Desirability of flat FR in speaker design???

[terry j]

hi everybody,

on another forum a discussion has started on 'accuracy vs personal taste'. It came about because I disagreed with someones statement that 'it's how it sounds to you that matters', I only really disagreed to the degree that a statement like that opens the door for scoundrels and wacky theories, both of which abound in hi fi.

I stated that personal taste is definately a factor, two different systems with the 'same' FR can sound totally different, yet surely as a starting point a flat speaker is necessary in a high end system?

I must say I was stunned, it has almost become 'forget measurements, trust your ears'. It is probably not that simple, but it would certyainly be true to say that very few agree that a flat FR from the speaker is desirable, or at least needed.

For the sake of simplicity I didn't get into house curves etc etc, but it got me wondering. What I want to know is, do 'audiophiles' ( what a snobby sounding word) believe that a flat FR is desirable in a speaker? In other words, I made the assumption that, like me, people into stereo would believe that a flat ( also read even ) FR is the hallmark of a well designed speaker, and a starting point ( in whatever price bracket you can afford ) for auditioning. Perhaps I was stunned because in fact very few agree with me and I am in the minority.

The attitude almost seems to be that a 'flat' FR would be detrimental to their sound! I just can't agree with that, but am I an 'only one'?

I'm not trying to defend my territory or convert others or even say the other side is wrong, I'm almost doing a survey if you will. Of course if you want to add your feelings on the qyestion then by all means do so.

As I say, I'm leaving out the complexities of house curves etc etc

lots of love

terry

[Otto]

Personally, I would agree that a reasonably flat frequency response is a good starting point. If there are big peaks and valleys that accentuate and detract from the original recording, there's something wrong. Of course, and it seems like you're stating this, a flat FR doesn't tell the whole story. There are so many other factors that go into getting a sound that's pleasing to you, that you can't rely solely on FR.

You might ask them what their "limits" on FR deviations would be. Would they accept flat +/- 3d B? +/-10 dB? 20 dB?

[geekwithfamily]

Everyone that's willing to spend more than $500 on a pair of speakers better consider all of the measurements that they might publish in Stereophile in a loudspeaker review. Stereophile reviews are a great balance between the subjective impressions of the main reviews and John Atkinson's measurement sidebar, where he comments, "I can see why the reviewer mentioned this coloration because of this peak or long decay or whatever…"

I never really understood measurements until I subscribed to the Audio Perfectionist Journal by Richard Hardesty and Shane Buettner. Mr. Hardesty explains all the measurements and their varying importance but also how to listen critically and hear beyond the measurements for each component in your system.

Flat or on target measurements can tell you whether you are fooling yourself at a dealer by enjoying a short term coloration at a demo that may be fatiguing when you get the kit home.

Last month I attended a talk by Richard Vandersteen at a dealer and he explained his philosophy of a good speaker. Your loudspeaker needs to be time and phase correct in addition to a flat frequency response to pass an accurate waveform from your amp. A time/phase coherent speaker is defined by: acoustically centered drivers, one driver per frequency range and first order crossovers connected to the drivers in phase (meaning when the tweeter pushes the woofer pushes). Any deviation from these parameters and you have a lesser speaker. Get ready for colorations, smearing and tilted timbre that will not do justice to the original recording.

Only three current manufacturers produce time coherent loudspeakers: Vandersteen, Thiel and Quad ESLs. I have Vandersteen 1c's so I may be biased because I've spent money, but I think they're the best speaker for under $1000. I've never enjoyed my music more. The speakers' measurement make me feel secure and let me enjoy the music.

Mr. Vandersteen also taked about the disappearance of tone controls on our amplification systems and that loudspeakers and cabling have taken their place. Many speakers that can seduce a buyer at the dealer have a frequency response similar in shape to the inverted arc I set my boom box's 5 band equalizer to when I was twelve. The boost in the lows and highs would make badly recorded (too loud and midrange only) albums sound better.

It's hilarious that audiophiles will buy the most accurate and expensive sources and amplification only to have the signal mangled by a colored loudspeaker at the end. This is where your golden ear decides for you.

So yeah, flat frequency response is paramount along with spectral decays and step responses.

"Whatever sounds good to you" is a cop-out. Any experts on these forums should give their expert advice to raise our signal above the noise.

[terry j]

thanks guys

I wasn't going to reply until a few more responded, but looks like quite a few views with not many responses! Early days yet tho.

Otto, thanks for your input, have enjoyed your tips on using REW to measure speakers. Thats right up my alley too.

Enjoyed your writeup Geeky, it is exactly what I've always thought. Yeah, that phrase is a cop out, hides a multitude of sins doesn't it.

The speaker manufacturer has absolutely no idea of where the unit may ultimately end up, so has got no choice other than to make it flat. That doesn't mean we can't have house curves, or that flat in the home is enjoyable or not enjoyable or whatever. None of that is the manufacturers responsibility. If we can't set it right in the home then hopefully you've bought from a dealer willing to help and knows what they are doing.

What gets me shaking my head in disbelief is that these guys will spend thousands on a DAC for crying out loud, 'because it's important to extract every last bit of info from the disc' and then have an attitude like that about speakers??? huhhh???

Imagine buying an amp with a 10 db hump in the midrange! And thinking thats OK!

What also has me in a state of disbelief is that I'm arguing for a flat well designed speaker on a hi fi forum - go figure.

I'm tinkering with a DEQX, amazing. It's a bit like the TAct if you've never heard of it. I'd always assumed that in the hi fi crowd, the only barrier on the desirability of a unit like that was the cost. But it looks like to most it wouldn't even be considered. Yet, for say 80% of the cost of a DEQX some people will buy a preamp that doesn't have one fiftieth of the capability of the deqx.

Guess it takes all types.

see ya

[drf]

I might be a little simplistic when it comes to this sort of thing, but my opinion is that an eq is only there to help with the FR and to enhance the sound, not to be a substitute for bad speaker response. E.G say your speakers physically can't reproduce 2KHz due to bad crossovers and or bad allignment, then no amount of Eq'ing will bring that freq' back. Therefore I assume that a flat reponse is essential, I also say an eq is essential because sometimes the engineer who works on a cd has "different" taste in tone than the home listener.

Cheers,

Dr F

[terry j]

Mr Geek, quick question. I've looked at the two 'free' issues of the audio perfectionist, and liked very much what I read.

You've said you subscribe, in your opinion is it an opngoing worthwhile magazine??

DRF, yeah, but we'd hope a speaker designer at least got the basics right?? Maybe not in every case tho..ouch.

[geekwithfamily]

Terry, you can call me Kyle. Mr. Geek is so formal.

I subscribed to the first twelve issues of the Journal. Its advice and education led me to the system I have now (see my sig for the affordable hi-fi). Each issue focuses on a different aspect of a high quality hi-fi and home theater system.

The journal got me back into vinyl and turntables, made me finally realize the benefits of separates, explained all the measurement charts and how to equate them to speaker performance, how to enjoy the best of home theater and hi-fi in the same system, and made me brave enough to save a ton of money buying used components. The journal is really responsible for my deep interest in this hobby.

The only reason I didn't renew my subscription for the next run was because it wasn't in my tight home budget anymore. I hope to subscribe again soon and catch up on the back issues I'm missing.

The only problem I ever had with the journal is the need to buy a new component after the APJ has covered the category. The loudspeaker issues came out, I bought my Vandersteens, pre-amp issue = Rogue 66 then 99, amp issue = Anthem MCA-2 stereo amp. So really a financial problem but I have a system I love and am very satisfied with.

[SteveCallas]

It comes down to accuracy vs personal taste. Do you want the most accurate reproduction or the one that sounds best to you? Then what do you say about a case where speaker A has a flatter FR than B, but B has less distortion, better transient response, better imaging, better off axis performance, and a bigger soundstage.....which is the more accurate speaker now? It becomes gray area. Rather than argue about such things, I say just get the ones that sound best.

[terry j]

thanks Steve for jumping in,
looks like this issue is not that impoortant, 90 or so views, 1/2 dozen answers only.

Funny, this being in the forum which has room eq I would have thought that an accurate response was more important here than elsewhere but, just goes to show, never assume!

Steve, I understand what you're saying, my only respose would be that a 'better' designer (ie one who could haVE GOTTEN A FLATTER RESPONSE FROM THIS HYPOTHETICAL CHOICE OF DRIVERS) sorry about that, hate it when that happens!, a better designer can design a better network - in this case flatter - will give better imaging, better off axis performance,and a bigger soundstage.

All I was saying was surely, the mark of a good designer is one that can get as flat a response as possible.

So looks like this thread's interest has petered out, but thats ok cause as I said it was kind of a survey. Must say that I'm suprised at the relatively low importance attached to it

lots of love

terry

[JCD]

I'll jump in with my opinion..

I think a flat frequency response (ffr) is a desirable attribute. It's one of many and one of the more important ones imo. To me, it's (among others) what the artist/recording engineer meant for us to hear.

I think Steve makes an excellent point in that if a ffr is at the expense of extra distortion, poor imaging, etc, it may not be worth it.

However, all that being said, taste is king. If someone likes a fat bass signal, more power to them. It's not my preference, but who am I to tell someone what they like or don't like.

JCD