the paradox of accurate speakers

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!]

Well, all I can say is that Dr. Floyd Toole and many other Acoustic Engineers with University Degrees in Acoustic Physics and many with PHD's and many members of the AES would be disappointed to learn from this thread that they are completely wasting their time! "There is no such thing as an accurate speaker" and the "paradox" proves it.

If "accuracy may not be confirmed by experience" then any small company starting from a garage with some basic matrials and some cheap mass produced Northern European drivers stands an EQUAL chance of producing what many will describe as an "accurate" High-end audiophile speaker (provided they get the veneer and styling to exceptional standards, of course). Wait a minute - what I am describing is exactly what happens in audiophiledom! The little guys do this for many years and establish a name - and if succesful they get bought out by a big company and become part of their "house of brands". At this point they start to get shunned by audiophiles, no longer a boutique item or fashion statement, as they are now a part of big Harmon or Klipsch or other empire with suspicious engineering departments!

This whole thread about speakers sounding like anything some people want to buy or think they ought to sound like or think of as accurate and then this being accepted as "accuracy" is nonsense.

Most of speaker design is industrial design anyway => the look is FAR more important than the sound to most people who have to accept this item clearly on display in their living room. And that includes those who want something specifically big and ugly - like having TWO of 2001 Space Odyssey Obelisks in your room - that you only wonder what other shortcomings these speakers are meant to address psychologically?

I call this "the symbolism of big tall speakers" and it is as as much a paradox of speaker selection as accuracy ;-)