Analytical or Musical Which way to go?

Drew, I agree. However, many audiophiles dislike tone controls. This I think is a shame because while they shouldn't be, recordings are all over the place, with some so hot that they're virtually unlistenable on a good system.

From a speaker manufacturer's perspective, the speaker has to sound good *as is,* because that's how it's demoed and that's how most people will judge it. Some manufacturers go for flat, some go for a downtilt, most have poor dispersion in the highs and, unfortunately, most records are mixed to speakers that have poor dispersion in the highs. Now that digital EQ is readily available, I don't think it much matters. Polar response is more important, because that can't be fixed with equalization.

You really need some of both for long term satisfaction.

The debate rages on. What are we to do? Designing a spealer that measures well in all areas shoulkd be the goal manufacturer.

Uh, no. The goal should be to invoke in the listener as much of the thrill and emotional response to live music as possible. Measurements are just one means to the end, as are many others including subjective listening by people who are very familiar with what live music sounds like.

The few standard measurements that show up in test reports are nowhere near sufficient to build a speaker to. The one exception may be YG, which uses over 150 different tests and measurements. If you get that granular you *may* be able to go mostly by measurements to reach your goal. But you have to have previously established that satisfying all those measurements does in fact reach the real goal of evoking the proper listener response.

And speaking of measurements, are you talking in-room or anechoic? If anechoic, you can definitely come up with a speaker that measures well but has peaks and suckouts in-room. And if in-room, which room? Or do you do an average of several different room sizes and shapes with different amounts of furniture, carpet, and wall hangings?

Personally, I find that high resolution is vital for emotional musical involvement, but high resolution is also a two-edged sword. It can give you the little details of venue acoustics, inner detail, the complete formation and decay of notes, the artists' movements and breathing, individual characteristics of instruments and voices that bring the performance alive and connect you with the performers. It can also reveal flaws in the recording chain which--rather than enhancing the musical experience--harshly remind you that you're listening to a reproduction.

Getting the one kind of resolution without the other is the tricky part. That's why ultimately there has to be a subjective listening and voicing to balance musical resolution against anti-musical artifacts.

What if the choice was accurate vs. euphonic? Same parameters. Different semantics.

05-28-12: Khrys
What if the choice was accurate vs. euphonic? Same parameters. Different semantics.

I don't agree. "Analytical" is not synonymous with "accurate", nor is "musical" with "euphonic." One of the problems with measurements is they were only designed to measure sound, whereas musical sound is a subset with a more extensive and stringent set of requirements that include transient response, intermodulation distortion, panel resonances, power response, amplitude delineation, timing and pitch accuracy, the ability to handle complex polyphonies, and so on.

Meeting all the tests of test tones and tone bursts may determine that a speaker is "accurate," but doesn't totally address if it's musically accurate. A good example is that I never see tests for amplitude delineation, yet it's the most essential element in musical expression, nuanced dynamics, and the blending of an ensemble.