• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Accuracy in Loudspeakers---Define

Tom Brennan

Tom Brennan

AK Member
Subscriber
I maintain that an accurate loudspeaker cannot be built because people can't even agree on what an accurate loudspeaker should do, much less make one.

For instance some people will choose a closed box for bass because it has lower group delay than bass reflex and say a closed box is more accurate. But then the bass reflex has less distortion for a given output than a sealed box so one can maintain that IT'S more accurate. Then the guy that likes horn bass thinks they're both on the wrong track.

Then we can get into axial frequency response vs. power response, proper dispersion and on and on.

Any thoughts?
 
Register to hide this ad
Excellent topic Tom!:thmbsp:

Should be some excellent facts and points of view revealed here, I know i'm gonna learn something.:D

My thoughts outloud:

I wonder if "accuracy" is really even a proper term to guage a loudspeaker considering what a loudspeaker does, and the almost infinte number of variables in design and construction.

My understanding in the basic sense is that a loudspeaker converts electrical energy(alternating current) into kinetic energy(physical movement) into acoustic energy(sound waves).

Wouldn't it be safe to say that at each one of these steps of conversion, the original signal, even tho the degree may be minute, is altered or embellished?

In the simplest sense, we know that a voice coil has resistance, power into resistance equals heat, that's incoming signal that is never going to be converted into kinetic or acoustic energy. As per Webster's definition of accuracy, it ends right there, IMO.
 
Man Tom, did you wake up this morning and think "Today I'm going to stir some $^!#" ?? ;)

I don't think a truly accurate speaker can be built today. However I believe that in the future we will be able to sort all of the distortions and resonances out and get there. As of now I think of it as different camps trying to get to the same place via different routes. One guy says he's closest because the other guy is physically further away. The second guy says he's closer because the first will have to take a convoluted path to get to the goal so his journey will be longer. In the end neither is at the goal and it's up to the observer to decide which path he will take.

How's that for a non-answer?

Ray
 
A totally non-scientific answer ...

I think of "accurate" and sounding "good" as the same thing. In other words, if I say these Rectilinear speakers are very accurate, I'm saying I like them and they sound good.

What sounds "good" is subjective based on your experience. For most of my friends, we started with radios and our parent's hi-fi's in the 60's and then migrated to AR and Dynaco speakers and Dynaco seperates - some good stuff. These systems produced music that was so much closer to live concerts (we were going to live rock concerts at that time), that we defined this sound as accurate and good. From our experience, this is our base of what is good.

Now my old Klipsch Chorus sounded bright to me and my vintage Altecs sound a bit different (good, but different) because I am comparing them to my memory of what is good and accurate.

So in general, accurate is what you associate with the first speakers you had in the past that sounded great and best (to your ears) recreated live music. Speakers that don't trigger that memory, these speakers you think are not very accurate.

Cheers, Snade
 
Tom Brennan said:
I maintain that an accurate loudspeaker cannot be built because people can't even agree on what an accurate loudspeaker should do, much less make one.

For instance some people will choose a closed box for bass because it has lower group delay than bass reflex and say a closed box is more accurate. But then the bass reflex has less distortion for a given output than a sealed box so one can maintain that IT'S more accurate. Then the guy that likes horn bass thinks they're both on the wrong track.

Then we can get into axial frequency response vs. power response, proper dispersion and on and on.

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

I have to agree completely with this.

Accuracy, for me, is the ability of a speaker to faithfully reproduce whats presented to it's inputs. No overhang in the bass region (bloated,one-note etc) with good extension (below 30hz at least). A midrange so realistic that the ears are fooled in such a way that you swear there are real people/band in your room. (3d effect) A top-end so clean that there is no tizz, spit, fatigue, ie: no exaggeration of any freqs.
Thats all I want. :D
 
I'd like to boil down Dave's comments and simply say the most accurate speaker is the one someone owns, is quite content with, and doesn't get fatigued after a 2-3 hr listening session. Those speakers just can't be beat because"sonic beauty is in the ear of the beholder"

Now, if that bloak dies and his speakers are sold to someone else who has different listening tastes and puts them in a different listening environment, they may come to feel over time that they are not accurate for a whole host of reasons. YMMV

And the beat goes on............ :blah::blah::blah:
 
I agree that an accurate speaker can not be built today,if tomorrow well maybe.
I think there are more or less accurate speakers,but in most cases,the ones we choose,are the ones that appeal to us is such a way that we are satisfied with their sound,apperence and looks.

Regarding the sound;to me it´s very important that the speakers do not have any noteable weakness.I mean what is the point of having a very clear treble if it do not produce anything below 60Hz.Or if the bass is very good,clean and fast,down to 30Hz but the midrange sucks. No to me the most important is that everything is balanced,and nothing bad is sticking out.

This is why I stick to two-way full register speakers,designed to be placed at a surtain spot in the room,with no audible impurities.
/gusten
 
Tom Brennan said:
people can't even agree on what an accurate loudspeaker should do
Click to expand...

I think you're right in saying that an 'accurate' speaker can't be built, at least not for everyone.
Accuracy is just sounding 'right', it's as simple as that, but what sounds 'right' to one person could sound wrong to someone else.
It's subjective and thats why we're all here, some may prefer big Altecs or JBL's while others may prefer LS3/5a's or Quad ESL's. No-one is right or wrong, we just have different views.
 
To me, accuracy means what comes out is the acoustical analog of the electrical signal going in. Until we come up with a speaker with perfect response (axial FR and power), infinite dynamics, zero diffraction, etc. deciding what is more accurate is something that's up to the listener. Personally, I like tonality as first priority and then dynamics and spatial issues. However some like things differently.

Ray, closing in on an actual answer
 
Well, this shook out to subjectivist/objectivist mighty quickly.

Accuracy is inherently objective, and bears no relationship whatsoever to how anything sounds to anybody, which does not appear in the formula. The assertion that accuracy resides in the realm of personal taste or preference is, well, preposterous.

This is only a dilemma for subjectivists who just can't get a grip on the fact that anything can be more absolute than their own opinion, in which conceit lies their only claim to credibility:

http://www.zaphaudio.com/evaluation.html

Move along now, folks -- there's nothing more to discuss here.... :p:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom