Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
---MIKE---
 
Posts: n/a
Default Stereophile again!

Today I received the February issue of Stereophile. A letter on page 11
had the title "not so nice magazine". The writer really took them to
task for their misleading reviews. I'm surprised that they printed it.


---MIKE---
  #2   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

---MIKE--- wrote:
Today I received the February issue of Stereophile. A letter on page 11
had the title "not so nice magazine". The writer really took them to
task for their misleading reviews. I'm surprised that they printed it.


I suppose that will have to suffice for 'controversy' in audiophilia.
Meanwhile, I've been reading back issues of 'The Audio Critic'
(they're offering a deal on 19 back issuesat their website) -- bracing stuff!
My only question is why I haven't seen Peter Aczel on Usenet or WWW
audio forums -- his personality, ('tart' would be putting it mildly)
would seem a natural fit.




--

-S
If you're a nut and knock on enough doors, eventually someone will open one,
look at you and say, Messiah, we have waited for your arrival.
  #5   Report Post  
Uptown Audio
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hell, I'm surprised that you read it. I grew tired of the "cancel my
subscription" type rants long ago!
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
Today I received the February issue of Stereophile. A letter on
page 11
had the title "not so nice magazine". The writer really took them
to
task for their misleading reviews. I'm surprised that they printed
it.


---MIKE---




  #6   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

My thoughts exactly. In addition it sets up the example as one which the
"believers" can see as a touch stone by which to have their views measured
in oppisition,ie. the glaring ugly duckling among the swans. It also sets
up te editorial chance in a coming response to allow exposition why the
content of the mag is doing just fine in accord with the best standards of
the subjective camp, as we saw demonstrated here from the mag staff. It
is a way to react to any action that might have come to the subscriber's
attention to the Randi flap and discussion here of similar issues as the
letter poses for those who didn't follow the online interaction. Let's
see if it gets an editorial mention along these lines. It will also
elicit views supporting themag which subscribers can use in their own
minds as positive reassurance that a defense is possible and readers would
not have it any other way.

Why are you surprised as it makes perfectly good sense to me? They
have taken quite a lot of heat recently regarding positive reviews of
snake oil or poorly performing products. One of the best ways to
counter this kind of publicity is to deny, deny, and deny these claims
while allowing others to comment.
The magazine can then point to this generous policy while appearing to
let the other side have their say. One only has to observe what the
magazine actually _DOES_ in print and not what they _SAY_ that they
do. As long as they continue their current policy without actual
change then their true motives remain perfectly clear IMHO. To me,
those motives are to cater to an audience that does not necessarily
care about what is real but would rather see, in writing, articles
that support their beliefs. At the same time the magazine continues
making lots of money from advertisers of said products. Profit is
certainly not a dirty word, but allowing positive articles about snake
oil or unproven products is dishonest at best.

Richard


Richard

  #7   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message ...
My thoughts exactly. In addition it sets up the example as one which the
"believers" can see as a touch stone by which to have their views measured
in oppisition,ie. the glaring ugly duckling among the swans. It also sets
up te editorial chance in a coming response to allow exposition why the
content of the mag is doing just fine in accord with the best standards of
the subjective camp, as we saw demonstrated here from the mag staff. It
is a way to react to any action that might have come to the subscriber's
attention to the Randi flap and discussion here of similar issues as the
letter poses for those who didn't follow the online interaction. Let's
see if it gets an editorial mention along these lines. It will also
elicit views supporting themag which subscribers can use in their own
minds as positive reassurance that a defense is possible and readers would
not have it any other way.

Why are you surprised as it makes perfectly good sense to me? They
have taken quite a lot of heat recently regarding positive reviews of
snake oil or poorly performing products. One of the best ways to
counter this kind of publicity is to deny, deny, and deny these claims
while allowing others to comment.
The magazine can then point to this generous policy while appearing to
let the other side have their say. One only has to observe what the
magazine actually _DOES_ in print and not what they _SAY_ that they
do. As long as they continue their current policy without actual
change then their true motives remain perfectly clear IMHO. To me,
those motives are to cater to an audience that does not necessarily
care about what is real but would rather see, in writing, articles
that support their beliefs. At the same time the magazine continues
making lots of money from advertisers of said products. Profit is
certainly not a dirty word, but allowing positive articles about snake
oil or unproven products is dishonest at best.


You guys are unbelievable. Why is it so hard to believe that a responsible
magazine carries critical letters to the editor? Doesn't the New York
Times? Wall Street Jouranl? Time Magazine? Business Week? CNN? Even
O'Reilly? It seems to me your ruminations are simply slightly paranoid
fantasy..with no foundation in fact whatsoever.

  #8   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Harry Lavo wrote:

You guys are unbelievable. Why is it so hard to believe that a

responsible
magazine carries critical letters to the editor? Doesn't the New

York
Times? Wall Street Jouranl? Time Magazine? Business Week? CNN?

Even
O'Reilly?


No, not O'Reilly. But on the general point, I agree with Harry.
Stereophile deserves all the criticism it gets for its pseudoscientific
approach to reviewing, but its letters column has always been
praiseworthy for its openness to contrary opinions.

bob
  #9   Report Post  
Richard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Harry Lavo" wrote:

wrote in message ...
My thoughts exactly. In addition it sets up the example as one which the
"believers" can see as a touch stone by which to have their views measured
in oppisition,ie. the glaring ugly duckling among the swans. It also sets
up te editorial chance in a coming response to allow exposition why the
content of the mag is doing just fine in accord with the best standards of
the subjective camp, as we saw demonstrated here from the mag staff. It
is a way to react to any action that might have come to the subscriber's
attention to the Randi flap and discussion here of similar issues as the
letter poses for those who didn't follow the online interaction. Let's
see if it gets an editorial mention along these lines. It will also
elicit views supporting themag which subscribers can use in their own
minds as positive reassurance that a defense is possible and readers would
not have it any other way.

Why are you surprised as it makes perfectly good sense to me? They
have taken quite a lot of heat recently regarding positive reviews of
snake oil or poorly performing products. One of the best ways to
counter this kind of publicity is to deny, deny, and deny these claims
while allowing others to comment.
The magazine can then point to this generous policy while appearing to
let the other side have their say. One only has to observe what the
magazine actually _DOES_ in print and not what they _SAY_ that they
do. As long as they continue their current policy without actual
change then their true motives remain perfectly clear IMHO. To me,
those motives are to cater to an audience that does not necessarily
care about what is real but would rather see, in writing, articles
that support their beliefs. At the same time the magazine continues
making lots of money from advertisers of said products. Profit is
certainly not a dirty word, but allowing positive articles about snake
oil or unproven products is dishonest at best.


You guys are unbelievable. Why is it so hard to believe that a responsible
magazine carries critical letters to the editor? Doesn't the New York
Times? Wall Street Jouranl? Time Magazine? Business Week? CNN? Even
O'Reilly? It seems to me your ruminations are simply slightly paranoid
fantasy..with no foundation in fact whatsoever.


Exactly what in my message, do you object to Harry? I _NEVER_ said or
even implied that the editors do not see these critical letters. I
rather thought that I made it clear that they think publishing these
letters makes them look as if they are trying to be impartial when; in
fact, the editorial content and advertising policies appear to remain
unchanged. As to your "responsible" comment, I believe that would
seem to be determined by the validity or veracity of the claims made
about the various products in the magazine would it not? These are
just my opinions so feel free to disagree. ;^)

Richard
  #11   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Richard" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

wrote in message

...
My thoughts exactly. In addition it sets up the example as one which

the
"believers" can see as a touch stone by which to have their views

measured
in oppisition,ie. the glaring ugly duckling among the swans. It also

sets
up te editorial chance in a coming response to allow exposition why the
content of the mag is doing just fine in accord with the best standards

of
the subjective camp, as we saw demonstrated here from the mag staff.

It
is a way to react to any action that might have come to the

subscriber's
attention to the Randi flap and discussion here of similar issues as

the
letter poses for those who didn't follow the online interaction. Let's
see if it gets an editorial mention along these lines. It will also
elicit views supporting themag which subscribers can use in their own
minds as positive reassurance that a defense is possible and readers

would
not have it any other way.

Why are you surprised as it makes perfectly good sense to me? They
have taken quite a lot of heat recently regarding positive reviews of
snake oil or poorly performing products. One of the best ways to
counter this kind of publicity is to deny, deny, and deny these claims
while allowing others to comment.
The magazine can then point to this generous policy while appearing to
let the other side have their say. One only has to observe what the
magazine actually _DOES_ in print and not what they _SAY_ that they
do. As long as they continue their current policy without actual
change then their true motives remain perfectly clear IMHO. To me,
those motives are to cater to an audience that does not necessarily
care about what is real but would rather see, in writing, articles
that support their beliefs. At the same time the magazine continues
making lots of money from advertisers of said products. Profit is
certainly not a dirty word, but allowing positive articles about snake
oil or unproven products is dishonest at best.


You guys are unbelievable. Why is it so hard to believe that a

responsible
magazine carries critical letters to the editor? Doesn't the New York
Times? Wall Street Jouranl? Time Magazine? Business Week? CNN? Even
O'Reilly? It seems to me your ruminations are simply slightly paranoid
fantasy..with no foundation in fact whatsoever.


Exactly what in my message, do you object to Harry? I _NEVER_ said or
even implied that the editors do not see these critical letters. I
rather thought that I made it clear that they think publishing these
letters makes them look as if they are trying to be impartial when; in
fact, the editorial content and advertising policies appear to remain
unchanged. As to your "responsible" comment, I believe that would
seem to be determined by the validity or veracity of the claims made
about the various products in the magazine would it not? These are
just my opinions so feel free to disagree. ;^)


We have covered this ground here, Richard. The magazine is exactly what it
purports to be...a review and information magazine. It's reviews are both
objective (the measurements) and subjective (the listening evaluation). The
magazine stresses the need for people to listen for themselves if the are
intrigued by something they read. They spend most of their space on
mainstream components and very little on tweaks, isolation devices, cables,
record clamps, etc. There does not seem to be a 1:1 correlation between
editorial and advertising as there is in some magazines.

They have published negative as well as positive letters for years. As far
as I can tell, probably in proportion to what they receive. They receive
very few complaints about the magazines philosophy or policies; most are
about specific disagreements with a writer about something. Most of their
readers find them useful and interesting, and their circulation has held up
well despite the swing to A/V as a result.

"They have taken quite a lot of heat recently regarding positive reviews of
snake oil or poorly performing products." Only here on RAHE....not from
the vast majority of their readers. Do you really think that John or the
Publisher devise devious Letters to the Editors Policies just to ward off
criticism from RAHE'rs. As far as I can see their Letters policy has been
consistent for years and is totally in the mainstream of responsible
journalism.

The problem I have is that the two of you are both speculating wildly as to
their motives, and fantasizing up convoluted rationales as to why they
publish the occasional really negative letter....when a much simpler motive
is much more likely...because they are journalists and have a sense of
professionalism about their work and about the magazine. If you and others
don't like it, that's your prerogative. But "smearing" them with dubious
motives that you concoct because you don't like them, subjective reviews, or
their policies is just what I said... fairly paranoid, with only your
personal opinion to back it up and no factual basis.

  #13   Report Post  
Michael McKelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Richard" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

The problem I have is that the two of you are both speculating wildly as
to
their motives, and fantasizing up convoluted rationales as to why they
publish the occasional really negative letter....when a much simpler
motive
is much more likely...because they are journalists and have a sense of
professionalism about their work and about the magazine.


Wild speculation is engendered by the wild rationaizations the magazine uses
for going out oif its way to be as non-reliable and as disinformational in
some cases, as it can be. Shakti Stones being just one example.


If you and others
don't like it, that's your prerogative. But "smearing" them with dubious
motives that you concoct because you don't like them, subjective reviews,
or
their policies is just what I said... fairly paranoid, with only your
personal opinion to back it up and no factual basis.


Fact: One of their reviewers couldn't hear what a piece of crap a wildly
expensive tube amp was.

Fact: SP has endorsed and helped promote audio mythology over the years on
such topics as green pens, magic wire, and other non-operational nonsense.

Fact: There have been a host of reason given for why such things as Shakti
Stones haven't been better scrutinized.

Fact: Their goofs are the stuff of legend.

How do you take seriously, a magazine where one of their speaker measurement
people openly admits in the current issue that he just learned about ground
plane measurements LAST SPRING!

Bottom line: It is a good magazine for a goof and to look at some of the
more ridiculously priced equipment on the market.
  #14   Report Post  
Christine Allison
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I had major issues with them 20 years ago respecting the people who were
doing their reviews.

I was particularly incensed by a featured review extolling the sonic
virtues of a LP recording of the tone poem Church Windows by Respighi.

The reviewer began by extolling the acoustic wonders of the performing venue
which on investigation turned out to be that of a local high school. The
ensemble of the orchestra, a horrible pick up scratchy band led by a non
entity and the biggest blooper of all; expressions of wonderment of the
colossal timbers of the featured "mighty" pipe organ which was obviously an
electronic abomination perhaps on loan from a local funeral parlor.

All this led to the inescapable conclusion that the reviewer (very prominent
at the time) knew nothing of the sound of a major symphony orchestra playing
in a respectable concert hall!

I am of the opinion that the recording at issue (made on a shoe string)
probably presented the performance pretty much as it actually sounded. If
the review had been cast from that prospective I would have let it pass.
But, to pretend that this pathetic venture into the world of sonic block
busters represented some sort of artistic and audio milestone was totally
out of place.

In protest I fired off a letter to Stereophile (which they published) and
canceled my subscription (which they accepted)

The above episode led to my disinterest in hi-end audio for two decades.

Richard Smith
  #15   Report Post  
Michael McKelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Christine Allison" wrote in message
...
I had major issues with them 20 years ago respecting the people who were
doing their reviews.

I was particularly incensed by a featured review extolling the sonic
virtues of a LP recording of the tone poem Church Windows by Respighi.

The reviewer began by extolling the acoustic wonders of the performing
venue
which on investigation turned out to be that of a local high school. The
ensemble of the orchestra, a horrible pick up scratchy band led by a non
entity and the biggest blooper of all; expressions of wonderment of the
colossal timbers of the featured "mighty" pipe organ which was obviously
an
electronic abomination perhaps on loan from a local funeral parlor.

All this led to the inescapable conclusion that the reviewer (very
prominent
at the time) knew nothing of the sound of a major symphony orchestra
playing
in a respectable concert hall!

I am of the opinion that the recording at issue (made on a shoe string)
probably presented the performance pretty much as it actually sounded. If
the review had been cast from that prospective I would have let it pass.
But, to pretend that this pathetic venture into the world of sonic block
busters represented some sort of artistic and audio milestone was totally
out of place.

In protest I fired off a letter to Stereophile (which they published) and
canceled my subscription (which they accepted)

The above episode led to my disinterest in hi-end audio for two decades.

Richard Smith


I'm still convinced that aside from possible improvements in recording
media, (what will be better than CD?) and loudspeaker design, (better
drivers and DSP EQ), the high end is mostly about hype and myth.

Amps and preamps have been able to reproduce cleanly for decades, CD's are
producing exact copies of the master tape or whatever media the record
company uses, so what's left? Speakers! Truly the most important problem
to be solved is how to get the speakers to work in any given room without
adding significant distortion and without drastic changes in the way a given
recording was intended to sound, especially a live concert.

YMMV


  #16   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Michael McKelvy wrote:
How do you take seriously, a magazine where one of their speaker
measurement people openly admits in the current issue that he just
learned about ground plane measurements LAST SPRING!


While I have no wish to argue with your opinions of Stereophile, Mr.
McKelvy, it is fair to point out that there is no such admission in
the January issue.

What there is a tutorial article written by Keith Howard on
accurately measuring the lower-frequency performance of loudspeakers,
in connection with asessing the farfield impact of cabinet resonances.
Part 2 of this article, scheduled to appear in the April issue,
examines the success (or lack thereof) of practical, non-anechoic
measurement techniques in uncovering speaker aberrations between
100Hz and 500Hz.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
  #17   Report Post  
Richard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

See my responses within your test.


"Harry Lavo" wrote:

We have covered this ground here, Richard. The magazine is exactly what it
purports to be...a review and information magazine.


A definition of INFORMATION:
A collection of facts or data: statistical information.

A definition of FACT:
Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic
engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an
undisputed fact.

In my opinion, Stereophile and some other magazines seem to have
problems with some of the "information" they print and I am afraid
that people interpret this "information" as fact.

It's reviews are both
objective (the measurements) and subjective (the listening evaluation). The
magazine stresses the need for people to listen for they if the are
intrigued by something they read. They spend most of their space on
mainstream components and very little on tweaks, isolation devices, cables,
record clamps, etc. There does not seem to be a 1:1 correlation between
editorial and advertising as there is in some magazines.


You seem to be quite knowledgeable about this. I assume you are a
fan. As to your statement that they spend "very little on tweaks,
isolation devices, etc., that is all well and good. My point was/is
if they or ANY magazine for that matter perpetuates false or
misleading "information" then I have a problem with them!

They have published negative as well as positive letters for years. As far
as I can tell, probably in proportion to what they receive. They receive
very few complaints about the magazines philosophy or policies; most are
about specific disagreements with a writer about something. Most of their
readers find them useful and interesting, and their circulation has held up
well despite the swing to A/V as a result.


OK. But, as I said before, I suspect that the vast majority of their
readership believes most of what they read in that magazine because
the magazine caters to the audiophile tweak. I.e., those looking for
the Holy Grail in sound and many of whom trade gear often looking for
the ultimate system. I know one audiophile who buys and sells every
year and each time he buys a new speaker or amp, etc. it is the very
best of any available.... until he gets the next one.

"They have taken quite a lot of heat recently regarding positive reviews of
snake oil or poorly performing products." Only here on RAHE....not from
the vast majority of their readers.


RAHE includes intelligent independent thinkers who only ask for simple
proof. See my comments above.

Do you really think that John or the
Publisher devise devious Letters to the Editors Policies just to ward off
criticism from RAHE'rs. As far as I can see their Letters policy has been
consistent for years and is totally in the mainstream of responsible
journalism.


I have no problems with their Letters policy. I never said I did! I
simply offered an alternate possibility for why they publish negative
letters.

The problem I have is that the two of you are both speculating wildly as to
their motives, and fantasizing up convoluted rationales as to why they
publish the occasional really negative letter....when a much simpler motive
is much more likely...because they are journalists and have a sense of
professionalism about their work and about the magazine. If you and others
don't like it, that's your prerogative. But "smearing" them with dubious
motives that you concoct because you don't like them, subjective reviews, or
their policies is just what I said... fairly paranoid, with only your
personal opinion to back it up and no factual basis.


As far as fantasies go, Harry, I hope I can do better than fantasize
about an audio magazine. That would seem to be a characteristic more
applicable to you. ;^) I do, however, resent the name-calling and I
am certainly not "smearing" anyone. As to the facts, the magazines
history speaks for itself. I see Michael stole my thunder in his post
but, because I am tired of typing I will commit a bit of plagiarism
with thanks and apologies to Michael.

Fact: One of their reviewers couldn't hear what a piece of crap a
wildly expensive tube amp was.

Fact: SP has endorsed and helped promote audio mythology over the
years on such topics as green pens, magic wire, and other
non-operational nonsense.

Fact: There has been a host of reason given for why such things as
Shakti Stones haven't been better scrutinized.

Fact: Their goofs are the stuff of legend.

This has been fun but these will be my last comments on this
particular topic. Again so as to be perfectly clear on the matter,
the only expectation I have of any magazine is that they print
scientifically accurate and verifiable articles. I know, many would
fail this test.
While a single or even a very small number of items might get by,
continuing to perpetuate myths or unscientific claims about tweaks and
equipment is at best a disservice.
The simple answer to all this is to incorporate ABX testing ESPECIALLY
on controversial tweaks. Of course if printing facts were what it is
about then it would be happening already.


Richard
  #18   Report Post  
michael
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Michael McKelvy wrote:

I'm still convinced that aside from possible improvements in recording
media, (what will be better than CD?)


re-Recordable solid state storage media of a density which will allow me
to carry data of CD resolution with the form factor of a USB flashdrive.
100 CD's worth of storage would be a good start, but I'm not greedy and
would buy something with 50 CD's worth of density. Oh yeah, a price of
about $35.00 would be nice. :-)

michael
  #19   Report Post  
Christine Allison
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'm still convinced that aside from possible improvements in recording
media, (what will be better than CD?) and loudspeaker design, (better
drivers and DSP EQ), the high end is mostly about hype and myth.


Until someone discovers a new principal of transduction we are going to be
stuck with very imperfect sound reproducers.

I would like to point out that my remarks concern only music produced by
acoustic instruments playing music cast in the western art music form. I
recognize that these remarks are possibly non-applicable to most popular
music being performed today. Accordingly my views are almost certainly
meaningless to the needs of most.

That said I feel that without a doubt what the hi-end needs is to embrace
multi-channel recording and playback. As far as I am concerned, if I want
to hear a convincing recreation the sound of a symphony orchestra I have
only to play a good DVD with a DTS track and I am there. The weight and
texture of the bass, the sonic signature of the instruments and the ambiance
of the recording venue are frequently reproduced with startling immediacy!

It's a rare classical CD which has proper weight in the bass registers.

I speak with a bit of authority here. My daughter and my wife are concert
flute players. My other daughters boy friend is an accomplished
saxophonist. We have frequent visits by instrumentalists who frequently
pass their time by concretizing in my home. When I am home I experience at
least 4 hours of live acoustic music per day!

I am a subscriber to the Met Opera and frequently attend symphony orchestra
concerts and organ recitals. With all this I think that I know what live
acoustic music sounds like.

Shortly after I cancelled my Sterophile subscription I had the misfortune of
attending as a guest, one of Sterophiles Hi-End shows (in midtown
Manhattan.) After spending 4 hours listening to a variety of systems from
"budget" to almost six digits my wife and I agreed that not one single one
of them sounded even vaguely musical! Most could be described as HORRIBLE.
I can recall stumbling into a demo room where a live guitarist was playing.
After the screeching scratching, booming we had been suffering all afternoon
what a relief.

My present multichannel home set up featuring Definitive Tech Bi-polars is
"musical". I am dammed sure it's not "accurate" I am positive that it
modifies the sources acoustic venue and violates most of the Hi-End
dictates... BUT its MUSICAL and I don't care!

Isn't that the whole purpose of the exercise?

Richard Smith
  #20   Report Post  
Michael McKelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:
How do you take seriously, a magazine where one of their speaker
measurement people openly admits in the current issue that he just
learned about ground plane measurements LAST SPRING!


While I have no wish to argue with your opinions of Stereophile, Mr.
McKelvy, it is fair to point out that there is no such admission in
the January issue.

What there is a tutorial article written by Keith Howard on
accurately measuring the lower-frequency performance of loudspeakers,
in connection with asessing the farfield impact of cabinet resonances.


And in this tutorial, Mr. Howard states on page 68 "It was on a trip to
Harman International's headquarters in Northridge, California, last summer
that a better approach hove into view. While on a whistle-stop tour of the
JBL Professioanl division, I was shown the roof space where they preform
bass measurements using Mark Gander's ground plane technique, developed at
JBL in the early 1980's."

Is it unresonable to ask why it took so long for Mr. Howard to become aware
of this method?

Is it unreasoanble to ask why subjective reviews by people the reader is
expected to believe can hear reasonably well would praise a speaker that
like the Kaya mentioned below, have such horrific frequency response?


If I am incorrect in stating that he does speaker measurements for you
rmagazine I apologize. He does list himself and you as reviewers who
measure loudspeakers, so it seems a fair statement.

Part 2 of this article, scheduled to appear in the April issue,
examines the success (or lack thereof) of practical, non-anechoic
measurement techniques in uncovering speaker aberrations between
100Hz and 500Hz.


Am I correct in my understanding that SP does not have an anechoic chamber?
If not, why not?

Perhaps if SP had such a facility there wouldn't be a review of speakers
like Innersound's Kaya, that praises the spaeker's performance but asks for
more bass clarity in the deepest bass, and also says its bass driver didn't
provide the expected impact. This clearly flies in the face of the
measurement of it's anechoic frequency response in fig. 6 page 97 of the
December issue, where there is clearly a monstorous peak escalating from
around 6 kHz ending at 60 Hz. The response shown is at aprox. -18 at 6 kHz
and +8 at 60 Hz! This is not what one would expect in a speaker selling for
$20,000.00.

Such contradictions, IMO show something is incredibly wrong somewhere.
Either the reviewers need to spend more time listening to what accurate
frequency response sounds like,or the measurements are completely screwy.

Perhaps a reference speaker system should be in place for comparison on all
reviews.


  #21   Report Post  
Michael McKelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"michael" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:

I'm still convinced that aside from possible improvements in recording
media, (what will be better than CD?)


re-Recordable solid state storage media of a density which will allow me
to carry data of CD resolution with the form factor of a USB flashdrive.
100 CD's worth of storage would be a good start, but I'm not greedy and
would buy something with 50 CD's worth of density. Oh yeah, a price of
about $35.00 would be nice. :-)

michael


When I said better, I was speaking of sound quality, but certainly there is
a case to be made for improved portability. Personally I would miss the
cover art.
  #22   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Michael McKelvy wrote:
wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:
How do you take seriously, a magazine where one of their speaker
measurement people openly admits in the current issue that he
just learned about ground plane measurements LAST SPRING!


While I have no wish to argue with your opinions of Stereophile,
Mr. McKelvy, it is fair to point out that there is no such
admission in the January issue.

What there is a tutorial article written by Keith Howard on
accurately measuring the lower-frequency performance of
loudspeakers, in connection with asessing the farfield impact
of cabinet resonances.


And in this tutorial, Mr. Howard states on page 68 "It was on a trip
to Harman International's headquarters in Northridge, California,
last summer that a better approach hove into view. While on a
whistle-stop tour of the JBL Professioanl division, I was shown the
roof space where they perform bass measurements using Mark Gander's
ground plane technique, developed at JBL in the early 1980's."

Is it unresonable to ask why it took so long for Mr. Howard to become
aware of this method?


Where in th text you quoted it is stated that Keith Howard "just"
became aware of ground-plane measurements. He states that in his visit
he was "shown" where Harman perform their ground-plane measurements.
That does not mean he was unaware of the technique before then. That
is your interpretation, Mr. McKelvy. I note that you have now posted
this incorrect interpretation to various newsgroups on 5 separate
occasions; that still doesn't make it correct.

Is it unreasoanble to ask why subjective reviews by people the
reader is expected to believe can hear reasonably well would praise
a speaker that like the Kaya mentioned below, [has] such horrific
frequency response?


As I have repeatedly said in the maagazine and on the website, a
speaker's frequency response needs to be measured in the farfield
and this is not possible for a physically large speaker without
access to a very large anechoic chamber. All my measurements of
such speakers are published with this caution. When possible, I
perform in-room measurements also; for the Innersound Kaya, I did
so for the similarly sized Eros; you can find that measuement online
in our free archives.

Am I correct in my understanding that SP does not have an anechoic
chamber? If not, why not?


Because the capital investment in such a chamber and the real estate
is beyond the magazine's financial capability, unfortunately.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
  #23   Report Post  
Michael McKelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Christine Allison" wrote in message
...
I'm still convinced that aside from possible improvements in recording
media, (what will be better than CD?) and loudspeaker design, (better
drivers and DSP EQ), the high end is mostly about hype and myth.


Until someone discovers a new principal of transduction we are going to be
stuck with very imperfect sound reproducers.

No arguement there.

I would like to point out that my remarks concern only music produced by
acoustic instruments playing music cast in the western art music form. I
recognize that these remarks are possibly non-applicable to most popular
music being performed today. Accordingly my views are almost certainly
meaningless to the needs of most.

That said I feel that without a doubt what the hi-end needs is to embrace
multi-channel recording and playback. As far as I am concerned, if I want
to hear a convincing recreation the sound of a symphony orchestra I have
only to play a good DVD with a DTS track and I am there. The weight and
texture of the bass, the sonic signature of the instruments and the
ambiance
of the recording venue are frequently reproduced with startling immediacy!


Multichanel systems are becoming, (if not already) the dominant systems
people are buying. Maybe not those who consider themselves to be
highenders. It's coming for sure, even SP has a Home Theatre magazine.

It's a rare classical CD which has proper weight in the bass registers.

I don't know if many people have the capability to reproduce it, if it were.

I speak with a bit of authority here. My daughter and my wife are concert
flute players. My other daughters boy friend is an accomplished
saxophonist. We have frequent visits by instrumentalists who frequently
pass their time by concretizing in my home. When I am home I experience
at
least 4 hours of live acoustic music per day!

I am a subscriber to the Met Opera and frequently attend symphony
orchestra
concerts and organ recitals. With all this I think that I know what live
acoustic music sounds like.

Shortly after I cancelled my Sterophile subscription I had the misfortune
of
attending as a guest, one of Sterophiles Hi-End shows (in midtown
Manhattan.) After spending 4 hours listening to a variety of systems
from
"budget" to almost six digits my wife and I agreed that not one single one
of them sounded even vaguely musical! Most could be described as
HORRIBLE.


They do seem to have a wierd dichotomy in claiming to represent the high end
but their reviewers seem to gush over stuff that anybody looking for
accurate reproduction would never own.

I do have to ammend some earlier comments on their speaker measurements of
speakers. Apparently they do them better than I thought, indeed they do
them as well as anybody from what I am told by an authoritative source.
Thanks Tom.

I can recall stumbling into a demo room where a live guitarist was
playing.
After the screeching scratching, booming we had been suffering all
afternoon
what a relief.

My present multichannel home set up featuring Definitive Tech Bi-polars is
"musical". I am dammed sure it's not "accurate" I am positive that it
modifies the sources acoustic venue and violates most of the Hi-End
dictates... BUT its MUSICAL and I don't care!

Isn't that the whole purpose of the exercise?

Depends on your point of view. If you want something that pleases you for
reasons unrelated to accuracy, you get it. If you want a system that
produces sound from your recorded media that is accurate, you look for
different things.

IME, speakers with flat FR have always sounded better than those that don't
have it.

You might wish to augment those Def Tech's with a good subwoofer and then
see how that bass sounds.
  #24   Report Post  
John A. Lichtenberger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:

Where in th text you quoted it is stated that Keith Howard "just"

became aware of ground-plane measurements. He states that in his visit
he was "shown" where Harman perform their ground-plane measurements.
That does not mean he was unaware of the technique before then. That
is your interpretation, Mr. McKelvy. I note that you have now posted
this incorrect interpretation to various newsgroups on 5 separate
occasions; that still doesn't make it correct.


I think the term "better" was there somewhere... that "could" easily be
interpreted as an improvement over what the reviewer was aware of prior
to the event....


Is it unreasoanble to ask why subjective reviews by people the
reader is expected to believe can hear reasonably well would praise
a speaker that like the Kaya mentioned below, [has] such horrific
frequency response?



As I have repeatedly said in the maagazine and on the website, a
speaker's frequency response needs to be measured in the farfield
and this is not possible for a physically large speaker without
access to a very large anechoic chamber. All my measurements of
such speakers are published with this caution. When possible, I
perform in-room measurements also; for the Innersound Kaya, I did
so for the similarly sized Eros; you can find that measuement online
in our free archives.


"Doctor... I believe only a human heart transplant will work for this
patient."
"Ah.. yes Mr. Basco, that's true, but we only have rat hearts available,
and seeing as they serve the same basic physiologic function, I believe
we'll proceed accordingly..
notwithstanding the issue of relevance, scale, and other issues of a
seemingly trivial nature....trust me... I know what's best.. "

One would wonder what the relevance of a non-farfield measurement could
be.. other than to give the impression of some sort of scientific
evaluation???



Am I correct in my understanding that SP does not have an anechoic
chamber? If not, why not?



Because the capital investment in such a chamber and the real estate
is beyond the magazine's financial capability, unfortunately.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


Auplater
  #25   Report Post  
Christine Allison
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Depends on your point of view. If you want something that pleases you for
reasons unrelated to accuracy, you get it. If you want a system that
produces sound from your recorded media that is accurate, you look for
different things.


After concert going for five decades one thing I have discovered is that
every seat in the house provides a different musical prospective! If that
is the case how can anyone claim that one Hi-Fi system is more accurate then
another? In the ideal situation would be a direct wired connection
providing the aural and tactile information directly to the listeners nerve
circuits. This would impart exactly what the mike heard. Everything
outside of that is an approximation.

I think this is where the entire notion of "accurate" music reproduction in
the home falls flat. It's impossible to achieve. I have recordings of my
wife and daughter playing the flute in my listening room. When played back
these recordings don't have the richness and complexities of the actual live
playing.

That's why I say the Definitive Tech's are musical. They produce a pleasing
approximation of what the actual musical event sounded like. With the
addition of ambiance tracks this approximation becomes even more convincing.

Some DTS movie soundtracks reproduce with great (figurative and literal)
impact. I think that's because they capture the ESSENCE of the musical
happening but not the actual event it's self.


IME, speakers with flat FR have always sounded better than those that

don't
have it.


That's really not true. The response should smoothly slope downward into
the treble It's the presence of peaks in the response that's the killer. A
5 db or higher peak/null grossly effects the coloration of a given speaker
and badly distorts the program source.

If you stop to think of it flat response differs from the way we hear
things. When she is playing in a symphonic ensemble my daughters piccolo
sounds very loud. However it's actual output is less then that of a string
bass. The fact of the matter is that from the standpoint of frequency we
don't hear things in a liner fashion. A 32 foot organ pipe needs a powerful
blower to sound as load as a hi pitched pipe blown by a few cubic inches of
air per second. Since perceived loudness is logarithmic it becomes obvious
that it is very difficult to properly trannsduce into a remote listening
environment.

You might wish to augment those Def Tech's with a good subwoofer and then
see how that bass sounds.


One year ago I sold my fourth and last sub woofer. It was a big SVS
cylindrical affair that could produce meaningful output to 16hz. This
monster had been proceeded by a Velodyne, Definitive-Tech and an Infinity.

The one generalization I can make is that it is extraordinarily difficult to
match the sub to the mains. I found that the gain in response was plagued
by some many other issues that (on balance) made it not worth it.

My present Definitive Techs each have a powered woofer/subwoofer section
incorporated into the cabinetry. The reason I bought this model (2002TL) is
that the bass is psudo transmission line loaded. If you know much about
woofers this is the best (short of a real TL) to deal with the out of phase
backwave.

The results speak for themselves powerful bass to 25 hz and meaningful
response to about 22. More importantly, when properly set up the bass is
beautifully smooth, controlled and integrated.

Richard Smith


  #26   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John A. Lichtenberger wrote:
wrote:
When possible, I perform in-room measurements also; for the
Innersound Kaya, I did so for the similarly sized Eros; you can
find that measuement online in our free archives.


"Doctor... I believe only a human heart transplant will work for
this patient."
"Ah.. yes Mr. Basco, that's true, but we only have rat hearts
available, and seeing as they serve the same basic physiologic
function, I believe we'll proceed accordingly..."


I am not sure I grasp your point, Mr. Lichtenberger. The Innersound
Kaya uses a very similar, large electrostatic panel to that used in
the same manufacturer's Eros, which behaves identically with respect
to dispersion and the nearfield vs farfield argument. Looking at the
Eros' in-room measurement thus gives a very good idea of the Kaya's
response in the frequency region covered by the panel in the same
room.

One would wonder what the relevance of a non-farfield
measurement could be...other than to give the impression of some
sort of scientific evaluation???


Would you prefer that I do what other magazines do, Mr.
Lichtenberger, which is not to give the reader _any_ indication
that the measurement has of necessity been taken with some
practical restrictions? I prefer to supply that information so the
restrictions be taken into consideration when the measured response
is examined.

If your criticism of my measurements is valid, then it is even
more so when applied to those published in other magazines.

You should note that in the case of the Kaya, the response I publish
is averaged over a 30-degree horizontal listening window. With a
speaker with such limited dispersion in this pane as the Kaya, the
effect of the measuring microphone not being in farfield will be
exaggerated by the enormous HF rolloff to the speaker's sides.

There is also the practical matter that with a speaker using
a radiating element with a large dimension, the listener is also
going to sit to some extent in the nearfield, unless she has a very
large room.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
  #27   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Christine Allison wrote:
Depends on your point of view. If you want something that pleases

you for
reasons unrelated to accuracy, you get it. If you want a system

that
produces sound from your recorded media that is accurate, you look

for
different things.


After concert going for five decades one thing I have discovered is

that
every seat in the house provides a different musical prospective! If

that
is the case how can anyone claim that one Hi-Fi system is more

accurate then
another?


Because they define accuracy differently than you are using the term
here. From the point of view that you quote, accuracy means, "fidelity
to the recording." It's the job of the person making the recording to
capture, as best he can, the ambience of the live event. Assuming he
does, an audio system should preserve that, as much as possible. (And
if he doesn't, there's no hope of putting it back.)

In the ideal situation would be a direct wired connection
providing the aural and tactile information directly to the listeners

nerve
circuits. This would impart exactly what the mike heard. Everything
outside of that is an approximation.

I think this is where the entire notion of "accurate" music

reproduction in
the home falls flat. It's impossible to achieve. I have recordings

of my
wife and daughter playing the flute in my listening room. When

played back
these recordings don't have the richness and complexities of the

actual live
playing.


There are probably a lot of reasons for that, but one of them is surely
that your audio system is not as attractive as either of the women in
your life!

That's why I say the Definitive Tech's are musical. They produce a

pleasing
approximation of what the actual musical event sounded like.


No, they don't. What they actually do is evoke in you the sensation
that you are listening to AN actual musical event. Unless you were
there, you have no idea what THE actual musical event sounded like.
Plus, you've already contradicted this point twice: First, when you
noted that THE event differs, depending on where you sit. And second,
when you complained that your system COULDN'T reproduce the actual
musical event when the actual musical event had just played right in
front of you.

One thing you are right about is that there is no necessary correlation
between technical accuracy, as I defined it above, and the evoking of
the sensation that you are listening to an actual musical event. It's
quite possible that for many listeners, a less accurate system will do
a better job of promoting what the lit-crit folks call "a willing
suspension of disbelief." But you should also be aware that there is
research (see references to Floyd Toole earlier in this thread) that
finds that most people do indeed prefer speakers which are more
technically accurate.

With the
addition of ambiance tracks this approximation becomes even more

convincing.

Some DTS movie soundtracks reproduce with great (figurative and

literal)
impact. I think that's because they capture the ESSENCE of the

musical
happening but not the actual event it's self.


It may also be because they are accompanied by video, which will
certainly add to any sense of realism.

bob
  #28   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Michael McKelvy wrote:
Am I correct in my understanding that SP does not have
an anechoic chamber? If not, why not?


To be fair to the good Mr. Atkinson, have you priced what an
anechoic chamber meeting the requirements you outline would
cost?

Assume you're looking for a lower limiting frequency of 20 Hz.
That defines the MINIMUM absorber size needed to achieve the
needed absorbtion at 20 Hz. You'd need wedges at least 14 feet
deep.

Now, assume you'll be placing the object to be tested in the
center of the chamber, and that you want to measure reasonable
far field response, say, at 10 feet from the device. You'll
want to stay at least another 1/4 wavelength away from the
wedges to minimize residual diffraction and reflection effects.
That the defines the minimum free volume of the chamber as
having a radius of 10+14 feet, meaning the total free volume
is 28x28x28, or some 22,000 cubic feet. Add to that the wedges,
and you have a volme 56x56x56 feet. At 175,000 cubic feet, it
would probably be one of the 20 largest acoustic anechoic chambers
in the world.

As such, expect to pay in the MILLIONS of dollars for such a
contrivance.
  #29   Report Post  
John A. Lichtenberger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:

John A. Lichtenberger wrote:


wrote:


When possible, I perform in-room measurements also; for the
Innersound Kaya, I did so for the similarly sized Eros; you can
find that measuement online in our free archives.


"Doctor... I believe only a human heart transplant will work for
this patient."
"Ah.. yes Mr. Basco, that's true, but we only have rat hearts
available, and seeing as they serve the same basic physiologic
function, I believe we'll proceed accordingly..."



I am not sure I grasp your point, Mr. Lichtenberger. The Innersound
Kaya uses a very similar, large electrostatic panel to that used in
the same manufacturer's Eros, which behaves identically with respect
to dispersion and the nearfield vs farfield argument. Looking at the
Eros' in-room measurement thu


As I have repeatedly said in the maagazine and on the website, a
speaker's frequency response needs to be measured in the farfield
and this is not possible for a physically large speaker without
access to a very large anechoic chamber. All my measurements of
such speakers are published with this caution.


You say, on the one hand, that a large speaker needs to be meaured in
the farfield, but you can't do this... then you say you made a
nearfield measurement of a large speaker, here are the results, and here
are my conclusions that support my argument. Not exactly a rigorous
scientific method here. If you wish technical data reported in
Stereophile to be taken seriously, at least don't contradict your own
argument in the same paragraph.

One would wonder what the relevance of a non-farfield
measurement could be...other than to give the impression of some
sort of scientific evaluation???



Would you prefer that I do what other magazines do, Mr.
Lichtenberger, which is not to give the reader _any_ indication
that the measurement has of necessity been taken with some
practical restrictions? I prefer to supply that information so the
restrictions be taken into consideration when the measured response
is examined.


No, I would think you would not want to publish data that could be
seriously confounded or then use conclusions (implied or stated) drawn
from that data to support subjective statements made in the general text
of your articles. After all, ever since the Stereo Review / Julian
Hirsch days when all audio equipment was above average, sounded the
best, and would be an excellent addition to any music lovers' system,
anyone with a modicum of scientific integrity has grown accustomed to
taking "technical" data presented in commercial magazines with little
more than a grain of salt. When you, Mr. Atkinson, as Stereophile
Editor, make oxymoronic arguments to support the existance of
"technical" data presented as such in your magazine, I have to question
it's validity.

If your criticism of my measurements is valid, then it is even
more so when applied to those published in other magazines.


Never said it wasn't. So, if the other magazines are doing it wrong, you
should too? There's not alot of valid science of any sort going on
today, I'm afraid.

You should note that in the case of the Kaya, the response I publish
is averaged over a 30-degree horizontal listening window. With a
speaker with such limited dispersion in this pane as the Kaya, the
effect of the measuring microphone not being in farfield will be
exaggerated by the enormous HF rolloff to the speaker's sides.

There is also the practical matter that with a speaker using
a radiating element with a large dimension, the listener is also
going to sit to some extent in the nearfield, unless she has a very
large room.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

So, do tell us... is the Kaya a great speaker, a good speaker, a
mediocre speaker, or a pathetic speaker? (based on your measurements, of
course)

Auplater
  #30   Report Post  
Norman M. Schwartz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message ...
Christine Allison wrote:
Depends on your point of view. If you want something that pleases

you for
reasons unrelated to accuracy, you get it. If you want a system

that
produces sound from your recorded media that is accurate, you look

for
different things.


After concert going for five decades one thing I have discovered is

that
every seat in the house provides a different musical prospective! If

that
is the case how can anyone claim that one Hi-Fi system is more

accurate then
another?


Because they define accuracy differently than you are using the term
here. From the point of view that you quote, accuracy means, "fidelity
to the recording." It's the job of the person making the recording to
capture, as best he can, the ambience of the live event. Assuming he
does, an audio system should preserve that, as much as possible. (And
if he doesn't, there's no hope of putting it back.)

No, not exactly, the man is absolutely correct. My Maggies sound more like
my preferred seat than do any Martin-Logans, given any particular recording
and its captured ambience.


  #31   Report Post  
Norman M. Schwartz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Christine Allison" wrote in message
...
Depends on your point of view. If you want something that pleases you
for
reasons unrelated to accuracy, you get it. If you want a system that
produces sound from your recorded media that is accurate, you look for
different things.


After concert going for five decades one thing I have discovered is that
every seat in the house provides a different musical prospective! If that
is the case how can anyone claim that one Hi-Fi system is more accurate
then
another?


Bravo! Here is an individual who knows what he/she is talking about. That's
exactly why the "layman" (read: non-audiophile) finally gets a subscription
at a preferred location and keeps it. You don't have to buy into wires,
cables (and a lot of chazzerei; see http:stillfree.com, if necessary) to
know this is indeed the case. The Hi-Fi systems one auditions in stores and
then finds acceptable at home IS the one you keep. Perhaps improvements come
along and the hobbyist dabbles around to see whether or not they add to,
detract from, or make no difference in mimicking the sound heard from this
preferred seat in a given hall.
  #32   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John A. Lichtenberger" wrote in
message :
John Atkinson wrote in
message
John A. Lichtenberger" wrote:
...

As I have repeatedly said in the magazine and on the website,
a speaker's frequency response needs to be measured in the
farfield and this is not possible for a physically large speaker
without access to a very large anechoic chamber. All my
measurements of such speakers are published with this caution.


You say, on the one hand, that a large speaker needs to be
measured in the farfield, but you can't do this...then you say you
made a nearfield measurement of a large speaker, here are the
results, and here are my conclusions that support my argument. Not
exactly a rigorous scientific method here.


My apologies if my language was not sufficently clear, Mr.
Lichtenberger. What I have written is that with _any_ speaker,
the measuring microphone needs to be in that speaker's farfield
if its "frequency response" is to be accurately characterized. It
is generally assumed that if the distance to that microphone is a
few multiples of the speaker's largest dimension, the farfield
requirement has been met.

However, with a physically large speaker, that condition cannot
be met under practical conditions. The measured response will
therefore be affected to some extent by this factor; a proximity
effect will exist which will tend to result in a sloped-down
response, just as described by Mr. McKelvy in the posting to
which I was originally responding.

If you wish technical data reported in Stereophile to be taken
seriously, at least don't contradict your own argument in the
same paragraph.


I don't believe I am contradicting myself, Mr. Lichtenberger,
merely stating the practical limitations of the measurements.

If your criticism of my measurements is valid, then it is even
more so when applied to those published in other magazines.


Never said it wasn't. So, if the other magazines are doing it
wrong, you should too?


I didn't say others are "doing it wrong." Instead, I noted that
without access to a very large anechoic chamber, speaker
measurements performed and published by others are subject to the
same limitations.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
  #33   Report Post  
Michael McKelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Christine Allison" wrote in message
...
Depends on your point of view. If you want something that pleases you
for
reasons unrelated to accuracy, you get it. If you want a system that
produces sound from your recorded media that is accurate, you look for
different things.


After concert going for five decades one thing I have discovered is that
every seat in the house provides a different musical prospective! If that
is the case how can anyone claim that one Hi-Fi system is more accurate
then
another? In the ideal situation would be a direct wired connection
providing the aural and tactile information directly to the listeners
nerve
circuits. This would impart exactly what the mike heard. Everything
outside of that is an approximation.

I think this is where the entire notion of "accurate" music reproduction
in
the home falls flat. It's impossible to achieve. I have recordings of my
wife and daughter playing the flute in my listening room. When played
back
these recordings don't have the richness and complexities of the actual
live
playing.

That's why I say the Definitive Tech's are musical. They produce a
pleasing
approximation of what the actual musical event sounded like. With the
addition of ambiance tracks this approximation becomes even more
convincing.

Some DTS movie soundtracks reproduce with great (figurative and literal)
impact. I think that's because they capture the ESSENCE of the musical
happening but not the actual event it's self.


IME, speakers with flat FR have always sounded better than those that

don't
have it.


That's really not true.


You missed the part about MY EXPERIENCE? IME speakers with flat FR sound
better.

The response should smoothly slope downward into
the treble It's the presence of peaks in the response that's the killer.


The 2 work hand in hand IMO. I want flat FR with a nice smooth rolloff off
axis.

A
5 db or higher peak/null grossly effects the coloration of a given speaker
and badly distorts the program source.

If you stop to think of it flat response differs from the way we hear
things. When she is playing in a symphonic ensemble my daughters piccolo
sounds very loud. However it's actual output is less then that of a
string
bass. The fact of the matter is that from the standpoint of frequency we
don't hear things in a liner fashion. A 32 foot organ pipe needs a
powerful
blower to sound as load as a hi pitched pipe blown by a few cubic inches
of
air per second. Since perceived loudness is logarithmic it becomes
obvious
that it is very difficult to properly trannsduce into a remote listening
environment.


You aparently don't understand what I mean by flat FR. I mean a speaker
that produces the same spl for each frequency given the same electrical
input.

If the speaker produces one frequency louder with one watt of power than it
does others, it's not as good a a speaker that does.


You might wish to augment those Def Tech's with a good subwoofer and then
see how that bass sounds.


One year ago I sold my fourth and last sub woofer. It was a big SVS
cylindrical affair that could produce meaningful output to 16hz. This
monster had been proceeded by a Velodyne, Definitive-Tech and an Infinity.

The one generalization I can make is that it is extraordinarily difficult
to
match the sub to the mains.


Then I believe you are doing it wrong.


I found that the gain in response was plagued
by some many other issues that (on balance) made it not worth it.

My present Definitive Techs each have a powered woofer/subwoofer section
incorporated into the cabinetry. The reason I bought this model (2002TL)
is
that the bass is psudo transmission line loaded. If you know much about
woofers this is the best (short of a real TL) to deal with the out of
phase
backwave.


In your opinion. I have a bass reflex sub that gives me all the bass I want
and doesn't over power the other sound from the mains.

The results speak for themselves powerful bass to 25 hz and meaningful
response to about 22. More importantly, when properly set up the bass is
beautifully smooth, controlled and integrated.

Richard Smith


Sounds like the same results I get with 2 sats and a sub.
  #34   Report Post  
Michael McKelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:
wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:
How do you take seriously, a magazine where one of their speaker
measurement people openly admits in the current issue that he
just learned about ground plane measurements LAST SPRING!

While I have no wish to argue with your opinions of Stereophile,
Mr. McKelvy, it is fair to point out that there is no such
admission in the January issue.

What there is a tutorial article written by Keith Howard on
accurately measuring the lower-frequency performance of
loudspeakers, in connection with asessing the farfield impact
of cabinet resonances.


And in this tutorial, Mr. Howard states on page 68 "It was on a trip
to Harman International's headquarters in Northridge, California,
last summer that a better approach hove into view. While on a
whistle-stop tour of the JBL Professioanl division, I was shown the
roof space where they perform bass measurements using Mark Gander's
ground plane technique, developed at JBL in the early 1980's."

Is it unresonable to ask why it took so long for Mr. Howard to become
aware of this method?


Where in th text you quoted it is stated that Keith Howard "just"
became aware of ground-plane measurements. He states that in his visit
he was "shown" where Harman perform their ground-plane measurements.
That does not mean he was unaware of the technique before then.


The way it is written it seems that this was a revelation to him. It seemed
to me that this was not a technique he had previously employed.

That
is your interpretation, Mr. McKelvy. I note that you have now posted
this incorrect interpretation to various newsgroups on 5 separate
occasions; that still doesn't make it correct.


You will also note that I have admitted to being incorrect in my assesment
of SP's measurements in another thread. I do so here once more. I am
informed now that SP does very thourough and complete measurements that are
as good as any done in the audio press.

Is it unreasoanble to ask why subjective reviews by people the
reader is expected to believe can hear reasonably well would praise
a speaker that like the Kaya mentioned below, [has] such horrific
frequency response?


As I have repeatedly said in the maagazine and on the website, a
speaker's frequency response needs to be measured in the farfield
and this is not possible for a physically large speaker without
access to a very large anechoic chamber. All my measurements of
such speakers are published with this caution. When possible, I
perform in-room measurements also; for the Innersound Kaya, I did
so for the similarly sized Eros; you can find that measuement online
in our free archives.


The Kaya is but one example of speakers that have gross bass bumps that get
favorable reviews.

Am I correct in my understanding that SP does not have an anechoic
chamber? If not, why not?


Because the capital investment in such a chamber and the real estate
is beyond the magazine's financial capability, unfortunately.


As Mr. Pierce has detailed, such a facility would be expensive. I have also
learned that Madisound doesn't actually have a full fledged anechoic
chamber.

Would it be cost prohibitive for SP to obtain a set of reference speakers,
that have flat FR and good off axis performance, so that your reviewers
could have them for comparison? This seems like it might yield better
reviews, with less praised heaped on speakers that have what would generally
be considered ragged performance. Your magazine gave a very good review to
the Merlin VSM, (I'd be surprised if they didn't) which has excellent FR and
of axis response and is in the world of high end audio, not outrageously
expensive.

It would IMO, be a very good service and possibly a very popular feature if
you could provide an occasional review of some of the DIY components that
are available. There are kits that cover a variety of interests and skill
levels.

Tube kits seem to be quite popular and there are many resources for them as
well as for SS gear. A few of the speaker kits IMO deserve to be reviewed
for a wider audience than they currently enjoy. North Creek, SEAS,
Scan-Speak, and some others all have kits that have been given praise in
other places, not to mention the Orion kit from Linkwitz Labs.

I would love to see more hands on by audiophiles, so that they might both
learn and have something worthwhile to show from the effort.
  #35   Report Post  
Christine Allison
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Perhaps improvements come
along and the hobbyist dabbles around to see whether or not they add to,
detract from, or make no difference in mimicking the sound heard from this
preferred seat in a given hall.


During the age of LP records endless debates raged regarding the optimum
cartridge/arm combination. The English firm Decca London manufactured a
very iconoclastic cartridge in which the stylus jewel was mounted on a
vertical tube. Yes the transducing armature was perpendicular to the
record.

It goes without saying that such an arrangement guaranteed exact tracing of
the groove as it had been recorded by a recording head because they both
had exactly the same geometry.

I bought a Decca London fro Lyric Hi-fi and mounted it on a Rabco tangential
tracking servo controlled arm. In theory this arrangement should have
provided perfect transduction from edge to center.

For the debut of this combination I played the opening chorus of the
Harnancourt (sp) recording of the St. Matthew Passion. I was startled at
what emerged from my speakers! Without a doubt the reproduction of that
band was superior to anything I had heard up to that time and I suspect
better then anything I have heard to date.

Unfortunately that's the only good thing I can say about the Decca London.
It could not track it's way out of a paper bag was horribly fragile and
given to hum.

The point I am making is that one must select components that play
pleasingly MOST of the time. Not some temperamental engineering
extravaganza.

Richard Smith



  #36   Report Post  
Hasenpfeffer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:
wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:
How do you take seriously, a magazine where one of their speaker
measurement people openly admits in the current issue that he
just learned about ground plane measurements LAST SPRING!

While I have no wish to argue with your opinions of Stereophile,
Mr. McKelvy, it is fair to point out that there is no such
admission in the January issue.

What there is a tutorial article written by Keith Howard on
accurately measuring the lower-frequency performance of
loudspeakers, in connection with asessing the farfield impact
of cabinet resonances.


And in this tutorial, Mr. Howard states on page 68 "It was on a trip
to Harman International's headquarters in Northridge, California,
last summer that a better approach hove into view. While on a
whistle-stop tour of the JBL Professioanl division, I was shown the
roof space where they perform bass measurements using Mark Gander's
ground plane technique, developed at JBL in the early 1980's."

Is it unresonable to ask why it took so long for Mr. Howard to become
aware of this method?


Where in th text you quoted it is stated that Keith Howard "just"
became aware of ground-plane measurements. He states that in his visit
he was "shown" where Harman perform their ground-plane measurements.
That does not mean he was unaware of the technique before then. That
is your interpretation, Mr. McKelvy. I note that you have now posted
this incorrect interpretation to various newsgroups on 5 separate
occasions; that still doesn't make it correct.

Is it unreasoanble to ask why subjective reviews by people the
reader is expected to believe can hear reasonably well would praise
a speaker that like the Kaya mentioned below, [has] such horrific
frequency response?


As I have repeatedly said in the maagazine and on the website, a
speaker's frequency response needs to be measured in the farfield
and this is not possible for a physically large speaker without
access to a very large anechoic chamber. All my measurements of
such speakers are published with this caution. When possible, I
perform in-room measurements also; for the Innersound Kaya, I did
so for the similarly sized Eros; you can find that measuement online
in our free archives.

Am I correct in my understanding that SP does not have an anechoic
chamber? If not, why not?


Because the capital investment in such a chamber and the real estate
is beyond the magazine's financial capability, unfortunately.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


Have you ever thought about using a TEF analyzer? It can measure the
frequency response with a swept sine wave and a time window can be set to
only include first arrival of the sound, thereby ignoring reflections. The
sine wave and a digital filter are tuned to the same frequency, by the time
the reflections arrive, the filter is already tuned to the "current"
frequency and rejects the reflection. I have compared the results of the TEF
analyzer (living room conditions) with manufacturer's published anechoic
chamber measurements, and they are very close. Regular RTA was totally
different and more a reflection of the reflections. You can also measure the
frequency response of the reflections, which can reveal room difficulties.
And it's affordable!

Michael



  #37   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hasenpfeffer wrote:
wrote in message
...
As I have repeatedly said in the maagazine and on the website, a
speaker's frequency response needs to be measured in the farfield
and this is not possible for a physically large speaker without
access to a very large anechoic chamber. All my measurements of
such speakers are published with this caution...


Have you ever thought about using a TEF analyzer? It can measure
the frequency response with a swept sine wave and a time window can
be set to only include first arrival of the sound, thereby ignoring
reflections.


All in-room measurement techniques -- TEF, MLSSA, LEAP -- suffer
from the problem I mentioned above. All trade-off practicability
against the need to window out room reflections, which in turn
places restrictions on how far away the microphone can be placed
from the speaker and on how accurate the resultant response can
be.

This is examined in depth in the Keith Howard article that was
criticized by Mr. McKelvy --- see
http://www.stereophile.com/features/105kh/.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
  #38   Report Post  
Hasenpfeffer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'd be happy to get a frequency response starting at 200 Hz. Anything below
that is up to chance in any given room anyway. The TEF can do a pretty good
job with that. Perhaps a nearfield graph below 200 Hz?



wrote in message
...
Hasenpfeffer wrote:
wrote in message
...
As I have repeatedly said in the maagazine and on the website, a
speaker's frequency response needs to be measured in the farfield
and this is not possible for a physically large speaker without
access to a very large anechoic chamber. All my measurements of
such speakers are published with this caution...


Have you ever thought about using a TEF analyzer? It can measure
the frequency response with a swept sine wave and a time window can
be set to only include first arrival of the sound, thereby ignoring
reflections.


All in-room measurement techniques -- TEF, MLSSA, LEAP -- suffer
from the problem I mentioned above. All trade-off practicability
against the need to window out room reflections, which in turn
places restrictions on how far away the microphone can be placed
from the speaker and on how accurate the resultant response can
be.

This is examined in depth in the Keith Howard article that was
criticized by Mr. McKelvy --- see
http://www.stereophile.com/features/105kh/.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

  #39   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hasenpfeffer wrote:
wrote
Hasenpfeffer wrote:
Have you ever thought about using a TEF analyzer? It can measure
the frequency response with a swept sine wave and a time window
can be set to only include first arrival of the sound, thereby
ignoring reflections.


All in-room measurement techniques -- TEF, MLSSA, LEAP -- suffer
from the problem I mentioned above. All trade-off practicability
against the need to window out room reflections, which in turn
places restrictions on how far away the microphone can be placed
from the speaker and on how accurate the resultant response can
be.


I'd be happy to get a frequency response starting at 200 Hz...
The TEF can do a pretty good job with that.


I think you are still missing my point. If you want to measure a
speaker in-room, you need to window out the reflections from room
boundaries. It's simple geometry: The farther away from the speaker
you place your microphone -- and remember this discussion involves
assessing the farfield response of phyically large speakers -- the
more closely in time the reflections follow the direct sound of the
speaker and the more aggressively you have to window the data,
resulting in a response that is meaningless below a much higher
frequency than 200Hz.

Conversely, if you put the microphone close to the speaker, to
get better resolution and meaningful data at a frequency as low
as 200Hz, you are no longer in a large speaker's farfield, and
your measured resposnse will suffer from proximity effect.

All gated in-room measurements techniques are affected by these
factors and TEF is no better than the others in this respect. I
use DRA Labs MLSSA, which I have found to be better in other
ways than TEF, BTW.

My preference is to go with the latter compromise, and it is that
to which Mr, McKelvy was objecting.

Perhaps a nearfield graph below 200 Hz?


If you read any of the loudspeakers reviews in Stereophile,
reprinted in our free online archives at www.stereophile.com,
you will see that I do use nearfield measurements below 300Hz.
But nearfield measurements has its own set of compromises, one
being the problem presented by multiple radiators covering the
same range, the other being the inherent assumption of a 2pi
acoustic environment for those drivers.

The point I am making is that without access to a very large,
hence very expensive anechoic chamber, measuring a loudspeaker's
"frequency response" is not a trivial matter, and involves
necessary compromises.

You can read my articles on this subject starting at
www.stereophile.com/reference/99/ .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
  #40   Report Post  
Tip
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi Michael & Richard,

IME, speakers with flat FR have always sounded
better than those that

don't
have it.


That's really not true.


You missed the part about MY EXPERIENCE? IME
speakers with flat FR sound
better.

The response should smoothly slope downward into
the treble It's the presence of peaks in the
response that's the killer.


The 2 work hand in hand IMO. I want flat FR with a
nice smooth rolloff off
axis.



The problem here is that you are both correct, but are
talking about different things. Michael is talking
about the anechoic frequency response of a speaker, and
Richard is talking about the in-room frequency response
of a speaker at the listening position. The response
of a "flat" speaker will not be "flat" at the listening
position, but, ignoring the peaks and dips caused by
the room modes, it will have a downward slope from the
low to high frequencies.

If you stop to think of it flat response differs
from the way we hear
things. When she is playing in a symphonic ensemble
my daughters piccolo
sounds very loud. However it's actual output is
less then that of a
string
bass. The fact of the matter is that from the
standpoint of frequency we
don't hear things in a liner fashion.


The Fletcher-Munson "Equal Loudness Contours" apply
only to our ears, not speakers and microphones. We are
recording the sound as it occurred, not as we heard it.
If it is reproduced as it occurred, we will hear it
correctly even though we don't have "flat" hearing.
That is, we also would have heard the original
performance with our "non-flat" ears. I believe the
Fletcher-Munson contours really only apply when we are
listening at a different SPL than what we would have
heard at the original performance.

Regards,
Tip

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stereophile Tries To Come Clean About The DiAural Fiasco Arny Krueger Audio Opinions 9 November 23rd 04 06:21 PM
Anyone have the Stereophile test LP anybody-but-bush Pro Audio 17 October 21st 04 01:52 PM
Free Stereophile, Absolute Sound Richard Guleff Marketplace 0 February 26th 04 08:39 PM
FS: Back issues of Stereophile QXLMG Marketplace 0 October 7th 03 12:09 AM
FS: Back issues of Stereophile QXLMG Marketplace 0 October 7th 03 12:09 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:14 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"