the paradox of accurate speakers

If you've ever done recording, you'll notice how each mic sounds different. Even the same mic will differ if you move it around.

Most of us latch onto a area of the frequency spectrum that we value above all others. For me, it's the upper mids, where soprano and trumpets reside. I play trumpet and love female singers. I'll notice an inaccuracy in that range immeditately. OTOH, I've lived for decades without true bass extension. I love good bass, but until recently I didn't care enough to pay for it. Also, many of the speakers that had the bass I liked sacrificed the mids that I value more. (The Vienna Acoustic Beethovan Baby Grands satisfy me totally, in my relatively small listening room).

Anyway, most people, including audiophiles, don't really like "accurate" speakers and will adjust their room to bring into balance the things that they prefer to hear, not to extend the "accurate" sound.

Dave

Pbb, maybe all the empirically verifiable statistics one can gather about any given phenomena still have to be perceived through our individually variable sensory inputs and therein lies the inability of statistical data to accurately describe a given individuals perception of reality. A speaker may measure absolutely flat in a given acoustic environment, but depending on volume level, hearing acuity or loss, and a host of other factors, one might find it deviating from one's ideal of "accuracy." I think John's analogy to food is apt, he's simply saying we all experience things differently. One could do a spectrographic analysis of all the chemical compunds in a given sample of ice cream, but would that tell how it tastes? That's not an entirely appropriate analogy, but you know what I mean. Statistical analysis is a useful tool for design of an item to be used in the service of art, but it's hardly an objective description of that tool's total performance. Jeez, scientists have been trying for decades to unravel the mysteries of the Stadivari and Guarneri violins. All the engineering drawings, wood analysis, varnish spectrographs, and frequency analysis have only left us scratching our heads at why they sound so wonderful

from what i understand, the term accuracy is independent of experience. objective data is furnished, criteria is devised and judgments ensue.

when experience speakers and stereo systems, those which are designated accuracy may be differntiated by some observable sonic characteristic(s).

so, a dichotomy may exist when speakers which are deemed accurate, by definition, based upon "scientific" evidence,
may be perceived as inaccurate.

i don't think this is a problem. it makes sense to establish definitions or criteria of accuracy. such criteria can be confirmed by measurements.

the fact that accuracy may not be confirmed by experience does not invalidate the concept.

> if 2 speakers are considered "accurate", but when compared sound "different" from each other, how can they be considered accurate ? <

No 2 speakers are ever accurate, therefore, they will both sound the same, that is, inaccurate. :-)

I'll see your Zen and raise you 5.

There are things to measure that we don't even know about yet. Even with what we can measure now, if there were 2 speakers and one measured more accurate but the other sounded better to me, I would choose the better sounder.

"the fact that accuracy may not be confirmed by experience does not invalidate the concept. "
Ah yes of course, like there was once upon a time conceptual art. . . MRT's launching now 'Conceptual Audiophilia". . . [Yawn!]