with Khorns that spans the entire front of the room and beyond. I note that PWK's background isn't much different than mine: playing real music in acoustic settings and trying to accurately reproduce that setting. His life's achievement is that he got very close to achieving that goal (IMHO)--much closer than anything else that I've heard in a living room-sized listening space from any other kind of speakers. That's why I'm on this forum and not others. The way I look at it, playing apologetics on this forum for accurate sound reproduction as a goal is really not required. Those who would have you believe that isn't a valid goal here have the burden of the proving their point, IMHO. I know this because I have heard amazing and accurate realism on Klipsch corner horns.

I get to hear the world's best musicians playing the best music--daily, accurately. Accurate sound reproduction was most of PWK's career. You need to listen to his last corner horn speaker design to understand (Jubilees). Many here have not heard them: I highly recommend finding someone with Jubilees or very well set-up Khorns. Unfortunately, they aren't very easy to find. If you happen to pass through my geographic area, drop by for a listen.

Chris [8]

[StephenM]

Thanks for the insights Chris! Klipschorns (and Jubilees) are definitely on the "must listen to" list, even if I've got no good corners for them.

Sadly, my own experience with music has always been as a listener rather than a musician. As much as I've tried, my talents simply lay elsewhere. However, I've been listening to and enjoying music for practically my whole life. The live music I'm most intimately familiar with is what I hear at church, and over the years that has given me a reference point on the sound of many instruments, although most commonly the guitar, piano, and organ.

Aside from saving my soul and likely being the first music I was
introduced to, church has also provided an excellent musical reference point for me. The church in my wife's home town released a CD a while back of the organist
and pianist playing their greatest hits. While not necessarily as familiar as my hometown church, I've been there enough times to be extremely familiar with the sound (we make regular trips to see her folks).

[Chris A]

I believe that you don't need to be a musician to hear the kind of music described and for it to have an impact: before I was allowed to be a musician, I had already heard that sound when listening to organ practices and performances.

Overall, I believe that type of experience by people with music partially drove the construction of the great Cathedrals, resulting in the greatest sacred music compositions of western culture, e.g., listening to Mozart's Requiem or Beethoven's Missa Solemnis in person are very moving experiences: I don't understand how you could not be affected by such music. Music has always been an integral part of western religious experience: it can reach into a life in a way that is difficult to express any other way.

Chris

[russ69]

I want my system to sound such that I hear what the artist intends me to hear. Nothing more, nothing less. I want to preserve the art as much as possible, not pervert it. Similarly, I don't go to Ruth's Chris Steak House to enjoy a ribeye and proceed to douse it with ketchup.

You are making a giant assumption that the artist cares or puts some effort into the recorded performance. Most "artists" are not that into the technicalities of recording and leave most of that to the recording engineer. So in most cases you are hearing what the recording engineer/producer wants you to hear, not the artist. Some of my favorite artist have an entry level home system and seldom listen to their own music. Some engineers make the final mix using a car radio to see how it will sound in the car! That is not what I want to hear at home. Anyway, I understand what you are saying but as you will soon find out for yourself is that even if you make the exact duplicate of your favorite studio system, you'll find out that there are many systems that are far superior to that kind of sound. Eventually you will have a system that far exceeds anything ever used in a studio environment.

A nice Ruth Chris ribeye sounds like a good idea but Ruth Chris is not the only reference standard for cooking a steak.

[StephenM]

You are making a giant assumption that the artist cares or puts some effort into the recorded performance. Most "artists" are not that into the technicalities of recording and leave most of that to the recording engineer. So in most cases you are hearing what the recording engineer/producer wants you to hear, not the artist.

I'm making the assumption that the artist bothers to listen to the final mix, and actually cares how it sounds, yes. Then again, supposing the artist doesn't care what their CDs sound like, why should I care to buy it in the first place??? If it's garbage, no system in the world will fix it.

Anyway, I understand what you are saying but as you will soon find out for yourself is that even if you make the exact duplicate of your favorite studio system, you'll find out that there are many systems that are far superior to that kind of sound.

Subjectively, that's a possibility. Objectively, less so.

A nice Ruth Chris ribeye sounds like a good idea but Ruth Chris is not the only reference standard for cooking a steak.

This is true; however to further my analogy, the goal of an accurate playback system is to let you taste the flavor of the steak, be it from Ruth Chris or Outback. An inaccurate system will apply the ketchup whether you're eating steak from Ruth Chris, Outback, or if you want something different like tuna salad.