Speaker Placebo

[Beckman]

Short Version
1. Are there any speaker manufacturers that go for sound qulity over looks?
2. In your opinion, do you think that the majority of high end speakers are placebos?


Long Version:
1. Are there any speaker manufacturers out there that go for sound over looks? It seems like a lot of speakers in the $500+ price range spend as much on there cabinets as they do on the actual speakers. I know cabinets play an important role in how a speaker sounds, but expensive finishing details and wood vaneres do not.

2. If cables can act like a placebo, why can't a speakers brandname, or expensive vanere. Is it posssible that many audiophiles don't like the sound of JBL's, Infinity, Polk (I think all three sound good), just because sub consiously they think they are suppose to sound bad. It seems that high end speakers sound go because they are suppose to.

[Woochifer]

1. In the $500 range, most manufacturers aren't really concerned with fancy wood veneer finishes. If you're looking at floorstanding speakers, if anything the models available at that price point do not put enough attention to the cabinet because almost all of the ones I've heard have significant box resonance and other problems. You alleviate those problems with better cabinetry, whether that be through denser wood, closer tolerances in the joints, or more internal bracing; but, that kind of attention to detail on the cabinet construction will take you far outside the $500 range. Bookshelf speakers aren't as susceptible to those issues.

I think that manufacturers though have to devote some effort to at least making the speakers look somewhat presentable. Vinyl laminates can look pretty good, and the only trick there is making sure that the laminate is applied correctly.

If you're looking for a manufacturer that at least claims that they devote more resources to the drivers than the cabinet, look at Vandersteen. They claim that only 10% of the manufacturing cost goes to the cabinet, while it's more typically about half for conventional box speakers. Their model 1c costs about $700 and it's a floorstander with a baffleless mount for the drivers and the whole thing is wrapped in cloth with a minimum of cabinetry. The Magnepan MMG is a $550 panel speaker with just a cloth wrap on the outside.

2. Any kind of sighted listening in audio can have a placebo effect. Implementing some kind of simple bias control can minimize it. The difference though between any kind of placebo effect with speakers versus cabling or solid state components is that the differences between speakers can be significant and easily verified via measurement. In other words, more often than not, the differences that we hear with speakers is real and not imagined.

In other words, the difference between a set of $20 Walkman speakers and a $2,000 full range Paradigm Studio 100 is far more significant and audible than the difference between 16-gauge lamp cord and some exotic $10,000 speaker cable, or the difference between an entry level receiver and high end monoblock amps.

However, a caveat to this is that speakers are very influenced by room acoustics. A speaker audition in room A is not necessarily comparable to a listening with a different speaker in room B. Very often when we say that we like a certain speaker, we're really saying that we like the room where we heard that speaker.

Personally, I don't think JBL, Polk, or Infinity speakers are bad, and they do get written up and praised in high end magazines. The bigger barrier with those manufacturers is that they focus most of their product lines on the affordable market. A reference quality speaker like the B&W Nautilus or the Dynaudio Evidence Master can go after "perfection" without worrying about costs. Other speakers have to work within reasonable limitations. And once you get above a certain performance level, then you're really in state of diminishing returns where you need huge price jumps and/or compromises in room compatibility to eke out just a little extra performance.

Compared to solid state or digital components, no speakers can come close to measuring completely flat on frequency response (and it won't in real life anyway because of room acoustics). Therefore, every speaker that you hear has audible compromises built into their design. The perceptions about different speaker manufacturers are often based on how those compromises occur.

[RGA]

Short Version
1. Are there any speaker manufacturers that go for sound qulity over looks?
2. In your opinion, do you think that the majority of high end speakers are placebos?

1. Well sadly it is my opinion that most manufacturers make speakers to sell quickly to the masses. Throw some drivers in a cheap box(more important than the drivers by a MILE) fill it full of chape foam to damp down your cheap crappy box put in a bright tweeter to wow the unsuspecting(sounds good for the first little while - exagerate the bass because most younger buyers want bass(which really isn't), and make them slim so you can get 30 on a plane instead of 15(and of course fit 12 speakers beside eachother in the room instead of 4). Put on a nice imitation rosewood veneer and wow what a looker must sound real good too eh?

Woochifer correctly notes that all speakers make compromises. You have to find ones that are capable of suspending your disbelief that you're hearing something that resembles a real instrument or a singer etc. And people pay HUGE premiums for looks, name brand recognition and huge marketing campaigns with seductive measuring practices largely invented as apart of the marketing campiagns. Add to this the tertiary industry called "stereo magazines" and look out - guaranteed that whatever speaker you're interested in you WILL find a great review of it somewhere(except maybe Bose - and even then there is always CR).

The Audio Note's I recently bought are an example of a company that built what they felt offerred the best sound and care little about looks. You can buy a nicer finish at added cost but the speaker still looks old school and they don't even provide a front grill cloth anymore. It makes the sound worse so why make a buyer pay more. They look better without the cloth.

The trouble with making a speaker that doesn't look good is that you run the risk of not making the sale no matter how good it actually sounds. My dealer here sells B&W had the N801 and N802 http://www.bwspeakers.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/products.models/label/Model%20Nautilus%20802 a positively gorgous speaker from the largest High end manufacturer on the planet, well reviewed and it sounds damn good. Instead of carrying that easy money sure bet high end sale speaker they now carry the AN E/SEC and lower versions. a Speaker with only one 8inch woofer, one tweeter in a rectangle box and costs MORE money than the N801 - nearly DOUBLE the money. http://www.stereotimes.com/speak022403.shtm

The AN E SEC (and very likely the AN E D at $2000.00) is easily the better speaker - and guess what it produces considerably more bass output a more natural midrange and smoother top end than the real fancy looking and very heavy N801 or N802.

Yes looks have a lot to do with buying speakers - as does marketing, the push for new gadgets, marketing, reviews, marketing and did I mention marketing.

The Sugden A21a is a dumpy looking Integrated amp that has been selling year in and year out since 1989 and the same DESIGN it was from the late 1960s. It one the blind listening session in hi-fi choice, and even the Stereophile reviewer said it was the class leader(where was Stereophile in 1990 - took em 14 years to finally review it and it bests all the new stuff now it certainly beasts the stuff then.

All Class A 25 watts per channel and no remote and no exotic blue flashing lights and on screen video programming with multi-room and source. No it sells because it does something novel...it actually sounds good - unlike the mass produced garbage with big advertising dollars telling you convincing you it sounds good. Until the next year when you absolutely must upgrade because the new model is so much more wonderous.

2. High End does produce the best sounding stuff. It also produces total crap that is no better than mid-fi or a loud version of the telephone.

You have to find a point of satisfaction to fit your budget. It took me four years to replace my Wharfedales because most of the new stuff I was hearing was no better...some were better in given areas but they usually had some sort of bad habit. Listening the $4000.00 Energy 2.3 floorstander today and I shudder. I have heard that speaker a number of times - it plays loud it has high frequency extension in spades, well marketed looks fantastic - but the sound is highly tiring. My old $300.00CDN DM 302s as limited as they were in frequency extensions and Volume were IMO a more pleasing speaker. The Energy is a technically better speaker no doubt...but the 302 I could spend a few hours listening to...the energy might get me through one disc.(Maybe if it was a short disc).

[mtrycraft]

Short Version
1. Are there any speaker manufacturers that go for sound qulity over looks?
2. In your opinion, do you think that the majority of high end speakers are placebos?


Long Version:
1. Are there any speaker manufacturers out there that go for sound over looks? It seems like a lot of speakers in the $500+ price range spend as much on there cabinets as they do on the actual speakers. I know cabinets play an important role in how a speaker sounds, but expensive finishing details and wood vaneres do not.

2. If cables can act like a placebo, why can't a speakers brandname, or expensive vanere. Is it posssible that many audiophiles don't like the sound of JBL's, Infinity, Polk (I think all three sound good), just because sub consiously they think they are suppose to sound bad. It seems that high end speakers sound go because they are suppose to.


Since JBL's Dr Floyd Toole has spent his whole life researching speakers objectively, DBT, to excell, I'd say that he would have it in some of his speakers at least:

http://www.jblpro.com/pub/recording/lsr28p.pdf

Recently there were intervies of the technical issues in The Audio Critic and I believe in another mag.
The specs, correctly measured, do correlate with what you hear directly.

[Chuck]

1. Are there any speaker manufacturers that go for sound qulity over looks?

Short Answer: Yes.

Long Answer: At least a few of the companies are run by designers who have as much interest in sound quality as any audiophile or musician. Specific examples include Jeff Hipps, Roger Sanders, and Rick Beveridge, though there are surely many more. One may or may-not agree with what they personally consider to be "good sound," but there are at least a few designers that are interested in more than just cosmetics.


2. In your opinion, do you think that the majority of high end speakers are placebos?

There is no short answer to this one. Certainly when one is selling high-end loudspeakers, one will use suggestion to bias the potential customer. A good audio salesman can bias the audition to promote the product of his choosing. Back in the 70's there were high-end audio salons in every major city, and the larger salons carried multiple lines of then state-of-the-art products. It was pretty cool to be able to go to one place and compare several of the most expensive loudspeakers available. The difference between even the most exotic loudspeakers of that era were so dramatic that nobody could miss them, but it was always up to the salesman to tell the customer which of the differences was the "correct interpretation" or "good sound." One doesn't need tricks like slight volume level differences to sell one loudspeaker over another. The power of suggestion and the selection of the material used in the audition is more than enough to sway most any way the salesman chooses.

Add in the effects of a typical room and it is a give that what is heard in the audio store will not be what is heard at home. The difference may well be larger than the difference between competing loudspeakers.

Our biases affect perceptions in ways that cannot be controlled by some act of will or logic.