# What common measurement indicates the best-sounding speakers?



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

This poll is just for fun, not the result of any in-depth study, just an observation I made recently while looking at measurement plots from different speakers I have evaluated over the last couple of years. I thought it might be fun to pose that observation in the form of a question - this poll - to see if others have had the same experience or can make an _educated guess_ as to what it was. Here is the question.

*What single speaker measurement best indicates speakers that will sound Natural, Refined, Clear, and Transparent?*

Possible Answers:

Frequency Response - flat.
Frequency Response - smooth, not flat, but the changes in the response curve are gradual when viewed with 12th-octave smoothing.
Distortion - especially low mid-frequency distortion.
Distortion - especially low high-frequency distortion.
Impulse Response - close to ideal impulse shape.
Impedance vs. Frequency - minimum variation across frequency range.
Phase Response - close to linear phase.
Please take the poll, and then post your reasons for choosing that answer.

To be clear, in this case I am not talking about soundstage and imaging (SS&I), like I usually rant about, just the above-mentioned qualities, which might or might not be observed along with good SS&I.

And, as previously stated, it is just an observation, and someone else might be able to prove it wrong or prove there is a better answer. This is based on my best judgment with the data at hand.

In a week or two, depending on responses and interest, I will post my answer with some curves showing what I mean. I will probably NOT tell what speakers the curves belong to, because a number of them come from the HTS evaluations in which we promised not to rank models. Those who followed those evaluations closely will probably be able to guess what some of the most "preferred" models were. But NO TELLING!

Have fun!


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

The editing is done and the poll is ready to go.:bigsmile:


----------



## nova (Apr 30, 2006)

Well, this should be an interesting poll. Look forward to seeing your observations. Until then, I'll have to go with the smooth frequency response.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Ya, I would have to go with smooth as well however a question I have is is this at the speaker or the in room response? I personally like a little boost in the high mids and again at around 40Hz for music listening particularly when at lower volumes.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Good question. Unfortunately, answering it might give away too much info (or it might not), so I must refrain from answering. Sorry.:whistling:


----------



## Peter Loeser (Aug 11, 2012)

Tough one. I voted flat FR, not knowing exactly how "not flat" the "smooth" option would be. I agree with the others that an overall smooth graph can sound just as good as a flat one, but I tend to notice more when the overall sound is unbalanced, as opposed to adjacent ranges being mismatched... if that makes any sense.

Low distortion in the low high frequency range and ideal impulse response would follow very closely behind for me.

I would prioritize the options given like this:

1. Frequency Response - flat
2. Frequency Response - smooth
3. Distortion - especially low high-frequency distortion
4. Impulse Response - close to ideal impulse shape
5. Distortion - especially low mid-frequency distortion
6. Phase Response - close to linear phase
7. Impedance vs. Frequency - minimum variation across frequency range


----------



## Tonto (Jun 30, 2007)

I went with the FR smooth, not flat. Flat FR's tend to sound bland to me.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

I really want it to be smooth, since I try to manually EQ things that way if need be. I voted however for distortion low-mid. Iirc, I read a study about perception of loudness equating to quality even if it has distortion present. Kinda like why we sometimes turn it to 11!!!!! Lol


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Good answers. The poll has 12 responses so far, excellent. Hope for a bunch more.


----------



## istvan (Jul 5, 2013)

Incorrect phases responses lead to all the above. Impulse shape is also correct because its the other side of phase response.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

You made it tough, Wayne, not putting all of the above or none of the above as options. I went with impulse response because it reflects parts of most of the others. Second would be distortion for me.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

I expected that would be your answer, Leonard, remembering how you would study those impulse response plots when we were evaluating speakers at Sonnie's place.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

16 responses. Not bad. We will give it a few more days.


----------



## Locoweed (Aug 5, 2014)

None of the above. Speaker sound is mostly subjective + issues from the environment complicating the matter.


----------



## istvan (Jul 5, 2013)

Locoweed said:


> None of the above. Speaker sound is mostly subjective + issues from the environment complicating the matter.


Wow - this has become a philosophical discussion. lddude:


----------



## istvan (Jul 5, 2013)

“Whoever wants music instead of noise, joy instead of pleasure, soul instead of gold, creative work instead of business, passion instead of foolery, finds no home in this trivial world of ours.”

― Hermann Hesse


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Locoweed said:


> None of the above. Speaker sound is mostly subjective + issues from the environment complicating the matter.


Of course this is true, but there are some common themes. Pretty safe bet that no one would like a speaker with high levels of distortion, for instance. I tried to be fairly specific in the question to the poll, using the descriptors _natural, refined, clear,_ and _transparent._ While there may be exceptions, I find it hard to believe there are many people who would like speakers that are the opposite of those descriptors. And yet I must agree, it is highly subjective.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

Of course, much of this industry is subjective. That may be sufficient for many, but most of the users here came because of an interest in learning how to measure performance and how to optimize a room to get the most out of the system and environment. You can guess and play with thing in a completely subjective manner, but when you have something objective to go on you can make much more progress.

For instance, if you want to decide on a crossover frequency, you could maybe get to the best option subjectively, but it is much more likely that you would get there, and much more quickly, by measuring response.


----------



## Locoweed (Aug 5, 2014)

I'm sure you are right for the younger generation. I looked at the documentation for measuring using REW. I'm not sure how long it would take this old dog to learn that stuff. IMHO, measuring is a aid to get to where you want. My preferences may not line up with the goals many seek by measurement.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Your response is much appreciated. It reminds us that for some, measurements will always be of minor importance if any at all, that trusting their ears is their chosen tool. Of course that is perfectly valid.


----------



## Locoweed (Aug 5, 2014)

Thank you for taking it the right way. I understand the folks that like to tweak their systems & the younger generations fascination with electronics. I'm a tweaker also, but my approach is different. My preferences in my systems sound change over time & with different types of music. With the modern AVR's, there are so many adjustments available & the interactions with each other make possible things that were not available in the past.

Age is making it's presence known in my hearing, but I am still able to enjoy music. Our ears are our window to the world of sound. There is a fair amount variation in peoples hearing & preferences. Getting a sound system to sound the way we want is the goal of many of us. For me, measurement is a tool, but striving for particular measurements is not important. The end result of a sound system that is pleasing to me is what is important.

Steps off from soap box.


----------



## phillihp23 (Mar 14, 2012)

Locoweed said:


> Thank you for taking it the right way. I understand the folks that like to tweak their systems & the younger generations fascination with electronics. I'm a tweaker also, but my approach is different. My preferences in my systems sound change over time & with different types of music. With the modern AVR's, there are so many adjustments available & the interactions with each other make possible things that were not available in the past.
> 
> Age is making it's presence known in my hearing, but I am still able to enjoy music. Our ears are our window to the world of sound. There is a fair amount variation in peoples hearing & preferences. Getting a sound system to sound the way we want is the goal of many of us. For me, measurement is a tool, but striving for particular measurements is not important. The end result of a sound system that is pleasing to me is what is important.
> 
> Steps off from soap box.


+1 ^


----------



## tesseract (Aug 9, 2010)

Impulse Response, primarily, followed closely by Phase Response.

Most speakers are pretty flat, when frequency is measured anechoically. If they are not, then the two previous metrics (impulse & phase) are probably not going to be optimal, either.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

I voted for impulse response because one can get almost of all the other test results by this one single measurement. The Only thing it can't get you is frequency response as you move off center, that and impedance /phase response.


----------



## ilok (Jul 20, 2013)

Dispersion, but other than that, I found the subjective much more useful.


----------



## Serenity Now (Mar 28, 2014)

I'd vote for smooth frequency resonse in 12th octave and then its physical dimensions. A heavy speaker (well braced and without respnance) with a narrow baffle is key for good imaging/transparency IMO.


----------

