I ask this question, not as a means of generating dispute, but as a serious question whose answer is directly relevant to loudspeaker design. After all, a good loudspeaker is one that satisfies its function, so having a clear sense of what one is trying to achieve and why may help in the design and construction process.
Obviously loudspeakers can and do have multiple functions, often at the same time. They can serve as vehicles for attentive or easy music listening, surround sound systems, furniture, plant stands, and so on. While many speakers may function quite well as plant stands, it's fair to say that their primary purpose in most cases is the production of sound.
It is commonly held that the primary function of speakers is the accurate reproduction of some source, e.g. a human voice, a musical instrument, and so on. I want to suggest that accuracy or hi-fidelity may well be the primary function of speakers for some people, but not for most. Putting aside all the technical, epistemological, and other difficulties associated with the idea of accuracy, I want to suggest that the the primary function of loudspeakers for most people (and I include many DIYer's in this camp) is not the accurate reproduction of some source (where accuracy serves as the definitive measure of a speaker's performance and desirability), but the production of output that is pleasing or enjoyable to the listener. Since listeners vary in many respects, then what is enjoyable will likely vary a great deal between different kinds of listeners, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Once again, I want to suggest that the primary function of most household loudspeakers is to produce output that is enjoyable to the listener, and that for most people accuracy of reproduction is a relatively minor concern when assessing and judging the qualities of speakers. This may sound trite, but what it means is that while accuracy of reproduction may be vital to some people's listening experience (e.g. those who get enjoyment knowing their speakers are accurate), accuracy per se (as an end in itself) likely has much less importance in the assessments and judgments of most.
What follows? For those who enjoy accuracy, design for accuracy, and for those who enjoy a certain kind of sound, then design for that sound (and don't get too worked up about whether it is accurate or not).
Obviously loudspeakers can and do have multiple functions, often at the same time. They can serve as vehicles for attentive or easy music listening, surround sound systems, furniture, plant stands, and so on. While many speakers may function quite well as plant stands, it's fair to say that their primary purpose in most cases is the production of sound.
It is commonly held that the primary function of speakers is the accurate reproduction of some source, e.g. a human voice, a musical instrument, and so on. I want to suggest that accuracy or hi-fidelity may well be the primary function of speakers for some people, but not for most. Putting aside all the technical, epistemological, and other difficulties associated with the idea of accuracy, I want to suggest that the the primary function of loudspeakers for most people (and I include many DIYer's in this camp) is not the accurate reproduction of some source (where accuracy serves as the definitive measure of a speaker's performance and desirability), but the production of output that is pleasing or enjoyable to the listener. Since listeners vary in many respects, then what is enjoyable will likely vary a great deal between different kinds of listeners, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Once again, I want to suggest that the primary function of most household loudspeakers is to produce output that is enjoyable to the listener, and that for most people accuracy of reproduction is a relatively minor concern when assessing and judging the qualities of speakers. This may sound trite, but what it means is that while accuracy of reproduction may be vital to some people's listening experience (e.g. those who get enjoyment knowing their speakers are accurate), accuracy per se (as an end in itself) likely has much less importance in the assessments and judgments of most.
What follows? For those who enjoy accuracy, design for accuracy, and for those who enjoy a certain kind of sound, then design for that sound (and don't get too worked up about whether it is accurate or not).
the thread title is a good question but your suggested answer is bad. why would you want to suggest that its function is to be pleasing? thats an endless and pointless debate.
The short answer is, most speaker designers wish they could emulate a perfect point source. That has always been the goal but no one has succeeded. Until a point source speaker with perfect 360 degree polar pattern exists, we will never know how close we are to the theoretical ideal.
The room would have to be designed together with the speaker as one whole unit. Then the speaker system would just be a transparent window into the recording .It would not subtract or add anything. It would simply take the signal source and convert it to an acoustic one. As a consequence, any preference for a particular sound could be adjusted for in the signal domain. That is the definition of the best speaker and its function.
The short answer is, most speaker designers wish they could emulate a perfect point source. That has always been the goal but no one has succeeded. Until a point source speaker with perfect 360 degree polar pattern exists, we will never know how close we are to the theoretical ideal.
The room would have to be designed together with the speaker as one whole unit. Then the speaker system would just be a transparent window into the recording .It would not subtract or add anything. It would simply take the signal source and convert it to an acoustic one. As a consequence, any preference for a particular sound could be adjusted for in the signal domain. That is the definition of the best speaker and its function.
I actually kind of agree. I would qualify it by saying that an audiophile is someone who can't bring himself to enjoy music unless the technical reproduction of it agrees with whatever he thinks "accuracy" is.
I've been a tinkerer for many years and the single biggest improvement I ever had was nothing to do with amps or speakers, it was when I started using digital EQ to compensate room modes. More accurate and more enjoyable, especially if your listening room is smallish with solid walls, and you like music with a bit of bass.
I've been a tinkerer for many years and the single biggest improvement I ever had was nothing to do with amps or speakers, it was when I started using digital EQ to compensate room modes. More accurate and more enjoyable, especially if your listening room is smallish with solid walls, and you like music with a bit of bass.
Last edited:
It worked remarkably well for me. I sit at the listening position, use a signal generator to sweep through the bottom few octaves, and a narrowband parametric EQ to notch out the worst resonances. 3 or 4 bands with a Q of 1/8 or 1/16 octave work wonders. The kick drum will actually turn from a resonant throb back to a solid thump when the EQ is turned on.
Of course this only works at the listening position, but so what.
Of course this only works at the listening position, but so what.
as scopeboy notes - for a single microphone / listening position - actually yes ; depending on each unique situation, the rest of the room could be a complete clusterfrack - or not
But to the original question - having being listening and tinkering to music mostly reproduced in home speakers for well over 50yrs, and "seriously tinkering" for at least 20, AFAIC the function / purpose of a loudspeaker is to help us suspend disbelief that a simple and so far relatively crude electro-mechancial device can open a window to the reproduction of an emotional event.
Achieving or surpassing some arbitrary technical specification doesn't necessarily guarantee that - some of the most emotionally involving systems I've enjoyed would certainly fail most "audiophile" cost tests (must be at least X times your annual salary) or meet "standards" for FR, Distortion, Dipspersion - you pick.
Of course the most involving system in the world can't make up for crap source material - but that's a whole 'nother thread 😀
Yes, before EQ I got lousy bass everywhere, after EQ I get lousy bass everywhere except the sofa. 🙂
I think in some respects, speakers are so far from accurate that designing them is an art. In other respects, the environments they are used in vary so widely that the accuracy of the speaker itself hardly matters.
I wonder if horn speakers work their magic by beaming sound directly at the listener so the room acoustics have less effect. According to this theory, the narrower the dispersion, the more "involving" the system would be: you hear less of your own room and more of the concert hall.
I think in some respects, speakers are so far from accurate that designing them is an art. In other respects, the environments they are used in vary so widely that the accuracy of the speaker itself hardly matters.
I wonder if horn speakers work their magic by beaming sound directly at the listener so the room acoustics have less effect. According to this theory, the narrower the dispersion, the more "involving" the system would be: you hear less of your own room and more of the concert hall.
Again we meet.
OK to eq a room would by the way that is said, would mean to modify the room or contents to reduce the mode. This IS the preferred method. Always do what you can in the room first. Perfection is almost never possible even in an uber-buck HT.
In more common usage, eq would mean to apply some eq as a band-aid to the signal electronically or mechanically at the transducer to suppress the mode that is an issue at the listening position. This can work very well to a reasonable extent. It is the absolute number one method of reducing feedback in live performances. I find this very effective in getting the bass balanced.
If you allow your definition of eq to apply to the s-plane or time domain, you most certainly can eq a null.
To the OP's question:
Two camps, the subjective " to make a musical experience" and the objective " to be a transducer" leaving the creation of experience to the artist and engineer.
Both are correct to someone. I agree with the OP that a great many speakers are better plant stands than either of the stated goals.
Two camps, the subjective " to make a musical experience" and the objective " to be a transducer" leaving the creation of experience to the artist and engineer.
Both are correct to someone. I agree with the OP that a great many speakers are better plant stands than either of the stated goals.
Yes it can. A notch filter with the same centre frequency and Q as the room mode will generate equal and opposite ringing that cancels the original ringing out.
A Band-aid for sure, but cheaper and more convenient than real bass traps. Fine tuning is required, going at it with a RTA and 31-band graphic is worse than useless.
A Band-aid for sure, but cheaper and more convenient than real bass traps. Fine tuning is required, going at it with a RTA and 31-band graphic is worse than useless.
I'd go even further and say that when I dissolved you could buy a reasonably good measurement microphone for $50 and plug it into a $150 Presonus USB audio interface and get really good measurements. Now I can measure at a sensitivity well below human hearing and I can measure how the sound is different in different locations.
I'd argue the function of the loudspeaker is NOT 360 degree point point like sound. Not at all. What we care about is the sound that reaches our ears. OK it gets more complex if the listing audience is a large ground that is spread over an area or if it is one person walking around. But those harder cases are in the realm of pro-audio, not home hifi. For a home hifi speaker I think we can assume the listen is one guy at a fix location.
The purpose really is to please the owner. This likely means the offer a BALANCE of features. #1 being his wife allows the speakers in the house. Speakers that fail this test are useless. #2 some owners enjoy owning exotic stuff so a good sounding conventional speaker would not be pleasing. #3 cost some people like to get the best sound from low-cost DIY projects while other like to have bragging rights to a $10,000 system.
So I have three items that I think go before sound quality.
My interests are wide. I like simple tube gear that powers a 50's vintage full range speaker and I've been thingking about a hi-tech system that could use a microphone for full-time feedback. Or maybe like Infinity did long ago but using more modern parts I could glue and accelerometer to a voice coil and use that as feedback to a power amplifier.
In theory I could get perfect bass by measuring the sound in the room at the listener's location. There is more involved then just EQ, It would take a fairly long time domain convolution to remove the effects of the room.
So a perfect loudspeaker might just any design with a servo loop that forces zero error at the listening location.
I respectfully disagree. To reduce the function of a speaker to the emulation of a perfect point source is to view it from a narrow, largely technical perspective. That might be a useful perspective to an engineer, but it is not the perspective of most users. I'm claiming that you can't understand the actual function of speakers (or anything else, for that matter) apart from the point of view of the user, and that the elements that are of interest to actual users often don't include the kinds of technical issues associated with accuracy or reproduction, prefect emulation of a point source, and so on.
you get standing waves in small rooms like yours. how are you going to cancel it out? an EQ does nothing but reduce the level.
I would say I can understand the actual function of speakers, but I can't understand the view of the user.
It's odd you seem to exclude words from "anything else." Or is your original post actually a spaghetti sauce recipe?
Hi,
EQ can and does improve the negative effects of room modes,
in as much as it can ameliorate the modes effects on response.
In doing so the "anti-ringing" of the notch filters will reduce
the inherent ringing of the room modes, as night follows day.
Once you have heard a accurate pair of speakers there is
no going back to flawed but whatever makes you happy.
rgds, sreten.
EQ can and does improve the negative effects of room modes,
in as much as it can ameliorate the modes effects on response.
In doing so the "anti-ringing" of the notch filters will reduce
the inherent ringing of the room modes, as night follows day.
Once you have heard a accurate pair of speakers there is
no going back to flawed but whatever makes you happy.
rgds, sreten.
You are right that enjoyment is the driving force. People may have the most "accurate" speaker ever - but if it doesn't bring enjoyment for whatever reason, it will be discarded in the end.
Which will not happen, because a certain kind of accuracy is a precondition for enjoyment. People tend to like (and enjoy) what they know and have. But if they get the opportunity to listen to a selection of different loudspeakers and sorts of music, the vast majority will choose the same speakers as the most enjoyable. Toole and Olive have tested and proved that in many comparisons. And all those speakers share the same set of "more accurate" qualities.
Probably you have put your initial question in a wrong way.😱
Rudolf
You can't understand the view of the user? Really? I find that hard to believe.
As for words, I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say here but if you're implying that words have meaning apart from their use within a shared linguistic and communicative framework, then I have no idea what you mean.
Interesting.
I don't doubt that there is a correlation between a certain kind or degree of accuracy and enjoyment. This likely indicates that at least some minimal degree of accuracy is needed for a speaker to sound enjoyable, and that seems more than reasonable to me. But what I'm suggesting is that for most people, there comes a point where a certain degree of accuracy is enough, so to speak, with different people then being attracted by certain kinds of speaker coloration over absolute accuracy (e.g. preferring speakers that are warm or bright, and so on).
For example, some people many not actually want an accurate reproduction of a bagpipe, tin whistle, electric guitar, and so on, but would prefer speakers in which these kinds of instruments are toned down, if you will (as too harsh, tinny, grating, and so on--which they can be to some people, even in live performances). I know this probably sounds crazy, but I suspect that many people actually choose speakers on these kinds of grounds and may actually prefer their music coloured in a certain way over an accurate representation of all musical tones. In these kinds of cases, the speaker's primary function would not be absolute accuracy of reproduction, but enjoyable reproduction within a certain minimal threshold of accuracy.
Last edited:
You're Philosophil. Think about it.
edit: You could possibly start with this:
First you said
then you admit there is a
You can't have it both ways.
I could connect my amplifier to a chair and sit on my loudspeaker, but that wouldn't call into question the actual function of either.
Rather, the functioning of my brain.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.