the paradox of accurate speakers

PBB, what's wrong with blind men -- and women let's not forget -- walking with a cane in downtown traffic. . I do it even in New York [chuckles!]? . . . and how does the admittedly quaint imagery relate to speaker design?

Cheese, who said anything about cheese?

Please enlighten me than Pbb. What is accuracy? Are you talking about speaker laboratory measurements? You can measure a wine's viscosity and pH levels, but that tells you nothing about the taste.

I'm from the school that if two 'accurate' (meaning they measure the same) speakers sound different, then we are measuring the wrong thing. I believe the most accurate measuring devices are located on the side of the human head.

You can call perceived accuracy (laboratory measurements) accuracy if you wish, that is your perogative. If the laboratory measurements represented 'real accuracy', than two speakers that measure the same would sound the same, yet this is not the case. So if you objectivist insist that measurements equal accuracy, then I would suggest that you find the right thing to measure, because you haven't yet.

Cheers,
John

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.