Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound Options

[solive]

I posted a new blog posting that summarizes some recent experimental evidence where I tested a group of teenagers' preferences in loudspeakers and MP3 versus CD music formats. This is just the beginning of a more thorough study, so the results are very preliminary. Still I thought it would be interesting to get some feedback.

I could find no evidence that these high school students preferred the "sizzling sounds of MP3" over higher quality lossless formats, as reported by Jonathan Berger. I also found they preferred the most accurate, neutral loudspeakers when given the opportunity to hear and compare them with something less accurate and neutral.

These results are not too surprising to me, but the media seems to have been reporting a different story over the past year.


Cheers
Sean
Audio Musings

[2Bdecided]

I bet the silent majority of readers with no particular axe to grind are thinking that testing stereo speakers in mono is a strange thing to do.

I've read the justifications. I don't buy them. I can see how on-axis mono listening can give more repeatable results where differences are more easily audible - but maybe that's another way of saying that normal stereo listening depends far more on the interaction between the speakers and the room.

Like it or not, most of us are stuck with interaction between our speakers and our listening rooms. Obviously it would complicate things, but I think many people are interested in which speakers sound best in the locations where the speakers look+fit best in their living room. Other people are interested in which speakers sound best given the opportunity to place the speakers at the optimum location for that pair of speakers. Other people are interested in creating the best listening room, placing the speakers optimally, and getting the best sound.

These are harder questions to answer, and I don't want to make the best the enemy of the good, but the concerns are real.

I'm sure Sean can envisage a Mark II speaker switcher room with a speaker switcher in each corner to deliver stereo tests. How much space have you got Sean?

Cheers,
David.

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

I bet the silent majority of readers with no particular axe to grind are thinking that testing stereo speakers in mono is a strange thing to do.

No doubt.

I've read the justifications. I don't buy them.

I presume that is related to what you know and don't know about speakers.

While I pesonally have only built a few dozen speakers that were one-offofjects, for the past 30 or more years I've hung pretty closely with a number of people whose accomplisments with respect to speakers are virtually unknown in the world of high end audio, but who people like Sean know eactly about. I'm talking about people who have presented many important AES conference papers and even a few JAES articles. People like Clark and Geddes. I've also hung with people who each have designed complete audio systems that have sold in the 100,000s. People who have contributed indirectly to Sean's employer's bottom line.

I'm not going to claim that I've a speaker expert because these people are my friends, but these people don't work in a vacuum. They each have something like "Kitchen Cabinets" where they present their ideas and look for feedback from people whose opinions they value. I've been part of those discussions and experiments for decades.

I see the current discussion in that context. I so strongly disagree with much that has been said lately about evaluating speakers that I'm tempted to start a thread called "Is there such a thing as a center channel speaker". The point being that While we talk about speakers as being center channel speakers and main speakers and surround and ambience speakers, those are more terms of art and merchandising and conveniece than technical definitions or requirements.

For example, one of the most satisfying and revealing systems for listening to stereo recordings that I know of is nominally a surround system with 9 identical nearly full-range speakers and 2 subwoofers with gargantuan bass extension and dynamic range. Its owner who is merely an AES Fellow, obviously doesn't believe that a no-compromise audio system needs to have speakers whose design is different for the various roles, other than subwoofers. He's hardly unique. Indeed, he's following the same game plan as Sean.

I can see how on-axis mono listening can give more repeatable results where differences are more easily audible - but maybe that's another way of saying that normal stereo listening depends far more on the interaction between the speakers and the room.

I would start from this point. The ideal speaker would be a straight wire that converts electrical signals to sound. In fact we know that is naive. In broad terms, speakers have 2 outputs - their on-axis response and their off-axis response. There is very little evidence that the requirements for on-axis and off-axis response vary with the number of channels given that the final system response is appropriate. There's no doubt that it is less confusing to compare speakers the fewer channels that are active down to no more than two and perhaps one.

Like it or not, most of us are stuck with interaction between our speakers and our listening rooms.

Only in a world where speakers are locked into pre-ordained posistions and orientations and there is no such thing as equalization and adjustment of individual channel levels.

Obviously it would complicate things, but I think many people are interested in which speakers sound best in the locations where the speakers look+fit best in their living room.

Rasing the question of how does one make sound quality as independent as possible from bad choices of location in the room.

Other people are interested in which speakers sound best given the opportunity to place the speakers at the optimum location for that pair of speakers. Other people are interested in creating the best listening room, placing the speakers optimally, and getting the best sound.

The last approach can really work. I would go so far as to say that if you aren't willing to make the room the servant of the speaker systems, you aren't really trying. Dilentantes need not apply.

[southisup]

I so strongly disagree with much that has been said lately about evaluating speakers that I'm tempted to start a thread called "Is there such a thing as a center channel speaker". The point being that While we talk about speakers as being center channel speakers and main speakers and surround and ambience speakers, those are more terms of art and merchandising and conveniece than technical definitions or requirements.

For example, one of the most satisfying and revealing systems for listening to stereo recordings that I know of is nominally a surround system with 9 identical nearly full-range speakers and 2 subwoofers with gargantuan bass extension and dynamic range. Its owner who is merely an AES Fellow, obviously doesn't believe that a no-compromise audio system needs to have speakers whose design is different for the various roles, other than subwoofers. He's hardly unique. Indeed, he's following the same game plan as Sean.

Thank you Arnold. This clarifies things for me a great deal.