I agree and recognize the fact that even as we discuss this now, there are newer tools being developed aside from those that you have mentioned, for this purpose.
But the question I’m asking is - what is the objective of all these measurements?
It seems that the pursuit of fidelity is not one of them since the end result is still highly dependent on the market and not the “truth” (for lack of a better word).
qguy mentioned the LS/35a*. This is a perfect example. That midbass hump is a coloration that has been present in this speaker for close to 40 years!
But in spite of all the modern measuring tools available, it seems this coloration will remain, simply because the market demands it.
Are we at the mercy of speaker designers/manufacturers who produce present products driven more by marketability rather than the pursuit of what this hobby was originally intended for?
I’d hate to walk up to a Dyn owner and tell him – “pare, alam mo ba na yung C4 mo masmalinis dapat tumunog pero dinagdagan nung manufacturer ng coloration para makabenta lang”
I'm sure that today's sporty and exotic cars could go even faster if they didn't go after a certain look, feel and sound, but makers make them so to make them sellable. They make some compromises to make the product competitive, as performance numbers don't always get the money. Despite this, the modern iterations still perform significantly better than their predecessors.
The "correct" sound has a market, but not a very big one it seems. There had been speakers that measure beautifully in the past years, but very few became sales successes (despite some coming in at relatively affordable price points). Part of the blame may be because most recordings are voiced to sound good in typical systems, plus the fact that most people are not attuned to a neutral sound. The term HiFi has been used and abused for an ever widening variety of systems/gear, many of which aren't of utmost fidelity from a measurement standpoint. I prefer the generic term "music system," and reserve the term HiFi for a small subset of this. HiFi is that subset that still puts emphasis on faithfulness to the source.
Why do they do this? Is the “correct” sound so unlistenable that they would have a difficult time finding a market for this?
I understand that there may be improvements in other areas.
But if modern manufacturers continue to “taint the truth”, then modern speakers do not impart the sound of what we should hear but rather mere products of what manufacturers want us to hear.
Dynamics is normally compressed during recording/mastering, and reproducing it as-is creates a fairly dull representation of the performance. Mainstream and vintage recordings especially suffer when played back in an "accurate" system. Some common applied colorations are meant to "bring life" to these otherwise dull recordings. In such a case, what the listener therefore hears is not truthful to the source, but it seems closer to his/her recollection of a live sound. I don't think a lot are ready to accept that a new system will render his/her music collection unlistenable (especially since he/she is able to enjoy it with other equipment). A lot of the "sounds like hifi" rhetoric comes from this, as in many cases that is probably close to what the recording really sounds like.
Even with an excellent recording though, many would likely choose a colored system because they might find an accurate system too forward-sounding, too-bright, or lacking in scale or authority. Most recordings are close-miked, and they do not sound anywhere close to how the instrument would sound from the normal listening distance in a live performance. These recordings (unlike ambient miked recordings) do not have much room reverberations to "envelop" the listener with sound (unless it's been synthesized during post-processing). They also do not sound "laid back" at all.
Oftentimes, what sells is what the buyer finds pleasant or enjoyable. In the majority of cases, that translates to emphasized bass, some form of cut in the midrange and a slight downward tilt in overall FR. Some makers intentionally allow for some oscillation to add "richness" to the sound (aka introduce resonance and harmonics). This shouldn't surprise us, as vacuum tube audio gear continue to sell despite them trailing solid state components in most measurements. I've never questioned these choices, as it's just like choosing a painting over a photograph... these choices are made due to merits other than fidelity.
How then could we absolutely conclude that newer is "better" (sorry, but again for lack of a better term) if the product is based on the manufacture's perception of what the market will buy and not what the measuring tools dictate?
Despite the varied mix that we have in the present market, I think that on average, music systems available now are of a higher fidelity than what we had two decades ago. Even colored speakers nowadays usually have good decay and transient characteristics.
And since the title says new/expensive, there are many current flagship speakers that deliver outstanding numbers and are much better objectively. If the topic is about what's subjectively better, then that question had been answered many times... it depends on the person.
