Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"Powell" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote Exactly. Middius is such a frightened little man that he won't even properly name the make and model of the components in his stereo system. You tried to impress this n.g. by saying that you Sue me for trying to be responsive to the question that was asked. had recently purchased $15K in equipment and then refused to disclose what the purchase was. I have disclosed more than enough to satisfy any reasonable questions that people might have. I think I have disclosed makes and models of the equipment in at least 3 of my audio systems. What does it take to provide reasonable disclosure? Does it matter to you what the make and models of my car radios are? ;-) How about my collection of mics and mic preamps? Not even I have a complete inventory of exactly where that $15K or so went. Now compare the information that I have disclosed to what Middius spewed. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote:
Exactly. Middius is such a frightened little man that he won't even properly name the make and model of the components in his stereo system. All he can say specific about it is what sort of discounts from list prices he's got. I guess that means that it all came from eBay or someplace like it, and we're not talking about new equipment dealers here, either. Even if he named the stuff that would be no proof that he actually owned it. As for him being a "frightened little man," it is just possible that he is not a man at all. Howard Ferstler |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:43:01 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote: dave weil wrote: On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:39:56 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote: Yuck. No doubt you are very familiar with the unit and have listened to it extensively and compared it closely with other models. You mean like you are with Quad speakers, right? We do need to remember that I never bad mouthed those speakers and never said that they would not stand up against competing models. I left the topic open. Read your next sentence. What I did say is that on a tape I have of a Floyd Toole lecture he did not have much good to say about Quad speakers. Given his feelings about imaging, soundstaging, flat response, and controlled dispersion, one would have to wonder about what the Quads could do that would matter to objective listeners. But, who knows, perhaps they are sensational. They are. But it's likely that you'll never know, since you seem afraid of them. Dave, I know this is going to be a loaded question, but why on earth would I be "afraid" of them? Yeah, you are going to say that they defy my contention that once you get above a certain price point going any further up the scale is gilding the lily. Guys like you have to believe that out there somewhere is a super-duper and super-expensive product that makes all the tweako speculation meaningful. Actually, I think that people who like speakers of that kind tend to want their speakers to sound like giant headphones, with clarity above and beyond what they would get at a live performance. That is a valid preference, but do not think that I would be impressed by it all that much. Obviously, Toole was not all that impressed, either. Actually, if we are looking for a speaker that might torpedo my contention about price vs sound quality, perhaps a better choice than the Quad would be the new super-duper B&O model. Howard Ferstler |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Powell said: You tried to impress this n.g. by saying that you had recently purchased $15K in equipment and then refused to disclose what the purchase was. Did it make you feel important at the time you said it, Arny ("frightened little man") ? Are you trying to confuse Mr. **** again? No more stipends for that, I'm afraid. Not since we have Lionella blithering away, trying her darnedest to make Krooger look cogent by comparison. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Brother Horace the Impotent croaked: it is just possible that he is not a man at all. snicker |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:21:48 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote: They are. But it's likely that you'll never know, since you seem afraid of them. Dave, I know this is going to be a loaded question, but why on earth would I be "afraid" of them? I can't seem to see any other reason that someone who exhorts people to "see for themselves" about audio claims would pointedly avoid checking such a long-standing icon of musical reproduction out. After all, these speakers have been in constant production for almost 40 years with only three iterations. Yeah, you are going to say that they defy my contention that once you get above a certain price point going any further up the scale is gilding the lily. Guys like you have to believe that out there somewhere is a super-duper and super-expensive product that makes all the tweako speculation meaningful. No, it has nothing to do with cost but the intrinsic sound quality of the speakers. One can easily get a used pair of the the '63s for less than a pair of Dunlavy Cantatas. And a brand new version of these speakers is less than $10,000 (which you would agree would be the approximate cost of your main Allison speakers if they were still being built today). Hell, look what the Ones cost new now. They're over $5 grand, right? No, the Quads aren't perfect. They really benefit from some bass augmentation for most kinds of music, but since subwoofers are plentiful and the quality so good for under $2500, that's not much of an issue... |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Actually, I think that people who like speakers of that kind tend to want their speakers to sound like giant headphones, with clarity above and beyond what they would get at a live performance. So tell me, where this 'additional' clarity comes from, being that, obviously, it is not in the recording. How does a speaker 'manufacture' additional detail. I could see it being subtractive, but it can't be additive. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:21:48 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote: They are. But it's likely that you'll never know, since you seem afraid of them. Dave, I know this is going to be a loaded question, but why on earth would I be "afraid" of them? I can't seem to see any other reason that someone who exhorts people to "see for themselves" about audio claims would pointedly avoid checking such a long-standing icon of musical reproduction out. After all, these speakers have been in constant production for almost 40 years with only three iterations. There is only so much a speaker can do. At best, it can deliver flat, wide-bandwidth power and a flat direct-field signal, and it can have minimal phase effects. It can radiate over a very wide angle over a broad bandwidth or it can focus the sound over a narrower angle and have minimal radiation to the sides, with that radiation also flat and smooth. It can also split the difference between those extremes. It should also, of course, have minimal distortion, particularly into the bass range. And of course it can play loud enough to satisfy the listener. That is about it. I have reviewed speakers that were exemplary in all of these categories, although I have never encountered one that was good in all of them at the same time. Indeed, doing so would be impossible. If the Quad (new or old designs) can do things that matter beyond those listed requirements it would be news to me - and news to scads of others, too. Yeah, you are going to say that they defy my contention that once you get above a certain price point going any further up the scale is gilding the lily. Guys like you have to believe that out there somewhere is a super-duper and super-expensive product that makes all the tweako speculation meaningful. No, it has nothing to do with cost but the intrinsic sound quality of the speakers. See my previous points. The best speakers interject as little "sound quality" into the mix as possible. Given the impact of the listening room and the nature of recordings themselves, it is possible for speakers that are surprisingly cheap to hold their own with some pretty expensive versions. I have done enough level-matched comparing by now to not be impressed with speakers that are considered super duper by guys like you. One can easily get a used pair of the the '63s for less than a pair of Dunlavy Cantatas. And here I am assuming that wear and tear has not left them in a sub-par state. Used speakers are risky business, Dave. In my AV books I discussed used gear and said that it often was a great idea. I had two exceptions to this great-idea purchase philosophy, however: phono cartridges and speakers. Chancy purchases, used, those. And a brand new version of these speakers is less than $10,000 (which you would agree would be the approximate cost of your main Allison speakers if they were still being built today). To date, the most expensive stereo-speaker combination I have reviewed (a sub/sat package with two subs, with electronic crossover and sub amplification) had a list price of $6800. That is just about the top of the expense range for me, Dave, given my previous statements about a seven-grand ceiling. (Admittedly, the full package for that combination ran the bill up to ten grand, but that included a center and two surround speakers.) The Waveform sub/sat package I also reviewed (two subs, again) had a list price of just about $5500, and the Cantata pair was the same price. Those items also were getting onto shaky ground, given that other sub/sat packages I had reviewed cost maybe one forth what those cost and sounded just about as good. Now, "just about as good" is a tricky concept. I mean, on an absolute scale the more expensive systems did have a slight edge, both in terms of listening quality and room-curve measurements. But not by much with some of those cheaper packages. And I would hazard a guess and say that if the expensive and cheap packages were compared DBT style by you and a number of other RAO freaks, the cheaper packages might win the contest as many times as the more expensive ones. Yep, when someone is listening to a "legendary speaker" that has captivated enthusiasts for years, they probably will agree that it is a fabulous item. How could it be otherwise? However, put on a blindfold and do a DBT against something considerably cheaper and that standout speaker may not stand out all that much. It might not even stand out at all. Hell, look what the Ones cost new now. They're over $5 grand, right? And overpriced, in my opinion. Note that I have had a chance to fool around with those new Model Ones, and was not impressed. No formal review, however. No, the Quads aren't perfect. Hey, folks, you read that right here, as stated by Dave! They really benefit from some bass augmentation for most kinds of music, but since subwoofers are plentiful and the quality so good for under $2500, that's not much of an issue... I agree. But do not think that my reasons for not reviewing the things has anything to do with fear on my part. I have reviewed enough speakers by now to not be particularly mystified by the performance of any of them. They are remarkably mundane items, be they expensive and exotic or cheap and rather basic. Unlike you guys, I do not swoon at the mention of high-end hardware. It is all just "stuff" to me, Dave. Howard Ferstler |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Clyde Slick wrote:
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Actually, I think that people who like speakers of that kind tend to want their speakers to sound like giant headphones, with clarity above and beyond what they would get at a live performance. So tell me, where this 'additional' clarity comes from, being that, obviously, it is not in the recording. Generally, the further you get into the direct field (meaning closer to the speakers), the clearer any transducer will sound. This is why sitting closer to speakers that exhibit very good phase response will allow them to sound clearer than when listened to from further away. Giving a room some absorptive wall-treatment work will have a similar effect, at least with speakers that are not ultra-wide dispersing. (Doing that with the latter kind of speakers will attenuate their power response too much and actually muffle the sound.) With headphones, you are entirely into the direct field, with no room reflections to muddy the sound at all. Highly directional speakers can exhibit similar effects, with things made even better if the systems exhibit really good minimum phase performance. How does a speaker 'manufacture' additional detail. I could see it being subtractive, but it can't be additive. Actually, a speaker can have midrange peaks that seem to enhance the detail. Another, ironically contrary, trick is to have a saddle-shaped dip in the same midrange, with the treble somewhat elevated. Many two-way speakers do this almost automatically (the power response dips near the crossover point, while the on-axis signal remains flat, enhancing the strength of the leading-edge transients), and in the old days moving-coil cartridges sometimes also had the same midrange sag, elevated treble artifact that made them seem to sparkle. Anyone who has ever fooled with a good equalizer will be aware of how one can diddle with the signal to enhance clarity with specific recordings. Here is something even more interesting. When reviewing some jazz recordings for my first record-review book I discovered that engaging the surround DSP channels of my processor also enhanced the clarity. The processor had no electrical effect on the front channels at all, but it did add reverb that was shunted to the surround channels, and the net result was a subjective improvement both in the sense of hall-space realism and frontal clarity. Go figure. Howard Ferstler |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 12:36:18 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: I have reviewed speakers that were exemplary in all of these categories, although I have never encountered one that was good in all of them at the same time. Indeed, doing so would be impossible. If the Quad (new or old designs) can do things that matter beyond those listed requirements it would be news to me - and news to scads of others, too. You should reread this commentary and take it to heart, Howard. If you can find me saying that the Quad doesn't have any flaws, please reproduce them here. In fact, I've noted the most common "flaw" that people talk about, a "flaw' that is easily fixed these days. |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 12:36:18 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: Yep, when someone is listening to a "legendary speaker" that has captivated enthusiasts for years, they probably will agree that it is a fabulous item. How could it be otherwise? However, put on a blindfold and do a DBT against something considerably cheaper and that standout speaker may not stand out all that much. It might not even stand out at all. Well, the only way you can tell is by actually doing the blindfold test. Something that you're not apparently willing to do at this point. PS, a "blindfold test" precludes using measurements as a crutch, you know... |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Howard Ferstler said:
Yep, when someone is listening to a "legendary speaker" that has captivated enthusiasts for years, they probably will agree that it is a fabulous item. How could it be otherwise? However, put on a blindfold and do a DBT against something considerably cheaper and that standout speaker may not stand out all that much. It might not even stand out at all. And that makes it an outstanding loudspeaker. If a speaker is is performing spectacularly in any way, most likely that property is going to annoy you in the long run. -- Sander de Waal " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. " |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 12:36:18 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: Yep, when someone is listening to a "legendary speaker" that has captivated enthusiasts for years, they probably will agree that it is a fabulous item. How could it be otherwise? However, put on a blindfold and do a DBT against something considerably cheaper and that standout speaker may not stand out all that much. It might not even stand out at all. Well, the only way you can tell is by actually doing the blindfold test. Something that you're not apparently willing to do at this point. Dave, I have better things to do (and review) than cater to your requirements at this time. Basically, I have kind of given up on reviewing overkill items at this time (although I keep trying to get some Revel systems to review), which probably includes those Quad units you seem to feel have hung the moon. PS, a "blindfold test" precludes using measurements as a crutch, you know... If they are blindfolded, what does it matter if they are done before or after doing measurements. Actually, I rarely do blindfold comparisons of speakers or anything else these days. I do not care enough about the results to get into a twist with any results I come up with. Howard Ferstler |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Sander deWaal wrote:
Howard Ferstler said: Yep, when someone is listening to a "legendary speaker" that has captivated enthusiasts for years, they probably will agree that it is a fabulous item. How could it be otherwise? However, put on a blindfold and do a DBT against something considerably cheaper and that standout speaker may not stand out all that much. It might not even stand out at all. And that makes it an outstanding loudspeaker. Not if the speaker it is being compared to sounds as good and costs only a fraction of what the super job costs. Then the cheap job is the outstanding unit. If a speaker is is performing spectacularly in any way, most likely that property is going to annoy you in the long run. In that case, your favorite speaker is probably the one in a transistor radio. They never perform spectacularly. Howard Ferstler |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 13:52:07 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: If they are blindfolded, what does it matter if they are done before or after doing measurements. Actually, I rarely do blindfold comparisons of speakers or anything else these days. I do not care enough about the results to get into a twist with any results I come up with. Don't take your own advice then, Howard? Looks like we're in the same boat. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Howard Ferstler said:
Yep, when someone is listening to a "legendary speaker" that has captivated enthusiasts for years, they probably will agree that it is a fabulous item. How could it be otherwise? However, put on a blindfold and do a DBT against something considerably cheaper and that standout speaker may not stand out all that much. It might not even stand out at all. And that makes it an outstanding loudspeaker. Not if the speaker it is being compared to sounds as good and costs only a fraction of what the super job costs. Then the cheap job is the outstanding unit. The absence of audible cabinet resonances in any Quad speaker makes them outstanding. All of them (even the '57). If a speaker is is performing spectacularly in any way, most likely that property is going to annoy you in the long run. In that case, your favorite speaker is probably the one in a transistor radio. They never perform spectacularly. Try to get a Bose sub for review. Listen to that one-note bass (very spectacular at first) for a longer period of time and keep your eyes dry. -- Sander de Waal " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. " |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote: I have better things to do...than cater to your requirements at this time. Can I use this quote? Stephen |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Sander deWaal a écrit :
Howard Ferstler said: Yep, when someone is listening to a "legendary speaker" that has captivated enthusiasts for years, they probably will agree that it is a fabulous item. How could it be otherwise? However, put on a blindfold and do a DBT against something considerably cheaper and that standout speaker may not stand out all that much. It might not even stand out at all. And that makes it an outstanding loudspeaker. If a speaker is is performing spectacularly in any way, most likely that property is going to annoy you in the long run. This is terribly true. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Actually, I think that people who like speakers of that kind tend to want their speakers to sound like giant headphones, with clarity above and beyond what they would get at a live performance. So tell me, where this 'additional' clarity comes from, being that, obviously, it is not in the recording. Generally, the further you get into the direct field (meaning closer to the speakers), the clearer any transducer will sound. This is why sitting closer to speakers that exhibit very good phase response will allow them to sound clearer than when listened to from further away. Giving a room some absorptive wall-treatment work will have a similar effect, at least with speakers that are not ultra-wide dispersing. (Doing that with the latter kind of speakers will attenuate their power response too much and actually muffle the sound.) With headphones, you are entirely into the direct field, with no room reflections to muddy the sound at all. Highly directional speakers can exhibit similar effects, with things made even better if the systems exhibit really good minimum phase performance. You didn't answer the question. So tell me, where this 'additional' clarity comes from, being that, obviously, it is not in the recording How does a speaker 'manufacture' additional detail. I could see it being subtractive, but it can't be additive. Actually, a speaker can have midrange peaks that seem to enhance the detail. Another, ironically contrary, trick is to have a saddle-shaped dip in the same midrange, with the treble somewhat elevated. Many two-way speakers do this almost automatically (the power response dips near the crossover point, while the on-axis signal remains flat, enhancing the strength of the leading-edge transients), and in the old days moving-coil cartridges sometimes also had the same midrange sag, elevated treble artifact that made them seem to sparkle. Anyone who has ever fooled with a good equalizer will be aware of how one can diddle with the signal to enhance clarity with specific recordings. Here is something even more interesting. When reviewing some jazz recordings for my first record-review book I discovered that engaging the surround DSP channels of my processor also enhanced the clarity. The processor had no electrical effect on the front channels at all, but it did add reverb that was shunted to the surround channels, and the net result was a subjective improvement both in the sense of hall-space realism and frontal clarity. Go figure. You didn't answer the question How does a speaker 'manufacture' additional detail. I could see it being subtractive, but it can't be additive Your answer was abunch of speculative mumbo jumbo, note. Wishful thinking based upon expectation effects, no doubt. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... If they are blindfolded, what does it matter if they are done before or after doing measurements. Actually, I rarely do blindfold comparisons of speakers or anything else these days. I do not care enough about the results to get into a twist with any results I come up with. Ever hear of "expectation effects"? ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
MINe 109 said: I have better things to do...than cater to your requirements at this time. Can I use this quote? Howard is an extraordinary scholar, science lover, and cancer survivor. Just ask him. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
George M. Middius wrote: MINe 109 said: I have better things to do...than cater to your requirements at this time. Can I use this quote? Howard is an extraordinary scholar, science lover, and cancer survivor. Just ask him. Good point. I'll cite it instead. Stephen |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
"George M. Middius" wrote in message ... MINe 109 said: I have better things to do...than cater to your requirements at this time. Can I use this quote? Howard is an extraordinary scholar, science lover, and cancer survivor. Just ask him. "At least" MINe 109 has the decency to ask before copying someone else's material. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 13:52:07 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: If they are blindfolded, what does it matter if they are done before or after doing measurements. Actually, I rarely do blindfold comparisons of speakers or anything else these days. I do not care enough about the results to get into a twist with any results I come up with. Don't take your own advice then, Howard? Looks like we're in the same boat. Unlike you, I do not believe in audio's version of the tooth fairy. Brass-tacks types like me are not blinded by product reputation or big-buck price tags. My advice applies to guys like you, who need to discover what does and does not matter with things like wire, CD player, and amplifier sound. Incidentally, I was aware of the "amps is amps" performance issue as far back as 1975, when I sent a rhetorical question about amp sound to High Fidelity Magazine. They responded in a way that I thoroughly agreed with back then and still agree with. Dave, I have NEVER been fooled by the baloney put forth by tweakos about amp and wire sound. Unlike guys like Aczel, who was converted away from the tweako point of view after experiencing an ABX test (the DBT protocol was actually outlined by Dan Shanefield back in the middle seventies), I have never had illusions about amp-sound differences. Unlike you guys, I never have had the need to be converted to sanity when it comes to audio hardware. Howard Ferstler |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Sander deWaal wrote:
Howard Ferstler said: Yep, when someone is listening to a "legendary speaker" that has captivated enthusiasts for years, they probably will agree that it is a fabulous item. How could it be otherwise? However, put on a blindfold and do a DBT against something considerably cheaper and that standout speaker may not stand out all that much. It might not even stand out at all. And that makes it an outstanding loudspeaker. Not if the speaker it is being compared to sounds as good and costs only a fraction of what the super job costs. Then the cheap job is the outstanding unit. The absence of audible cabinet resonances in any Quad speaker makes them outstanding. All of them (even the '57). I have never found cabinet resonances to be a problem with really good dynamic speakers. It is easy to detect resonances with a basic room-curve measurement, because they will show up as peaks in the reverberant field. (Toole has illustrated this with some of his measurements and has published articles on the topic.) Actually, I would expect the large diaphragm with electrostatics to be much more prone to resonances than typical speaker boxes. I know that Nousaine has measured some Martin Logan jobs for reviews in Sound & Vision, and the curves were among the choppiest and most erratic they have ever printed. Generally, the earlier Quad models were very directional, and so the listener had to toe them in and remain pretty much locked into the sweet spot. (This kind of rigid listening is not my cup of tea at all.) That directionality basically resulted in the direct field being dominant at midrange and treble frequencies, making the speakers perform like huge headphones. Those who like that kind of somewhat sterile behavior would obviously prefer such speakers. Howard Ferstler |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Clyde Slick wrote:
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... If they are blindfolded, what does it matter if they are done before or after doing measurements. Actually, I rarely do blindfold comparisons of speakers or anything else these days. I do not care enough about the results to get into a twist with any results I come up with. Ever hear of "expectation effects"? Yep. They are a serious problem for tweakos like you. Howard Ferstler |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Clyde Slick wrote:
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Actually, I think that people who like speakers of that kind tend to want their speakers to sound like giant headphones, with clarity above and beyond what they would get at a live performance. So tell me, where this 'additional' clarity comes from, being that, obviously, it is not in the recording. Generally, the further you get into the direct field (meaning closer to the speakers), the clearer any transducer will sound. This is why sitting closer to speakers that exhibit very good phase response will allow them to sound clearer than when listened to from further away. Giving a room some absorptive wall-treatment work will have a similar effect, at least with speakers that are not ultra-wide dispersing. (Doing that with the latter kind of speakers will attenuate their power response too much and actually muffle the sound.) With headphones, you are entirely into the direct field, with no room reflections to muddy the sound at all. Highly directional speakers can exhibit similar effects, with things made even better if the systems exhibit really good minimum phase performance. You didn't answer the question. So tell me, where this 'additional' clarity comes from, being that, obviously, it is not in the recording How does a speaker 'manufacture' additional detail. I could see it being subtractive, but it can't be additive. Actually, a speaker can have midrange peaks that seem to enhance the detail. Another, ironically contrary, trick is to have a saddle-shaped dip in the same midrange, with the treble somewhat elevated. Many two-way speakers do this almost automatically (the power response dips near the crossover point, while the on-axis signal remains flat, enhancing the strength of the leading-edge transients), and in the old days moving-coil cartridges sometimes also had the same midrange sag, elevated treble artifact that made them seem to sparkle. Anyone who has ever fooled with a good equalizer will be aware of how one can diddle with the signal to enhance clarity with specific recordings. Here is something even more interesting. When reviewing some jazz recordings for my first record-review book I discovered that engaging the surround DSP channels of my processor also enhanced the clarity. The processor had no electrical effect on the front channels at all, but it did add reverb that was shunted to the surround channels, and the net result was a subjective improvement both in the sense of hall-space realism and frontal clarity. Go figure. You didn't answer the question Sure I did. Read my answer again. Howard Ferstler |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... dave weil wrote: On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 13:52:07 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: If they are blindfolded, what does it matter if they are done before or after doing measurements. Actually, I rarely do blindfold comparisons of speakers or anything else these days. I do not care enough about the results to get into a twist with any results I come up with. Don't take your own advice then, Howard? Looks like we're in the same boat. Unlike you, I do not believe in audio's version of the tooth fairy. Brass-tacks types like me are not blinded by product reputation or big-buck price tags. My advice applies to guys like you, who need to discover what does and does not matter with things like wire, CD player, and amplifier sound. Incidentally, I was aware of the "amps is amps" performance issue as far back as 1975, when I sent a rhetorical question about amp sound to High Fidelity Magazine. They responded in a way that I thoroughly agreed with back then and still agree with. Dave, I have NEVER been fooled by the baloney put forth by tweakos about amp and wire sound. Unlike guys like Aczel, who was converted away from the tweako point of view after experiencing an ABX test (the DBT protocol was actually outlined by Dan Shanefield back in the middle seventies), I have never had illusions about amp-sound differences. Unlike you guys, I never have had the need to be converted to sanity when it comes to audio hardware. Howard Ferstler ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... I have NEVER I never have ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... I have never ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... If they are blindfolded, what does it matter if they are done before or after doing measurements. Actually, I rarely do blindfold comparisons of speakers or anything else these days. I do not care enough about the results to get into a twist with any results I come up with. Ever hear of "expectation effects"? Yep. They are a serious problem for tweakos like you. It would be nice if you weren't 'blind' to your own. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Actually, a speaker can have midrange peaks that seem to enhance the detail. Another, ironically contrary, trick is to have a saddle-shaped dip in the same midrange, with the treble somewhat elevated. Many two-way speakers do this almost automatically (the power response dips near the crossover point, while the on-axis signal remains flat, enhancing the strength of the leading-edge transients), and in the old days moving-coil cartridges sometimes also had the same midrange sag, elevated treble artifact that made them seem to sparkle. Anyone who has ever fooled with a good equalizer will be aware of how one can diddle with the signal to enhance clarity with specific recordings. Here is something even more interesting. When reviewing some jazz recordings for my first record-review book I discovered that engaging the surround DSP channels of my processor also enhanced the clarity. The processor had no electrical effect on the front channels at all, but it did add reverb that was shunted to the surround channels, and the net result was a subjective improvement both in the sense of hall-space realism and frontal clarity. Go figure. You didn't answer the question Sure I did. Read my answer again. No you didn't. In the case you gave, the existing detail of a certain part of the recorded music was accented, by attenuation of other parts of the recorded music It 'was' still in the recording in the first place. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Howard Ferstler said:
The absence of audible cabinet resonances in any Quad speaker makes them outstanding. All of them (even the '57). I have never found cabinet resonances to be a problem with really good dynamic speakers. It is easy to detect resonances with a basic room-curve measurement, because they will show up as peaks in the reverberant field. (Toole has illustrated this with some of his measurements and has published articles on the topic.) Actually, I would expect the large diaphragm with electrostatics to be much more prone to resonances than typical speaker boxes. Nope. The mass is vastly lower. I know that Nousaine has measured some Martin Logan jobs for reviews in Sound & Vision, and the curves were among the choppiest and most erratic they have ever printed. Probably. There are MLs with additional woofers around. Perhaps it was one of those? Then again, ML isn't Quad. Generally, the earlier Quad models were very directional, and so the listener had to toe them in and remain pretty much locked into the sweet spot. (This kind of rigid listening is not my cup of tea at all.) That directionality basically resulted in the direct field being dominant at midrange and treble frequencies, making the speakers perform like huge headphones. Agreed. A "problem" with all bipolar speakers. Those who like that kind of somewhat sterile behavior would obviously prefer such speakers. I'm one of them. -- Sander de Waal " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. " |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Sander deWaal wrote: Howard Ferstler said: The absence of audible cabinet resonances in any Quad speaker makes them outstanding. All of them (even the '57). I have never found cabinet resonances to be a problem with really good dynamic speakers. It is easy to detect resonances with a basic room-curve measurement, because they will show up as peaks in the reverberant field. (Toole has illustrated this with some of his measurements and has published articles on the topic.) Actually, I would expect the large diaphragm with electrostatics to be much more prone to resonances than typical speaker boxes. Nope. The mass is vastly lower. I know that Nousaine has measured some Martin Logan jobs for reviews in Sound & Vision, and the curves were among the choppiest and most erratic they have ever printed. Probably. There are MLs with additional woofers around. Perhaps it was one of those? "Curvilinear"? Isn't that ML's way of trying to be more Ferstler-approved by diddling the dispersion? Dipole highs, monopole lows, something's got to give. Then again, ML isn't Quad. Nor Magnepan. Generally, the earlier Quad models were very directional, and so the listener had to toe them in and remain pretty much locked into the sweet spot. (This kind of rigid listening is not my cup of tea at all.) That directionality basically resulted in the direct field being dominant at midrange and treble frequencies, making the speakers perform like huge headphones. Agreed. A "problem" with all bipolar speakers. Especially if you live in an aircraft hangar. Those who like that kind of somewhat sterile behavior would obviously prefer such speakers. I'm one of them. It's hard to think of a dipole promiscuously splashing sound around as being sterile. If Howard knew how to use URLs, he could look at this and follow the links: http://user.tninet.se/~vhw129w/mt_au...n/quadpage.htm |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Clyde Slick wrote:
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Actually, a speaker can have midrange peaks that seem to enhance the detail. Another, ironically contrary, trick is to have a saddle-shaped dip in the same midrange, with the treble somewhat elevated. Many two-way speakers do this almost automatically (the power response dips near the crossover point, while the on-axis signal remains flat, enhancing the strength of the leading-edge transients), and in the old days moving-coil cartridges sometimes also had the same midrange sag, elevated treble artifact that made them seem to sparkle. Anyone who has ever fooled with a good equalizer will be aware of how one can diddle with the signal to enhance clarity with specific recordings. Here is something even more interesting. When reviewing some jazz recordings for my first record-review book I discovered that engaging the surround DSP channels of my processor also enhanced the clarity. The processor had no electrical effect on the front channels at all, but it did add reverb that was shunted to the surround channels, and the net result was a subjective improvement both in the sense of hall-space realism and frontal clarity. Go figure. You didn't answer the question Sure I did. Read my answer again. No you didn't. In the case you gave, the existing detail of a certain part of the recorded music was accented, by attenuation of other parts of the recorded music It 'was' still in the recording in the first place. And the equalization helped to improve clarity in some respects. However, it also subtracted from the accuracy of the playback. Actually, this kind of works for you tweakos, because you prefer pleasant sound to accurate playback. And in some cases diddling with tone controls will improve the sense of realism with playback. Ironically, using DSP ambiance enhancement tricks can also do this. Psychoacoustics is obviously a topic that is way over your head. Stick to tweako topics. Howard Ferstler |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Sander deWaal wrote:
Howard Ferstler said: The absence of audible cabinet resonances in any Quad speaker makes them outstanding. All of them (even the '57). I have never found cabinet resonances to be a problem with really good dynamic speakers. It is easy to detect resonances with a basic room-curve measurement, because they will show up as peaks in the reverberant field. (Toole has illustrated this with some of his measurements and has published articles on the topic.) Actually, I would expect the large diaphragm with electrostatics to be much more prone to resonances than typical speaker boxes. Nope. The mass is vastly lower. This so-called low-diaphragm mass has nothing to do with resonances. In addition, the mass of the air in front of the diaphragm is usually much greater than the weight of the diaphragm itself (at least with midrange and tweeter elements), and so a large (and even very lightweight) diaphragm will be dealing with a lot more moving mass than a small, domed midrange or tweeter. Remember, the total mass involves not only the diaphragm but also the air in front of it. I know that Nousaine has measured some Martin Logan jobs for reviews in Sound & Vision, and the curves were among the choppiest and most erratic they have ever printed. Probably. There are MLs with additional woofers around. Perhaps it was one of those? The roughest part of the curve was in the midrange and treble. Basically, much of that roughness involved artifacts outlined by Stan Lip****z in a paper delivered at the AES back in about 1985. It involved the fact that mid- and high-frequency radiation from a large diaphragm (a vertical line source in particular) will not all reach a point-sized receptacle (an ear canal) at the same time. The extreme ends of the line will be further from the ears than the center of the line, meaning that the signals generated by the line will be phase skewed as they are received by the small ears. Hence, we get wild comb-filtering artifacts. The peaks and dips Nousaine measured were more more erratic than straightforward comb-filtering artifacts would indicate, and those additional artifacts may have been the result of the large diaphragm resonating. Interestingly, peaks and dips of that kind may be interpreted as improved clarity if the speaker is not being compared in real time to a system that is actually smooth. Then again, ML isn't Quad. Well, some people swear by them. In any case, the artifacts I mentioned reflect problems inherent in large-diaphragm midrange and tweeter drivers. Generally, the earlier Quad models were very directional, and so the listener had to toe them in and remain pretty much locked into the sweet spot. (This kind of rigid listening is not my cup of tea at all.) That directionality basically resulted in the direct field being dominant at midrange and treble frequencies, making the speakers perform like huge headphones. Agreed. A "problem" with all bipolar speakers. Some people like the effect. I know of some very knowledgeable listeners who consider headphones to be the height of realism. I do not hear that kind of ultra-clarity realism at live performances (I mean that you usually, for example, do not hear performers breathing at live performances), but I can see why it will be appealing to some enthusiasts. Those who like that kind of somewhat sterile behavior would obviously prefer such speakers. I'm one of them. Enjoy your audio system. Howard Ferstler |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
MINe 109 wrote:
"Curvilinear"? Isn't that ML's way of trying to be more Ferstler-approved by diddling the dispersion? Actually, unless the diaphragm is changing size as it moves back and forth, the curved shape will not allow for any better dispersion than what we would get with a flat diaphragm. However, as best I can tell, those diaphragms are solidly attached at the edges and therefore have to flex as they move back and forth. This would almost certainly result in resonances at some frequencies. This is why that whenever a system like that is measured for power response the curve will exhibit a large degree of choppiness. Combine this with the comb-filtering artifacts you will get with any large-diaphragm driver when it is dealing with short wavelength frequencies, and it is easy to see why large-panel systems cannot exhibit smooth frequency response. Dipole highs, monopole lows, something's got to give. This actually has not got much to do with anything. At low frequencies, all systems tend to radiate in a bipolar or full circular manner and not as a dipole. Well, you could get a dipolar response down low with a dipolar woofer (Carver did this a while back), but the response will roll off fast below a certain point. Carver compensated with some huge levels of equalization. Then again, ML isn't Quad. Nor Magnepan. Magnepan would be in the same position of the others, although by using optimized drivers of varying size they overcome some resonance artifacts. However, the line-source generated comb-filtering artifacts would remain. Generally, those are simply perceived as a rolloff above 5 to 8 kHz and not as anything erratic. Generally, the earlier Quad models were very directional, and so the listener had to toe them in and remain pretty much locked into the sweet spot. (This kind of rigid listening is not my cup of tea at all.) That directionality basically resulted in the direct field being dominant at midrange and treble frequencies, making the speakers perform like huge headphones. Agreed. A "problem" with all bipolar speakers. Especially if you live in an aircraft hangar. This comment makes no sense whatsoever. Those who like that kind of somewhat sterile behavior would obviously prefer such speakers. I'm one of them. It's hard to think of a dipole promiscuously splashing sound around as being sterile. It is highly directional. Yes, there are delayed front-wall reflections, but the hugely reduced ceiling/floor and side-wall reflections tends to make them far less spacious sounding than wider-dispersion systems. However, the front-wall reflections, if the systems are pulled out far enough, will lend a sense of frontal depth to the sound. However, remember that this is not recorded depth. It is just a room-generated artifact that usually sounds pleasant. If Howard knew how to use URLs, he could look at this and follow the links: http://user.tninet.se/~vhw129w/mt_au...n/quadpage.htm Note that while HiFi New rated the ESL-57 as "the greatest hi-fi product of all time," that rather tweaky magazine is an English journal and would happily award the prize to one of their own. As for Ken Kessler, well I think that most of what he says about anything is bunk. Basically, this article is a typical tweako "white paper" that does not say much of interest at all. One qualification, however. I will say that the point-source concept is a good one, but I am not sure that Quad has pulled it off all that well. There is a lot of electrical manipulation involved, and arcane stuff like that ought to have you tweakos wringing your worrisome little hands. Howard Ferstler |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: "Curvilinear"? Isn't that ML's way of trying to be more Ferstler-approved by diddling the dispersion? Actually, unless the diaphragm is changing size as it moves back and forth, the curved shape will not allow for any better dispersion than what we would get with a flat diaphragm. Guess again dimbulb. However, as best I can tell, those diaphragms are solidly attached at the edges and therefore have to flex as they move back and forth. This would almost certainly result in resonances at some frequencies. Your stupidity never ceases to amaze me. All diaphrams have resonances whether they are firmly attached at their edges or not. This is why that whenever a system like that is measured for power response the curve will exhibit a large degree of choppiness. You might want to do your homework before putting your foot in your mouth. You know, like looking at the actual measurements of these speakers. Combine this with the comb-filtering artifacts you will get with any large-diaphragm driver when it is dealing with short wavelength frequencies, and it is easy to see why large-panel systems cannot exhibit smooth frequency response. You just get dumber and dumber. Dipole highs, monopole lows, something's got to give. Your brain gave way a long time ago. This actually has not got much to do with anything. At low frequencies, all systems tend to radiate in a bipolar or full circular manner and not as a dipole. Duh. Well, you could get a dipolar response down low with a dipolar woofer (Carver did this a while back), but the response will roll off fast below a certain point. Carver compensated with some huge levels of equalization. Then again, ML isn't Quad. Nor Magnepan. Magnepan would be in the same position of the others, although by using optimized drivers of varying size they overcome some resonance artifacts. However, the line-source generated comb-filtering artifacts would remain. Generally, those are simply perceived as a rolloff above 5 to 8 kHz and not as anything erratic. Generally, the earlier Quad models were very directional, and so the listener had to toe them in and remain pretty much locked into the sweet spot. (This kind of rigid listening is not my cup of tea at all.) That directionality basically resulted in the direct field being dominant at midrange and treble frequencies, making the speakers perform like huge headphones. Agreed. A "problem" with all bipolar speakers. Especially if you live in an aircraft hangar. This comment makes no sense whatsoever. Those who like that kind of somewhat sterile behavior would obviously prefer such speakers. I'm one of them. It's hard to think of a dipole promiscuously splashing sound around as being sterile. It is highly directional. Yes, there are delayed front-wall reflections, but the hugely reduced ceiling/floor and side-wall reflections tends to make them far less spacious sounding than wider-dispersion systems. You could always get the Bose speakers and get the extra "spaciousness." I'm sure it will work as designed in your overly reverberant room. However, the front-wall reflections, if the systems are pulled out far enough, will lend a sense of frontal depth to the sound. And for those in the know, a well damped and diffused wall will pretty much reduce the back wave colorations to a minimum leaving a very pure, very accurate, superior sounding speaker. However, remember that this is not recorded depth. It is just a room-generated artifact that usually sounds pleasant. When the room is dead enough, the front wall in particular, you a much better sense of depth. If Howard knew how to use URLs, he could look at this and follow the links: http://user.tninet.se/~vhw129w/mt_au...n/quadpage.htm Note that while HiFi New rated the ESL-57 as "the greatest hi-fi product of all time," that rather tweaky magazine is an English journal and would happily award the prize to one of their own. Not all audio journalists are as dishonest and corrupt as you. As for Ken Kessler, well I think that most of what he says about anything is bunk. Perhaps if he were to plagiarize promotional copy or publish some fraudulant blind listening tests you would think better of him. Basically, this article is a typical tweako "white paper" that does not say much of interest at all. No fraud, no plagiarism. Quite useless to Ferstler. One qualification, however. I will say that the point-source concept is a good one, but I am not sure that Quad has pulled it off all that well. There is a lot of electrical manipulation involved, and arcane stuff like that ought to have you tweakos wringing your worrisome little hands. Get a life. Scott Wheeler |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
wrote: Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: "Curvilinear"? Isn't that ML's way of trying to be more Ferstler-approved by diddling the dispersion? Actually, unless the diaphragm is changing size as it moves back and forth, the curved shape will not allow for any better dispersion than what we would get with a flat diaphragm. Guess again dimbulb. YOU guess again, dimmestbulb: the radius of the outer (front) grid is larger than the radius of the inner (rear) grid. Howard is absolutely correct: the diaphragm *must* be "changing size" in order for there to be an increase in the horizontal dispersion (without an increase in distortions). This would require "perfect elasticity" of the diaphragm material over it's excursion. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
wrote: Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: "Curvilinear"? Isn't that ML's way of trying to be more Ferstler-approved by diddling the dispersion? Actually, unless the diaphragm is changing size as it moves back and forth, the curved shape will not allow for any better dispersion than what we would get with a flat diaphragm. Guess again dimbulb. YOU guess again, dimmestbulb: the radius of the outer (front) grid is larger than the radius of the inner (rear) grid. Howard is absolutely correct: the diaphragm *must* be "changing size" in order for there to be an increase in the horizontal dispersion (without an increase in distortions). This would require "perfect elasticity" of the diaphragm material over it's excursion. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Question regarding Phantom Power | Pro Audio | |||
Question regarding Phantom Power | Pro Audio | |||
Question regarding Phantom Power | Pro Audio | |||
newbie question - aardvark q10 + external mixer? | Pro Audio | |||
RCA out and Speaker Question in 2004 Ranger Edge Question | Car Audio |