• 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

Accurate speakers do exhibit a character easily recognized in A/B comparisons, as suggested by Grateful @77. I always chuckle when someone here observes that many more accurate modern speakers, for example, are "colorless" in comparison to "That Vintage Sound" they so much enjoy. Yup, and that's the point, to remove coloration from what speakers do.

Anyone who wants to hear this can easily do so by putting a pair of L100/4311s up against JBL 4412 Studio Monitors. Interestingly, in comparing the frequency responses of the two, L100's deviation from linear seems rather minor. There are other things going on, of course, but that difference in voicing has earned them the reputation of being "notoriously inaccurate." The quintessential embodiment of West Coast Sound, they were also notoriously successful. Fake, certainly, but still fun and much enjoyed and appreciated.

[Not my mains, tho.... :no: ]
 
Zilch said:
Accurate speakers do exhibit a character easily recognized in A/B comparisons, as suggested by Grateful @77. I always chuckle when someone here observes that many more accurate modern speakers, for example, are "colorless" in comparison to "That Vintage Sound" they so much enjoy. Yup, and that's the point, to remove coloration from what speakers do.

Anyone who wants to hear this can easily do so by putting a pair of L100/4311s up against JBL 4412 Studio Monitors. Interestingly, in comparing the frequency responses of the two, L100's deviation from linear seems rather minor. There are other things going on, of course, but that difference in voicing has earned them the reputation of being "notoriously inaccurate." The quintessential embodiment of West Coast Sound, they were also notoriously successful. Fake, certainly, but still fun and much appreciated.

[Not my mains, tho.... :no: ]
Click to expand...
Both examples are of ported enclosures. Does that suggest that ported enclosures tend to be more accurate (or faithful) in their low frequency reproduction than an acoustical suspension enclosure? I ask because of previous discussions about utilizing a plumbers plug for the L100/4311...
 
sleddogman said:
Both examples are of ported enclosures. Does that suggest that ported enclosures tend to be more accurate (or faithful) in their low frequency reproduction than an acoustical suspension enclosure? I ask because of previous discussions about utilizing a plumbers plug for the L100/4311...
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. The bass in the plugged-port L100s is clearly more accurate than stock with respect to frequency response and group delay.

There are other tradeoffs, however, power handling being a major one, which I believe are reflected in JBL's traditional (until recently) exclusive use of ported (primarily) and equivalent passive radiator designs throughout both their pro and consumer product lines.
 
My 2 cents worth: I think that "Accurate" is just another buzzword in the audio world. I think of accuracy more as "perception" than anything. Yes some speakers are more accurate than others but do they really sound better? Everybody wants an accurate sounding speaker. But the truth is that when people hear an accurate speaker they think it's too bright or they don't have enough bass. Most people that hear clean, well-damped bass think the speakers are bass-shy, etc. In my 20+years of fooling around with equipment (Audio & Electronic Engineer), I have heard this argument over and over. What's accurate to me doesn't sound accurate to you, etc. It's a never-ending battle between specifications versus actually listening with your ears. Tube amps are a fine example of this. They weren't accurate and had lots of distortion but most people love and crave that warm, harmonic-rich sound. On the other end, there is very clean solid state equipment that is so refined and accurate that it sounds lifeless and thin. What is accurate in my listening room won't be accurate in someone elses room. Acoustics play a MAJOR role in the overall sound as well as a ton of other things. Accuracy don't mean squat if it sounds bad to me...
 
Tom Brennan said:
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
Click to expand...

See my previous post I clearly defined what I think an accurate speaker is. I agree those speakers in my example are not as loud as horn speakers, I disagree that they are less accurate. Music out of most horns sounds honky and colored to me. It sounds like reproduced music.
 
MoparMan said:
Everybody wants an accurate sounding speaker.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think some people want an accurate speaker. Some want rolled off highs. Some want lots of tizz. Some want exagerated bass. Some want midrange "presence". Once again, what is accurate and what "sounds good" are not always the same.

Ray
 
botrytis said:
Data measuring speakers is only useful if done in an Anachoic chamber - this is due to the inherent weakenesses in any room environment. And your response curves show the exact opposite of what you are saying, namely those speakers are NOT accurate they are colored.
Click to expand...
Around and around we go....

Your categorical dismissal of all measurement technology outside the anechoic chamber ignores much of what has been developed in recent years to accomplish the task. See D'Appolito's Testing Loudspeakers for more info.

Time-windowed MLS is the industry standard for quasi-anechoic measurement of mid- and high- frequency response, and several techiniques including nearfield, in-box, and ground plane are available for characterizing low frequencies. I currently employ stepped and gated sinusoidal scans for overall system response measurements. The purpose and intent of all of these methods is to remove the influence of the room from the results.

Dickason's Loudspeaker Design Cookbook includes information on interpreting the curves, among that being the extent to which nearfield LF measurements overstate the response in comparison to true anechoic readings, and for many reference resources, the loudspeaker anthologies, journal, and proceedings of the Audio Engineering Society are available at modest cost.

Yes, indeed, L100s (and L88s used for illustration in the thread) are very much colored by the response peak at 60 - 80 Hz. It's the boom in West Coast sound. Plugging the port strips that away and smooths the group delay, as shown in the sims in post #14, and damping further improves the situation, as is illustrated by the measurements, both frequency response and impedance, later in the thread....
 
Zilch said:
... "notoriously inaccurate."...Fake, certainly...
Click to expand...

I'm going to grit my teeth and ignore those two comments, and ask how one best goes about "plugging" a port, in order to attempt to make my beloved POS L100's a bit more...better.

At least in some folks' opinion. I'm willing to try any new idea, as long as it doesn't involve saws.
 
I'm just happy I don't have to listen to speakers in either an anechoic chamber or with "time windowed mls sampling" etc. etc....

Boy, would that be dull or what!!!:banana::music::D
 
MoparMan said:
My 2 cents worth: I think that "Accurate" is just another buzzword in the audio world. I think of accuracy more as "perception" than anything. Yes some speakers are more accurate than others but do they really sound better? Everybody wants an accurate sounding speaker. But the truth is that when people hear an accurate speaker they think it's too bright or they don't have enough bass. Most people that hear clean, well-damped bass think the speakers are bass-shy, etc. In my 20+years of fooling around with equipment (Audio & Electronic Engineer), I have heard this argument over and over. What's accurate to me doesn't sound accurate to you, etc. It's a never-ending battle between specifications versus actually listening with your ears. Tube amps are a fine example of this. They weren't accurate and had lots of distortion but most people love and crave that warm, harmonic-rich sound. On the other end, there is very clean solid state equipment that is so refined and accurate that it sounds lifeless and thin. What is accurate in my listening room won't be accurate in someone elses room. Acoustics play a MAJOR role in the overall sound as well as a ton of other things. Accuracy don't mean squat if it sounds bad to me...
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
Last edited:
Fisherdude said:
I'm going to grit my teeth and ignore those two comments, and ask how one best goes about "plugging" a port, in order to attempt to make my beloved POS L100's a bit more...better.
Click to expand...
Fully illustrated and discussed in the link I posted @113.

The rear disk of the Oatey 3.0" Test Plug No. 33422 shown was a smidge too big for my L100 ports, so I stuck it (the disk, with the carriage bolt through the center and a hex nut to hold it,) in a hand drill and filed off 1.125 smidges from the outside diameter to make fit.

L100s are not POS; they were purposefully designed to have a particular voice, that of the Altec 604, actually, when used nearfield, and they certainly and certifiably do that well. You'll now have another listening option, is all.... :thmbsp:

MoparMan said:
My 2 cents worth: I think that "Accurate" is just another buzzword in the audio world. I think of accuracy more as "perception" than anything. Yes some speakers are more accurate than others but do they really sound better? Everybody wants an accurate sounding speaker.
Click to expand...
It is a buzzword only to the extent that I, you and everyone else allow marketing hypesters and their lackeys to usurp its legitimate meaning in loudspeaker engineering, design and testing. It is not a perception, rather, a quantifiable (albeit, complexly so,) characterization of performance.

When performance is evaluated subjectively under controlled conditions, loudspeaker accuracy correlates highly with listener preference, which is part of the reason so many vintage speakers are readily available for chump change at the thrift store, and free at the curb....
 
"When performance is evaluated subjectively under controlled conditions, loudspeaker accuracy correlates highly with listener preference, which is part of the reason that so many vintage speakers are readily available for chump change at the thrift store, and free at the curb...."


Any examples of listener preferred accurate speakers?
 
This thread got me thinking about a LONG interview with John Dunlavy on the subject. Here's the first paragraph:

John Dunlavy: Oh, no. Listening comes later. Because if you stop to think about it, no loudspeaker can sound more accurate than it measures. It may sound worse, or it may sound sweeter, prettier, but if we're talking about absolute accuracy—the ability of the speaker to reproduce as perfectly as possible whatever's fed to it—such a system can never sound more accurate than it first measures. So we try to get the greatest accuracy we can achieve from measurements. Then we begin doing what some people might call "voicing," because the best set of measurements are still open to interpretation.

It's a very interesting read. I can attest to the results, when set up properly I have never heard a speaker that can reproduce music more accurately (yes I said it!). Even during complex passages, each instrument can be picked out clearly, and has a defined position. Truly incredible sound stage and imaging.

On a sad note, while Googling for this interview, I found out that John passed away early this year. :tears: He was a regular guy, I spoke to him once when I needed to replace a tweeter, when I had a question the person on the phone just said, hang on, I'll get John! We spoke for a while, and he advised me against Bi-amping, as it could mess up the time alignment he felt was so important. I'm glad I got a chance to talk to him AND very happy to own a pair of his speakers.
 
jimfet said:
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.
Click to expand...

So that is how you judge your speaker (actually the entire system): does it sound like live, un-amplified music? You say you "know" how real music sounds. I do not doubt you, but is it possible to objectively catalog and describe the characteristics of the sound of live music so that you can systematically, scientifically, and objectively evaluate a system with your ears and communicate that to others? Are scientists in general restricted to observing nature with instruments that measure numbers or can they also make meaningful, objective observations with their own senses?

If such a method of objective observation and characterization using ones own senses is possible, could equipment designers then use that as guidance to try to figure out how to achieve a system that sounds like real music (is accurate to the sound of live, un-amplified music) by measuring and adjusting the physical parameters that they can control in the design and then listening to the results and evaluating what is heard?

Would that work?

Also, have you ever seen a post with so many rhetorical questions? Yikes!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom