Zu Druid questions

Kehut and Macrojack, glad to see we can still be friends even though if we don't eat the same vegetables!

Flaudio wrote something that I'd like to comment on:

"My point is that you cant draw subjective results from objective data. In other words, you cant say that product "X" sounds "Y" because of "Z"."

My question is, how can product "X" have sound "Y" without there being a cause, a "Z"?

Now I can understand how your experience with the Druids seems to support the position that measurements are useless. The measurements say one thing, and the reality you observed is something else - and you have chosen to trust your ears, not the graph! Good for you! But, maybe the conclusion you arrived at regarding objective measurements is off by a few degrees. There's another way to look at it: The measurements are showing too small of a piece of the puzzle to draw reliable conclusions from.

When there's a discrepancy between an accurate measurement and observed reality, the meaurement is either inadequate or irrelevant. You might want to go back and re-read the post by analytical chemist and Zu druid owner Ait. Among other things, he points out that a synthesis of seemingly unrelated data can give a useful (though imperfect) understanding of what's going on. [I grasp at frequency response and impedance curves, allusions to muffler technology, and subjective impressions (including my own) in trying to understand the Druids' bass system.]

With loudspeaker systems, the causes of perception are particularly likely to be complex and/or elusive. I can go into detail as to why if you would like. But given enough relevant pieces of the puzzle in my opinion it is possible to assemble a useful understanding of what's going on - what "Z" is.

Duke

Hey Jack...Jack!!! Wait!!! I need a vacation too!!

Duke -

I see where you are coming from. I do. It really depends on what "Y" is. For example, you could say that speaker "X" sounds "lean" because "it only has a 6" woofer and cant play low frequencies well".....that would be a valid statement and could be shown with graphs and tests (as well as just listening to the thing).

BUT if you change the statement to say something like "speaker "X" sounds "amazing" because of "Z", you throw any chance of explanation due to measurements out the window....because regardless of what any tests or graphs might show, the statement for the listener stands true....they felt that it sounded "amazing".

So while I agree that certain aspects of a speaker's performance can be generalized by looking at quantified data, those generalizations can easily be rendered moot by a listener's personal preference and opinion. My opinion that the Druid is a fantastic speaker that plays music beautifully cannot be overturned by a test result or a FR graph. So by your account, those measurements are inadequate or irrelevant. I would say irrelevant for sure.

So while you can explain with science why a speaker exhibits certain sonic characteristics in a given situation, you really cannot explain why one person prefers that sound, and another doesnt. Its a matter of personal taste....tubes vs. SS, electrostats vs. cones, digital vs. analog, etc...Zu vs. Usher...etc....thats the way it has always been, and always will be...and its what makes the industry so dynamic and alive. :)

F1audio, thanks for taking the time to reply. And I certainly agree that the rich variety of loudspeakers is much of what makes the industry so exciting. There's a wide variety of highly capable designers taking vastly different approaches - and perhaps I get overly fascinated by that. And often it is small companies - like Zu - whose innovations are pushing the boundaries.

I don't claim that measurements can reliably predict listener preference among dissimilar systems (electrostats vs horns would be an example), but that doesn't render them useless as an evaluation tool for audiophiles.

Take for instance the subjective assessment "speaker X sounds amazing!". That "amazing" can be expressed with greater precision: Voices and instruments sound real; you can close your eyes and hear the exact location of each instrument; you get the feeling of actually being in a concert hall; you can hear all the tiniest details even at low volume levels; the music conveys emotion and makes you want to dance; the bass hits you like Mike Tyson; and/or you can listen all day long and never get tired of it (perhaps dependent on how long you can stay in the ring with Mike!). Each of these "amazing" characteristics can be traced to something that the speaker is doing right, and it's doing it right because of its design.

"Just trust your ears" is great in theory, but what if the only audio stores you have reasonable access to are Best Buy and Circuit City? You'll have to rely on something other than your ears to decide which speakers are worth a major trip to audition, or are worth the risk of buying unheard. Reviews can be helpful of course, but once you're to that stage the more knowledge you have the better choices you're likely to make.

So the simplified version of my theory is this: If you know what qualities matter the most to you, and if you know what type of design is likely to produce those qualities and/or what measurements indicate their presence, then you can make better choices of which speakers are worth the trouble to audition and/or risk of buying without an audition (which is the circumstantial reality for many people).

In my opinion as brick-and-mortar stores become more of a rarity, "know thyself" and "know something about speaker design" are likely to become more important to the person embarking on his or her Great Loudspeaker Quest.

Duke