We need to talk about SPEAKERS: Sorry, 'audiophiles', only IT will break the sound barrier

Gosh, what a lot of armchair scientists in the comments section today.

Waaaaaah!!!!!

Waaaaahhhh!!!! why doesnt everyone want perfectly accurate sound reproduction, its not fair, its not fair i tell you!!!!!!

Sadly while much could be done to increase the accuracy of audio reproduction thats not what people want. Just look at the money Apple just paid for Beats. Beats as headphones go suck, they are exceedingly expensive junk with a spectacularly flavoured sound but its what people want.

This article is the aural equivalent of arguing we should all want perfectly nutritionally balance food pellets rather than the vast array of culinary delights we choose to partake of.

another angle

Nice article encouraging thought. I would only argue with one little point made about the amount of information in a CD being greater than that which speakers can re-produce. Based on my own experience in my music studio when I connect my cheap headphones directly through my budget amplifier to my professional microphone I can turn the volume right up and simply not be able to hear myself talking into my own ears - the reproduction through the system is so perfect because it is so un-touched. But when I record what I say at 16bit/44.1Khz PCM and play it back at that volume it blows my ears off. My advice for those people who want excellent reproduction is therefore to avoid the hi-fi shop/magazines and look at professional music production equipment, starting with studio monitors and a small mixing desk which can both be bought at a fraction of the cost of a high-end amp and speakers. Then spend the rest of your money on clean power and good quality source - preferably live and real.

If audio position image is so dependent on speaker timing, how come changing the motor in my Linn LP12 (exchanged Valhalla powered AC one as supplied for an Origin DC one) with no other changes whatsoever to my system resulted in much better stereo imaging?

Is it Enjoyable?

I thought that audiophile kit had two main purposes.

The first, as already mentioned, is to impress other audiophiles. This is not new. Listen to a "Song of Reproduction", Flanders and Swann, 1957 - YouTube Link.

The other is to sound enjoyable, or at least impressive, to the audiophile (almost always male) and his friends. When I was younger, and green in judgement, I bought a pair of Koss Electrostatic headphones to go with my Linn LP12/Naim 250 system. They sounded very accurate, had great specifications, and certainly looked the part, but did not give any feeling of engagement in the music. My apparenltly far too small Linn Kan speakers were fabulous to listen to and, in my normal sized living room, almost nobody noticed that they were lacking in bass - We just enjoyed the music.

I am now old and broken, but still remember how good the direct-to-disk Sheffield Lab recording of Thelma Houston/Pressure Cooker sounded through my old kit.

Er...what?

With the advent of the Compact Disc, the bottleneck became the loudspeaker.

Personally I reckon the source that really shines a glaring searchlight on inadequate speakers is analogue-mastered vinyl....

I have previously related around here the tale of a mate who spent a small fortune on new HiFi kit, only to have me cast aspersions on his right speaker. He had the speakers biwired and had left the links on the right-hand one. After fixing this small configuration problem everything sounded right, but he couldn't tell the difference!

The first thing you need in an audiophile setup is audiophile ears.......

I was thinking of a digital speaker solution only yesterday so this is timely.

Given that the time information is at issue here I was wondering whether dedicated speakers for each instrument might not be more practical. These could be either designed only to reproduce certain instruments (separate designs for violin, cello, guitar etc.) or be modified in their output through software depending on the use case.

Each speaker, (say typically four for a pop band or chamber orchestra) would recieve a digital stream time synced to each of the other streams. As the speakers themselves could be placed as desired the effect for the listener would be much more directional without the need for stereo capture/reproduction.

IE each instrument is recorded as a mono source, but the physical spacing of the individual speakers provides the reproduction of the sound space.

It might be more practical to arrange a number of panel speakers across a wall and assign them as required to allow maximum configurability with minimal physical intrusion.

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder...

Wonderful article. Even some good science. Time accuracy is important, and many of the first CD recordings did not have reasonable phase-linear input filters, and were noted as being "blurry" at the high end. As we generate sound from our computer sound cards, typically the "5.1" system, the low frequency is made to be non-directional by design. Good accurate transducers wouldn't need such band-aids.

As for "audiophiles" (audio-fools), they seem to be members of a mutual admiration society, and to enter the "club" they need to spend lots, without thinking about it. When they start talking about multi dollar mains cords and the "unidirectional" connections, I just want to puke. Put a bunch of them in a room and do double blind tests, and they will only give excuses (while they pick the inexpensive amplifier as being the best). What you see advertised boggles the mind. I don't know if the marketeers actually believe in the products, or are laughing all the way to the bank. Somehow I suspect the latter. They seem like the over-the-phone psychics I hear on TV.

Life goes on, and educating the audience to "good sound" in an ongoing exercise, often thwarted by those who should know better. (*SIGH*)

Hmmm

In the 1970s I read that 50% of your budget should be spent on speakers. Today I would guess that should be more like 90%.

If a sinewave carries no information how is it I can hear it perfectly well?

"Uni-directional oxygen free copper speaker cables"...

...were the most ridiculous things a friend of mine bought.

He said he could tell the difference if he plugged them in the wrong way round.

Everybody else just kept quiet, in full respect of his madness.

He refused to listen when I told him most of the crappy music he's playing on this expensive setup was probably recorded in an average studio using old NS10 speakers.

Transmission Line Bass Reflex speakers

I built a pair. Fantastic frequency response (separate sealed mid range units and horn tweeters). Brilliant Bass.

But complete rubbish to listen to actual music or speech on due to the temporal distortion. Presumably.

It's hard to make decent speakers without a giant sealed box. Murphy of olden days loved giant baffle boards, which is another route. But people don't want speakers larger than their 42" TV.

John's been giving this same lecture for a few years now. I specifically recall an AES lecture a few years ago that has been well catalogued and discussed on various audio engineering forums. It isn't that what he said is in any way controversial, and there seems to be agreement that many aspects of his actual electrical designs are beneficial and sure to be in mainstream speaker design in the coming decades. No, I seem to recall the greatest amount of debate regarding his (slightly controversial) theory that omni-directional speakers eliminate virtually all of the issues that plague traditional speakers and render extensive control room treatment a moot point. He's the only one doing the science, so it isn't exactly like anyone can disprove him.

But I can't help but think that no matter how dogmatic audio design engineers can be - preferring the mechanical design side of things over the electrical engineering - and no matter how much more money they would (likely) make selling $24,000/pair B&W Diamonds over cheaper, yet still high quality alternatives, that if the technology was as proven as John believes that at least _someone_ would have implemented the technology, marketed it, and sold the resulting product to hi-fi consumers and audio engineers alike. Conglomerates love volume sales, so it isn't exactly like there isn't a business market for it.

Only the future will tell which of his predictions and technologies bear out.

Be careful what you ask for.

I've recently had the pleasure of spending a good few hours in a professional recording, mixing, and mastering studio at the invitation of a forum member (not this forum) who got wind that I was screwing around with music as a hobby these days.

I learnt a hell of a lot while I was there, but that's by the by. The thing relevant to this article is this:-

Sitting on axis with top notch studio monitors I was played a vocal piece and it literally and I mean literally like the singer was there, this was way more convincing than any HIFI setup I've heard and I've heard some topping 50k. The problem was that after 30 mins or so with various musical pieces it became really tiring to listen to, simply because you could hear everything in all detail.

I mentioned this to the guy (a professional producer) and asked him what he used at home. He answered "you're right and I don't use these, you can't use them to enjoy music or a film, they're just too revealing, but they're what we need to do the job". He then mentioned that he uses far cheaper gear at home because it's more enjoyable and more forgiving.

With regards to the article I'm wondering if people really want hyper accurate speakers - I'm sure they think they do, but when the reality dawns that they're simply not that nice to listen to after a half an hour or so then they may regret their purchase.

Be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it.