Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
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 |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
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 |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
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 |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
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 |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
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 |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
"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). |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
"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 |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
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 |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
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 |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
"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. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
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 |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
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 |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
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 |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
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 |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
"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! |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
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 |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
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? |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
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 |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
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 |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
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. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
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 |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
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 |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
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 |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
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 |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
"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. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
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 |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
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 |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
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 |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
"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. |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
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 |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
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. |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
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 |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
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 |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
"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. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
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 |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
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. |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
"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 |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
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.) |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
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! |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
ATC Loudspeaker Midrange Quality: 2-way vs. 3-way | Pro Audio | |||
WTB: Loudspeaker - Single (mono), Full-Range, 'Audiophle Quality' | Marketplace | |||
loudspeaker cables | High End Audio | |||
how to put my loudspeaker higher | High End Audio | |||
DSP for loudspeaker distortion | Tech |