[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 11 May 2010 07:17:06 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

Good ones aren't. Good speakers, especially, are quite expensive. For
instance, there is little decent in the way of speakers below about the
$1K
level (actually I only know of one really decent speaker below $1K and
that's
the Magnepan MMG at $599.

I certainly hear artifacts in lossy compression, but I wouldn't exactly
characterize them as a crackling noise, I would say that it's more like a
buzzing bee-like distortion that rides the waveform. It's only audible
during
low level passages and during transitions between loud and soft passages
(and
vice versa) and then only on headphones and very loud speaker listening.
As
background music and in the car, lossy compression artifacts are lost in
the
ambient noise.

I find it ironic that the entirety of the previous comments could be put
into a vastly different perspective if unbiased listening techniques were
used by the writer.

I don't need a DBT to tell me what I hear. I'm not comparing anything to
anything here, so I cannot see what good "unbiased" listening tests would do.
It's not a question of whether this sounds different from that, it's a
question of whether these artifacts are present or not, and if they are
present, are they audible? I can hear them. I acknowledge that certain kinds
of music effectively mask these artifacts, and I acknowledge, that ambient
noise in the listening environment will do likewise. I'll also give you that
most of the iPod generation doesn't seem to care that the artifacts exist,
and that possibly, many people have never developed the listening skills to
discern these artifacts. Non of that alters the fact that some of us do hear
them and find them objectionable. I for one would much rather put-up with the
tics and pops in an LP than listen to the "correlated" distortion of an MP3.
Apparently you feel just the opposite.

Many misapprehensions about both MP3s and quality inexpensive speakers can
be dispelled with blind listening. I've said enough about misapprehensions
about quality MP3s lately so I won't repeat myself.

I don't have any misapprehensions about MP3. For the types of music that I
listen to and the way I listen, MP3 is inadequate - even at the higher
bit-rates. Even Sony's ATRAC lossy compression algorithm was better and less
objectionable than MP3.

I recently participated in blind listening tests comparing a $12,000 speaker
system from a well-known designer with excellent technical chops to a
European-designed, China-built studio monitor system that sells for under
$400 the pair. They did sound a little different from each other. The
listening panel was about evenly split as to which they preferred based on
dynamic range, tone quality and imaging. They all agreed that both pairs of
speakers sounded very, very good.

I'll bet that the 400 mini-monitors don't have as much or as good quality
bass as did the $12000 system nor could it load the room like a big system.

Sure, you can design tests which minimize differences in things like
amplifiers and speakers. I could easily construct a DBT where a small
mini-monitor and a large full-range system would sound as similar as possible
- I'd just play solo harpsichord or flute music, or something similar that
has no bass and little in the way of dynamic contrast.

I can name a bunch of small, inexpensive, so called mini-monitors that sound
excellent on small scale works. They image great, and can be delightful to
listen to. But don't play large scale orchestral works on them, or try to get
them to sound right on rock-'n-roll played at high SPLs with a driving kick
drum providing the beat. Very unsatisfying, I would suspect.