[Steven Sullivan]

Sean Olive has an interesting new blog post on the topic, coming off a
panel discussion at a meeting of the International Loudspeaker Manufacturer's Association
(ALMA)

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/



--
-S

[[email protected]]

On Jan 12, 1:49*pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Sean Olive has an interesting new blog post on the topic, coming off a
panel discussion at a meeting of the International Loudspeaker Manufacturer's Association
(ALMA)

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/

Wow, first time I have heard anything close to CES. Its like hush hush
this year.

The worst thing about today, it seems like the listening room at the
local discount
store is non-existent. Every body goes by price and opinion of others.

Yes the old CU tests were flawed.

greg

[Peter Wieck]

On Jan 12, 1:49*pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Sean Olive has an interesting new blog post on the topic, coming off a
panel discussion at a meeting of the International Loudspeaker Manufacturer's Association
(ALMA)

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/

--
-S

I read through the statement. I must admit that I agree to the bulk of
it - well-testing speakers quite often (*TO ME*) sound pretty awful,
whereas some poorly-testing speakers I find quite pleasant and
attractive even over the long term.

What is chosen as the testing criteria will (intuitively obviously) be
those things most easily achievable by the manufacturers - naturally -
at least until some external standards are applied much as FTC
standards were applied to amplifier specifications. And even under
these conditions, it is quite common for two FTC-standard equally-
powered amps to sound quite different.

It all comes down to the even more intuitively obvious fact that
speakers are best tested under actual working conditions in their
actual permanent home, and without such tests any purchase is at best
a crap-shoot. I would extend this basic philosophy to any equipment of
any nature.

Writing for myself, my favorite speakers, in order-of-rank:

AR3a (rebuilt crossovers, very late production)
Magneplanar MGA
AR Athena sub/sat system =
ARM5s =
Revox Piccolo sub/sat system
AR4ax

Others are around, but come and go. My brother has my set of
electrostatics - I don't miss them although he was and remains smitten
with them.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:40:51 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

On Jan 12, 1:49*pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:


Yes the old CU tests were flawed.

They were "flawed" on most everything that I know anything about. I thought
most of their test were incompetent and their conclusions ranged from just
plain wrong all the way to irrelevant. Here are two of my favorite:

1) They were testing speakers in the $500/pair range. They set up a test
whereby anechoic frequency response graphs were plotted. On the graphs they
placed plus and minus 3 dB demarcation lines. Then they COUNTED the number of
times that the graphed frequency response of each speaker under test wandered
outside of those demarcation lines. The speaker with the fewest "excursions"
beyond that limit was the winner. I don't remember most of the speakers
tested, but I do remember that the one which won, a Marantz brand 3-way, was,
when I heard it, one of the worst speakers I'd ever heard at any price. Any
relation to actual music was purely coincidental. But I do remember that one
of the losers, a speaker down near the bottom of the test pack, was a pair of
Magnepan SMGs (the smallest full-range Maggies made). These speakers were and
remain excellent, but in this test, they were deemed "inferior" and a poor
buy.

2) They were reviewing a pair of Koss electrostatic headphones. They deemed
them unacceptable because the plastic ear cups had a metal decorative band
around the outside. They said that they were a shock hazard because there was
high voltage inside the ear cup! Of course, this high voltage was only
applied to the diaphragm, and even if one took the earcup apart, one still
couldn't get shocked because the electrostatic elements were inside a welded
plastic capsule that one couldn't get apart without breaking the transducer.
By the way, these electrostatic Koss phones were the most accurate sounding
headphones one could buy at the time. Recording studios loved them because
they were isolatory like the Pro-4A's and totally transparent and flat in
frequency response. Unsafe, my foot! Incompetent "testing" is what we have
here.

[Tom Shults]

wrote in message ...
On Jan 12, 1:49 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Sean Olive has an interesting new blog post on the topic, coming off a
panel discussion at a meeting of the International Loudspeaker
Manufacturer's Association
(ALMA)

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/

Wow, first time I have heard anything close to CES. Its like hush hush
this year.

The worst thing about today, it seems like the listening room at the
local discount
store is non-existent. Every body goes by price and opinion of others.

Yes the old CU tests were flawed.

greg

Greg,

Your message, and the previously referenced article brought to mind some
recent problems I have encountered in the audio retail market.

During my recent speaker shopping, I found that not only are the discount
stores providing very poor listening facilities, but many of the better
loudspeaker manufacturer's have no local dealers with listening facilities.
Of course, there are still some local high-end dealers in my area who do a
great job of demonstrating the speakers they choose to sell, still I found a
number of other loudspeaker companies who distribute locally only through
home audio installers. These installers have no listening facilities, and
they can only special order products that I cannot return. When I called
some of these loudspeaker manufacturers, they told me with some arrogance
that they only sell through local dealers and do not sell via the internet.
so, where is the value-add of these local dealers over the internet dealers,
if I cannot audition the equipment before I purchase it?

I really do not get this custom installer craze. These installers talk with
great pride about the $100,000 home theater installations they have
undertaken, but when I ask them how their customers select equipment, they
say the customers let their installer select the equipment for them. Can
you imagine calling a car dealer, giving them a price range, and saying "Oh
you pick something for me and just bring it by."

Tom

[Steven Sullivan]

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Jan 12, 1:49?pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Sean Olive has an interesting new blog post on the topic, coming off a
panel discussion at a meeting of the International Loudspeaker Manufacturer's Association
(ALMA)

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/

--
-S

I read through the statement. I must admit that I agree to the bulk of
it - well-testing speakers quite often (*TO ME*) sound pretty awful,
whereas some poorly-testing speakers I find quite pleasant and
attractive even over the long term.

But he doesn't say that *well*-tested speakers often sound awful...indeed
he says that speakers that test out as 'accurate' in terms of linear
distortion tend to sound *good* to listeners.

It's loudspeaker *specs* (what's provided by the mfrs) that tend to be
more or less useless as indicators of sound quality. His point is taht
mfrs aren't measuring and reporting the right things...their 'tests' are
'unwell'.


It all comes down to the even more intuitively obvious fact that
speakers are best tested under actual working conditions in their
actual permanent home, and without such tests any purchase is at best
a crap-shoot.

I'd say it's a better idea to get a loudspeaker that is inherently
accurate, and therefore not so room-dependent, and adjust room to suit
(with treatments and digital EQ) than to get a speaker that only sounds
good in certain rooms.



--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

[Harry Lavo]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Jan 12, 1:49?pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Sean Olive has an interesting new blog post on the topic, coming off a
panel discussion at a meeting of the International Loudspeaker
Manufacturer's Association
(ALMA)

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/

--
-S

I read through the statement. I must admit that I agree to the bulk of
it - well-testing speakers quite often (*TO ME*) sound pretty awful,
whereas some poorly-testing speakers I find quite pleasant and
attractive even over the long term.

But he doesn't say that *well*-tested speakers often sound awful...indeed
he says that speakers that test out as 'accurate' in terms of linear
distortion tend to sound *good* to listeners.

It's loudspeaker *specs* (what's provided by the mfrs) that tend to be
more or less useless as indicators of sound quality. His point is taht
mfrs aren't measuring and reporting the right things...their 'tests' are
'unwell'.


It all comes down to the even more intuitively obvious fact that
speakers are best tested under actual working conditions in their
actual permanent home, and without such tests any purchase is at best
a crap-shoot.

I'd say it's a better idea to get a loudspeaker that is inherently
accurate, and therefore not so room-dependent, and adjust room to suit
(with treatments and digital EQ) than to get a speaker that only sounds
good in certain rooms.


Unfortunately, Steven, most people can't afford the space / dollars for
dedicated listening rooms. Therefore "sounding good" in their own living
room / family room without taking over the room via sound treatments remains
a realistic goal for most audiophiles (and their partners if they have
them).

[Serge Auckland[_2_]]

"Tom Shults" wrote in message
...
wrote in message ...
On Jan 12, 1:49 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Sean Olive has an interesting new blog post on the topic, coming off a
panel discussion at a meeting of the International Loudspeaker
Manufacturer's Association
(ALMA)

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/

Wow, first time I have heard anything close to CES. Its like hush hush
this year.

The worst thing about today, it seems like the listening room at the
local discount
store is non-existent. Every body goes by price and opinion of others.

Yes the old CU tests were flawed.

greg

Greg,

Your message, and the previously referenced article brought to mind some
recent problems I have encountered in the audio retail market.

During my recent speaker shopping, I found that not only are the discount
stores providing very poor listening facilities, but many of the better
loudspeaker manufacturer's have no local dealers with listening
facilities.
Of course, there are still some local high-end dealers in my area who do a
great job of demonstrating the speakers they choose to sell, still I found
a
number of other loudspeaker companies who distribute locally only through
home audio installers. These installers have no listening facilities, and
they can only special order products that I cannot return. When I called
some of these loudspeaker manufacturers, they told me with some arrogance
that they only sell through local dealers and do not sell via the
internet.
so, where is the value-add of these local dealers over the internet
dealers,
if I cannot audition the equipment before I purchase it?

I really do not get this custom installer craze. These installers talk
with
great pride about the $100,000 home theater installations they have
undertaken, but when I ask them how their customers select equipment, they
say the customers let their installer select the equipment for them. Can
you imagine calling a car dealer, giving them a price range, and saying
"Oh
you pick something for me and just bring it by."

Tom

I think sadly, this is all too common amongst those Installers working at
the 100,000+ level. I would guess that many if not most of those willing to
spend those sums of money aren't audiophile enthusiasts at all. They are the
same sort of people who give an Interior Designer carte-blanche to theme
their home whilst they're away on vacation.

Given that electronics are much of a muchness, and these customers are after
an impressive system rather than audio Nirvana, it's as good a way as any of
spending a large amount of money to achieve an impressive system with zero
worry.

S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[Peter Wieck]

On Jan 13, 9:37*am, Steven Sullivan wrote:

I'd say it's a better idea to get a loudspeaker that is inherently
accurate, and therefore not so room-dependent, and adjust room to suit
(with treatments and digital EQ) than to get a speaker that only sounds
good in certain rooms.

Lemme see if I get this straight: It is better to get an 'accurate'
speaker irrespective of anything else and then add artifacts (digital
EQ) and also alter the room to suit the speaker.

Seems like a great deal of trouble when reasonably apt speaker
placement and reasonable room furnishings will overcome the bulk of
'room-dependent' issues. And I am not so sure that it isn't a
distinction-without-difference here concerning speakers that sound
good in 'certain rooms' vs. those that are basically accurate. A
speaker that is inherently inaccurate *might* sound passable in a
given room due to happy accident - but is that the reason to choose a
speaker in the first place? And then to suggest that a speaker will
have to be tweaked electronically anyway?

I dunno... We have presently three significant listening venues. Our
living room at 15 x 12 x 9'-8", hardwood floor, plaster walls &
Ceiling, two french doors, three windows, victorian-style furniture.
Using a pair of AR3a speakers elevated about 8" above the floor on the
long wall at the 1/4 & 2/3 points. Sounds wonderful. Works for many
hours per week. It took a little tweaking of the speaker placement and
a slight adjustment of the height to get rid of boominess and provide
a decent sound-stage to the other long wall (where we tend to sit on
one long sofa with our feet up).

Our library is 15 x 23 x 9'-8", hardwood floors with large area
carpets and smaller carpets on those, overstuffed furniture, three
french doors, four windows, fireplace, built-in full-height
bookshelves on the two short walls. Using a pair of SMGAa Speakers
from a Revox sub-woofer. The SMGas are hung ~12" from either side of
the fireplace (on the long wall) approximately 6" from the wall and
the base approximately 2'-6" above the floor. Sound absolutely
stunning pretty much anywhere in the room more than 6' from the
speakers and within a 30-degree arc to either side of either speaker.
The fireplace is not symmetrically placed. Also works many hours per
week.

My workshop is approximately 10 x 12 x 9 all plaster, carpeted floor,
three windows, two doors. Two systems there, AR-M5 speakers for one,
AR4X speakers for the other - the latter being my test-bed system.
Gets most use on weekends when I am puttering on the bench.

The guest-room is a moving target, what goes there is based on the
guest in question. Anything from a simple AM/FM radio to a full-bore
tube or SS based stereo, depending. It is 14 x 20 x 9, all plaster &
hardwood, sparsely furnished (bed, desk, one chair, bookshelf/room
divider, console Zenith radio (9S262) and small chest) with area rugs,
three windows, two doors. Doesn't count as a major venue, but most
speakers sound pretty bright in it as it happens - no surprise there.

I have found speaker placement to be pretty basic - assuming basically
sound speakers. Yeah, I like the "east-coast" sound and inefficient
speakers, but I have always had the power to drive them. I use soprano
female voice, solo trumpet and/or solo harpsichord for basic
placement, and the Saint-Saens organ symphony for 'proving' the
soundstage. Sorry, no test instruments or spectrum analyzers, just my
ears.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Kalman Rubinson[_3_]]

On 13 Jan 2009 18:41:23 GMT, Peter Wieck
wrote:

................................................. ............ Sorry, no test instruments
or spectrum analyzers, just my ears.

Then there's no basis for comparison or discussion since any
relationship of these three systems to "accuracy" is simply
speculation.

Enjoy them.

Kal

[Arny Krueger]

"Tom Shults" wrote in message


During my recent speaker shopping, I found that not only
are the discount stores providing very poor listening
facilities, but many of the better loudspeaker
manufacturer's have no local dealers with listening
facilities. Of course, there are still some local
high-end dealers in my area who do a great job of
demonstrating the speakers they choose to sell, still I
found a number of other loudspeaker companies who
distribute locally only through home audio installers.
These installers have no listening facilities, and they
can only special order products that I cannot return.
When I called some of these loudspeaker manufacturers,
they told me with some arrogance that they only sell
through local dealers and do not sell via the internet.
so, where is the value-add of these local dealers over
the internet dealers, if I cannot audition the equipment
before I purchase it?

IME auditioning much else but speakers is *totally* useless. All good (fill
in the blank with anything modern but mics and speakers) sound pretty much
the same.

Many kinds of functional and ergonomic problems don't become apparent until
sometime down the road for two reasons - one being that it may take a while
before you try to use the problematical function, and the other being that
many pieces of equipment that I buy are so complex that no reasonable show
room demo would cover them all.

Furthermore, auditioning speakers in any situation but the one intended for
final use, is IME pretty much wasted time. I still remember auditioning the
last set of floorstanding mains that I purchased. The demo sounded horrible
and there seemed to be nothing that could be done in the dealer's premises
to correct the situation. I bought them anyway. They sounded great at home.

I really do not get this custom installer craze. These
installers talk with great pride about the $100,000 home
theater installations they have undertaken, but when I
ask them how their customers select equipment, they say
the customers let their installer select the equipment
for them.

Hmm would you rather listen to a system specified and installed by an
amateur or a well-experienced expert?

The home owner is usually a rank amateur, and many of the installation
people I know are really pretty good at what they do.

Can you imagine calling a car dealer, giving
them a price range, and saying "Oh you pick something for
me and just bring it by."

That's not that far from how I selected my last car - a Milan. It was ranked
the best car in its price range by a number of criteria, including my review
of technical specs, reading published and consumer reviews, and talking to
current owners. I never drove one before I signed on the dotted line. OK, I
cheated, I did drive its brand-mate the Fusion, but not with all the chassis
options that I ordered. Nearly 3 years later it has been a wonderful car -
beating or meeting all expectations.

As far as things like purchasing mics and speakers - I routinely do that
without ever listening to them until they are installed or set up for their
first use. In the last 5 years that would cover about 30 microphones and
maybe a dozen sets of speakers.

As far as speakers and mics go, the most important thing with them is
on-axis response, and nobody who has and can use a parametric equalizer
needs to be a slave to that, within reasonable bounds.

[bob]

On Jan 13, 8:36*am, "Tom Shults" wrote:

During my recent speaker shopping, I found that not only are the discount
stores providing very poor listening facilities, but many of the better
loudspeaker manufacturer's have no local dealers *with listening facilities.
Of course, there are still some local high-end dealers in my area who do a
great job of demonstrating the speakers they choose to sell, still I found a
number of other loudspeaker companies who distribute locally only through
home audio installers. *These installers have no listening facilities, and
they can only special order products that I cannot return. *When I called
some of these loudspeaker manufacturers, they told me with some arrogance
that they only sell through local dealers and do not sell via the internet.
so, where is the value-add of these local dealers over the internet dealers,
if I cannot audition the equipment before I purchase it?

I think you're looking at this problem in the wrong way. There are
basically 4 ways a loudspeaker company can market its products:

1) Big-box retailers
2) Specialty retailers
3) Online sales (retailers and factory direct)
4) Installers

No one is going to market a given line of speakers through all four of
these channels. If you want to audition speakers before committing to
them, then, your universe of options will be what's sold in #2 near
you, plus typically #1 and #3, depending on their return policies. I
don't think you're hurting for options there.

The world of audio consumers is much larger than the world of
audiophiles, however. People in the former group with money and space
will hire installers to choose their gear. The rest will rely on the
limited product lines of the Best Buys and Crutchfields and just buy
what fits their budget. And they'll be happy with that, even if you
wouldn't be.

In fact, they'll be the people who benefit most from Olive's work. If
CU starts measuring and rating speakers the way Olive wants them to,
that will put tremendous pressure on mass-market manufacturers to
produce better speakers. Hopefully, installers will start looking at
those kinds of measurements, too. CEDIA should be pushing this, if
it's not.

bob

[[email protected]]

On Jan 13, 1:41*pm, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Jan 13, 9:37*am, Steven Sullivan wrote:

I'd say it's a better idea to get a loudspeaker that is inherently
accurate, and therefore not so room-dependent, and adjust room to suit
(with treatments and digital EQ) than to get a speaker that only sounds
good in certain rooms.

Lemme see if I get this straight: It is better to get an 'accurate'
speaker irrespective of anything else and then add artifacts (digital
EQ) and also alter the room to suit the speaker.

Seems like a great deal of trouble when reasonably apt speaker
placement and reasonable room furnishings will overcome the bulk of
'room-dependent' issues. And I am not so sure that it isn't a
distinction-without-difference here concerning speakers that sound
good in 'certain rooms' vs. those that are basically accurate. A
speaker that is inherently inaccurate *might* sound passable in a
given room due to happy accident - but is that the reason to choose a
speaker in the first place? And then to suggest that a speaker will
have to be tweaked electronically anyway?

I dunno... We have presently three significant listening venues. Our
living room at 15 x 12 x 9'-8", hardwood floor, plaster walls &
Ceiling, two french doors, three windows, victorian-style furniture.
Using a pair of AR3a speakers elevated about 8" above the floor on the
long wall at the 1/4 & 2/3 points. Sounds wonderful. Works for many
hours per week. It took a little tweaking of the speaker placement and
a slight adjustment of the height to get rid of boominess and provide
a decent sound-stage to the other long wall (where we tend to sit on
one long sofa with our feet up).


For the most part I can listen to most stuff with little modification.
My ultimate listening experience is when the band sounds like its in
my room. Certain speakers make that more realistic.
When I finish my entertainment room it will be fairly dead.
I had Ar4's and had a Ar2ax for a while. I switched to west coast
generally, and speakers of my own design, but
I wish I had an Ar3 set for reference.

greg

[Steven Sullivan]

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Jan 13, 9:37?am, Steven Sullivan wrote:

I'd say it's a better idea to get a loudspeaker that is inherently
accurate, and therefore not so room-dependent, and adjust room to suit
(with treatments and digital EQ) than to get a speaker that only sounds
good in certain rooms.

Lemme see if I get this straight: It is better to get an 'accurate'
speaker irrespective of anything else and then add artifacts (digital
EQ) and also alter the room to suit the speaker.

No, to alter the room to correct *its* deficiencies.

--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

[Peter Wieck]

On Jan 13, 3:32*pm, Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 13 Jan 2009 18:41:23 GMT, Peter Wieck

Then there's no basis for comparison or discussion since any
relationship of these three systems to "accuracy" is simply
speculation.

There really never is, anyway. Once the concept of "liking what one
likes" penetrates the measurements-are-king crowd, the basis for
discussion is pretty much eliminated. And that, for some, takes all
the 'fun' out of it. Agreeing to disagree is anathema. They *must* be
right, further to which that 'rightness' must be attributed to
mechanical measurements.

Further, if your instruments give you something you like vs. something
that 'measures accurately', which do you follow? Oh, and have you
actually used such instruments on your system?

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

On Jan 13, 9:37 am, Steven Sullivan
wrote:

I'd say it's a better idea to get a loudspeaker that is
inherently accurate, and therefore not so
room-dependent, and adjust room to suit (with treatments
and digital EQ) than to get a speaker that only sounds
good in certain rooms.

Room independence basically means controlled and fairly narrow dispersion.
That may or may not come in the same package as what most seem to call
accuracy, which roughly equates with on-axis response.

Lemme see if I get this straight: It is better to get an
'accurate' speaker irrespective of anything else and then
add artifacts (digital EQ) and also alter the room to
suit the speaker.

I see what may be a knee jerk negative reaction to equalization. A study of
the composition of the word equalization can lead to an understanding of the
original intent. Note that equalization starts out with the word equal. Yes,
the initial intent of equalization was to restore non-flat audio systems to
equal or flat response.

In control systems, the relevant element is called a "linear compensator".
IOW, a device that uses linear processing (phase and/or frequency response
alterations) to compensate for undesirable properties (again phase and/or
frequency response alterations) that crept into the system.

As has been pointed out on RAHE over the years, but apparently sloughed off
by many, is the fact that many frequency response and phase errors in a
system can have a corresponding linear compensator that basically zeroes out
the undesirable response characteristics. An example of this is the
observation that many common minimum-phase errors can be perfectly
compensated for by a minimum-phase equalizer. In former times the practical
forms of compensation were far more limited than they are today.

Seems like a great deal of trouble when reasonably apt
speaker placement and reasonable room furnishings will
overcome the bulk of 'room-dependent' issues.

If life were only that simple enough of the time!

[Kalman Rubinson[_3_]]

On 13 Jan 2009 23:17:27 GMT, Peter Wieck wrote:

There really never is, anyway. Once the concept of "liking what one
likes" penetrates the measurements-are-king crowd, the basis for
discussion is pretty much eliminated. And that, for some, takes all
the 'fun' out of it. Agreeing to disagree is anathema. They *must* be
right, further to which that 'rightness' must be attributed to
mechanical measurements.

Further, if your instruments give you something you like vs. something
that 'measures accurately', which do you follow? Oh, and have you
actually used such instruments on your system?

Actually, I do. Not to decide what I like or to choose what I will
keep but to assist in (1) setting up speakers to optimize their
performance in my room and (2) identifying the specifics of what I
hear.

Kal

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:59:35 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Tom Shults" wrote in message


During my recent speaker shopping, I found that not only
are the discount stores providing very poor listening
facilities, but many of the better loudspeaker
manufacturer's have no local dealers with listening
facilities. Of course, there are still some local
high-end dealers in my area who do a great job of
demonstrating the speakers they choose to sell, still I
found a number of other loudspeaker companies who
distribute locally only through home audio installers.
These installers have no listening facilities, and they
can only special order products that I cannot return.
When I called some of these loudspeaker manufacturers,
they told me with some arrogance that they only sell
through local dealers and do not sell via the internet.
so, where is the value-add of these local dealers over
the internet dealers, if I cannot audition the equipment
before I purchase it?

IME auditioning much else but speakers is *totally* useless. All good (fill
in the blank with anything modern but mics and speakers) sound pretty much
the same.

Pretty much the same or exactly the same? If it's the former, there's wiggle
room for "audiophilia" to sneak in by the side door.

Many kinds of functional and ergonomic problems don't become apparent until
sometime down the road for two reasons - one being that it may take a while
before you try to use the problematical function, and the other being that
many pieces of equipment that I buy are so complex that no reasonable show
room demo would cover them all.

Furthermore, auditioning speakers in any situation but the one intended for
final use, is IME pretty much wasted time. I still remember auditioning the
last set of floorstanding mains that I purchased. The demo sounded horrible
and there seemed to be nothing that could be done in the dealer's premises
to correct the situation. I bought them anyway. They sounded great at home.

Also many speakers sound thin until they "break-in". IOW, the speaker's
suspension needs to loosen-up before they produce all the bass that they are
capable of producing. Sometimes a manufacturer will say that a speaker needs
100 hours on it before it performs as advertised.

I really do not get this custom installer craze. These
installers talk with great pride about the $100,000 home
theater installations they have undertaken, but when I
ask them how their customers select equipment, they say
the customers let their installer select the equipment
for them.

Hmm would you rather listen to a system specified and installed by an
amateur or a well-experienced expert?

The kinds of people he's talking about buy on price, as in: " I want the most
expensive system money can buy", or " I have $150,000 for a system." Then,
they never use it except to brag to other rich dilettantes with macmansions
about how much everything costs. I know a guy who used to have a stereo store
and closed it because he could make more money catering to rich jerks by
installing a couple of mega-buck systems per month than he could with a store
front business keeping regular store hours. It's this kind of buyer that has
driven the cost of decent stereo equipment through the stratosphere. There
are lots of people willing and able to spend $60,000 on a CD player, so why
not supply one?

[Peter Wieck]

On Jan 13, 8:19*pm, Kalman Rubinson wrote:

Actually, I do. *Not to decide what I like or to choose what I will
keep but to assist in (1) setting up speakers to optimize their
performance in my room and (2) identifying the specifics of what I
hear.

Really?!

Not to be precious or anything, but do you need instruments to tell
you what you hear? I would think that it would be far more revealing
of means-and-methods to set up your speakers 'by ear' to what you
think is is a happy configuration and then perhaps *confirm* via
instruments that you have achieved some level of 'accuracy' as well.
Actually, I think your choice of words for (2) is unfortunate and not
quite what you mean - at least I hope this is the case. In any case, I
question (in humor) whether the cart or the horse is driving the
rig... .

Writing for myself, I have absolute confidence in what my ears tell
me, especially over time. And, to be blunt, if the instruments
indicate differently, so what? They are not that unique mix of mind
and prejudice that I take to listening... and so cannot be expected to
determine or even suggest what is 'correct' for me. Nor would I
suggest that my particular choices are in any way more or less correct
for anyone else. But, 38 years in the hobby and the number of systems
I have tweeked for others (merely) suggests that what I prefer ain't
half-bad. I am also pretty good at listening to how others criticize
their systems so that I can focus on corrective measures. A certain
amount of "can you hear me now?" little steps and little tweaks
usually does it with surprisingly little pain-and-suffering no heroic
interventions. Further to this, most of the mistakes in speaker
placement are pretty obvious and easily corrected as long as the owner
understands that speakers are not entirely decorative items but must
achieve a function as well.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Peter Wieck]

On Jan 13, 6:01*pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:

No, to alter the room to correct *its* deficiencies.

Yikes!

Altering the speaker output corrects the room's deficiencies? Or does
it correct the speaker output to compensate for the rooms perceived
deficiencies? Also, as a secondary result allowing the speakers to be
placed most conveniently but not necessarily as the most direct result
of their nature and function, perhaps?

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[bob]

On Jan 13, 8:20*pm, Sonnova wrote:

I know a guy who used to have a stereo store
and closed it because he could make more money catering to rich jerks by
installing a couple of mega-buck systems per month than he could with a store
front *business keeping regular store hours. It's this kind of buyer that has
driven the cost of decent stereo equipment through the stratosphere.

Decent stereo equipment is cheaper than it's ever been. What's gone
into the stratosphere is "high-end" stereo equipment, which is not the
same thing. And that has happened as the "industry" has become
unhinged from reality—there's no correlation between price and
performance. It's all jewelry.

There's also a cost spiral. As a manufacturer produces higher-priced
goods, his market dwindles, requiring him to raise his prices further
to cover his costs, leading to fewer sales, leading to... None of this
has anything to do with the MacMansion owner who outsources
decisionmaking to his installer. It's a simple lack of economies of
scale, combined with a down-sloping demand curve.

There
are lots of people willing and able to spend $60,000 on a CD player, so why
not supply one?

Able, yes. Willing, I doubt. If there were buyers, there would be
sellers.

[Kalman Rubinson[_3_]]

On 14 Jan 2009 03:30:35 GMT, Peter Wieck wrote:

Not to be precious or anything, but do you need instruments to tell
you what you hear? I would think that it would be far more revealing
of means-and-methods to set up your speakers 'by ear' to what you
think is is a happy configuration and then perhaps *confirm* via
instruments that you have achieved some level of 'accuracy' as well.
Actually, I think your choice of words for (2) is unfortunate and not
quite what you mean - at least I hope this is the case. In any case, I
question (in humor) whether the cart or the horse is driving the
rig... .

You misread me. It is easy to read reflections and frequency
aberrations which tell me a lot about where to move the speakers when
my ears tell me that the present site is not optimal.

Writing for myself, I have absolute confidence in what my ears tell
me, especially over time.

Really? Can you identify the frequency of a boundary cancellation and
the cause by ear when all the boundarys are similar?

And, to be blunt, if the instruments indicate differently, so what?

Differently from what? From my ears? Hasn't happened yet.

They are not that unique mix of mind
and prejudice that I take to listening... and so cannot be expected to
determine or even suggest what is 'correct' for me. Nor would I
suggest that my particular choices are in any way more or less correct
for anyone else. But, 38 years in the hobby and the number of systems
I have tweeked for others (merely) suggests that what I prefer ain't
half-bad. I am also pretty good at listening to how others criticize
their systems so that I can focus on corrective measures. A certain
amount of "can you hear me now?" little steps and little tweaks
usually does it with surprisingly little pain-and-suffering no heroic
interventions. Further to this, most of the mistakes in speaker
placement are pretty obvious and easily corrected as long as the owner
understands that speakers are not entirely decorative items but must
achieve a function as well.

Yada, yada, yada. No further comment necessary. Bye.

Kal

[Steven Sullivan]

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:32:53AM +0000, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Jan 13, 3:32?pm, Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 13 Jan 2009 18:41:23 GMT, Peter Wieck

Then there's no basis for comparison or discussion since any
relationship of these three systems to "accuracy" is simply
speculation.

There really never is, anyway. Once the concept of "liking what one
likes" penetrates the measurements-are-king crowd, the basis for
discussion is pretty much eliminated.


Actually, science can study *why* one likes what one likes, and has done, for loudspeakers
specifically. Consumer preference is neither sacrosanct nor off-limits to measurement, and
the results may show very well that the consumer didn't really buy something for the reasons
he thought he did. I suspect the 'reality-is-as-I-perceive-it crowd' (see, I can invent bogus
crowds too) must hate that, but there it is.

More to the point for this thread, scientists can specifically study the relationship between
loudspeaker measurements and 'what one likes', under conditions that truly permit preference
based only on sound. Which is why Sean Olive is recommending that loudspeaker manufacterers
adopt measurement methods that will yield results more useful to consumers, who typically
cannot do blind comparisons.


And that, for some, takes all
the 'fun' out of it. Agreeing to disagree is anathema. They *must* be
right, further to which that 'rightness' must be attributed to
mechanical measurements.

Buy whatever the heck you like. No one is stopping you. The argument's really about the
claims people make, not what they do. You *claim* you prefer those loudspeakers because they
sound the best to you? I say perhaps, but you might be surprised at what *really* drove your
decision, if the claim was put to the test.


Further, if your instruments give you something you like vs. something
that 'measures accurately', which do you follow? Oh, and have you
actually used such instruments on your system?

You're ignoring that fact that people *like* things for all sorts of reasons... which they
aren't always aware of. Olive and Toole's work make it quite clear with loudspeakers, for
example, that people can claim to like the sound, when it's actually not the sound that's
driving their preference: the preference often changes once they don't know in advance which
loudspeaker they're listening to.

Given that, what are we to do who really want speakers that best approach the goal of accurate
signal reproduction? We can hope for 'specs' that are good indicators of accurate sound.

Can it be you're actually *against* the idea of accurate loudspeaker sound becoming a
commodity, the way it has for most of the rest of the home repro signal chain?


--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[[email protected]]

Steven Sullivan wrote:

His point is that mfrs aren't measuring and reporting the right
things...their 'tests' are 'unwell'.

I've contacted some 30 loudspeaker manufacturers, from Avalon to
Zingali, asking for measurements. All I've got was hot air and
audiophile gobbledygook. Not one single graph. Judging from the
respective replies, most of these 30 don't perform measurements at
all !!!

Klaus

[Peter Wieck]

On Jan 14, 5:58*am, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Can it be you're actually *against* the idea of accurate loudspeaker sound becoming a
commodity, the way it has for *most of the rest of the home repro signal chain?

Oh, no. Not at all. Note that I agreed entirely with the premise that
the present measurement system(s) are grossly inadequate and render
all sorts of misleading data.

What I am spewing against is the a priori assumption that corrective
measures typically must be applied even to 'accurate' speakers based
on room conditions. That is where I am having a hard time grasping the
need when there are very-almost-always easier corrective measures
focusing on placement and the suitability of *that* speaker in *that*
venue.

Keep in mind that there are individuals on this earth totally
enamoured with the Bose 901 system - and I may somewhat accurately be
accused of being very much enamoured with the AR3a. So, there is a
certain amount of invincible ignorance extant anyway.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


There really never is, anyway. Once the concept of
"liking what one likes" penetrates the
measurements-are-king crowd, the basis for discussion is
pretty much eliminated.

Attitudes like that don't eliminate discussion, they just are
self-contradictory attempts to inflame. But they demand a reasoned response.

"liking what one likes" is not a complex or hard to understand. It's an
unmistakable and universal part of the human existence. Claming that certain
people don't get basic concepts like "liking what one likes" are utterly
demeaning and ultimately position those adopt such dogmatic postures in
public as being lacking both insight and good will.

Similarly, dredging up stereotypes such as the "measurements-are-king crowd"
is just simplistic straw man invective that has long been among Luddites who
don't want to give modern science its just deserts because their basic
philosophy tends towards solipsism.

Bottom line, we can correctly interpret the joining of these two nonsensical
phrases as "My way or the highway".

And that, for some, takes all the
'fun' out of it. Agreeing to disagree is anathema.

Right, for many it is far more fun to be unnecessarily inflammatory.

They *must* be right, further to which that 'rightness' must
be attributed to mechanical measurements.

Characterization of the quality of audio equipment by means of measurements
is still a work in progress for loudspeakers, but well-understood for music
players and amplifiers. It is interesting that so much anti-measurement
rhetoric comes from people whose long-standing emotional attachment is to
equipment that chronically does not measure well. For them, they can either
accept reality which is that measurements characterize their hobby horses as
well as any other horse in the stable, or they can forever cast false
aspersions and engage in name-calling in the lost hope that someone will
believe their retro-technology dogma.

Further, if your instruments give you something you like
vs. something that 'measures accurately', which do you
follow?

One could be mature and say: "So what if this stuff doesn't measure well?"
"I like what I like and so be it." Then do all that without the silly
rhetoric and name-calling.

Oh, and have you actually used such instruments
on your system?

For most consumers, the use of test equipment is done by proxy during the
development phase.

[Steven Sullivan]

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Jan 13, 8:19?pm, Kalman Rubinson wrote:

Actually, I do. ?Not to decide what I like or to choose what I will
keep but to assist in (1) setting up speakers to optimize their
performance in my room and (2) identifying the specifics of what I
hear.

Really?!

Not to be precious or anything, but do you need instruments to tell
you what you hear?

No, but you do need some sort of mechanism to control for bias, ***IF***
you really want to decide based *only* on what you *heard*.




--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

His point is that mfrs aren't measuring and reporting the right
things...their 'tests' are 'unwell'.

I've contacted some 30 loudspeaker manufacturers, from Avalon to
Zingali, asking for measurements. All I've got was hot air and
audiophile gobbledygook. Not one single graph. Judging from the
respective replies, most of these 30 don't perform measurements at
all !!!

This site often includes NRC-style measurements in their reviews.

http://www.soundstageav.com/avreviews_speakers.html


--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Peter Wieck]

On Jan 14, 3:26*pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:

No, but you do need some sort of mechanism to control for bias, ***IF***
you really want to decide based *only* on what you *heard*.

Um... why? I am *biased*, remember. Why would I want to be confused
with any facts? They may be in conflict with what I believe myself to
have heard.

Put another way, I can accept that instruments may speed the process
of proper speaker placement - reduce the number of 'can you hear me
now' incremental baby-steps. But ultimately the ears and mind, bias
and predjudices included, will (at least *should*) dictate what the
owner/operators of the speakers chooses.

Further, I do reject out-of-hand the need for permanent additional
hardware. That reminds me of the analogy of the New Suit:

There once was this guy who went out and bought a new suit. He was all
proud of his suit so as he was walking down the street he mentioned it
to a friend.
Suit Guy - "Hey what do you think of my new suit?"
Friend1 - "Well it looks nice but that sleeve is a little long. I
think you should go back and get it shortened."
Suit Guy - "You know your right. I'll go right over to the tailors."
Later at the tailor shop
Suit Guy - "This suits sleeve is to long. I just bought this suit
today from you and I'd like for it to look right. So can you fix it?"
Tailor - "Well I don't have time to fix that today but if you just
stretch your arm over you chest like so it will look the right length
until I get time to fix it."
Suit Guy - "You know your right. It does look better."
So the suit guy is along his way holding his arm just so to stretch
the sleeve. He runs into another friend.
Suit Guy - "Hey what do you think of my new suit?"
Friend2 - "Well it looks nice but that back is a little long. I think
you should go back and get it shortened."
Suit Guy - "You know your right. I'll go right over to the tailors."
Later at the tailor shop
Suit Guy - "This suits back is to long. I just bought this suit today
from you and I'd like for it to look right. So can you fix it?"
Tailor - "Well I don't have time to fix that today but if you just
bend forward like so it will pull up in the back and look the right
length until I get time to fix it."
Suit Guy - "You know your right. It does look better."
So the suit guy is along his way holding his arm just so to stretch
the sleeve and bent over just so to make the back stretch just so. He
runs into another friend.
Suit Guy - "Hey what do you think of my new suit?"
Friend3 - "Well it looks nice but that pant leg is a little long. I
think you should go back and get it shortened."
Suit Guy - "You know your right. I'll go right over to the tailors."
Later at the tailor shop
Suit Guy - "This suits pant leg is to long. I just bought this suit
today from you and I'd like for it to look right. So can you fix it?"
Tailor - "Well I don't have time to fix that today but if you just gab
that pant leg like so it will pull up and look the right length until
I get time to fix it."
Suit Guy - "You know your right. It does look better."
So the suit guy is along his way holding his arm just so to stretch
the sleeve, bent over just so to make the back stretch just so, and
lifting his pant leg just so to make it all line up. As he is walking
down the street an elderly couple spy him and say;
Elderly couple - "Look at that poor crippled man in the nice suit."

Seems like the wrong way to go about it - speakers and clothing.


Offered in humor, as always.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:59:35 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Tom Shults" wrote in message


IME auditioning much else but speakers is *totally*
useless. All good (fill in the blank with anything
modern but mics and speakers) sound pretty much the same.

Pretty much the same or exactly the same? If it's the
former, there's wiggle room for "audiophilia" to sneak in
by the side door.

I could care less. If people want to obsess about trivial details, that's a
personality fault, and no amount of electronic technology is going to *fix*
it. I choose to address the more serious issue of sound quality as perceived
by the listener.

Many kinds of functional and ergonomic problems don't
become apparent until sometime down the road for two
reasons - one being that it may take a while before you
try to use the problematical function, and the other
being that many pieces of equipment that I buy are so
complex that no reasonable show room demo would cover
them all.

Furthermore, auditioning speakers in any situation but
the one intended for final use, is IME pretty much
wasted time. I still remember auditioning the last set
of floorstanding mains that I purchased. The demo
sounded horrible and there seemed to be nothing that
could be done in the dealer's premises to correct the
situation. I bought them anyway. They sounded great at
home.

Also many speakers sound thin until they "break-in".

That's well-known among expert technologists to require less than a minute,
often a few seconds.

Arguably, the demo speakers in the store were better broken in than the new
ones I bought for several weeks.

IOW, the speaker's suspension needs to loosen-up before they
produce all the bass that they are capable of producing.
Sometimes a manufacturer will say that a speaker needs
100 hours on it before it performs as advertised.

Some high end manufacturers will say anything to keep their dealers happy.
The true function of break in is to address the problems that obsessive
audiophiles have with buyer's remorse. It is well known that mental state
strongly affects perceptions. Buy saying that the so-called break in period
some immense amount of time, they keep the new equipment in the obsessive
new owner's hands until his stess is relieved and he gets his head somewhat
screwed on straight.

I really do not get this custom installer craze. These
installers talk with great pride about the $100,000 home
theater installations they have undertaken, but when I
ask them how their customers select equipment, they say
the customers let their installer select the equipment
for them.

Hmm would you rather listen to a system specified and
installed by an amateur or a well-experienced expert?

The kinds of people he's talking about buy on price, as
in: " I want the most expensive system money can buy", or
" I have $150,000 for a system."

Right, people whose first priority is to obtain more bragging rights by
having a system whose cost has as many decimal places in it as possible.

Then, they never use it
except to brag to other rich dilettantes with macmansions
about how much everything costs.

Exactly.

In contrast truely rich people basically want a really nice media room to
function as a kind of household appliance. They use it to entertain guests
and family and they themselves may even relax with it occasionally. A system
of this caliber may easily run more than $10,000 installed, but probably
substantially less than $100,000.

Once they have something they like, they will maintain it but they won't do
a total replace unless there is a major technology upgrade like HDTV. Many
of these people have been enjoying many of the benefits of HDTV via high
resolution projectors and upscalers for years. A good upscaler used to cost
many $1,000s, but the same basic function has now been reduced to a
subfunction of a $3 chip. So dramatic upgrades are few and far between.

I know a guy who used to
have a stereo store and closed it because he could make
more money catering to rich jerks by installing a couple
of mega-buck systems per month than he could with a store
front business keeping regular store hours.

Most of what used to be hi fi shops in this area, that are still alive and
kicking, have extensive home installation services.

It's this kind of buyer that has driven the cost of decent stereo
equipment through the stratosphere.

But, its a tiny market compared to the lower, more pragmatic tier that I
mentioned above.

There are lots of people willing and able to spend $60,000 on a CD player,
so why not supply one?

Hence these incredibly over-engineered works of designer's art, machined
from a single billet of Titanium, that use transports from boom boxes,
circuit cards from $150 DVD players, and DACs from $175 sound cards. If
that's what someone wants to have, let them have it. They just have to be
willing to be presented with what may be uncomfortable truth if they claim
on a public forum that it sounds worlds better than equipment that is
already sonically transparent.

[Peter Wieck]

For most consumers, the use of test equipment is done by proxy during the
development phase.

Which means exactly what when you suggest linear compensators to
correct poor room acoustics? That is where I am going with all this -
Most of the individuals who participate in this group could hardly be
described as "most consumers". And the discussion is around and about
speaker measurements which most of us can agree are inadequate as
presently practiced. Some advocate digital equalization, you advocate
linear compensators - both seem to require additional equipment for
the purpose, and some level of spectrum analysis to prove the
requirement.

Hardly a 'proxy' use of the technology.

"the observation that many common minimum-phase errors can be
perfectly
compensated for by a minimum-phase equalizer."

Observation by whom? And, again, direct intervention by additional
equipment - hardly proxy.

Again, some 38 years into the hobby, I have found that fairly simple
solutions to most room-acoustic problems exist based on speaker
placement - and reasonable speaker choices in the first place.
Analogy: A single 7-1/2 watt night-light lamp is hardly an appropriate
choice for the typical kitchen. A 1000-watt HID lamp is hardly so
either. After which the quality of the speakers will be manifest for
good or ill - no more. Speakers are functional items and *should* be
utilized as such. So, treating them as furniture or as decorative
items without recognizing and accommodating their intended purpose
will very often lead to unfortunate results. And if the cart is
leading the horse as to placement, additional intervention via
compensators, equalizers and so forth may be necessary. But it should
not be the first choice.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:14:03 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Jan 13, 8:20*pm, Sonnova wrote:

I know a guy who used to have a stereo store
and closed it because he could make more money catering to rich jerks by
installing a couple of mega-buck systems per month than he could with a
store
front *business keeping regular store hours. It's this kind of buyer that
has
driven the cost of decent stereo equipment through the stratosphere.

Decent stereo equipment is cheaper than it's ever been. What's gone
into the stratosphere is "high-end" stereo equipment, which is not the
same thing. And that has happened as the "industry" has become
unhinged from reality—there's no correlation between price and
performance. It's all jewelry.

While that may be true (although I don't fully buy it*) its irrelevant. The
point is that high-end equipment has become extremely expensive because their
are, apparently, lots of people who buy only on the basis of a high price
tag.

There's also a cost spiral. As a manufacturer produces higher-priced
goods, his market dwindles, requiring him to raise his prices further
to cover his costs, leading to fewer sales, leading to... None of this
has anything to do with the MacMansion owner who outsources
decisionmaking to his installer. It's a simple lack of economies of
scale, combined with a down-sloping demand curve.

Since those people are, by and large, the market for that level of equipment,
I'd have to disagree with that assessment.

There
are lots of people willing and able to spend $60,000 on a CD player, so why
not supply one?

Able, yes. Willing, I doubt. If there were buyers, there would be
sellers.

There are sellers.

* The best speakers, for instance, are very expensive. You cannot get the
kind of performance that defines the state-the-art in speakers at much less
than $25 grand. For instance, the best speaker system I've ever heard is the
Martin Logan CLX with a pair of M-L "Depth i" subwoofers at around $30 grand.
You can't get that kind of performance for a penny less and you can spend a
whole lot more.

[Steven Sullivan]

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Jan 13, 6:01?pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:

No, to alter the room to correct *its* deficiencies.

Yikes!

Altering the speaker output corrects the room's deficiencies?

Yup. Correct *for*, is the proper term, really.

Or does
it correct the speaker output to compensate for the rooms perceived
deficiencies?

That too. Are you defining 'deficiencies' as a purely subjective term?

Also, as a secondary result allowing the speakers to be
placed most conveniently but not necessarily as the most direct result
of their nature and function, perhaps?

Yes, because speaker placement has an effect on the sound, due to the
way the output interacts with the room.

I'm glad we've cleared these basic points up.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Steven Sullivan]

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Jan 14, 5:58?am, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Can it be you're actually *against* the idea of accurate loudspeaker sound becoming a
commodity, the way it has for ?most of the rest of the home repro signal chain?

Oh, no. Not at all. Note that I agreed entirely with the premise that
the present measurement system(s) are grossly inadequate and render
all sorts of misleading data.

What I am spewing against is the a priori assumption that corrective
measures typically must be applied even to 'accurate' speakers based
on room conditions.

It's true. Relatively few rooms are designed for acoustic nirvana.

That is where I am having a hard time grasping the
need when there are very-almost-always easier corrective measures
focusing on placement and the suitability of *that* speaker in *that*
venue.

Those can certainly be *corrective*, but they only go so far. We can
go beyond that -- with treatements and digital EQ.

Keep in mind that there are individuals on this earth totally
enamoured with the Bose 901 system - and I may somewhat accurately be
accused of being very much enamoured with the AR3a. So, there is a
certain amount of invincible ignorance extant anyway.

You said it, not me.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message


* The best speakers, for instance, are very expensive.
You cannot get the kind of performance that defines the
state-the-art in speakers at much less than $25 grand.

That would be a matter of opinion. I've seen some spectacular overpricing,
based on probable manufacturing costs.


It's not like you can duplicate a good $25k system for $1k, but maybe $5-7k.
A lot of system persformance is wrapped up in matching up the room and the
speakers. $25k speakers can sound pretty bad if the room and the setup
aren't right.

For instance, the best speaker system I've ever heard is
the Martin Logan CLX with a pair of M-L "Depth i"
subwoofers at around $30 grand.

Subwoofers are particularly easy save big bucks on.

You can't get that kind
of performance for a penny less and you can spend a whole
lot more.

That would be a matter of opinion.

[bob]

On Jan 14, 6:33*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:14:03 -0800, bob wrote

Decent stereo equipment is cheaper than it's ever been. What's gone
into the stratosphere is "high-end" stereo equipment, which is not the
same thing. And that has happened as the "industry" has become
unhinged from reality—there's no correlation between price and
performance. It's all jewelry.

While that may be true (although I don't fully buy it*) its irrelevant. The
point is that high-end equipment has become extremely expensive because their
are, apparently, lots of people who buy only on the basis of a high price
tag. *

I think you're unintentionally confusing "high-end" and "good-
sounding" here. There is a market segment that is willing to spend
gobs of money but doesn't really care about sound quality. And that
segment will be served by equipment that costs gobs of money and may
or may not sound any good. There's another segment of the market that
that does care about quality sound, but only has a single gob of money
to spend. That segment seems well-served by the market as well. The
first segment isn't driving up prices; it's creating a new price
category.

snip

* The best speakers, for instance, are very expensive. You cannot get the
kind of performance that defines the state-the-art in speakers at much less
than $25 grand. For instance, the best speaker system I've ever heard is the
Martin Logan CLX with a pair of M-L "Depth i" subwoofers at around $30 grand.
You can't get that kind of performance for a penny less and you can spend a
whole lot more.

Your example may prove my point. It may be that most of these speakers
are being bought by McMansion owners. But if it weren't for those
McMansion owners, ML would not be selling those speakers for less;
instead, ML would not be making those speakers at all, because there
wouldn't be enough of a market for them. But that wouldn't have much
impact on either the quality or the marketability of ML's $10K/pr
speakers, which might be within the reach of affluent quality-
conscious audiophiles. And I think you'd agree that ML's $10K
offerings are "decent," to use the term you started with.

Another way to look at this is from the bottom of the market up. In
1978, I spent $500 on my first stereo system. Today, on other forums,
I sometimes suggest $500 systems to newbies with that much to spend.
The stuff I recommend to them is world's better than what I was able
to buy 30 years ago for the same *nominal* price. Add inflation to the
mix, and the comparison is ludicrous. I spent the equivalent of over
$1500 in today's dollars for that system. These newbies are getting a
much better system for a third of the price today.

I think that's true straight up the line, pricewise. If that ML system
is as good as you say, then I really doubt you could have bought an
equally good system for $10K in 1978.

bob

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:32:06 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:59:35 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Tom Shults" wrote in message


IME auditioning much else but speakers is *totally*
useless. All good (fill in the blank with anything
modern but mics and speakers) sound pretty much the same.

Pretty much the same or exactly the same? If it's the
former, there's wiggle room for "audiophilia" to sneak in
by the side door.

I could care less. If people want to obsess about trivial details, that's a
personality fault, and no amount of electronic technology is going to *fix*
it. I choose to address the more serious issue of sound quality as perceived
by the listener.

Agreed, but many people define their interest in audio by those "trivial
details". I.E., if one component sounds different from another, even if that
difference is miniscule and seen by some as 'trivial", it does justify their
stand that all electronics sound different.

Many kinds of functional and ergonomic problems don't
become apparent until sometime down the road for two
reasons - one being that it may take a while before you
try to use the problematical function, and the other
being that many pieces of equipment that I buy are so
complex that no reasonable show room demo would cover
them all.

Furthermore, auditioning speakers in any situation but
the one intended for final use, is IME pretty much
wasted time. I still remember auditioning the last set
of floorstanding mains that I purchased. The demo
sounded horrible and there seemed to be nothing that
could be done in the dealer's premises to correct the
situation. I bought them anyway. They sounded great at
home.

Also many speakers sound thin until they "break-in".

That's well-known among expert technologists to require less than a minute,
often a few seconds.

I beg to differ. I've measured speakers that continue to improve in bass
response over as long as a 100 hrs.

Arguably, the demo speakers in the store were better broken in than the new
ones I bought for several weeks.

Certianly, they would be better broken-in than a new, out-of-the-box pair.
How much better depends on how long the demo speakers have been set up and
how much they've been played - obviously.
ve

IOW, the speaker's suspension needs to loosen-up before they
produce all the bass that they are capable of producing.
Sometimes a manufacturer will say that a speaker needs
100 hours on it before it performs as advertised.

Some high end manufacturers will say anything to keep their dealers happy.

I've measured it. It's true.

The true function of break in is to address the problems that obsessive
audiophiles have with buyer's remorse. It is well known that mental state
strongly affects perceptions. Buy saying that the so-called break in period
some immense amount of time, they keep the new equipment in the obsessive
new owner's hands until his stess is relieved and he gets his head somewhat
screwed on straight.

Possibly, but some speakers do need considerable break-in.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


Which means exactly what when you suggest linear
compensators to correct poor room acoustics?

What I've been saying all along is that the most effective means for
correcting poor room acoustics is itself acoustical, which is to say
architectural improvements. The most effective means for correcting the
response of audio electronics and many response uniformity issues related to
loudspeakers can be electronic.

That is
where I am going with all this - Most of the individuals
who participate in this group could hardly be described
as "most consumers".

So what? How does that necessarily prevent us from speaking to each other as
peers?

And the discussion is around and
about speaker measurements which most of us can agree are
inadequate as presently practiced. Some advocate digital
equalization, you advocate linear compensators - both
seem to require additional equipment for the purpose, and
some level of spectrum analysis to prove the requirement.

I guess you never heard of equipment like these products:

http://www.hometheatermag.com/receivers/406sherwood/

http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Home_Ci...ivers/T5X4K8T2

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m..._/ai_n29390369

http://www.ultimateavmag.com/avrecei...on/index2.html

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:23:54 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message


* The best speakers, for instance, are very expensive.
You cannot get the kind of performance that defines the
state-the-art in speakers at much less than $25 grand.

That would be a matter of opinion. I've seen some spectacular overpricing,
based on probable manufacturing costs.

I'm not talking about overpriced speakers. I'm talking about state-of-the-art
speakers. They are expensive and their performance is not replicated at lower
price points.


It's not like you can duplicate a good $25k system for $1k, but maybe $5-7k.
A lot of system persformance is wrapped up in matching up the room and the
speakers. $25k speakers can sound pretty bad if the room and the setup
aren't right.

Nobody is arguing that a bad room can't ruin a good speaker, that's
irrelevant to the point.

For instance, the best speaker system I've ever heard is
the Martin Logan CLX with a pair of M-L "Depth i"
subwoofers at around $30 grand.

Subwoofers are particularly easy save big bucks on.

Not and make them meld seamlessly with those electrostatic panels.

You can't get that kind
of performance for a penny less and you can spend a whole
lot more.

That would be a matter of opinion.

Actually its not. The CLX's are, quite simply, the most transparent speakers
made to date. No other speaker is as quick, as utterly low in distortion or
anywhere near as revealing. And that includes the outrageously expensive MBL
101 X-Tremes (they are a close second. They move more air than the Martin
Logan's and therefore are better at recreating the weight and FEEL of a large
ensemble, but they aren't anywhere near as clean.)

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 06:20:31 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Jan 14, 6:33*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:14:03 -0800, bob wrote

Decent stereo equipment is cheaper than it's ever been. What's gone
into the stratosphere is "high-end" stereo equipment, which is not the
same thing. And that has happened as the "industry" has become
unhinged from reality—there's no correlation between price and
performance. It's all jewelry.

While that may be true (although I don't fully buy it*) its irrelevant. The
point is that high-end equipment has become extremely expensive because
their
are, apparently, lots of people who buy only on the basis of a high price
tag. *

I think you're unintentionally confusing "high-end" and "good-
sounding" here. There is a market segment that is willing to spend
gobs of money but doesn't really care about sound quality. And that
segment will be served by equipment that costs gobs of money and may
or may not sound any good. There's another segment of the market that
that does care about quality sound, but only has a single gob of money
to spend. That segment seems well-served by the market as well. The
first segment isn't driving up prices; it's creating a new price
category.

snip

* The best speakers, for instance, are very expensive. You cannot get the
kind of performance that defines the state-the-art in speakers at much less
than $25 grand. For instance, the best speaker system I've ever heard is the
Martin Logan CLX with a pair of M-L "Depth i" subwoofers at around $30
grand.
You can't get that kind of performance for a penny less and you can spend a
whole lot more.

Your example may prove my point. It may be that most of these speakers
are being bought by McMansion owners. But if it weren't for those
McMansion owners, ML would not be selling those speakers for less;
instead, ML would not be making those speakers at all, because there
wouldn't be enough of a market for them. But that wouldn't have much
impact on either the quality or the marketability of ML's $10K/pr
speakers, which might be within the reach of affluent quality-
conscious audiophiles. And I think you'd agree that ML's $10K
offerings are "decent," to use the term you started with.

They are "decent" when compared to other speakers in that price range, but
the CLX's are a whole different ball game. I strongly suggest that you try to
audition them. Be prepared for a life altering audio experience (from 50 Hz,
up, that is).

Another way to look at this is from the bottom of the market up. In
1978, I spent $500 on my first stereo system. Today, on other forums,
I sometimes suggest $500 systems to newbies with that much to spend.
The stuff I recommend to them is world's better than what I was able
to buy 30 years ago for the same *nominal* price. Add inflation to the
mix, and the comparison is ludicrous. I spent the equivalent of over
$1500 in today's dollars for that system. These newbies are getting a
much better system for a third of the price today.

There is no doubt, that while the "trickle-down" theory might not work in
economics, the way Ronald Reagan envisioned it, anyway, it seems to work well
in audio. Yes, performance that was state-of-the-art 30 years ago, is now
commonplace in entry-level systems of today.

I think that's true straight up the line, pricewise. If that ML system
is as good as you say, then I really doubt you could have bought an
equally good system for $10K in 1978.

You couldn't have bought an equally good speaker in 1978, 1988, or 1998 at
ANY PRICE!