Comments on: Is the 'I can't hear the difference' myth killing the speaker business?

Don't be so sure you "can't hear the difference" between the cheap stuff and high end speakers.

[john55440]

Worse yet, are the unfortunate people who confine themselves to listening to compressed digital music, on an MP3 player. They are missing a *lot*.

I'm no audiophile, but it's (lossless) CDs and big floor speakers for me.

[ladiesmanwc]

I dunno. I've tried myself many times. Once you get above "complete crap", I honestly can't tell a difference. Some speakers do sound DIFFERENT, although it's near impossible for me to figure out which one is actually BETTER. I just go for the one I like better.

More so, beyond speakers, I really don't see the value in huge stereo systems or crazy sound cards in computers. A mp3 sound just as good as a CD, to me.

[acabtp]

An MP3 sounds just as good as a CD to you because you're listening on poor speakers. On something which can accurately reproduce the intended signal coming from a compressed (MP3) or lossless/uncompressed (CD) source, the difference is VERY clear... even with MP3s recorded at relatively high bit rates above 192 kbps. What you're saying is exactly the kind of attitude that Steve's lamenting having taken over the mainstream speaker sales area.

[batman823]

I agree with the both of you, but also think it's important to note the difference.

When I listen to Floyd, Clapton and Miller, I want the best sound I can get. So for these things, acabtp is correct.

On the other hand... If I'm jogging and listening to 'random rock band' or the "R" word, then it really doesn't matter how good the source is.

Simply enough, when the audio content isn't impressive enough to the listener, then what's the point of having a high-end, blow-out system? But for action movies and timeless music, I want the good stuff because that matters and truly makes a difference in the quality.

[demner]

The author is missing the point a bit. If you compare two speakers side-by-side, I totally agree that the difference is usually totally obvious (amazing actually). But if you are at home listening to music, it doesn't really matter that much, especially if it's background to other entertainment.

[Rick805]

I think you've stumbled onto something. Many people don't really listen to music but rather use it as sonic wall paper. As much as people always profess to love music, very few people really spend time just sitting and listening to music. For those of us who really do love music and listen to it at concerts and at home the difference is worth paying for. For those who don't spend time really listening, they are missing a whole other level of enjoyment.

[steinwaytony]

It's never ceased to amaze me, living in New York City, how many people make simultaneous use of $400 iPods and free stock headphones.

[batman823]

I tend to enjoy the silly sight of somebody walking around/jogging with $150 Bose headphones on their head that are larger than industrial hearing protection earmuffs. It's just an MP3, but at least it's not BT stuf

[Wuzzard]

This is so wrong! When I first bought a home theater system I fell for the audiophile propoganda and bought all the expensive speakers, wiring receivers, etc, and shunned the built in speakers of the television. It did sound different, and it was sometimes better in my opinion than plain-vanilla stereo. However, it was alway such a pain to configure as every program sounded horrible on the settings used by the last program. I was always fiddling and never happy. No one else in my family to figure it out. I got to hating all things compentized. There was so much 'bad' in the design of these things it just was not worth it. A year ago I tossed out all that crap, purchased a new TV (needed to upgrade it anyway), and am using just the built-in stereo speakers, no receiver and have never been happier. Audio technology just sucks.

[mitchhellman]

The problem with going to a high-end audio store is that the salespeople generally work on commission or get some sort of incentive for selling certain brands/models. It's pretty easy to rig a demo so that the speakers they don't want you to buy sound like crap. Here are a couple of tips for trying out speakers:

1. Bring to the store a CD of music that you enjoy and are familiar with. That way you can listen for things you haven't heard before-- higher highs, deeper base, distortion, etc.

2. Make sure that when you do a comparison, that it's done with the same music on the same equipment with the same settings; the only difference between A and B should be the speakers.

3. Turn off all equalization and set all tone controls to a 'flat' or neutral position.

4. Ask to see the speakers with the covers off, if possible. Unscrupulous dealers have been known to insert foreign objects in speakers to muffle the ones they don't want you to buy.

5. Bring a friend with you and have them (*not* the salesperson) switch between several sets of speakers while you have your eyes closed. Have them mix up the order in which they play them so that you can make a decision without knowing which speaker system is which.

6. Once you find some speakers that you like, arrange to take them home for a trial on your equipment in your environment. It makes no difference how good a speaker sounds in the showroom, if it sounds bad in your home-- after all, you don't live in the audio store.

[tonyny77]

Mitch offers good advice. I just wanted to add a disappointment that I've seen before: Huge woofer cones. I feel they may be able to produce a greater bass presence, but my unscientific opinion is that large woofer cones tend to produce muddy-sounding, indecipherable, low-pitched sound that lacks clarity. The best speakers I ever had used a moderate-sized woofer cone; in other words, bigger was not better.

Also, speaker placement is crucial. You may need to adjust your tonal controls to get the sound you prefer. If your speakers sounded great in the store, but they don't sound as good at home, don't forget to check the polarity of the wiring.

[minimalist]

Maybe some of this has to do with the lack of mid-range options. Maybe I am just out of the loop but who is carrying on the tradition of companies like NAD's and Advent today?

It seems to me that without an accessible middle ground, it should come as no surprise that lots of people are happy to settle for less in their audio equipment. Even I, as someone who can hear the difference between, have a limit as to what I want to spend.

[ardano]

even, one step up, from basic is better than most of what people listen to these days. I find this occuring all the time...a great tv, using just the onboard speakers. At the very least, consider the yamaha or polk systems that simulate real surround sound with a subtle array of smaller driver, (think bose, but better.) The "look" of the flat panel is retained, but now the sound really matches the picture! You don't have to get exotic to notice a HUGE difference.

[katopotato2008]

I think that in the past that there were two camps - the true audiophiles and the "toy" purchasers. I don't think the proportion of the population in each group has changed much over the years. With respect to the latter group, they were/are likely more interested in impressing their neighbours & friends rather than in music and good sound. Today, I think that its just a matter of substitution. What this group used to spend on higher end audio equipment is now being spent on home theatre, computers, etc. In the meantime, their appetite for music can be met with an iPod or computer.

[mbucci]

This is no surprise. I too often have remarked that Americans not are only musically illiterate, but aurally deficient. Of the five senses (we can forgo mention of the others), hearing scores last place while visual acuity scores first. One need only survey media to confirm this. The internet, movies and television are primarily visual vehicles. As a composer with the curse of hypersensitive hearing, the world seems oblivious to what causes me pain. Yes, I have taken to wearing ear plugs. The MP3 phenomena wouldn't exist if people heard as well as they see. However, this may not be accurate either, for research has indicated that people prefer larger and larger screens at the expense of image detail. As a former audio producer I ask: "Why bother with mega-million dollar recording studios sampling at 192/48 when the listener reports he or she can't hear the difference between a Red Book CD and its miniature MP3 cousin at 256K, or even at 128K AAC? This impairment - and this is the precise term - would be glaring if the movie industry released blockbusters shot on 35mm footage to theatres on Super-8mm. But theatres now are projecting from DVDs. As noted, the secondary problem is of "not caring" about the differences, e.g. how many tracks does my portable player hold at the expense of audio fidelity. So, the decline in the ability to discern technical details seems to apply not only to audio but visual media as well. Need we add overall declines taking place in reading comprehension and concentration? Speak to a teacher or educator or librarian. Shouldn't we ask ourselves how sensory overload and its companion phenomena, insensitivity, have contributed to these deficiencies? How the speed lanes of the internet have conditioned people away from concentrated activites that promote quality to ones that amass quantitative ones? If we are too busy to bother with details, we are negating them; in short time, details will vanish. This seems to be occurring, though you may not be noticing.

[MisterSpeck]

Well, just because we're not all anal-retentive composers with hypersensitive hearing doesn't necessarily mean we Americans are musically illiterate.

And just because a stereo salesman tell us so doesn't make it true.

Good sound, like art, wine, and beauty are all in the senses of the beholder.

[tonyny77]

M. Bucci's observations and analysis are far above reproach. S/he expressed in technical terms what I'd say this way: People are so gadget crazy they don't even know what they're buying. Americans, in general, are in so much of a rush (to go nowhere, mind you), most don't know, nor care about quality, as long as it's the latest and it impresses their friends.

Theaters are projecting from DVDs? I had no clue because I don't go ... and now I know why. If this is true, we've definitely turned down the wrong road somewhere along the line.

A big thank you to M. Bucci for such a well though-out analysis and commentary. By the way ... I am old enough to have noticed that the details are being ignored ... and yes, I have noticed, too.

[huangism]

first of all, this is an article by a salesman. second, at parties where huge speakers are needed, no one is really listening to the crisp sounds and the clearity of the vocals, they just want music they can listen to so they can dance. so no i am not sold, this article sounds like the desperate cry of a audio salesman

[jefflewno]

The audiophile community is alive and well, and yes MP3 is trashing the ranks, hell even my brother is a musician and he loves I-pod. I don't own one but my daughter does, and she thinks all my hard software is silly. ----- Just down load it Dad.

She hears the difference and every chance she gets she's downstairs in the sweet spot with Maggies in the round, and all big watt tube amps.

So will she part with her cash or continue with the hi-fi speakers he Dad builds for her? Remains to be seen but she can hear it.

I suspect most people are too busy these days. I have a sophisticated system and a lot of my audio buds are opting for a simpler system, aka the Levinson or Krell one box reciever approach. I get it but I'm NOT THAT LAZY YET!

[Rick805]

first of all he isn't a salesman, he was a salesman. even if he had never stopped being a salesman that doesn't mean that he was necessarily being dishonest or misleading which is what you seem to imply. it's fine if you don't really care how the music sounds. it's kind of like the difference between going out for fast food and a great restaurant. some people don't have the time or inclination to spend the greater part of an evening savoring a meal. on the other had once you start to do that a whole different aspect of eating begins to open up for you. similarly, all this guy is saying is that there is more out there for those who want to find out for themselves and enjoy the music in a different way.

[Stephen Russell]

Most consumers are stupid. They are seen with an iPod because it's cool. they keep the initial "free" ear buds because they work. they think that an MP# is a quality format. Stupid.

Making sound work for you in your home space is worth the time and energy if think that you give a flip. Are you a wine snob? Then you should expand your ego.

YMMV

[epitone]

I think it's important to remember the roles that room size and sound volume play in this equation. If you have a giant living room with a 15 foot ceiling and want to blast your music at rock concert levels, then a $300-400 sub/sat system paired with a $200 receiver is probably going to be woefully inadequate. On the other hand, if you live in a modest apartment with a 10x20 foot watching/listening area, as I do, then going smaller and cheaper is just fine. I'd rather spend more money to get the best picture possible, which is something I definitely notice sitting about 8 feet away from a 47" TV, than to make subtle improvements in audio quality.

[monsieurms]

I think a lot of the responses miss the point, as does the original article. The issue should not be cast as being between "toy" speakers and high end audiophile speakers. There is no question that a certain point you get better sound. The question is at what point that occurs, and how much money do you have to drop. If you listen to the salespeople, $500 quickly becomes a $1000 and it keeps going up from there. And if you listen in an apartment you won't crank it up enough to care all that much about the differences any way. The real issue is when the audiophile obsession becomes chasing after the last 2% at extreme cost. A subsidiary issue-- a lot of very high end speakers won't necessarily be the ones you'll like best. There are clearly different emphases in speakers...

[fcg1502]

Steve Guttenberg, from "Police Academy"? Awesome!

[fcg1502]

Ok, sorry for the lame joke. Just read the little blurb on the right. I will now bury myself under a rock (or stop making lame jokes, which I think is the more appropriate action).

[G|Net]

Many of these arguments are pointless. The point of the article is that GenX'ers today treat music as a commodity today, like gas or produce. Will we go out of our way across town to get organic apples or a particular type of gas, or do we just just what's convienient in order to get the job done?

Young folks today have so much music available to them, and so much of it for free (if you know where to look), that it's all mind numbing. There truly is not enough time to go through it all, let alone listen to it critically. When I was a kid in the 70s, if it wasn't in a record store, playing on the radio or being performed on TV (which was all of 3 channels plus PBS!), then we didn't know about it. There was a lot less music.

Today there is way too much (over 35,000 albums released a year now). Kida today don't have the time to really get into artists like I remember doing. We would study the album covers like they were scriptures, memorize all the song titles, knew all the names of all the members of all our favorite groups and knew what instruments they played and their whole history.

Try going through these GenX and Y'ers' playlists and ask them all about each band they listen to, and see what they'll be able to tell you. Also, when they show you what they listen to, pay attention to how long they listen to each song. Chances are they don't listen to many entire songs, and certainly not an entire album from one artist in one sitting! There's not enough time, and too much to go through.

Like the point of the article states, music to these generations are just backgrounds to be called up from a car stereo ir iPod, and about as important as wallpaper.

[bwvla]

I had a mid range component system from around 1990 that sounded nice for the time. Last year I bought a small home theater system for approximately 300 bucks, the key attraction was the theater surround sound. I figured if it ended up a disappointment I'd move it to the bedroom and go back to the component system. -- I should note here I live in an apartment, so I'm not trying to pump audio into an especially large room. -- To my delight the new "toy" home theater outperformed my mid range 90's component system in nearly every aspect. With the improvements in technology small theater systems today put out "acceptable" audio vastly superior to small and mid range systems from the previous decade. Today one can spend less to get more than they had previously.

I also have to admit how I listen to music today has changed as well. Rarely now days do I put in a cd and just sit on the couch and listen. Today I also have electronic input from my broadband equipped computer and an ever increasing number of TV channels and DVDs. The time I'm most likely to listen to music is in the car. Perhaps my appreciation for music has declined, or perhaps the world is too busy to just listen to music without multitasking.

While an expensive audio setup can bring a lot to Jazz and the like, modern pop and hip hop is mostly computer generated instruments which have no nuance to glean. Drum and bass simply requires just one big bass unit, as bass is not directional. Then of course Radio and TV are not broadcast with enough fidelity to justify specialized equipment. So the truth is that modern music and audio offers nothing that one would need fine tools to disseminate.

The bottom line is there is less incentive than ever to purchase a high end audio system. Baring music changing to a form which takes advantage of higher fidelity I don't see a boom market for speakers anytime soon.

[cbibbs]

I've never met anyone who can't hear the difference between my B&W speakers and whatever $10 per satellite system they have at home.

The issue is how many of them are willing to pay B&W prices when what they have is "good enough".

I don't blame them, though, as I'm not willing to pay $30k for a car when base models do just a good of a job getting me to work.

[ardano]

I can't believe that! If your friends can't tell the difference between cheap sats and your BW's that's their problem, not yours! Enjoy your clarity, or sell me your BW's for pennies on the dollar...just kidding

[Galaxy5]

I blame Bose, and the craptastic "all highs, all lows" equalization built into their modules. Bose marketing has always aimed to project their simply average speakers into the high end by first marketing to high-end auto makers, then by placing a premium enclosure on average speakers and selling them at a high price.

Now your average consumer thinks Bose's trademark tinny highs and boomy lows are what account for "high end audio".

I am still enjoying my pair of Paradigm Mini-Mk3s, Adcom GT-350 preamp, and Parasound GTA-500 amp that have served me well for over ten years. With my modestly-sized living room, I don't need much else, and despite all of the multi-dimensional super-systems out there, I don't find my setup wanting, whether I'm playing CDs, Lossless AAC, or DVDs.

Given that most consumers, even when buying 'toys' don't have a proper imaging setup (I see lots of blank walls and hard surfaces surrounding $5k audio setups) I simply enjoy the fact that a little knowledge and a little bit more money will buy an audio system better that 9/10s of what most people hear at home - and that only cost about $1.3k back in 1997.

[zerdos]

BOSE: Buy Other Sound Equipment.
http://www.zoliblog.com/2006/05/25/bose-buy-other-sound-equipment/

[GRobLewis]

Amen. 15 or so years ago I fell for the hype and bought a Bose "wave" system. It sounds better than the average boom box, but certainly nowhere near justifying the $900 it cost. Pretty much all Bose stuff is mediocre gear made "special" by way-over-the-top hype and outrageous prices.

[jragosta]

I agree that there are differences between speakers (to my ears, Infinity speakers always sound more 'real' than their competition in the same price range). But in the end, I also agree that the differences are so minor that you're not likely to hear them in your home after a while. First, you need to have the volume at a reasonably high level and be focusing exclusively on the music - which I almost never do. Second, even when you're focusing on the sound, the difference is smaller than the contribution of many other factors (room dynamics, equalization settings, particular CD characteristics, individual hearing differences, etc). Of course, ALL of these factors are much larger than the effects that audiophiles insist we should concern ourselves with - super deluxe low oxygen gold plated 6 gauge wires, etc.

Bottom line is to listen to speakers and buy the ones that you like the sound of - and then stop worrying about it.