Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] outsor@city-net.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 122
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

There is mention of a download page where full fidelity recordings can be
had for $2.49.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/bu...html?ref=busin


"The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological. For
decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status
symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like a
new flat-screen TV today.

But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs musicangle.com,
which reviews albums, said that today, "a stereo has become an object
of scorn.""


  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
bob bob is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 670
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

On May 10, 11:50=A0am, wrote:
There is mention of a download page where full fidelity recordings can be
had for $2.49.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/bu...ml?ref=3Dbusin

=A0 =A0"The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological.=

For
=A0 =A0decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status
=A0 =A0symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like=

a
=A0 =A0new flat-screen TV today.

=A0 =A0But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs musicangle.com=

,
=A0 =A0which reviews albums, said that today, "a stereo has become an obj=

ect
=A0 =A0of scorn.""


Fremer would know something about objects of scorn. :-)

The article itself predictably muddles the issues of data compression
and dynamic compression--and, of course, fails to note how much more
benign the former is. It also fails to note the single biggest
difference between listening to a high-end rig and listening to an
iPod--the transducers.

Fewer people sit and just listen to a good audio system these days.
OTOH, more people listen to more music than ever before. I'm not
convinced that their lives are poorer for this.

bob

  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
jwvm jwvm is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 336
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

On May 10, 11:50=A0am, wrote:

snip

=A0 =A0"The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological.=

For
=A0 =A0decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status
=A0 =A0symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like=

a
=A0 =A0new flat-screen TV today.


With advances in technology, better quality performance is available
at much lower prices. An implicitly negative comment was made about
portable music players but in actuality, they actually provide
excellent sound quality, at least with decent headphones and vastly
better than cassette players. For portable music in the 1950s, there
was the wonderful AM transistor radio which was truly low fidelity.


=A0 =A0But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs musicangle.com=

,
=A0 =A0which reviews albums, said that today, "a stereo has become an obj=

ect
=A0 =A0of scorn.""


I am not sure why he thinks that modern stereos are scorned but they
are no longer status symbols since they are low-cost commodity
products.

The description of lossy compression causing crackling artifacts is
surprising. Perhaps Fremer needs to use better software. The only
crackling that I can recall is an artifact from LPs. Indeed dynamic
range compression is a real problem unlike modest use of data
compression.


  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

On Mon, 10 May 2010 09:29:55 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On May 10, 11:50=A0am, wrote:
There is mention of a download page where full fidelity recordings can be
had for $2.49.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/bu...ml?ref=3Dbusin

=A0 =A0"The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological.=

For
=A0 =A0decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status
=A0 =A0symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like=

a
=A0 =A0new flat-screen TV today.

=A0 =A0But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs musicangle.com=

,
=A0 =A0which reviews albums, said that today, "a stereo has become an obj=

ect
=A0 =A0of scorn.""


Fremer would know something about objects of scorn. :-)

The article itself predictably muddles the issues of data compression
and dynamic compression--and, of course, fails to note how much more
benign the former is. It also fails to note the single biggest
difference between listening to a high-end rig and listening to an
iPod--the transducers.


Fremer has a point. As I said in a related post yesterday, most commercial
releases fall far short of being as good as their release format CAN BE,
whether that format be vinyl, Redbook CD, SACD, DVD-A or some high-res WAV
file.

Fewer people sit and just listen to a good audio system these days.
OTOH, more people listen to more music than ever before. I'm not
convinced that their lives are poorer for this.


How or how much each person listens as well as what each person listens to is
his/her own affair and no one is the poorer for it. That is, UNLESS the
industry takes these listening habit trends as indicators that the public
doesn't care about sound quality at all, and starts recording musical
performances in ways and with formats and techniques that are less than the
very best that modern technology can provide. In that case, all our lives,
and indeed our very culture would be the poorer for it.
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

On Mon, 10 May 2010 12:01:48 -0700, jwvm wrote
(in article ):

On May 10, 11:50=A0am, wrote:

snip

=A0 =A0"The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological.=

For
=A0 =A0decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status
=A0 =A0symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like=

a
=A0 =A0new flat-screen TV today.


With advances in technology, better quality performance is available
at much lower prices. An implicitly negative comment was made about
portable music players but in actuality, they actually provide
excellent sound quality, at least with decent headphones and vastly
better than cassette players. For portable music in the 1950s, there
was the wonderful AM transistor radio which was truly low fidelity.


=A0 =A0But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs musicangle.com=

,
=A0 =A0which reviews albums, said that today, "a stereo has become an obj=

ect
=A0 =A0of scorn.""


I am not sure why he thinks that modern stereos are scorned but they
are no longer status symbols since they are low-cost commodity
products.


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

The description of lossy compression causing crackling artifacts is
surprising. Perhaps Fremer needs to use better software. The only
crackling that I can recall is an artifact from LPs. Indeed dynamic
range compression is a real problem unlike modest use of data
compression.


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


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

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


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


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

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

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

  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

wrote in message
...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/bu...html?ref=busin


"The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological. For
decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status
symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like a
new flat-screen TV today.


I sense a ton of confusion and maybe just as much if not more
sentimentality. Most ca. 1950 audio systems were pretty bad sounding by
modern standards. It took a ton of relatively large, intrusive, and
expensive hardware to deliver sound quality that could really be compared to
a good portable digital player and a nice pair of IEMs., or a quality but
still relatively small sub/sat speaker system.

Of course, hypercriticality of modern technology is very stylish in certain
circles.

During most of the 1950s just about everybody was limited to listening to
mono vinyl. While there are great-sounding recordings from that era, most
weren't (and still aren't) all that great. The good news is that many of
their problems can be circumvented with skilled remastering. But, even so...

But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs musicangle.com,
which reviews albums, said that today, "a stereo has become an object
of scorn.""


Stereos were an object of scorn most of my life! Stereos did become
mainstream from the Vietnam era until home theater succeeded it as the
mainstream. Maybe 25 years. Home audio without video is no longer SOTA.

In Fremer's case, I wonder if he is generalizing from his own experiences,
which must be unusual given his commitment (some might say obsession) with
audio.


  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Jenn[_2_] Jenn[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

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


So, what were the speakers?
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Dick Pierce Dick Pierce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

On May 10, 6:06=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2010 12:01:48 -0700, jwvm wrote
(in article ):
Good speakers, especially, are quite expensive.


So are bad speakers, and some especially bad ones are
especially expensive.

For instance, there is little decent in the way of speakers
below about the $1K level


There is no intrinsic reason fr this to be. The major
cost components in a speaker are magnet assemblies,
cabinets, profit and overhead (and the ordering is all
over the map). Everything else seldom adds up to be
equal to any of of these components.

To reduce the cost, two areas to go after are the cabinet
size and finish and the magnet structure. The end result
is a speaker which is inefficient, restricted bandwidth,
limited power handling or some tradeoff of these. But
within these limits, there are no intrinsic physical limits
that limit quality. Honestly, it costs just about the same
to make the diaphragm and voice coil of a $120 tweeter
as it does a $20 tweeter in the vast majority of cases.

Another area for cost reduction the profit and overhead.
The latter is essentially managed by going to commodity
scales and finding the cheapest labor pool, while the former
is managed by also going for commodity scales.

Unfortunately, this usually means moving to a manufacturing
base like China, which puts a severe disconnect between
the market and the maker. It's not that the Chinese, for
example, are incapable of making high-quality components
to spec, it's that they are simply unwilling. I have worked
with clients that required that sort of economics and I have
seen both prototypes and product runs of drivers that are
simply stunning in terms of performance, but the factory
reserves the right to, without any notice at all, to arbitrarily
modify a product for any reason they see fit, and, at their
sole discretion, use or sell your design to anyone that'll
buy it.

But, that being said, the ability to produce an under $1k
speaker of high quality is a function primarily of designer
competence and knowledge as well as marketing and
sales prowess, both of which are in increasing short
supply in the high-end or component audio market,
which itself is becoming a vanishingly small portion of
the total audio market.

  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

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

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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





  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

[Moderators' note: Recently some posts have been approved with toned
down curse words as in this one. Please stop using them from now on.
Those words are potentially inflammable and will no longer be
accepted. -- deb]

On Tue, 11 May 2010 09:11:18 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

wrote in message
...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/bu...html?ref=busin


"The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological. For
decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status
symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like a
new flat-screen TV today.


I sense a ton of confusion and maybe just as much if not more
sentimentality. Most ca. 1950 audio systems were pretty bad sounding by
modern standards. It took a ton of relatively large, intrusive, and
expensive hardware to deliver sound quality that could really be compared to
a good portable digital player and a nice pair of IEMs., or a quality but
still relatively small sub/sat speaker system.


That depends on what you're talking about. Certainly, speaker technology in
the 1950's was very primitive. People had Karlson Kabinets with big 12" or
15" Altec Lansing or Electrovoice drivers in them or Klipschorns - and they
still didn't have any low-end. cone tweeters were mostly just small speakers
with a capacitor hung on them to keep the lows out, or they were compression
horns like the Altec 500 Hz treble horns (awful).

But amps and pre-amps were pretty good. I've a friend with a pair of Dynaco
Mark III 60-Watt tube "monoblocs" and a Harman-Kardon Citation 1 stereo
preamp driving a pair of Magnepan MG-3.6s. The system sounds fine.

Certainly, in those days, the best signal source was live FM (vinyl records
could be excellent, but the players were primitive and couldn't get the most
from them). It sounded magnificent, even if it was in mono. Much better than
any FM station today. First of all, FM stations rarely do live concerts any
more and if/when they do, they are crippled by signal compression and
brick-wall limiting. In the 50's and most of 60's, FM stations were so far
and few between (even in large metropolitan markets) that while laws for
over-modulating did exist, nobody took them seriously (even the FCC) there
was simply no harm in over-modulating your transmitter as there were no
closely adjacent stations for you to interfere with. Unlike today's crowded
FM dial where overly processed audio is pumped into transmitters crowded
tooth-by-jowl against each other on the dial.

Of course, hypercriticality of modern technology is very stylish in certain
circles.


Some people demand more than others and don't mind paying for it. This is a
double-edged sword, however. Because audio is technical and most audio
hobbyists aren't, this gives rise to a lot of unfortunate charlatanism that
seems rampant in the audio hobby. Things like "boutique" interconnects and
speaker cables, wood blocks placed on one's amp cover to make it "magically"
sound better, cable lifts to keep one's speaker cables up, off the carpet,
caps for one's unused RCA connections on their preamp (ostensibly to keep
them from drooling random KiloHertz, perhaps?) etc.

During most of the 1950s just about everybody was limited to listening to
mono vinyl. While there are great-sounding recordings from that era, most
weren't (and still aren't) all that great. The good news is that many of
their problems can be circumvented with skilled remastering. But, even so...


Some were so good that they haven't been equaled and careful remastering such
as that done by JVC shows just how good both some of these early recordings
and Redbook CD can sound. And as I said above, the best source in the 1950's
and '60's wasn't vinyl, but was, rather, live FM.

But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs musicangle.com,
which reviews albums, said that today, "a stereo has become an object
of scorn.""


Stereos were an object of scorn most of my life! Stereos did become
mainstream from the Vietnam era until home theater succeeded it as the
mainstream. Maybe 25 years. Home audio without video is no longer SOTA.


Bull! Home audio without video might not be fashionable, but video does
NOTHING to enhance the listening experience. In my house my stereo and my
"home theater" aren't even in the same part of the house! When I watch
video, I watch video, when I listen to music, I listen to music and as far as
I'm concerned, they're (for the most part) mutually exclusive concepts.

In Fremer's case, I wonder if he is generalizing from his own experiences,
which must be unusual given his commitment (some might say obsession) with
audio.


Who knows. He makes some good points though.

  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

On Tue, 11 May 2010 12:23:25 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

On May 10, 6:06=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2010 12:01:48 -0700, jwvm wrote
(in article ):
Good speakers, especially, are quite expensive.


So are bad speakers, and some especially bad ones are
especially expensive.

For instance, there is little decent in the way of speakers
below about the $1K level


There is no intrinsic reason fr this to be. The major
cost components in a speaker are magnet assemblies,
cabinets, profit and overhead (and the ordering is all
over the map). Everything else seldom adds up to be
equal to any of of these components.


I agree, but most expensive speakers are made by small companies and are the
result of small-scale economics. Plus a lot of high-end speakers use exotic
materials like carbon fiber and dense space-age resins for drivers and
cabinets. Wilson audio comes to mind here. Also, development costs get
amortized over far fewer units of any one model in small company as well. I
guess the analogous situation, cost wise, would be Ferrari. Ferrari cars are
outrageously expensive, If Ford built a car like a Ferrari, it would sell for
half the cost or less (they actually did. Back in the early 2000's Ford built
a modern re-interpretation of their 1960's era GT-40 race car. It was very
similar to build quality and performance to a Ferrari 360 Modena, but
list-priced for almost half. and that was still a limited production model).

  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Ed Seedhouse[_2_] Ed Seedhouse[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 127
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

On May 11, 7:17=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I recently participated in blind listening tests comparing a

$12,000 speaker
system from a well-known designer with excellent technical chops to a
European-designed, China-built studio monitor system that sells for under
$400 the pair.
The listening panel was about evenly split as to which they preferred base=

d on
dynamic range, tone quality and imaging. =A0


I can believe this easily. In addition well under a thousand Canadian
dollars spent on a classic iPod and Sennheiser IE7 headphones produces
what, to my ears, is a genuinely high end sound. I am sure the equal
could easily be provided by less expensive equipment. In fact I
believe that Apple could provide genuinely high end sound from
headphones at very little extra cost if they cared to. Alas, they
don't, but I am fairly sure that they could if they wished.

Ed



  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Dick Pierce Dick Pierce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

On May 11, 6:56=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2010 12:23:25 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):
There is no intrinsic reason fr this to be. The major
cost components in a speaker are magnet assemblies,
cabinets, profit and overhead (and the ordering is all
over the map). Everything else seldom adds up to be
equal to any of of these components.


=A0I agree, but most expensive speakers are made by
small companies and are the result of small-scale
economics. Plus a lot of high-end speakers use exotic
materials like carbon fiber and dense space-age resins
for drivers and cabinets.


well, given that I am actually in that business, the materials
you list are NOT expensive at all, not in the quantities found
in loudspeakers. And, frankly, materials like carbon fiber
and "dense space-age resins" are simply not exotic in the
rest of the world. They might well be in high-end audio
circles, but that's because the high-end audio biz is late
to the party. I was specing off-the-shelf OEM carbon fiber
drivers 20 years ago, and B&W was doing kevlar drivers
35 years ago.

Also, development costs get amortized over far fewer
units of any one model in small company as well.


Again, being in the business, the amortized development
costs are a small part of the total cost of pretty much
ANY speaker, be they from large or small companies.
And, by the way, those are sunken costs, not amortized
costs. You spent them up front and you don't get to pay
them over time. Now, maybe you get to use your current
cash flow to fund the next experiment, but you don't get
to travel back in time.

Plus the fact that most of these high end speaker
companies,despite what you might read, do NOT have
very large engineering budgets.

Like I said, the MAJOR cost elements of speakers are
magnet structure, cabinet, overhead and profit. When
I said "everything else seldom adds up to be equal to
any one of these components," that included what
you're talking about here.

And it's still my contention having been intimately
involved in the business for a long time, that there
is no intrinsic physical basis behind your assertion
that "there is little decent in the way of speakers
below about the $1K level." If there is truth to your
claim, it's due to grotesque incompetence, cultural
biases, add the fact that the market is so small
that no competent practitioner could afford to be in
this business, leaving the hucksters, cranks,
charlatans and loonies to run loose in the high-end
business, always encouraged by the rabid blitherings
of their high-end magazine groupies

If Fremer believes "stereo has become an object of
scorn," he has but himself and his ilk to blame. And
while we're at it, we can line up people Lumely, Pearson,
Cardas, Tice, mPingo, and the rest of the blithering
hordes against the proverbial wall.

MP3 ain't to blame for the decline of stereo, the high-end
yahoos are.
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 May 2010 07:17:06 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

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


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


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


I don't need a DBT to tell me what I hear.


Nobody does. A DBT can't possibly tell you what you hear.

The alternative to bias-controlled listening is to *hear* with your
prejudices fully engaged.

If you want to listen to the true quality of sound, then you must take
advantage of bias controlled tests.

If you want to reinforce your prejudices, then avoid bias controlled tests.



  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

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


So, what were the speakers?


Behringer B2031A

  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Harry Lavo Harry Lavo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

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


So, what were the speakers?


Behringer B2031A


That takes care of the studio monitors. What were the "big 'uns"? And what
were the musical selections, sources, and other equipment used? And what
type of rating system? And was it blind or double-blind?


  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 11 May 2010 09:11:18 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):


wrote in message
...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/bu...html?ref=busin


"The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological. For
decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status
symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like a
new flat-screen TV today.


I sense a ton of confusion and maybe just as much if not more
sentimentality. Most ca. 1950 audio systems were pretty bad sounding by
modern standards. It took a ton of relatively large, intrusive, and
expensive hardware to deliver sound quality that could really be compared
to
a good portable digital player and a nice pair of IEMs., or a quality but
still relatively small sub/sat speaker system.


That depends on what you're talking about. Certainly, speaker technology
in
the 1950's was very primitive.


As was everything else about audio.

People had Karlson Kabinets with big 12" or
15" Altec Lansing or Electrovoice drivers in them or Klipschorns - and
they
still didn't have any low-end. cone tweeters were mostly just small
speakers
with a capacitor hung on them to keep the lows out, or they were
compression
horns like the Altec 500 Hz treble horns (awful).


Actually, done right the Altec horns could sound pretty good. Ever hear a
pair of Altec A4s set up right? But, they were huge, they were expensive,
and they were not as good as their contemporary competition.

But amps and pre-amps were pretty good.


By modern standards they were marginal at best. Frightfully expensive in
inflation-adjusted dollars, required a lot of maintenance, large, wasted
energy, a good amp with only modest power was very heavy. There were only a
tiny number of what we would call a medium-powered amplifier today,and
nothing beyond that.

I've a friend with a pair of Dynaco
Mark III 60-Watt tube "monoblocs" and a Harman-Kardon Citation 1 stereo
preamp driving a pair of Magnepan MG-3.6s. The system sounds fine.


The Citation 1 preamp was reviewed by Audio and High Fidelity magazines in
the early 1960s, which is was no doubt when it was introduced. Therefore,
it is not a product that was available in the 1950s. Just because something
sounds "fine" does not make it competitive with its modern competition.


Of course, hypercriticality of modern technology is very stylish in
certain
circles.


Some people demand more than others and don't mind paying for it.


Some people pay more for the same or less, because they don't know better,
or because of their prejudices.

During most of the 1950s just about everybody was limited to listening to
mono vinyl. While there are great-sounding recordings from that era, most
weren't (and still aren't) all that great. The good news is that many of
their problems can be circumvented with skilled remastering. But, even
so...


Some were so good that they haven't been equaled and careful remastering
such
as that done by JVC shows just how good both some of these early
recordings
and Redbook CD can sound. And as I said above, the best source in the
1950's
and '60's wasn't vinyl, but was, rather, live FM.


Doesn't change the fact that the general run of LPs were mediocre or worse
by modern standards.

But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs musicangle.com,
which reviews albums, said that today, "a stereo has become an object
of scorn.""


Stereos were an object of scorn most of my life! Stereos did become
mainstream from the Vietnam era until home theater succeeded it as the
mainstream. Maybe 25 years. Home audio without video is no longer SOTA.


Bull! Home audio without video might not be fashionable, but video does
NOTHING to enhance the listening experience.


You forgot to say "for me". Or perhaps you don't understand that you don't
set the tastes for all of modern mankind.


  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

On Tue, 11 May 2010 20:22:56 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

On May 11, 6:56=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2010 12:23:25 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):
There is no intrinsic reason fr this to be. The major
cost components in a speaker are magnet assemblies,
cabinets, profit and overhead (and the ordering is all
over the map). Everything else seldom adds up to be
equal to any of of these components.


=A0I agree, but most expensive speakers are made by
small companies and are the result of small-scale
economics. Plus a lot of high-end speakers use exotic
materials like carbon fiber and dense space-age resins
for drivers and cabinets.


well, given that I am actually in that business, the materials
you list are NOT expensive at all, not in the quantities found
in loudspeakers. And, frankly, materials like carbon fiber
and "dense space-age resins" are simply not exotic in the
rest of the world. They might well be in high-end audio
circles, but that's because the high-end audio biz is late
to the party. I was specing off-the-shelf OEM carbon fiber
drivers 20 years ago, and B&W was doing kevlar drivers
35 years ago.

Also, development costs get amortized over far fewer
units of any one model in small company as well.


Again, being in the business, the amortized development
costs are a small part of the total cost of pretty much
ANY speaker, be they from large or small companies.
And, by the way, those are sunken costs, not amortized
costs. You spent them up front and you don't get to pay
them over time. Now, maybe you get to use your current
cash flow to fund the next experiment, but you don't get
to travel back in time.

Plus the fact that most of these high end speaker
companies,despite what you might read, do NOT have
very large engineering budgets.

Like I said, the MAJOR cost elements of speakers are
magnet structure, cabinet, overhead and profit. When
I said "everything else seldom adds up to be equal to
any one of these components," that included what
you're talking about here.

And it's still my contention having been intimately
involved in the business for a long time, that there
is no intrinsic physical basis behind your assertion
that "there is little decent in the way of speakers
below about the $1K level." If there is truth to your
claim, it's due to grotesque incompetence, cultural
biases, add the fact that the market is so small
that no competent practitioner could afford to be in
this business, leaving the hucksters, cranks,
charlatans and loonies to run loose in the high-end
business, always encouraged by the rabid blitherings
of their high-end magazine groupies

If Fremer believes "stereo has become an object of
scorn," he has but himself and his ilk to blame. And
while we're at it, we can line up people Lumely, Pearson,
Cardas, Tice, mPingo, and the rest of the blithering
hordes against the proverbial wall.

MP3 ain't to blame for the decline of stereo, the high-end
yahoos are.


So what you're saying is that high-end speaker manufacturers such as
Magnepan, Martin-Logan, Wilson Audio, Vandersteen, et al are ripping their
customers off big time?

Well, maybe, but I've heard an awful lot of these inexpensive speakers that
you seem to think are just as good as the expensive spread, and they sound
like - well, inexpensive speakers. Bigger, more expensive speakers always
sound bigger, have more bottom, load the room more effectively, are more
coherent from top to bottom and have better dynamic range than do the
cheapies. If great sounding speakers can be done so cheaply, why aren't they?

  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Harry Lavo Harry Lavo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

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

So, what were the speakers?


Behringer B2031A


That takes care of the studio monitors. What were the "big 'uns"? And
what
were the musical selections, sources, and other equipment used? And what
type of rating system? And was it blind or double-blind?


And a few other questions: Who were the listeners.....studio pros,
audiophiles, SWM audio club members, the Boston Audio Society, college
students, random off-the-street people, or whom? And finally, who (if
anybody) sponsored the test?




  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Jenn[_2_] Jenn[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

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


So, what were the speakers?


Behringer B2031A


Thanks. I was actually considering getting them for my little home
studio. What were the other speakers?

  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

On Wed, 12 May 2010 06:28:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

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


So, what were the speakers?


Behringer B2031A


I have a pair of those connected to my computer. I use them as "near-field"
monitors when I'm using my computer as a DAW. They're pretty good and well
made, (I'm actually a big Behringer fan and have lots of their gear. They
generally represent good value and performance for money spent)), but the
B2031As are similar to a lot of near-field monitors in that price-range. For
instance, they have little in the way of bass below about 60 Hz. I will say
that they are better than ANY "audiophile" speakers of that size at up to
three times the price. But a pair of Magnepan's new 1.7s will blow em out of
the water at $2000, as will M-L's little Source ES hybrid at the same price.
I do agree that they are a great buy at less than $500/pair street price.

I have to ask, what $12000 speaker system did you compare them to that people
were "split" in their opinion? I want to be able to warn people off of a
speaker THAT expensive and THAT mediocre.

  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

On Wed, 12 May 2010 07:25:12 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 11 May 2010 09:11:18 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):


wrote in message
...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/bu...html?ref=busin

"The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological. For
decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status
symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like a
new flat-screen TV today.

I sense a ton of confusion and maybe just as much if not more
sentimentality. Most ca. 1950 audio systems were pretty bad sounding by
modern standards. It took a ton of relatively large, intrusive, and
expensive hardware to deliver sound quality that could really be compared
to
a good portable digital player and a nice pair of IEMs., or a quality but
still relatively small sub/sat speaker system.


That depends on what you're talking about. Certainly, speaker technology
in
the 1950's was very primitive.


As was everything else about audio.

People had Karlson Kabinets with big 12" or
15" Altec Lansing or Electrovoice drivers in them or Klipschorns - and
they
still didn't have any low-end. cone tweeters were mostly just small
speakers
with a capacitor hung on them to keep the lows out, or they were
compression
horns like the Altec 500 Hz treble horns (awful).


Actually, done right the Altec horns could sound pretty good.


You're joking, right? They might be fine for speech in a movie theater, but
for music?

Ever hear a
pair of Altec A4s set up right? But, they were huge, they were expensive,
and they were not as good as their contemporary competition.


I had a pair of A7s as a teenager. Got 'em free from a local movie house that
went out of business. The contractor was renovating the theater into a
furniture store (if memory serves) and was throwing everything out. I don't
think the A7s were more than a couple of years old at the time. They were
real efficient (I only had a pair of Knight 18-watt mono integrated amps at
the time). The thing that I remember mostly about them is that in spite of
having a 15-inch horn-loaded woofer, they had little bass. I recall that they
were about 10 dB down at 40 Hz. They also had this nasal coloration in the
midrange. This corresponded nicely to the frequency of the ringing one would
get from the treble-horn by thumping it with one's finger. They were loud,
though and certainly were better than the home-made bass reflex enclosures
that I replaced with them. What ultimately disillusioned me about them was
when I heard a pair of AR3s at friend of my dad's house. Real bass and decent
(for the time) top-end.

But amps and pre-amps were pretty good.


By modern standards they were marginal at best. Frightfully expensive in
inflation-adjusted dollars, required a lot of maintenance, large, wasted
energy, a good amp with only modest power was very heavy. There were only a
tiny number of what we would call a medium-powered amplifier today,and
nothing beyond that.



I've a friend with a pair of Dynaco
Mark III 60-Watt tube "monoblocs" and a Harman-Kardon Citation 1 stereo
preamp driving a pair of Magnepan MG-3.6s. The system sounds fine.


The Citation 1 preamp was reviewed by Audio and High Fidelity magazines in
the early 1960s, which is was no doubt when it was introduced. Therefore,
it is not a product that was available in the 1950s. Just because something
sounds "fine" does not make it competitive with its modern competition.


It's good enough to give a lot of musical pleasure to the owner and his
guests.



Of course, hypercriticality of modern technology is very stylish in
certain
circles.


Some people demand more than others and don't mind paying for it.


Some people pay more for the same or less, because they don't know better,
or because of their prejudices.


And what of your prejudices, Mr, Kruger?

During most of the 1950s just about everybody was limited to listening to
mono vinyl. While there are great-sounding recordings from that era, most
weren't (and still aren't) all that great. The good news is that many of
their problems can be circumvented with skilled remastering. But, even
so...


Some were so good that they haven't been equaled and careful remastering
such
as that done by JVC shows just how good both some of these early
recordings
and Redbook CD can sound. And as I said above, the best source in the
1950's
and '60's wasn't vinyl, but was, rather, live FM.


Doesn't change the fact that the general run of LPs were mediocre or worse
by modern standards.


That's even true today. Most modern commercial releases on ANY format sound
mediocre to dreadful, and the best are excellent. Thus it has always been,

But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs musicangle.com,
which reviews albums, said that today, "a stereo has become an object
of scorn.""


Stereos were an object of scorn most of my life! Stereos did become
mainstream from the Vietnam era until home theater succeeded it as the
mainstream. Maybe 25 years. Home audio without video is no longer SOTA.


Bull! Home audio without video might not be fashionable, but video does
NOTHING to enhance the listening experience.


You forgot to say "for me". Or perhaps you don't understand that you don't
set the tastes for all of modern mankind.


I would have thought that "for me" was understood. In what way does a camera
which keeps moving, while the sonic perspective stays static enhance the
listening experience, and would that experience be any better if the sonic
perspective followed the moving camera? The entire notion is as ludicrous as
it is confusing. Perhaps, the combination of audio and video would serve the
performance if the video were taken from a single perspective. like the
sound, and the camera remained static. But they don't do it that way, do
they?

I'll also concede that opera performances are enhanced by the video, because
listening to (as opposed to "watching") an opera is akin to listening to a
movie with the TV turned off.

  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


That takes care of the studio monitors. What were the
"big 'uns"?


I'm not sure I want to say, all things considered.

And what were the musical selections,


I didn't keep records.

sources,


CDs

and other equipment used?


Good enough stuff so that it doesn't matter if you are rational about audio.

And what type of rating system?


Informal

And was it blind or double-blind?


I'm not sure whether the person operating the comparator knew. To be safe,
let's say single blind. It's speakers! They sounded different!

  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Wed, 12 May 2010 07:25:12 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message ...

On Tue, 11 May 2010 09:11:18 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):


wrote in message
...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/bu...html?ref=busin

"The change in sound quality is as much cultural as
technological. For decades, starting around the
1950s, high-end stereos were a status symbol. A
high-quality system was something to show off, much
like a new flat-screen TV today.

I sense a ton of confusion and maybe just as much if
not more sentimentality. Most ca. 1950 audio systems
were pretty bad sounding by modern standards. It took
a ton of relatively large, intrusive, and expensive
hardware to deliver sound quality that could really be
compared to
a good portable digital player and a nice pair of
IEMs., or a quality but still relatively small sub/sat
speaker system.

That depends on what you're talking about. Certainly,
speaker technology in
the 1950's was very primitive.


As was everything else about audio.

People had Karlson Kabinets with big 12" or
15" Altec Lansing or Electrovoice drivers in them or
Klipschorns - and they
still didn't have any low-end. cone tweeters were
mostly just small speakers
with a capacitor hung on them to keep the lows out, or
they were compression
horns like the Altec 500 Hz treble horns (awful).


Actually, done right the Altec horns could sound pretty
good.


You're joking, right? They might be fine for speech in a
movie theater, but for music?


Last time I went to a movie, there was music and speech. It would seem to me
that reproducing a movie well precludes trashing the speech or music.

Ever hear a
pair of Altec A4s set up right? But, they were huge,
they were expensive, and they were not as good as their
contemporary competition.


I had a pair of A7s as a teenager. Got 'em free from a
local movie house that went out of business. The
contractor was renovating the theater into a furniture
store (if memory serves) and was throwing everything out.
I don't think the A7s were more than a couple of years
old at the time. They were real efficient (I only had a
pair of Knight 18-watt mono integrated amps at the time).
The thing that I remember mostly about them is that in
spite of having a 15-inch horn-loaded woofer, they had
little bass. I recall that they were about 10 dB down at
40 Hz. They also had this nasal coloration in the
midrange. This corresponded nicely to the frequency of
the ringing one would get from the treble-horn by
thumping it with one's finger. They were loud, though and
certainly were better than the home-made bass reflex
enclosures that I replaced with them. What ultimately
disillusioned me about them was when I heard a pair of
AR3s at friend of my dad's house. Real bass and decent
(for the time) top-end.


Excutive Summary: No, the respondent has never heard A4s. If one does a
little research, one finds that there is very little similiarity between A7s
and A4s, other than the "A". ;-)

http://www.audioheritage.org/html/pr...altec/vott.htm

Note that an A7 roughly resembles the A5x,

But amps and pre-amps were pretty good.


By modern standards they were marginal at best.
Frightfully expensive in inflation-adjusted dollars,
required a lot of maintenance, large, wasted energy, a
good amp with only modest power was very heavy. There
were only a tiny number of what we would call a
medium-powered amplifier today,and nothing beyond that.



I've a friend with a pair of Dynaco
Mark III 60-Watt tube "monoblocs" and a Harman-Kardon
Citation 1 stereo preamp driving a pair of Magnepan
MG-3.6s. The system sounds fine.


The Citation 1 preamp was reviewed by Audio and High
Fidelity magazines in the early 1960s, which is was no
doubt when it was introduced. Therefore, it is not a
product that was available in the 1950s. Just because
something sounds "fine" does not make it competitive
with its modern competition.


It's good enough to give a lot of musical pleasure to the
owner and his guests.


But it is out of place in a discussion of 1950s hardware.

Of course, hypercriticality of modern technology is
very stylish in certain
circles.


Some people demand more than others and don't mind
paying for it.


Some people pay more for the same or less, because they
don't know better, or because of their prejudices.


And what of your prejudices, Mr, Kruger?


Value.

During most of the 1950s just about everybody was
limited to listening to mono vinyl. While there are
great-sounding recordings from that era, most weren't
(and still aren't) all that great. The good news is
that many of their problems can be circumvented with
skilled remastering. But, even so...


Some were so good that they haven't been equaled and
careful remastering such
as that done by JVC shows just how good both some of
these early recordings
and Redbook CD can sound. And as I said above, the best
source in the 1950's
and '60's wasn't vinyl, but was, rather, live FM.


Doesn't change the fact that the general run of LPs were
mediocre or worse by modern standards.


That's even true today. Most modern commercial releases
on ANY format sound mediocre to dreadful, and the best
are excellent. Thus it has always been,


I think that is exactly right. In the days of vinyl, the medium was a major
stumbling block. Today, the major stumbling block is the people.

But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs
musicangle.com, which reviews albums, said that
today, "a stereo has become an object of scorn.""


Stereos were an object of scorn most of my life!
Stereos did become mainstream from the Vietnam era
until home theater succeeded it as the mainstream.
Maybe 25 years. Home audio without video is no longer
SOTA.


Bull! Home audio without video might not be
fashionable, but video does NOTHING to enhance the
listening experience.


You forgot to say "for me". Or perhaps you don't
understand that you don't set the tastes for all of
modern mankind.


I would have thought that "for me" was understood.


Looked like a perfectly general statement.

In what way does a camera which keeps moving,


Not necessarily the case. And not necessarily a problem.

I have been known to create and/or otherwise provide graphic and video
content that is used during live performances. I'm under the impression that
there is a general perception among both event organizers and attendees that
it enhances the listening experience.

while the
sonic perspective stays static enhance the listening
experience, and would that experience be any better if
the sonic perspective followed the moving camera? The
entire notion is as ludicrous as it is confusing.


This opinion seems to be at odds with the preferences of the general public.

Perhaps, the combination of audio and video would serve
the performance if the video were taken from a single
perspective. like the sound, and the camera remained
static. But they don't do it that way, do they?


When you're doing video, you do whatever you want to do that works for the
audience and event organizers, no?

I'll also concede that opera performances are enhanced by
the video, because listening to (as opposed to
"watching") an opera is akin to listening to a movie with
the TV turned off.


This would appear to contradict much of what you previously said. To me an
opera is a movie with a ton of music that is performed live. Being
performed live puts some pretty dramatic contstraints on it, but it can
still be very enjoyable.



  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Wed, 12 May 2010 06:28:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

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

So, what were the speakers?


Behringer B2031A


I have a pair of those connected to my computer. I use
them as "near-field" monitors when I'm using my computer
as a DAW. They're pretty good and well made, (I'm
actually a big Behringer fan and have lots of their gear.
They generally represent good value and performance for
money spent)),


You may be under-appreciating what you have before you.

but the B2031As are similar to a lot of
near-field monitors in that price-range. For instance,
they have little in the way of bass below about 60 Hz.


We were listening to classical orchestral and choir music, not rap. The
B2031s do have audible response below 60 Hz and it was good enough.

I will say that they are better than ANY "audiophile"
speakers of that size at up to three times the price. But
a pair of Magnepan's new 1.7s will blow em out of the
water at $2000, as will M-L's little Source ES hybrid at
the same price. I do agree that they are a great buy at
less than $500/pair street price.


Phrases like "blow them out of the water" does not exactly sound like the
results of a careful evaluation to me. :-(

Also, I see no efforts to control some biases that based on previous and
this post, seem to be very pronounced.

Interestingly enough the larger speakers were also bipolar transducers, but
they used multi-way direct radiating drivers with a more typical design.


  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

On Thu, 13 May 2010 06:16:45 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


That takes care of the studio monitors. What were the
"big 'uns"?


I'm not sure I want to say, all things considered.

And what were the musical selections,


I didn't keep records.

sources,


CDs

and other equipment used?


Good enough stuff so that it doesn't matter if you are rational about audio.

And what type of rating system?


Informal

And was it blind or double-blind?


I'm not sure whether the person operating the comparator knew. To be safe,
let's say single blind. It's speakers! They sounded different!


So, when people try to hold you to the same rules of evidence wrt to opinions
about sound, to which you hold everybody else, we find that you don't even
hold yourself to those same rules of evidence to which you hold everybody
else! I see. Not a very convincing argument, Arny 8^)

  #28   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

On Thu, 13 May 2010 06:19:37 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Wed, 12 May 2010 07:25:12 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message ...

On Tue, 11 May 2010 09:11:18 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

wrote in message
...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/bu...html?ref=busin

"The change in sound quality is as much cultural as
technological. For decades, starting around the
1950s, high-end stereos were a status symbol. A
high-quality system was something to show off, much
like a new flat-screen TV today.

I sense a ton of confusion and maybe just as much if
not more sentimentality. Most ca. 1950 audio systems
were pretty bad sounding by modern standards. It took
a ton of relatively large, intrusive, and expensive
hardware to deliver sound quality that could really be
compared to
a good portable digital player and a nice pair of
IEMs., or a quality but still relatively small sub/sat
speaker system.

That depends on what you're talking about. Certainly,
speaker technology in
the 1950's was very primitive.

As was everything else about audio.

People had Karlson Kabinets with big 12" or
15" Altec Lansing or Electrovoice drivers in them or
Klipschorns - and they
still didn't have any low-end. cone tweeters were
mostly just small speakers
with a capacitor hung on them to keep the lows out, or
they were compression
horns like the Altec 500 Hz treble horns (awful).

Actually, done right the Altec horns could sound pretty
good.


You're joking, right? They might be fine for speech in a
movie theater, but for music?


Last time I went to a movie, there was music and speech. It would seem to me
that reproducing a movie well precludes trashing the speech or music.


You know as well as I do, that's not right. Visual takes precedence over
audible in human senses. Just because a motion picture sound system
reproduces the speech clearly and has lots of bass for the explosions,
doesn't mean that anyone would want to critically listen to music over such a
system.
Ever hear a
pair of Altec A4s set up right? But, they were huge,
they were expensive, and they were not as good as their
contemporary competition.


I had a pair of A7s as a teenager. Got 'em free from a
local movie house that went out of business. The
contractor was renovating the theater into a furniture
store (if memory serves) and was throwing everything out.
I don't think the A7s were more than a couple of years
old at the time. They were real efficient (I only had a
pair of Knight 18-watt mono integrated amps at the time).
The thing that I remember mostly about them is that in
spite of having a 15-inch horn-loaded woofer, they had
little bass. I recall that they were about 10 dB down at
40 Hz. They also had this nasal coloration in the
midrange. This corresponded nicely to the frequency of
the ringing one would get from the treble-horn by
thumping it with one's finger. They were loud, though and
certainly were better than the home-made bass reflex
enclosures that I replaced with them. What ultimately
disillusioned me about them was when I heard a pair of
AR3s at friend of my dad's house. Real bass and decent
(for the time) top-end.


Excutive Summary: No, the respondent has never heard A4s.


I suspect that I've been to movie houses that had them, Arny. We have some
large first-run houses here in the San-Francisco Bay Area.


If one does a
little research, one finds that there is very little similiarity between A7s
and A4s, other than the "A". ;-)


I did some research of A4s before I responded. The treble horn looks exactly
like the one on my old A7s (since that was what we were talking about) That's
why I mentioned them. I suspect that they sound similar as well even though
the treble horn driver (A-288) is a newer design. A large part of the
character of horn drivers is the horn itself. The A7s horn was made out of
cast aluminum, I have to admit that I don't know what the A4's horn is made
out of.

http://www.audioheritage.org/html/pr...altec/vott.htm

Note that an A7 roughly resembles the A5x,


Yes, The A7 is is a late 1940's design.

But amps and pre-amps were pretty good.

By modern standards they were marginal at best.
Frightfully expensive in inflation-adjusted dollars,
required a lot of maintenance, large, wasted energy, a
good amp with only modest power was very heavy. There
were only a tiny number of what we would call a
medium-powered amplifier today,and nothing beyond that.



I've a friend with a pair of Dynaco
Mark III 60-Watt tube "monoblocs" and a Harman-Kardon
Citation 1 stereo preamp driving a pair of Magnepan
MG-3.6s. The system sounds fine.

The Citation 1 preamp was reviewed by Audio and High
Fidelity magazines in the early 1960s, which is was no
doubt when it was introduced. Therefore, it is not a
product that was available in the 1950s. Just because
something sounds "fine" does not make it competitive
with its modern competition.


It's good enough to give a lot of musical pleasure to the
owner and his guests.


But it is out of place in a discussion of 1950s hardware.


I'm sorry, I was of the opinion that we were talking about equipment of the
50's and 60's - post war but pre-transistor.

Of course, hypercriticality of modern technology is
very stylish in certain
circles.

Some people demand more than others and don't mind
paying for it.

Some people pay more for the same or less, because they
don't know better, or because of their prejudices.


And what of your prejudices, Mr, Kruger?


Value.


To the exclusion of all else perhaps? And you have admitted to disliking
vinyl intently.

During most of the 1950s just about everybody was
limited to listening to mono vinyl. While there are
great-sounding recordings from that era, most weren't
(and still aren't) all that great. The good news is
that many of their problems can be circumvented with
skilled remastering. But, even so...

Some were so good that they haven't been equaled and
careful remastering such
as that done by JVC shows just how good both some of
these early recordings
and Redbook CD can sound. And as I said above, the best
source in the 1950's
and '60's wasn't vinyl, but was, rather, live FM.

Doesn't change the fact that the general run of LPs were
mediocre or worse by modern standards.


That's even true today. Most modern commercial releases
on ANY format sound mediocre to dreadful, and the best
are excellent. Thus it has always been,


I think that is exactly right. In the days of vinyl, the medium was a major
stumbling block. Today, the major stumbling block is the people.


There's that pesky anti-vinyl bias rearing its ugly head again! I wouldn't
say that it was a "stumbling block". Vinyl, done right, was and still can be
excellent, but I would say that it was a limitation (as were the analog tape
recorders of the era).

But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs
musicangle.com, which reviews albums, said that
today, "a stereo has become an object of scorn.""

Stereos were an object of scorn most of my life!
Stereos did become mainstream from the Vietnam era
until home theater succeeded it as the mainstream.
Maybe 25 years. Home audio without video is no longer
SOTA.


Bull! Home audio without video might not be
fashionable, but video does NOTHING to enhance the
listening experience.


You forgot to say "for me". Or perhaps you don't
understand that you don't set the tastes for all of
modern mankind.


I would have thought that "for me" was understood.


Looked like a perfectly general statement.

In what way does a camera which keeps moving,


Not necessarily the case. And not necessarily a problem.

I have been known to create and/or otherwise provide graphic and video
content that is used during live performances. I'm under the impression that
there is a general perception among both event organizers and attendees that
it enhances the listening experience.


Visual takes precedence over audible in human sensual perception. "Seeing"
relegates "hearing" to second-class status, generally speaking. And while I
laud your restraint in keeping the camera still on a video production of an
audio event ( I guess that's what you are saying, above), most video
producers of audio events aren't so circumspect.

while the
sonic perspective stays static enhance the listening
experience, and would that experience be any better if
the sonic perspective followed the moving camera? The
entire notion is as ludicrous as it is confusing.


This opinion seems to be at odds with the preferences of the general public.


Now, I'm expected to answer for the general public? A public who's interest
in music is very superficial, at best? Let's face it most people don't care
about sound quality. If they did, more audio equipment would be sold. Most
are satisfied with boom boxes and iPods. I'm not belittling anyone for that,
different strokes and all that, I'm merely saying that public taste is public
taste and it's usually not the best arbiter what's actually good or right. In
fact, the "vox populi" is notorious for it's terrible taste in just about
everything.

Perhaps, the combination of audio and video would serve
the performance if the video were taken from a single
perspective. like the sound, and the camera remained
static. But they don't do it that way, do they?


When you're doing video, you do whatever you want to do that works for the
audience and event organizers, no?


I don't produce video at all and I disagree violently with how most music
events are presented on video. Remember, I don't listen to pop or rock -
EVER. I don't care about it. I mention this only to make sure that you
understand that my comments apply only to video concerts of classical (and
occasionally jazz) such as one sees occasionally on PBS. What they do in rock
and pop videos, I have no idea about because I don't watch or listen to those
kinds of music programs.

I'll also concede that opera performances are enhanced by
the video, because listening to (as opposed to
"watching") an opera is akin to listening to a movie with
the TV turned off.


This would appear to contradict much of what you previously said.


Not at all. Opera is a visual medium. Concerts are most an audio medium. I
"listen" to music, I "watch" operas.

To me an
opera is a movie with a ton of music that is performed live.


Actually, It's a stage play with a ton of music.


Being performed live puts some pretty dramatic contstraints on it, but it can


still be very enjoyable.


You've obviously never seen an elaborate stage production of one of Wagner's
"Ring Cycle" operas or you would not be saying that live performances are
restraining, dramatically. I recommend that everyone catch at least one major
production like this in their lifetime, even if, like me, you find the
overall concept fairly unapproachable. (Yes, I'm saying that I don't
particularly appreciate opera - although I love Wagner's music.).



  #29   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

On Thu, 13 May 2010 09:13:54 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Wed, 12 May 2010 06:28:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

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

So, what were the speakers?

Behringer B2031A


I have a pair of those connected to my computer. I use
them as "near-field" monitors when I'm using my computer
as a DAW. They're pretty good and well made, (I'm
actually a big Behringer fan and have lots of their gear.
They generally represent good value and performance for
money spent)),


You may be under-appreciating what you have before you.

but the B2031As are similar to a lot of
near-field monitors in that price-range. For instance,
they have little in the way of bass below about 60 Hz.


We were listening to classical orchestral and choir music, not rap. The
B2031s do have audible response below 60 Hz and it was good enough.

I will say that they are better than ANY "audiophile"
speakers of that size at up to three times the price. But
a pair of Magnepan's new 1.7s will blow em out of the
water at $2000, as will M-L's little Source ES hybrid at
the same price. I do agree that they are a great buy at
less than $500/pair street price.


Phrases like "blow them out of the water" does not exactly sound like the
results of a careful evaluation to me. :-(


Much like the details of your "careful" evaluation above, the one where you
won't say what the $12000 speakers were, don't know whether the test was
double or single blind, Don't know what music was used, etc., etc., etc. Pot,
Kettle, black.

BTW, when I use a phrase like "blow them out of the water", I'm referring to
the speaker's ability to convey some of the feeling and characteristics of
real. live music, playing in a real space. Specifically, the Behringers,
while excellent for their purpose, do not provide as satisfying a listener
experience as do the other above named speakers. How do you DBT listener
satisfaction, Arny? Hmmmm?

Also, I see no efforts to control some biases that based on previous and
this post, seem to be very pronounced.


Pot, kettle, etc.

Interestingly enough the larger speakers were also bipolar transducers, but
they used multi-way direct radiating drivers with a more typical design.


What were they?



  #30   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
John Nunes John Nunes is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

On 5/13/2010 9:51 AM, Audio Empire wrote:

You know as well as I do, that's not right. Visual takes precedence over
audible in human senses.


This is a gross generalization and therefore pretty meaningless.
Depends on what one happens to be focusing on along with a persons
native abilities. For example, my auditory memory is better than my
visual memory, the latter of which is very common among musicians.



  #31   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

On Wed, 12 May 2010 06:28:21 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 May 2010 07:17:06 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

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

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

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


I don't need a DBT to tell me what I hear.


Nobody does. A DBT can't possibly tell you what you hear.

The alternative to bias-controlled listening is to *hear* with your
prejudices fully engaged.

If you want to listen to the true quality of sound, then you must take
advantage of bias controlled tests.


When I'm trying to decide whether a difference makes any difference at all, I
agree. But speakers are a matter of taste (because none are perfect and
people pick and choose the characteristics of music that are important to
them and tend to focus on those). and therefore DBTs are pretty worthless for
comparing one speaker to another.

If you want to reinforce your prejudices, then avoid bias controlled tests.


I agree that bias controlled tests are the gold standard for finding out if
there are significant differences between components, but they can't tell me
which speakers are the most accurate (since all speakers are terribly flawed,
what would one use as the control?), nor can they tell me, ultimately, which
of all the speakers in a given price range that I like.

  #32   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Dick Pierce Dick Pierce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

On May 12, 10:25=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2010 20:22:56 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

well, given that I am actually in that business, the materials
you list are NOT expensive at all, not in the quantities found
in loudspeakers. And, frankly, materials like carbon fiber
and "dense space-age resins" are simply not exotic in the
rest of the world. They might well be in high-end audio
circles, but that's because the high-end audio biz is late
to the party. I was specing off-the-shelf OEM carbon fiber
drivers 20 years ago, and B&W was doing kevlar drivers
35 years ago.


Also, development costs get amortized over far fewer
units of any one model in small company as well.


Again, being in the business, the amortized development
costs are a small part of the total cost of pretty much
ANY speaker, be they from large or small companies.
And, by the way, those are sunken costs, =A0not amortized
costs. You spent them up front and you don't get to pay
them over time. Now, maybe you get to use your current
cash flow to fund the next experiment, but you don't get
to travel back in time.


Plus the fact that most of these high end speaker
companies,despite what you might read, do NOT have
very large engineering budgets.


Like I said, the MAJOR cost elements of speakers are
magnet structure, cabinet, overhead and profit. When
I said "everything else seldom adds up to be equal to
any one of these components," that included what
you're talking about here.


And it's still my contention having been intimately
involved in the business for a long time, that there
is no intrinsic physical basis behind your assertion
that "there is little decent in the way of speakers
below about the $1K level." If there is truth to your
claim, it's due to grotesque incompetence, cultural
biases, add the fact that the market is so small
that no competent practitioner could afford to be in
this business, leaving the hucksters, cranks,
charlatans and loonies to run loose in the high-end
business, always encouraged by the rabid blitherings
of their high-end magazine groupies


If Fremer believes "stereo has become an object of
scorn," he has but himself and his ilk to blame. And
while we're at it, we can line up people Lumely, Pearson,
Cardas, Tice, mPingo, and the rest of the blithering
hordes against the proverbial wall.


MP3 ain't to blame for the decline of stereo, the high-end
yahoos are.


So what you're saying is that high-end speaker
manufacturers such as Magnepan, Martin-Logan,
Wilson Audio, Vandersteen, et al are ripping their
customers off big time?


No, what I am saying is what OI said above. If you
want to misinterpret and misconstrue what I said
into something different, you get to do it, but
you also get to have full ownership of that
misinterpretation and the consequences.

  #33   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


BTW, when I use a phrase like "blow them out of the
water", I'm referring to the speaker's ability to convey
some of the feeling and characteristics of real. live
music, playing in a real space.


Or, you are referrring to hyperbole, prejudice and expectation rather than
the actual sound of the loudspeakers?

Specifically, the
Behringers, while excellent for their purpose, do not
provide as satisfying a listener experience as do the
other above named speakers.


An effect that seems to go away when the identity of the speakers is
concealed by a scrim.

How do you DBT listener satisfaction, Arny?


You let people listen to the speakers under bias-controlled conditions and
ask them how satisfied they are????


  #34   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

On Fri, 14 May 2010 06:27:40 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


BTW, when I use a phrase like "blow them out of the
water", I'm referring to the speaker's ability to convey
some of the feeling and characteristics of real. live
music, playing in a real space.


Or, you are referrring to hyperbole, prejudice and expectation rather than
the actual sound of the loudspeakers?

Specifically, the
Behringers, while excellent for their purpose, do not
provide as satisfying a listener experience as do the
other above named speakers.


An effect that seems to go away when the identity of the speakers is
concealed by a scrim.

How do you DBT listener satisfaction, Arny?


You let people listen to the speakers under bias-controlled conditions and
ask them how satisfied they are????



I dunno, I think bias-controlled tests on speakers would be pretty
inconclusive. Speakers all sound so different, I don't believe that
"Controlled tests" will tell one anything except perhaps which is the more or
less spectacular (as opposed to accurate) of the speakers under evaluation.
DBTs are good for detecting differences (and in speakers, these differences
are so great, that one doesn't need a DBT to either notice or characterize
them) not which is "better". Now, if one could blindly switch between real,
live music and a speaker under evaluation, then PERHAPS, using the live music
as a control, we could get somewhere. But without a reference, you only get
to hear the differences, not the absolute quality.

OTOH, I remember back in the 1960's when Acoustic Research had a showroom in
Times Square in NYC. They were conducting "Live vs Recorded" demos there.
Behind a sheer scrim was a pair of AR3ax speakers and a string quartet. The
quartet had been recorded in the exact location that they were playing in and
the tape was being played back while the musicians pretended to play (all one
could see from the audience perspective was outlines of the musicians through
the scrim). At some point, the speakers were silenced and the musicians
played for real. The challenge was for the assembled audience to tell which
was which. I went back to that store several times over a week that I was
staying in New York. The thing that struck me was that most people couldn't
tell the difference between the real musicians playing and the speakers. AR
was clever because they didn't stop the tape, but let it run so that tape
hiss would be present whether the sound was coming from the musicians or from
the pre-recorded program. One couldn't use the absence or presence of tape
hiss as a clue.

Here's my point. By today's standards, a Crown reel-to-reel tape deck, a pair
of 60 Watt McIntosh tube amplifiers and a pair of AR3ax speakers is pretty
primitive stuff. If the vast majority of listeners couldn't, in 1963, tell
the difference between that equipment and live music, then I'm not so sure
what the value would be of a similar "live-vs-recorded" DBT today where
everything in the equipment chain is so much better than it was then. Hell,
even our self-powered Behringer B2131A speakers are better than a pair of
AR3s and a a couple of McIntosh tubed sixty-Watters!

  #35   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


So, when people try to hold you to the same rules of
evidence wrt to opinions about sound, to which you hold
everybody else, we find that you don't even hold yourself
to those same rules of evidence to which you hold
everybody else! I see. Not a very convincing argument,
Arny 8^)


I do find it hard to communicate with people who do not understand that the
scale of audible differences among speakers and speaker cables are vastly
different.



  #36   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:43:51 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


So, when people try to hold you to the same rules of
evidence wrt to opinions about sound, to which you hold
everybody else, we find that you don't even hold yourself
to those same rules of evidence to which you hold
everybody else! I see. Not a very convincing argument,
Arny 8^)


I do find it hard to communicate with people who do not understand that the
scale of audible differences among speakers and speaker cables are vastly
different.


I don't follow you. There is NO audible difference between speaker cables.
None, nada, zip! there is a lot of differences between between speakers.

None of which has anything to do with my comment that you seem to have
different standards with regard to what you will accept as a valid
"bias-free" test for yourself and what you will accept as a valid "bias-free"
test from others.


[ Let's move away from the realm of the personal, please, on
all sides of this discussion. -- dsr ]



  #37   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Harry Lavo Harry Lavo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Audio Empire" wrote in message


So, when people try to hold you to the same rules of
evidence wrt to opinions about sound, to which you hold
everybody else, we find that you don't even hold yourself
to those same rules of evidence to which you hold
everybody else! I see. Not a very convincing argument,
Arny 8^)


I do find it hard to communicate with people who do not understand that
the
scale of audible differences among speakers and speaker cables are vastly
different.



You can still have bias when comparing speakers, Arny, which is why the
questions are in order. I notice you haven't answered my follow-on
questions which are highly germane to your conclusion.....who was sponsoring
the test, and what types of listerners/with what listening references were
doing the evaluation?


  #38   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

On Fri, 14 May 2010 15:58:06 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Audio Empire" wrote in message


So, when people try to hold you to the same rules of
evidence wrt to opinions about sound, to which you hold
everybody else, we find that you don't even hold yourself
to those same rules of evidence to which you hold
everybody else! I see. Not a very convincing argument,
Arny 8^)


I do find it hard to communicate with people who do not understand that
the
scale of audible differences among speakers and speaker cables are vastly
different.



You can still have bias when comparing speakers, Arny, which is why the
questions are in order. I notice you haven't answered my follow-on
questions which are highly germane to your conclusion.....who was sponsoring
the test, and what types of listerners/with what listening references were
doing the evaluation?



And what was the $12000 speaker?
  #39   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


I dunno, I think bias-controlled tests on speakers would
be pretty inconclusive.


This from the same source that thinks that CDP 101s must have ringing,
despite their minimum-phase analog filters.

What we think doesn't always matter. There is the slight matter of the
relevant facts!

Speakers all sound so different,


Long ago many of us discovered that if you ameolorate the larger frequency
response differences between speakers, then not so much. Speakers are
getting better and in a good room, some of them can sound remarkably
similar.

I don't believe that "Controlled tests" will tell one
anything except perhaps which is the more or less
spectacular (as opposed to accurate) of the speakers
under evaluation.


Tell that to Sean Olive. They've been doing DBT speaker taste testing for at
least a decade.

DBTs are good for detecting differences
(and in speakers, these differences are so great, that
one doesn't need a DBT to either notice or characterize
them) not which is "better".


The " I don't need a DBT" litany has been proven wrong soooo many times....

And of course it comes from the people who aren't out there doing lots of
DBTs. How can you be an expert about a testing methodology that you've
rarely if ever used and are obviously not the least bit comfortable with?

Now, if one could blindly
switch between real, live music and a speaker under
evaluation, then PERHAPS, using the live music as a
control, we could get somewhere.


There's another fallacy - that you need live music to be present to compare
2 speakers????

Please notice that we're comparing loudspeakers, not live versus recorded.

And also notice that much of what's wrong with live versus recorded happens
at the live performance end of the system.



  #40   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Harry Lavo Harry Lavo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Audio Empire" wrote in message



snip


There's another fallacy - that you need live music to be present to
compare
2 speakers????

Please notice that we're comparing loudspeakers, not live versus recorded.

And also notice that much of what's wrong with live versus recorded
happens
at the live performance end of the system.


Cutting "live music" out of the equation is what is wrong with much of the
"objectivist" philosophy extant today.

IF, and only, IF you attend lots of live music concerts of your choice (in
my case unamplified, but that is my choice) can you decided what set of
speakers you think sound most like live, in your room, with your equipment.
"Obective" comparative testing of speakers may be useful for development of
speakers, but it is hardly a mechanism for deciding even which speakers are
"best" or "preferred" when it comes to long term satisfaction. That comes
from monadic evaluation against an imbedded sense of "rightness" about live
sound.

And with all due respect to Sean Olive and Harmon International, despite a
decades worth of objective testing there is hardly any consensus among pro
audio folk or home audiophiles that their speakers outperform any number of
competing designs when it comes to which speakers people feel best for their
assigned tasks or tastes.

If you listen to a lot of live music, and then carefully audition equipment
both in-shop and at-home before making choices, you can assemble a system
that is unfailingly musical (for music of your choice) and satisfying to you
with nary a blind test in the process.

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
One step forward, ten steps back George M. Middius[_4_] Audio Opinions 0 March 26th 09 12:02 AM
Key steps to make a recording sound "commercial" Nono Pro Audio 0 May 23rd 07 04:48 PM
Key steps to make a recording sound "commercial" Nono Pro Audio 0 May 23rd 07 04:46 PM
WTB: Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs Cassettes Cartrivision1 Marketplace 0 January 11th 06 07:24 AM
XOVISION -- quality mobile video / audio manufacturer and distributor Jerome Bordallo Marketplace 0 July 18th 03 12:42 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:55 PM.

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"