Is a loudspeaker a musical instrument?

[Tendaberry]

There are speaker manufacturers, that treat the cabinet like an instrument, like Kiso. The cabinet is supposed to resonate like a guitar body, see this article: https://hifiplus.com/articles/kiso-acou ... udspeaker/
I don't know, whether the "thinwall" BBC speakers also partly fall into this category. They are certainly radically different from Wilson Audio's acoustically dead cabinets or Linn's new 360 speakers.

[FairPlayMotty]

My Dualit toaster resonates in time with any music playing. Does this make it a loudspeaker? No, it's a toaster.

A loudspeaker is not a musical instrument as defined by any dictionary. DIYaudio.com has luminaries like Earl Geddes (who wrote book on Audio Transducers) and award winning loudspeaker manufacturers like Dutch and Dutch. I've yet to read anyone on there describe a loudspeaker as a musical instrument.

[Spannko]

My Dualit toaster resonates in time with any music playing.

Have you thought about removing it from the room when playing music? Or maybe trying a different brand of toaster?

[Spannko]

There are speaker manufacturers, that treat the cabinet like an instrument, like Kiso. The cabinet is supposed to resonate like a guitar body, see this article: https://hifiplus.com/articles/kiso-acou ... udspeaker/
I don't know, whether the "thinwall" BBC speakers also partly fall into this category. They are certainly radically different from Wilson Audio's acoustically dead cabinets or Linn's new 360 speakers.

Thanks for the link Tendaberry, the Kiso’s are new to me.

[Charlie1]

A musician cant compose music on a speaker so for me it’s not a musical instrument.

[Spannko]

Would it be fair to say that a loudspeaker is an inanimate object designed to vibrate harmoniously in response to a perturbational force? Could we say the same for a musical instrument?

[matthias]

Would it be fair to say that a loudspeaker is an inanimate object designed to vibrate harmoniously in response to a perturbational force? Could we say the same for a musical instrument?

2x no(nsense), you are just trying to be provocative...

[Tony Tune-age]

Fortunately people can call speakers what ever they want, and their opinions don't violate any city, county, federal, or state laws... :-)

Cheers!

[Spannko]

Sorry if you think I’m trying to be provocative Matthias, that’s certainly not my intention. Asking challenging questions relating to something we all have an interest in? Maybe. Although, let’s not forget, one man’s challenge is another man’s food for thought.

[Rutger]

I also certainly don't believe there is any sense in raising a certain frequency range to compensate for the distance between our ears. That distance is there when listening to live music so whatever change it makes is part of what we normally hear and shouldn't be compensated for unless you want unnatural sound.

But you dont listen to two stereospeakers when you listen to live music, as an example a flutist with a pianist.
’
Its the very flawed stereo system with only two loudspeakers playing music in a certain angle to each of your ears, that makes the need for some compensation centered at 1,5-1,7 kHz. Its only for this reason its needed. Again, look at stereophiles measurements of Linn Tukan.

You dont need this compensation in a 5.1 system.

The stereo system can at best only give you a phantom sound picture of the real event. The flawed stereosystem is only a bad illusion , worsening the perceived pitch of every instrument during playback. So there is room for improvement

[Spannko]

Would it be fair to say that a loudspeaker is an inanimate object designed to vibrate harmoniously in response to a perturbational force? Could we say the same for a musical instrument?

2x no(nsense), you are just trying to be provocative...

If I understand you correctly Matthias, you seem to be saying that both loudspeakers and musical instruments are not inanimate objects designed to vibrate harmoniously in response to a perturbational force. Is that correct?

[Spannko]

But you dont listen to two stereospeakers when you listen to live music, as an example a flutist with a pianist.
’
Its the very flawed stereo system with only two loudspeakers playing music in a certain angle to each of your ears, that makes the need for some compensation centered at 1,5-1,7 kHz. Its only for this reason its needed. Again, look at stereophiles measurements of Linn Tukan.

You dont need this compensation in a 5.1 system.

The stereo system can at best only give you a phantom sound picture of the real event. The flawed stereosystem is only a bad illusion , worsening the perceived pitch of every instrument during playback. So there is room for improvement

Your idea of compensating for the angles between two loudspeakers is new to me Rutger. Can you expand on this or point me to a reference source?

[Rutger]

But you dont listen to two stereospeakers when you listen to live music, as an example a flutist with a pianist.
’
Its the very flawed stereo system with only two loudspeakers playing music in a certain angle to each of your ears, that makes the need for some compensation centered at 1,5-1,7 kHz. Its only for this reason its needed. Again, look at stereophiles measurements of Linn Tukan.

You dont need this compensation in a 5.1 system.

The stereo system can at best only give you a phantom sound picture of the real event. The flawed stereosystem is only a bad illusion , worsening the perceived pitch of every instrument during playback. So there is room for improvement

Your idea of compensating for the angles between two loudspeakers is new to me Rutger. Can you expand on this or point me to a reference source?

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/foru ... ase.26617/

Read #13, look at the lowest graph. Its the the inversion of this that is the correction curve for stereo system faults.

Its not 100% correct though, because Toole used to much distance between the speakers .

By the way , Im not a fan or a member of audiosciencereview, but i found the picture there. Ofcourse I have read Tooles books, and he is wrong most of the time ( because he focus on timbre and not pitch, and often uses a single mono speaker when in real life we always play on two, in stereo.

This graph from Tooles investigation about how we experience a phantom center is, however, more right than wrong.
Im sure Crawford and Phil Budd is very aware of this.

[Rutger]

I’ve not heard of this before Rutger. How did you hear of it? The reason I ask is because the BBC thought exactly the opposite! They thought a 2-3dB dip between 1000Hz and 3000Hz was preferable. I’m not saying that I agree with the BBC - just interested.

I dont believe that the BBC dip is the way to find the holy grail. Many speakers in -70 did perform bad at the crossover region and the BBC dip made them sound ” nicer” , but at the same time taking away some of the important energy in the music.

The Linn Tukan didnt have any BBC dip at all, but an elevated response between 1-3 kHz - i.e. almost the opposite of the BBC dip. ( look at stereophiles measurements ).

Are you saying that you think musical energy exists in the 1-3kHz range?

Live music is energy transformed in the air from 1 Hz to very high frequencies. Music is energy in the form of ordered frequencies in the timedomain. The more order, the better the sound.
So yes, there is important energy also between 1-3 kHz, where the ear is very sensitive.

[Charlie1]

Would it be fair to say that a loudspeaker is an inanimate object designed to vibrate harmoniously in response to a perturbational force? Could we say the same for a musical instrument?

They might share one or more characteristics but that doesn’t make them the same thing to my mind.

[Spannko]

What about discussing ways in which loudspeakers and musical instruments differ then? Just what are the differences? Let’s make a list!

[Whatsmynaim]

"What about discussing ways in which loudspeakers and musical instruments differ then? Just what are the differences? Let’s make a list!"

A musical instrument usually has one type of sound, while one pair of loudspeakers must be able to reproduce the sound of every instrument! Well, maybe not the full range sound but the tone and pitch of every instrument.

So, Spannko. How does this thread stack up against other forums discussing the same topic. Are we doing well or are you about to give up? ;)

[FairPlayMotty]

Have you thought about removing it from the room when playing music? Or maybe trying a different brand of toaster?

Oh crumbs, i haven't, my toaster is in my kitchen - I don't play music there.

I have read Tooles books, and he is wrong most of the time.

You should write an AES paper detailing Toole's "errors". Given that Geddes agrees with Toole on nearly everything and they're giants of the audio industry you could make a name for yourself.

[Rutger]

Have you thought about removing it from the room when playing music? Or maybe trying a different brand of toaster?

Oh crumbs, i haven't, my toaster is in my kitchen - I don't play music there.

I have read Tooles books, and he is wrong most of the time.

You should write an AES paper detailing Toole's "errors". Given that Geddes agrees with Toole on nearly everything and they're giants of the audio industry you could make a name for yourself.

Those ”giants” are in part responsible for the very bad sound you can hear in almost every audio store nowadays.
They apparently do not know anything about perceived pitch, about tunes, and they are not able to tell what sounds better or not, from a tunedem perspective.

Its good to have read their books though, so one knows the reason why everything sounds so bad nowadays.

I have built active 3-way DIY loudspeakers and owning expensive Genelec SAM monitors that measures perfect according to the science of Toole, but they didnt sound very good.
mainly because of lack of stereo system compensation ( they measured very flat ) and the fact that I ignored the important aspects of having different resonance frequencies at every loudspeaker wall. The speakers were also optimised as mono speakers.. A big mistake. I also think that Genelec dont know anything about tunemethod .

Again , Linn tukan is the benchmark for how to do it right, at least in my opinion.

[FairPlayMotty]

Those ”giants” are in part responsible for the very bad sound you can hear in almost every audio store nowadays.
They apparently do not know anything about perceived pitch, about tunes, and they are not able to tell what sounds better or not, from a tunedem perspective.

Geddes was the sound engineer for Earl Klugh (Geddes' brother played in Klugh's touring band) so I'd be surprised if he doesn't know about perceived pitch or tunes.

I wouldn't expect either of these guys to know about TuneDem given it was developed by a small Scottish audio company.

Sadly the bar in Glasgow where another forum member and I often had drinks with Ivor (The Baby Grand) recently closed.

[FairPlayMotty]

owning expensive Genelec SAM monitors that measures perfect according to the science of Toole, but they didnt sound very good.

If the Genelecs didn't sound very good why did you buy them?

[Spannko]

So, Spannko. How does this thread stack up against other forums discussing the same topic. Are we doing well or are you about to give up? ;)

I’ve found the replies very interesting, thanks for asking, Whatsmynaim 👍, but in all honesty, I don’t see a difference between what’s been said here compared to any other forum, which is surprising, given the contrary nature this forum often displays.

Give up? I haven’t even started!🤪

[FairPlayMotty]

Spannko/Rutger,

If you guys are into DIY speakers Geddes has given extensive help to a few start ups and amateurs on DIYaudio.com. His username on there is gedlee.

[Spannko]

But you dont listen to two stereospeakers when you listen to live music, as an example a flutist with a pianist.
’
Its the very flawed stereo system with only two loudspeakers playing music in a certain angle to each of your ears, that makes the need for some compensation centered at 1,5-1,7 kHz. Its only for this reason its needed. Again, look at stereophiles measurements of Linn Tukan.

You dont need this compensation in a 5.1 system.

The stereo system can at best only give you a phantom sound picture of the real event. The flawed stereosystem is only a bad illusion , worsening the perceived pitch of every instrument during playback. So there is room for improvement

Your idea of compensating for the angles between two loudspeakers is new to me Rutger. Can you expand on this or point me to a reference source?

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/foru ... ase.26617/

Read #13, look at the lowest graph. Its the the inversion of this that is the correction curve for stereo system faults.

Its not 100% correct though, because Toole used to much distance between the speakers .

By the way , Im not a fan or a member of audiosciencereview, but i found the picture there. Ofcourse I have read Tooles books, and he is wrong most of the time ( because he focus on timbre and not pitch, and often uses a single mono speaker when in real life we always play on two, in stereo.

This graph from Tooles investigation about how we experience a phantom center is, however, more right than wrong.
Im sure Crawford and Phil Budd is very aware of this.

The problem I have with this kind of approach is what happens when I sit off axis, as I often do. The cancellation due to the phantom center channel effect can no longer be heard, resulting in a mid forward presentation which Robert Harley described as leaning towards fatiguing.

[Spannko]

Spannko/Rutger,

If you guys are into DIY speakers Geddes has given extensive help to a few start ups and amateurs on DIYaudio.com. His username on there is gedlee.

I’ve been a member of DiyAudio.com for many years and gedlee is clearly a very experienced designer.