Analytical or Musical Which way to go?


The debate rages on. What are we to do? Designing a spealer that measures wellin all areas shoulkd be the goal manufacturer.
As allways limtiations abound. Time and again I read designers yo say the design the speaker to measure as best they can. But it just does not sound like music.

The question is of course is: what happens when the speaker sounds dull and lifeless.

Then enters a second speaker that sounds like real music but does not have optimum mesurements?

Many of course would argue, stop right there. If it does not measure well it can't sound good.

I pose the question then how can a spekeer that sounds lifeless be acurrate?

Would that pose yhis question. Does live music sound dull and lifeless?
If not how can we ever be be satisified with such a spseker no matter how well it measures?
gregadd
If you want to know what is on the recording you need a neutral and resolving speaker. Analytical has a negative connotation that a neutral speaker can't be enjoyed or it lacks the body and soul of music, that's a pure fallacy. Musical(less accurate) speakers are more popular because you can get away with lesser electronics/cables and poor recordings are more tolerable.
Yes anlytical has a negative connotation. SO does calling Musical speakers less accurate. Most proponents of analytical spekers calimthat cables have no effect and amplifiers all sound the same. Thefeore its the measurement group who claim they"can get awy with generic claims and basci amplifiers." One "skeptic" says zip cord is just fine and all you need in an amplifier can be had for $1k.
Musical is a compliment IMO, it means the speaker is closer and faithful to,well, music. That`s why it`s emotionally involving(like live music is). Analytical to me suggests artificial,canned and psuedo detail and clinical this=amusical.There`s nothing "neutral" or natural about that.The more something can mimic real music the more'musical' it is.
I've always found that the best components are the most accurate ones, as measured by their ability to recreate something like an original performance.

"Analytical" components aren't always the most accurate in that respect. For example, a speaker that beams will likely sound more analytical, because it minimizes room reflections. But two channel stereo is missing the lateral reflections that are crucial to a sense of acoustical space. So a loudspeaker that illuminates the walls will if the speakers are a sufficient distance away sound less detailed and more spacious -- less analytical, but more accurate, by comparison to the original sound.

In the case of measurements, I'd distinguish between naive measurements and properly-interpreted ones. An example of a naive measurement would be the assumption that the frequency response of a speaker should be a horizontal line. Speakers that have that kind of response don't sound like the original performance with natural two channel stereo. They sound too bright. This effect has been known for years and is probably caused by the rolloff of high frequencies in the reverberant energy of a large acoustical space. Cardioid microphones and microphones that are too close don't pick up as much of this energy, and so the balance shifts and becomes too bright. It has to be compensated, either in the loudspeaker, or in the target curve of room EQ.

Again, the goal is an accurate reproduction of the performance. A flat speaker may measure well, but the total frequency response of the recording/reproducing chain will be wrong.
A good explanation Josh.

It seems to me that a neutral (flat frequency response)speaker would not necessarily sound neutral. Let's go back to ny glasses anology. The clear glasse4s would let through the full spectrum of light. Whatever was there would come through. The mere fact that it(a speaker) always sounds neutral would indicate some type of "coloration." If truly flat it would present very different sounds based on the music prented to it.