Audio Note speakers

[Anton D]

^^^This!^^^

Loudspeaker preference in controlled blind listening can change significantly with different types of music! I get the impression that the default assumption around here is that if someone prefers a particular speaker because it sounds better to them on a certain type of music, their opinion is flawed.

In Section 7.4.2 of the 3rd edition of "Sound Reproduction", Floyd Toole describes extensive controlled blind listening tests done with three speakers, from Rega, KEF, and Quad. Figure 7.16 (page 181) tabulates the scoring in stereo based on music type:

The KEF was the winner on Choral. The Rega was the winner on Chamber. The Quad was the winner on Jazz. The Rega was the winner on Popular music.

Or to put it another way, under controlled blind test conditions, listeners said "the KEF sounds better to me" on Choral; "the Rega sounds better to me" on Chamber; "the Quad sounds better to me" on Jazz; and "the Rega sounds better to me" on popular music.

So I think "personal preference" - i.e. "sounds better to me"- based on music type has a whole lot more validity than most people realize.

Dude, you are going to bring down western civilization.

 

[Rõlnnbacke]

Truthful and better? What is the objective metric for truth and good?

Regardless of the end correlations between objective performance of speakers and subjective preferences, the tests were purely subjective preference tests.

I think it's no coincidence that the average preference of a lot of people corresponds well with objective performance, being not subjective, that would be the preference of one person.

 

[MattHooper]

Dude, you are going to bring down western civilization.

I home school my kids so they don't have to encounter such preposterous, pernicious nonsense!

 

[MattHooper]

I think it's no coincidence that the average preference of a lot of people corresponds well with objective performance, being not subjective, that would be the preference of one person.

Preference is subjective. It doesn't matter how many preferences you add up.

But it's intriguing to consider why you think it's no coincidence that people tend to prefer neutral sound reproduction, at least with loudspeakers.

I've suggested that at least one reason is that a common reference is the human voice, and that we are sensitive to recognizing resonances that sound "unnatural" in voices.

It can't be, though, that we dislike "resonances" per se. Clearly we enjoy resonance - voices are resonators, musical instruments work on resonance. So it must be a certain type or character of resonance that we detect as "bad" in loudspeakers.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I think it's no coincidence that the average preference of a lot of people corresponds well with objective performance, being not subjective, that would be the preference of one person.

“Well” maybe. How does one objectively evaluate the radiation pattern of a speaker in terms of accuracy to it’s input signal (hint: it’s kind of a trick question)

 

[Ron Texas]

I home school my kids so they don't have to encounter such preposterous, pernicious nonsense!

I like home schooling. Public schools in large school districts are a mess. A neighbor home schooled her 4 children and told me one of the benefits was not being tied down by today's strict attendance rules.

 

[Rõlnnbacke]

Preference is subjective. It doesn't matter how many preferences you add up.

But it's intriguing to consider why you think it's no coincidence that people tend to prefer neutral sound reproduction, at least with loudspeakers.

I've suggested that at least one reason is that a common reference is the human voice, and that we are sensitive to recognizing resonances that sound "unnatural" in voices.

It can't be, though, that we dislike "resonances" per se. Clearly we enjoy resonance - voices are resonators, musical instruments work on resonance. So it must be a certain type or character of resonance that we detect as "bad" in loudspeakers.

Yes, resonances that a speaker adds to the recorded ones... In theory, as far we know.

"But it's intriguing to consider why you think it's no coincidence that people tend to prefer neutral sound reproduction, at least with loudspeakers."
I ment the average of many preferences, thought that was also the main outcome of these harman tests.

Let's call it less subjective

 

[Rõlnnbacke]

“Well” maybe. How does one objectively evaluate the radiation pattern of a speaker in terms of accuracy to it’s input signal (hint: it’s kind of a trick question)

Not, the input signal has no radiation pattern.
Otherwise it would be by measuring it.

 

[Waxx]

That's exactly why it's strange to have ASR members advocating in favor of colored speakers because it makes them happy or whatever.

those are generalisations, not everybody like that, but the majority does. But there is a significant part of the public that like coloured sound also, and often they are aware of way more neutral speakers also, but it does not do the job. What Toole and Olive studied is true, but like always in preferences, not everybody likes the same. And coloured is not always just crappy like Audio Note, brands like Harbeth, Kiplish, Tannoy ao use a very specific way of colouring sound, so they have a brand sound that is easy to recognise and has a public. They don't colour the same way, each has it's own house curves, in FR response, dispertion and disortion.

But indeed most like neutral low distortion speakers, and i did not need Toole & Olive to know that (altough it's nice to have some sciene behind that constation).

 

[Ron Texas]

those are generalisations, not everybody like that, but the majority does. But there is a significant part of the public that like coloured sound also, and often they are aware of way more neutral speakers also, but it does not do the job. What Toole and Olive studied is true, but like always in preferences, not everybody likes the same. And coloured is not always just crappy like Audio Note, brands like Harbeth, Kiplish, Tannoy ao use a very specific way of colouring sound, so they have a brand sound that is easy to recognise and has a public. They don't colour the same way, each has it's own house curves, in FR response, dispertion and disortion.

But indeed most like neutral low distortion speakers, and i did not need Toole & Olive to know that (altough it's nice to have some sciene behind that constation).

I have seen a lot of comments to the effect that owners of colored speakers get bored with them relatively quickly. Honestly, I don't care if anyone here wants to buy an expensive (or very expensive) colored speaker. It will not cause the downfall of western civilization as one member is foolishly accusing me of stating. I do find the explanation "it's OK if it makes you happy" to be a dead end and juvenile. My view is when people do silly things it's because they don't know any better. Fortunately, buying colored speakers will only dent your bank account and likely that person will never be any the wiser. Taking issue with at least one member of the "happy" crowd elicited a response which I found rude. Either that's what he intended or he doesn't know any better. It reminds me of the line "that's a nice suit, too bad they didn't have it in your size."

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Not, the input signal has no radiation pattern.
Otherwise it would be by measuring it.

Exactly.

But all speakers have radiation patterns.

As such you can’t measure a speaker for accuracy without making inherently compromised choices.

So when we talk about speaker accuracy it’s not as simple as just measuring the speaker.

But if we REALLY want to compare the input to the output of a speaker in real world applications that means measuring the sound of the speaker/room at the ears of the listener.

I’m not so sure the speakers deemed “most accurate” by the HK protocols are going to actually give you the most accurate measurements at the ears of the listener. And it will vary quite a bit depending on the room and the speaker/listener positions.

And before we go down that old rabbit hole of “what the recording engineer heard” I just want to make the preemptive point that we are talking accuracy of the playback system to the signal from the recording played back from the source component.

 

[Waxx]

I have seen a lot of comments to the effect that owners of colored speakers get bored with them relatively quickly. Honestly, I don't care if anyone here wants to buy an expensive (or very expensive) colored speaker. It will not cause the downfall of western civilization as one member is foolishly accusing me of stating. I do find the explanation "it's OK if it makes you happy" to be a dead end and juvenile. My view is when people do silly things it's because they don't know any better. Fortunately, buying colored speakers will only dent your bank account and likely that person will never be any the wiser. Taking issue with at least one member of the "happy" crowd elicited a response which I found rude. Either that's what he intended or he doesn't know any better. It reminds me of the line "that's a nice suit, too bad they didn't have it in your size."

I just spend an hour and a halve listening to a pair of Genelec 8030C's in a radio studio where i'm broadcasting from, but i'm happy i can listen to my coloure diy Mark Audio based speakers again at home now. I know both sides, but for home i prefer coloured. And i know many who think similar. Who work in studio's with clean monitors (and they don't want nothing else there) but at home they got very coloured systems, often with tube amps and so on, and they are often listening to vinyl.

You got otherwise also off course, and also in large numbers, it's not or, it's and. And as long as you know what you get to listen to it's not bad i think (and i'm not alone).

 

[ta240]

As I understood it, the preference tests all came out in favour of the most truthful and better performing speakers....

Am I the only one that has listened to a setup and immediately thought "Wow, this is good" only to realize days later that I've been turning on my music but not listening for very long when I did. And then a week or so after that I notice that I'd go entire days without turning it on at all. I've learned not to trust my initial reaction in a comparison.
Oddly, it has rarely happened the other direction, where the first listening results in not liking it and the long term changes to liking. And there have been plenty that I didn't like from the start and even after time I still didn't enjoy. I can only think of one that broke through that barrier.

That's exactly why it's strange to have ASR members advocating in favor of colored speakers because it makes them happy or whatever.

Honestly, I'm curious what it is that I like about some of these. Most of my stuff is DIY so I can't look at measurements to see what it is that some have or don't have.

I don't know that I'm advocating for speakers like audio note, but I am happy they exist and I'm happy some people enjoy them. I'd love to get to listen to many of these products that are frowned on here.

I do understand that for many on here it rubs them wrong that the items even exist and for others it is the fact that people claim they 'hear more' with them. But when all is said and done it comes down to if listening to music with what you have brings you joy.

But in the grand scheme of all the music that is played back every day, these are such a small number and are exponentially better recreations than most people hear. I just can't get bent out of shape by amps that produce harmonics or speakers without perfect dispersion in a world where I get assaulted by music reproduction from people's cell phone speaker on full volume as they walk around work or a store, or the grocery store that cranks the beastie boys through their 30 year old speakers that were only designed to handle someone's voice saying "cleanup on isle 3" or car stereos with just all bass or all treble pumping out of them from blocks away. I will take a system with Audio Note speakers, a R2R DAC and a First Watt amp over any of those.

I do agree that some of the claims manufactures make are silly and some products are downright faulty. However, I also think there are a lot of really beautiful products that I would enjoy for years to come that may not measure well and I'm okay with that. I returned a fairly expensive amp because I found I liked my 60 year old tube amp better and even today I will sit at my workbench with nothing to do and listen to it. I've thrown away a 3255 and an icepower class D amp in that time. And don't tell anyone but I also binned an ACA.

 

[Selkirks]

Am I the only one that has listened to a setup and immediately thought "Wow, this is good" only to realize days later that I've been turning on my music but not listening for very long when I did. And then a week or so after that I notice that I'd go entire days without turning it on at all. I've learned not to trust my initial reaction in a comparison.

This happens often. I stopped acknowledging comments that start with opinions based from demos, good or bad.

 

[ta240]

... I do find the explanation "it's OK if it makes you happy" to be a dead end and juvenile. My view is when people do silly things it's because they don't know any better. ...

If they have heard 'better' but still prefer theirs is it okay then?

How long do they have to try the 'better' item to see if they can learn to enjoy it?

 

[Ron Texas]

I want to make it clear that it doesn't bother me that some expensive speakers are not designed using the research by Toole and Olive, or that people buy them. What annoys me is some of the justifications being advanced here, especially in an objectivist forum. There is a lot of misleading rhetoric.

 

[MattHooper]

I have seen a lot of comments to the effect that owners of colored speakers get bored with them relatively quickly. Honestly, I don't care if anyone here wants to buy an expensive (or very expensive) colored speaker. It will not cause the downfall of western civilization as one member is foolishly accusing me of stating. I do find the explanation "it's OK if it makes you happy" to be a dead end and juvenile. My view is when people do silly things it's because they don't know any better. Fortunately, buying colored speakers will only dent your bank account and likely that person will never be any the wiser.

Nobody in this thread (that I've noticed anyway) is advocating a subjective account in the sense of "If I Think I Hear It It's True." Audio engineering and science will tell us the truth of how gear performs.

Rather, we've simply acknowledged it makes sense, within that context, to buy what you like.

How can that be "silly" or "dead end" or "juvenile?"

Imagine a poll was taken in an ice cream parlour where the majority of people preferred chocolate ice cream. But you prefer strawberry. Does it therefore make the most sense to say "Well, if everyone else prefers chocolate than I shouldn't order strawberry...it's my duty to order chocolate!" Of course not. If you happen to prefer strawberry, it makes sense for YOU to order strawberry. Human preferences, as well as various goals associated with any particular buying decision, are not completely uniform.


If someone has bought what you term a "colored speaker" and really enjoys how their favourite music sounds through that speaker, how are you in a position to deem their choice "silly?" This seems like a manifest failure to consider other people's interests and goals.

Again...I'm puzzled as to how you see the fundamental goal of audio systems, if it is not something that makes you happy, and on which you enjoy music.

I want to make it clear that it doesn't bother me that some expensive speakers are not designed using the research by Toole and Olive, or that people buy them.

But you proclaim it as "silly" and speak of dead ends and use terms like "juvenile."

What annoys me is some of the justifications being advanced here, especially in an objectivist forum. There is a lot of misleading rhetoric.

A "lot?" From whom? Can you point to even one bit of "misleading rhetoric" from me, for instance?

 

[Purité Audio]

I don’t enjoy lo-fi.
Keith

 

[Rõlnnbacke]

Exactly.

But all speakers have radiation patterns.

As such you can’t measure a speaker for accuracy without making inherently compromised choices.

So when we talk about speaker accuracy it’s not as simple as just measuring the speaker.

But if we REALLY want to compare the input to the output of a speaker in real world applications that means measuring the sound of the speaker/room at the ears of the listener.

I’m not so sure the speakers deemed “most accurate” by the HK protocols are going to actually give you the most accurate measurements at the ears of the listener. And it will vary quite a bit depending on the room and the speaker/listener positions.

And before we go down that old rabbit hole of “what the recording engineer heard” I just want to make the preemptive point that we are talking accuracy of the playback system to the signal from the recording played back from the source component.

That's why some people measure speakers in their room, that are measured before that with extremely delicate, expensive and complete equipment. Though it is still a compromise, it is possible to reach relative accuracy, but I don't think that everything has to be so strict. Yes, let's loosen up and allow tiny imperfections..

 

[MattHooper]

Am I the only one that has listened to a setup and immediately thought "Wow, this is good" only to realize days later that I've been turning on my music but not listening for very long when I did. And then a week or so after that I notice that I'd go entire days without turning it on at all. I've learned not to trust my initial reaction in a comparison.

My experience is generally the opposite. My first impression always sticks. I'm a "tone/timbre" first guy, so voices and instruments I like have to sound "right" to my perception - invoke certain "colors" in my mind - and that is pretty immediately the case or not. If I think "wow that acoustic guitar sounds RIGHT, I can accept that as an acoustic guitar, not some electronic deviation" then we are off to a good start and most other instruments will likely sound good to me. I've yet to have such an impression reversed over time.

The closest experience I've had to what you mention had to do with amplifiers. (And if this triggers certain folks I don't give a damn...)...

A couple times my CJ tube amps were out of my system for quite a while. And at that time I'd been using some little Thiel speakers that I'd always loved. I used a solid state amp for that time (can't remember if it was my Bryston or Harman Kardon). As the weeks passed I noticed I wasn't listening as much. I wasn't transfixed by the sound as I was normally. Gradually my dedicated listening petered out to nothing. I actually thought "maybe I'm over the whole music listening/2 channel thing." So I was thinking of selling my more expensive gear, starting with the CJ tube amps. I got them fixed (it was just a fuse in the end) to sell them, put them in the system just to make sure they were working fine and..bam!..there was "that" sound I'd been missing. More organic, rich, beautiful, convincing...I could not get my butt off the chair. Day after day I couldn't stop listening and realized I actually did still love listening. Amazingly, it happened again, years later when I didn't have the CJs in the house and used my Harman Kardon amp. Again, not expecting it but I found my listening trailed off over time and again...thought I must be losing interest. But I ended up borrowing a little Eico tube integrated when the Harman died on me, and again, as before, that rich sound was back and I was back to being transfixed in front of the system. (I ended up buying an Eico for myself, as well as getting my CJ amps back in the system).

The upshot for me was: no way in hell am I letting go of these amps! A Golden Eared purely subjectivist audiophile would at this point declare "It's obvious that what I thought I heard was true! My ears don't lie!" That is NOT my position. My position is that it's plausible the tube amps altered the sound in a subtle way that I found significant. But it's also very possible that sheer bias effects played a big role in the above stories. But I can justify keeping the amps because even if it's purely a bias effect, it has proven to be such a strong one, and a reliable one year after year, that I am fine availing myself of that effect. I just wouldn't go trumpetting to others that they need to conclude anything dubious on what I have described.

Oddly, it has rarely happened the other direction, where the first listening results in not liking it and the long term changes to liking. And there have been plenty that I didn't like from the start and even after time I still didn't enjoy. I can only think of one that broke through that barrier.

Likewise: I've never gone from not liking a speaker to liking it later on. And I've had lots of opportunity to hear the same loudspeakers in various places at different times.

One of the speakers that I bought to try out were the Audio Physic Scorpios. I had loved the tone of the two previous AP speakers I'd owned so figured this was a good bet. But despite that they did tons of great things in terms of disappearing, soundstaging, sounding punchy, vivid...their tone and timbre with instruments just never convinced me, never sounded "right." Over many months I never acclimated and that perception never changed, so with disapointment I sold them.