Accuracy in Loudspeakers---Define

[CUlater]

But how is this perfection judged? On the display of an oscilloscope or SPL meter? or in the ear of the listener?

Why do tone controls or graphic equalizers exist? could it be that the human ear varies from person to person?

One mans perfection or accuracy is another mans imperfection or inaccuracy, it's what makes life interesting.

Perfection? Jugded? The OP question was accuracy.

ac·cu·rate (āk'yər-ĭt)
adj.

1. Conforming exactly to fact; errorless.
2. Deviating only slightly or within acceptable limits from a standard.
3. Capable of providing a correct reading or measurement: an accurate scale.
4. Acting or performing with care and precision; meticulous: an accurate proofreader.

So, using any and all measuring devices, no - or, only well bounded - errors would be found in an accurate system. Nada.

And no, our ears are not measuring devices - they are judging devices.

meas·ure /ˈmɛʒər/ Pronunciation[mezh-er] noun, verb, -ured, -ur·ing.
–noun
1. a unit or standard of measurement: weights and measures.
2. a system of measurement: liquid measure.
3. an instrument, as a graduated rod or a container of standard capacity, for measuring.
4. the extent, dimensions, quantity, etc., of something, ascertained esp. by comparison with a standard: to take the measure of a thing.
...and so on...

judge /dʒʌdʒ/ [juhj] noun, verb, judged, judg·ing.
–noun
...
2. a person appointed to decide in any competition, contest, or matter at issue; authorized arbiter: the judges of a beauty contest.
3. a person qualified to pass a critical judgment: a good judge of horses.
...
–verb (used with object)
...
8. to form a judgment or opinion of; decide upon critically: You can't judge a book by its cover.
9. to decide or settle authoritatively; adjudge: The censor judged the book obscene and forbade its sale.
10. to infer, think, or hold as an opinion; conclude about or assess: He judged her to be correct.
11. to make a careful guess about; estimate: We judged the distance to be about four miles.
...
14. to form an opinion or estimate: I have heard the evidence and will judge accordingly.
15. to make a mental judgment.

Of course, YMMV, but I still think accurate has nothing to do with subjectivity or judgement, and is easily defined - yet elusive, nee' impossible, to attain in whole measure. :thmbsp:

 

[gusten]

If we look at what an amp are doing and compare with what a speaker should do,it is in some important parameters very different.

An amp should only amplify the signals without adding any distorsion.There we have a lot of well established working standards for testing the amp´s behavier.
After measuring it is easy to present the figures in such a way that many people understand and also can interpretate the figures; how important they are.
That a speaker must be true to the AC-signal coming from the amp,is of course a definition that must be basic.Here we have the frequency response,the phase behavier and the distorsion.This you can measure and interpretate. But;and this is the difference regarding speakers,you can have ten (10) diff types of speakers from ten manufacturers,meeting the creteria"true to incoming signals"and they will look and sound completely different.

To make an illusion of an human voice exactly as you know it ,to hear a live performance from your speakers like you were actually there,are much more complex,then that a speaker should be true to the signal.That is why most (nearly all) speakers sound like speakers,and can not fool you into thinking that you are not listening to speakers.
/gusten

 

[jimfet]

What I look for in a speaker is how real it sounds compared to what I hear in daily life. Like voices. How well it can reproduce voices, that I hear daily. I have stood beside people playing violins and Cellos. I know how they sound. How good is the speaker compared to that. A live piano. I know how that sounds. That is what I look for. Drums, percussion, guitar, etc.. I want to be as close to that as I can get from a speaker. Sure none will be 100%. But I have heard some in the 99% range.
It really is that simple. Just compare the speaker to what you know the way things sound.

One example. Alot of people like to hear a little sizzle in their highs, from their speakers.
The thing is in real life I hear no sizzle in any highs. I do not want my speakers to add that.

 

[kcollins4]

IMHO, and what I've summed up in this thread: Accuracy is subjective and different with every listener.

Accurate is subjective. If it were not, we'd all own the exact same model, because there would only be one to chose from.

 

[whoaru99]

Accuracy is measured, what sounds good is not. The two are not necessarily related.

 

[grateful]

What sounds good to you is subjective, accuracy is measured and objective. Very accurate speakers tend to sound very similar. Listen to for example, a top of the line AR-11 and compare it to the smallest speaker in the line an AR-18 on most music they sound nearly identical. Listen to any AR, Advent, KLH, Boston Acoustics, EPI etc system. They all sound quite similar. The main differences being extension in the top end and the deepest bass.

 

[auplater]

accuracy??

Quads are somewhat damped dipoles, there are those who can argue reasonably that dipolar dispersion is inaccurate. The Quads suffer severe dynamic limitations, again an inaccuracy.

I'm not disputing your preference, indeed I hold the Quad in high regard, just pointing out the impossibility of the Quad, or any speaker, being accurate.

Regards

dunno... my DIY dipoles sound pretty close to original performanes in the room they're located in, so the room/speaker interaction also must play a part. And they don't suffer much in the way of dynamic response.

In fact, they sound closer to original performances on a wide range of material than most any speaker I've heard in 40+ years.

Also, a speaker with a 20 dB hump being described as inaccurate implies that NOT having the 20dB hump is accurate, does it not??

Nice talking to you in Lexington, btw.

John L.

 

[tentoze]

Looks like everyone needs to drink a bottle of vanilla.

 

[RayW]

Accuracy is measured, what sounds good is not. The two are not necessarily related.

+1 :thmbsp:

Ray

 

[Dan ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ]

Accuracy is measured, what sounds good is not. The two are not necessarily related.

+2 :yes: I've longed maintained this. It applies to not only speakers, but electronics too.

 

[Tom Brennan]

Very accurate speakers tend to sound very similar. Listen to for example, a top of the line AR-11 and compare it to the smallest speaker in the line an AR-18 on most music they sound nearly identical. Listen to any AR, Advent, KLH, Boston Acoustics, EPI etc system. They all sound quite similar. The main differences being extension in the top end and the deepest bass.

You assert that these speakers you are accurate yet you fail to advance the subject, what makes these speakers accurate?

You can't simply define accurate as being one of a group of speakers that have similar sound.

Also note that the group of speakers you consider accurate are notorious for limited dynamics and compression. How can they then be accurate?

Regards

 

[RayW]

You can't simply define accurate as being one of a group of speakers that have similar sound.

Indeed. All of those listed came from the same geographical area with the same influences. It would be much easier to assert that they sound similar because they have similar inaccuracies. IMO, any speaker (or company) that has a distinctive "sound" is showing its inaccuracies.

Ray

 

[jimfet]

Accurate is subjective. If it were not, we'd all own the exact same model, because there would only be one to chose from.

I dissagree. Due to the fact we could not afford the exact same model. We have to buy the best we can afford.

 

[Steve O]

Indeed. All of those listed came from the same geographical area with the same influences. It would be much easier to assert that they sound similar because they have similar inaccuracies. IMO, any speaker (or company) that has a distinctive "sound" is showing its inaccuracies.

Ray

What if that distinctive "sound" is one of accuracy or neutrality. I would think true accuracy would be quite distinctive in the sea of inaccuracy where most available speakers of any vintage live today.

 

[Snade]

Fun discussion but I wonder if we can reach the wrong conclusion that "accuracy" cannot be defined and therefor we should not use the term, or the word has little value in comparing speakers.

In the real world, most people think "accurate" means sounding close to live music or how the original recording sounded in the studio. So if someone gives an opinion that speaker A is more accurate than speaker B, that opinion is easy to understand.

Many other words used in the discussion of speakers are far more ambiguous and less helpful. Words like "revealing" or "non-fatiguing", these are the words we should bang on.

Leave "accurate" alone.

Cheers, Snade

 

[RayW]

What if that distinctive "sound" is one of accuracy or neutrality.

One of two things would happen. Either the accurate "sound" would be just like any other accurate speakers out there meaning that it wouldn't be distinctive to that speaker (or company). Or it would mean that that one company had found the holy grail of accuracy and nobody else had come close.

With the available avenues of information dissemination today I don't see the latter happening but I guess it's possible.

Ray

 

[JesusChrysler]

I looked today and saw this thread went from new yesterday to 7 pages worth of white-hot debate today.

No thanks. I got nothing.



Matt

 

[gusten]

Accuracy is measured, what sounds good is not. The two are not necessarily related.

I believe that ,accurate, and ,sounds good, are most of the time the same thing.It´s in the definition of accurate.
If you want to build a speaker that is accurate,that is true to the source,that will perfectly reproduce whatever you play,you will end up measureing a lot.
And most of all you must also know what to measure and how.
Or else it will be try and error,which will not work.
/gusten

 

[Justen]

Looks like everyone needs to drink a bottle of vanilla.

Or something. Absinthe makes the ears more accurate...

 

[archie2]

Next question: what is "live music"?

Are you talking about a string quartet in a small sitting room? Ok, that's live music.

Are you talking about Eric Clapton in concert? In that case you're hearing his Strat played through a guitar amp with a microphone in front of it and then that signal being passed through a mixing board being run by a person, then going through some crossovers, amps, and finally speakers. THEN it gets to your ears. Is that really "live music"?

Are we trying to match the actual performance or are we trying to match the sound guys interpretation of what Clapton should sound like as played through speakers which, we've established in this thread, are not accurate?

Ray

If I had to define live music I would define it as that being played by a symphony orchestra in an acoustically designed hall. Alternatively, a jazz trio /quartet in a small club. Much of the live pop artist's concerts are "doctored" and that, in my opinion, shades them a bit. The only verified, certified, and unquestionable live music is me singing in the bathroom.