| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Announcing Vinylphile: a freely-downloadable, vinyl-centric audio
Hi all,
About a year ago I decided to put my (ahem) writing talent to use and publish a magazine about something I've loved almost my whole life: high-end audio and music (especially on vinyl). After a lot advice and encouragement from friends, acquaintances, and industry contacts--not to mention a LOT of hard work--I'm pleased to announce that today my dream has become a reality: I have just posted the first issue of Vinylphile! You can download it--for FREE--from he http://www.vinylphilemag.com/pdf/vinylphile-001.pdf The mag will be published bi-monthly. Late last year some people from here responded to a survey I posted about the mag. I'd like to thank everyone who responded to that survey, and their help in shaping the mag into what it is today. I hope you enjoy reading the mag as much as I did putting it together! -- Rich Teer, Publisher Vinylphile Magazine www.vinylphilemag.com |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Announcing Vinylphile: a freely-downloadable, vinyl-centric audio
On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 11:22:35 -0700, Rich Teer wrote
(in article ): Hi all, =20 About a year ago I decided to put my (ahem) writing talent to use and publish a magazine about something I've loved almost my whole life: high-end audio and music (especially on vinyl). After a lot advice and encouragement from friends, acquaintances, and industry contacts--not to mention a LOT of hard work--I'm pleased to announce that today my dream has become a reality: I have just posted the first issue of Vinylphile! You can download it--for FREE--from he http://www.vinylphilemag.com/pdf/vinylphile-001.pdf =20 The mag will be published bi-monthly. =20 Late last year some people from here responded to a survey I posted about the mag. I'd like to thank everyone who responded to that survey, and their help in shaping the mag into what it is today. =20 I hope you enjoy reading the mag as much as I did putting it together! =20 =20 A couple of niggles. First, I don't see how anyone can use rock-n-roll as= an=20 evaluation tool. I'm not knocking the genre, understand, as I realize tha= t it=20 represents most people's idea, nowadays, about what music is all about. W= hat=20 I am concerned about is the artificial "studio" quality of most rock =20 recordings(as testified with two of the records used in your M-L Spire=20 review: Pink Floyd=B9s "Dark Side of the Moon", and Dire Strait's "Love O= ver=20 Gold" being perfect examples). The music is almost all electronic, (with = a=20 few exceptions) and those things that aren't direct studio feeds, are mik= ed=20 to the hilt (the drum sets alone on many rock records are covered by as m= any=20 as 7-10 microphones). You end up reviewing electronic music equipment wit= h=20 electronic music equipment, and as such can gather no sense of the accura= cy=20 of the equipment you are auditioning because you have no way of knowing w= hat=20 the original performance sounds like. You can't know, because until it co= mes=20 out of the monitoring speakers in the control room it really has no "soun= d".=20 For instance, I know what a solo violin or a Steinway concert grand piano= =20 sounds like. I've heard hundreds of them. A Martin or a Fender custom-mad= e=20 (as many rock group's instruments are) solid-body electric guitar? I have= n't=20 the foggiest. Add an unknown brand of guitar amp/speaker combo (or more,=20 depending upon the number of guitars used in the performance), the EQ or=20 "sweetening" done by the mix engineer, the flanging, purposeful distortio= n=20 added to the guitar sounds, and not to mention any vocal EFX added, and y= ou=20 have a recording of nothing that is "real". Imaging quality? Forget it ,=20 because there isn't any - pan-pots don't count as "imaging" in my estimat= ion.=20 So, while I realize that most of your readers listen to rock, I have to=20 wonder what good it does using those types of recordings as evaluation to= ols. My next niggle has to do with cables. You "test" a $2200 pair of=20 interconnects from Nordost and while acknowledging that many find cables = to=20 be all alike, you say that you can hear the differences in SOME, not all=20 cables (though you "admit" that they are subtle.). Now, I have no proble= m=20 with monied people buying expensive "bling" for their stereo systems. Peo= ple=20 can buy what they want, but I think you are perpetrating an unfortunate u= rban=20 myth by maintaining that these Nordost "Frey" cables have any sound at al= l.=20 Especially when you haven't done a double-blind test between these Nordos= t=20 cables and some other cables. I was once party to a DBT between a pair of= =20 Nordost Valhalla interconnects ($4000/1 meter pair) and a 1 meter pair of= =20 Radio Shack's "premium" interconnects (black cable with gold connectors = and=20 "coiled spring" type strain reliefs on the connectors) which cost about=20 $12/pair. The unanimous verdict from three different groups of listeners = was=20 that NO ONE could detect the slightest difference between the two!=20 Yet you say that when you put the Nordost Freys into your system, you not= iced=20 immediately that they were "something special". Well, I guess you did. If= I=20 put a pair of $2200 interconnects in my system, I'd notice something=20 "special" too! They damn well better be "special"! The problem is, and t= his=20 is an old story here, that science and bias-controlled DBT tests performe= d=20 all over the world in the last 20 or so years say otherwise, They aren't=20 special (except for their price) and, indeed, they cannot be special. the= =20 Laws of physics says NO. =20 So, just a couple of suggestions. use acoustic recordings for your=20 evaluations of sound quality, save the rock-n-roll and other studio-bound= pop=20 recordings for your personal comments and stay away from "reviewing" cabl= es.=20 Otherwise, nice first effort and an entertaining read. Well laid-out and=20 professional looking. Good job overall and I look forward to your next=20 issue. =20 |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Announcing Vinylphile: a freely-downloadable, vinyl-centric
On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Audio Empire wrote:
Hi there, Thanks for your feedback! A couple of niggles. First, I don't see how anyone can use rock-n-roll as= an=20 evaluation tool. I'm not knocking the genre, understand, as I realize tha= It's easy: whatever genre of music connects with the listener emotionally is an example of what a good genre is. Now, I agree with you that rock has limitations (that you mention) that makes it undesirable to be the *only* genre one uses to evaluate gear. That is why I also use some of my favourite classical pieces of music (e.g., Lt Kije, Four Seasons, etc.) when evaluating gear. My next niggle has to do with cables. You "test" a $2200 pair of=20 interconnects from Nordost and while acknowledging that many find cables = [...] Cable tests and DBT are hot topics (almost as hot as vi vs EMACS in my other world!), so I'll just say that I've heard enough differences in cables to know that different cable sounds are not a fallacy, and that as far as audio is concerned, I don't think DBT is the only valid tool for evaluating gear. In other words, I respectfully agree to disagree with you. :-) So, just a couple of suggestions. use acoustic recordings for your=20 evaluations of sound quality, save the rock-n-roll and other studio-bound= pop=20 recordings for your personal comments and stay away from "reviewing" cabl= es.=20 I do use some acoustic recordings and will try to use more. There's one more cable review in the works, but nothing planned beyond that. But I wouldn't be surprised to see more cable reviews in future. Otherwise, nice first effort and an entertaining read. Well laid-out and=20 professional looking. Good job overall and I look forward to your next=20 issue. =20 Thanks very much for taking the time to write this constructive criticsm, and I'm pleased you find the mag to be to your liking overall. The next issue will be published in early August. -- Rich Teer, Publisher Vinylphile Magazine www.vinylphilemag.com |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Announcing Vinylphile: a freely-downloadable, vinyl-centric
On Jun 10, 6:10=A0pm, Rich Teer wrote:
Cable tests and DBT are hot topics (almost as hot as vi vs EMACS in my ot= her world!), so I'll just say that I've heard enough differences in cables to know that different cable sounds are not a fallacy, and that as far as au= dio is concerned, I don't think DBT is the only valid tool for evaluating gea= r. |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Announcing Vinylphile: a freely-downloadable, vinyl-centric
On Jul 2, 4:01=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
While amps and preamps can and often do sound different, It's not somethi= ng that can be actually be measured Of course it is. Amps operating below clipping levels with flat FR will sound identical; other amps (or the same amps in other circumstances) will not. Clipping, FR anomalies, and any other potentially audible forms of distortion can be measured. snip As for getting no response from 30 loudspeaker manufacturers, this I can understand. Most reputable loudspeaker manufacturers publish specs in the= ir brochures and on their web-sites, but actual measurement of speakers are highly conditional and room dependent. Nonetheless, there are anechoic measurements that correlate well with in-room listener perceptions. See Toole and Olive. Most of the specs that a speaker manufacturer is likely to provide would be meaningless as a comparison to= ol without an awful lot of supporting data, This would be data that the marketing departments of these companies would likely not have and be disinclined to go and accumulate from the engineering departments just fo= r one correspondent. Whether even the engineering departments had it would depend on how good said engineering department is. Some will, some won't, I suspect. But I think it would be great for audio all-around if more consumers demanded more meaningful speaker specifications than they typically get. With speakers, the best comparison tools are your own ears and your own taste - either in lengthy listening sessions or in ABX or ot= her bias controlled tests (if you find DBTs necessary for speakers). You wouldn't use ABX to compare speakers, and even blind comparisons would be difficult for consumers to pull off in a meaningful way. For better or worse, open listening is all we've got to go on in most cases. bob |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Announcing Vinylphile: a freely-downloadable, vinyl-centric
On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 16:48:59 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ): On Jul 2, 4:01=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: While amps and preamps can and often do sound different, It's not somethi= ng that can be actually be measured Of course it is. Amps operating below clipping levels with flat FR will sound identical; other amps (or the same amps in other circumstances) will not. Clipping, FR anomalies, and any other potentially audible forms of distortion can be measured. I disagree. I have NEVER seen any correlation between measured distortion and an amplifier's sound. Most amps have distortion levels so low that the differences are miniscule and listening tests have shown that the human ear is pretty insensitive to amplifier THD below about 1% anyway. snip As for getting no response from 30 loudspeaker manufacturers, this I can understand. Most reputable loudspeaker manufacturers publish specs in the= ir brochures and on their web-sites, but actual measurement of speakers are highly conditional and room dependent. Nonetheless, there are anechoic measurements that correlate well with in-room listener perceptions. See Toole and Olive. Most of the specs that a speaker manufacturer is likely to provide would be meaningless as a comparison to= ol without an awful lot of supporting data, This would be data that the marketing departments of these companies would likely not have and be disinclined to go and accumulate from the engineering departments just fo= r one correspondent. Whether even the engineering departments had it would depend on how good said engineering department is. Some will, some won't, I suspect. But I think it would be great for audio all-around if more consumers demanded more meaningful speaker specifications than they typically get. I don't disagree, but again, I have never seen any anechoic speaker frequency response data that correlated with what the speaker actually sounded like in real-world listening situations. Therefore, outside of academic considerations, I, personally find such data more interesting than meaningful. Perhaps if I designed speakers for a living and knew more about how what the graphs say actually correlates to what one hears, I would feel differently, but like most audio enthusiasts, I'm no speaker design expert and the anechoic measurements might tell me something about what to expect in the grossest sort of way ("This speaker has a +15 dB hump at around 80Hz, falling off rapidly below that". Therefore I would expect 1-note juke-box bass. But that is a VERY gross example of what I'm saying), subtler graphic representations would leave me (and I suspect most other audio enthusiasts) clueless. With speakers, the best comparison tools are your own ears and your own taste - either in lengthy listening sessions or in ABX or ot= her bias controlled tests (if you find DBTs necessary for speakers). You wouldn't use ABX to compare speakers, and even blind comparisons would be difficult for consumers to pull off in a meaningful way. For better or worse, open listening is all we've got to go on in most cases. I wholly agree with you here. |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Announcing Vinylphile: a freely-downloadable, vinyl-centric
On Jul 3, 11:22=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
I disagree. I have NEVER seen any correlation between measured distortion= and an =A0amplifier's sound. Most amps have distortion levels so low that the differences are miniscule and listening tests have shown that the human e= ar is pretty insensitive to amplifier THD below about 1% anyway. You're not thinking about the right kinds of distortion. THD and IM are typically so low that they are not audible. (Some tube gear excepted.) The kinds of distortion that can be audible a 1. clipping distortion, as you alluded to earlier, and 2. FR anomalies, such as you would get from impedance mismatches Avoid those two things, and all amps will sound the same in controlled testing. snip I don't disagree, but again, I have never seen any anechoic speaker frequ= ency response data that correlated with what the speaker actually sounded like= in real-world listening situations. "What a speaker sounds like to you" is a combination of its actual output and your state of mind, so obviously measurements are not going to correlate with the latter. But Toole and Olive have shown a clear correlation between certain measurements and general listener preferences. If you have those measurements available, you could deduce that most people (and you are probably but not definitely like most people) would prefer speaker A to speaker B. At the very least, you can eliminate speakers that are unlikely to satisfy because of severe FR dips or off-axis response, for example. Still, none of this overrides your state of mind. If your state of mind is, "panels are better than monkey coffins," then you are likely to prefer a poorly measuring electrostatic to a good-measuring box speaker. Which is fine, since you the one you have to make happy. bob |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Announcing Vinylphile: a freely-downloadable, vinyl-centric
On Jul 3, 10:42=A0am, wrote:
Actually no on both of the above points. =A0While ears are the means by which we recieve audio signals they are only part of the chain for best speaker comparison. =A0Controlled unbiased testing is very much possible = and desirable here as in any bit of gear. =A0 One can in this case because speakers usually have differences even determine choice based on preference. =A0One can take preference choices = and design speakers accordingly. We aren't talking about designing speakers. We are talking about consumers choosing speakers. And no, there is no way for the average consumer to conduct a fully controlled comparison of speakers. Nor, as has been noted, do most manufacturers provide the kinds of measurements you would need in order to correlate them to typical listener preferences. And even if you could, there's still the possibility that your preferences would be somewhat different. bob bob |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Announcing Vinylphile: a freely-downloadable, vinyl-centric
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 08:55:06 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ): On Jul 3, 11:22=A0am, Audio Empire wrote: I disagree. I have NEVER seen any correlation between measured distortion and an amplifier's sound. Most amps have distortion levels so low that the differences are miniscule and listening tests have shown that the human ear is pretty insensitive to amplifier THD below about 1% anyway. You're not thinking about the right kinds of distortion. THD and IM are typically so low that they are not audible. (Some tube gear excepted.) The kinds of distortion that can be audible a 1. clipping distortion, as you alluded to earlier, and Well yes, of course. 2. FR anomalies, such as you would get from impedance mismatches Very seldom encountered, or more accurately, very seldom RECOGNIZED as the reason for differences heard in amplifiers, even in DBTs. Avoid those two things, and all amps will sound the same in controlled testing. Unfortunately, the second criterion that you mention is very difficult to eliminate either on the design end or the listening end. snip I don't disagree, but again, I have never seen any anechoic speaker frequ= ency response data that correlated with what the speaker actually sounded like= in real-world listening situations. "What a speaker sounds like to you" is a combination of its actual output and your state of mind, so obviously measurements are not going to correlate with the latter. But Toole and Olive have shown a clear correlation between certain measurements and general listener preferences. If you have those measurements available, you could deduce that most people (and you are probably but not definitely like most people) would prefer speaker A to speaker B. At the very least, you can eliminate speakers that are unlikely to satisfy because of severe FR dips or off-axis response, for example. I once had access to a pair of very expensive flat-panel electrostatics by a company called Innersound and had them in my home for a good three months. I thought that they sounded fantastic, but were very difficult to live with. I felt that each pair of speakers SHOULD have been sold with one of those 19th century head clamps used by early photographers to insure that subjects didn't move their heads during long portrait exposures. You literally needed to put a flashlight in your mouth as you sat in your listening chair and then note, with your head pointed straight ahead, where the reflection of the flashlight showed up on each speaker. Then you had to play with the speaker toe-in until the reflection off of the metalized Mylar was in the dead center of each panel. After achieving the perfect placement, you couldn't move your head an INCH in any direction without totally destroying the frequency response of the panels as well as the imaging. They were a one person speaker and very tiring to try to listen to critically. To say that they, ultimately, failed to satisfy would be an understatement. Imagine buying a pair of these unheard, using only anechoic response data (taken on that narrow axis where they worked "right", no doubt) to make your decision? Unless you are a very committed listener, bent of "perfection at ANY cost, you would be one very unhappy buyer! Still, none of this overrides your state of mind. If your state of mind is, "panels are better than monkey coffins," then you are likely to prefer a poorly measuring electrostatic to a good-measuring box speaker. Which is fine, since you the one you have to make happy. What about a "good" measuring electrostatic like the Martin-Logan Vistas, which is what I finally settled upon after my debacle with the Innersounds? By the way, I recently spent a long listening session with a pair of the new Magnepan MG-1.7 ribbon speakers (2K/pair). I must say that they are very, very good, doing many things correctly. They aren't as low in distortion as a good electrostatic because they aren't push-pull, but they are damned close. |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Announcing Vinylphile: a freely-downloadable, vinyl-centric
On Jul 3, 4:09=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 08:55:06 -0700, bob wrote 2. FR anomalies, such as you would get from impedance mismatches Very seldom encountered, or more accurately, very seldom RECOGNIZED as th= e reason for differences heard in amplifiers, even in DBTs. I think I've said this to you before, but you suffer some very basic misunderstandings about DBTs. They typically are not designed to determine *why* two components sound different, only that they do. Avoid those two things, and all amps will sound the same in controlled testing. Unfortunately, the second criterion that you mention is very difficult to eliminate either on the design end or the listening end. This is unclear. Are you saying that amplifiers typically have audible FR differences? That is not the case. snip I once had access to a pair of very expensive flat-panel electrostatics b= y a company called Innersound and had them in my home for a good three months= .. I thought that they sounded fantastic, but were very difficult to live with= .. I felt that each pair of speakers SHOULD have been sold with one of those 1= 9th century head clamps used by early photographers to insure that subjects didn't move their heads during long portrait exposures. You literally nee= ded to put a flashlight in your mouth as you sat in your listening chair and = then note, with your head pointed straight ahead, where the reflection of the flashlight showed up on each speaker. Then you had to play with the speak= er toe-in until the reflection off of the metalized Mylar was in the dead ce= nter of each panel. After achieving the perfect placement, you couldn't move y= our head an INCH in any direction without totally destroying the frequency response of the panels as well as the imaging. They were a one person spe= aker and very tiring to try to listen to critically. To say that they, ultimat= ely, failed to satisfy would be an understatement. Imagine buying a pair of th= ese unheard, using only anechoic response data (taken on that narrow axis whe= re they worked "right", no doubt) to make your decision? That's why I specified *good* measurements. Good measurements would definitely have to include off-axis response, which I suspect would have weeded this speaker from consideration without even listening to it. (And I suspect that's the kind of information Klaus was having difficulty getting from speaker manufacturers.) bob |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Announcing Vinylphile: a freely-downloadable, vinyl-centric
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 14:25:05 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ): On Jul 3, 4:09=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 08:55:06 -0700, bob wrote 2. FR anomalies, such as you would get from impedance mismatches Very seldom encountered, or more accurately, very seldom RECOGNIZED as th= e reason for differences heard in amplifiers, even in DBTs. I think I've said this to you before, but you suffer some very basic misunderstandings about DBTs. They typically are not designed to determine *why* two components sound different, only that they do. Avoid those two things, and all amps will sound the same in controlled testing. Unfortunately, the second criterion that you mention is very difficult to eliminate either on the design end or the listening end. This is unclear. Are you saying that amplifiers typically have audible FR differences? That is not the case. No. I'm saying that if FR differences exist due to impedance mismatches, and other load-dependent factors, they are difficult to control for either the consumer or the designer (who cannot anticipate how EVERY speaker with which his design is likely to be used will interact with his amplifier). There is good reason to believe that speakers with amps built-in to them are actually not a bad idea. But I have found that amps DO sound different, not importantly different, but subtly different enough to show up in a DBT test. I have a Krell amp at the moment that sounds cleaner than any amp I've ever had in my system (and that's a lot of amps). It doesn't measure spectacularly, or really any differently from other amps I've used, but it sounds MUCH cleaner with my Martin-Logans than all the other amps in the house. This is easy to hear in a DBT, or just by swapping amps. matching levels and listening. snip I once had access to a pair of very expensive flat-panel electrostatics b= y a company called Innersound and had them in my home for a good three months= . I thought that they sounded fantastic, but were very difficult to live with= . I felt that each pair of speakers SHOULD have been sold with one of those 1= 9th century head clamps used by early photographers to insure that subjects didn't move their heads during long portrait exposures. You literally nee= ded to put a flashlight in your mouth as you sat in your listening chair and = then note, with your head pointed straight ahead, where the reflection of the flashlight showed up on each speaker. Then you had to play with the speak= er toe-in until the reflection off of the metalized Mylar was in the dead ce= nter of each panel. After achieving the perfect placement, you couldn't move y= our head an INCH in any direction without totally destroying the frequency response of the panels as well as the imaging. They were a one person spe= aker and very tiring to try to listen to critically. To say that they, ultimat= ely, failed to satisfy would be an understatement. Imagine buying a pair of th= ese unheard, using only anechoic response data (taken on that narrow axis whe= re they worked "right", no doubt) to make your decision? That's why I specified *good* measurements. Good measurements would definitely have to include off-axis response, which I suspect would have weeded this speaker from consideration without even listening to it. (And I suspect that's the kind of information Klaus was having difficulty getting from speaker manufacturers.) That was my point. You might be right about the info Klaus was seeking. Of course he didn't specify.... |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Announcing Vinylphile: a freely-downloadable, vinyl-centric
On Jul 3, 8:59=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
But I have found that amps DO sound different, not importantly different,= but subtly different enough to show up in a DBT test. I have a Krell amp at t= he moment that sounds cleaner than any amp I've ever had in my system (and that's a lot of amps). It doesn't measure spectacularly, or really any differently from other amps I've used, but it sounds MUCH cleaner with my Martin-Logans than all the other amps in the house. This is easy to hear = in a DBT, or just by swapping amps. matching levels and listening. Have you actually done a DBT to compare this amp to another? It involves something more than listening to both and deciding if they sound different or not. If your Krell does sound different in a properly controlled test, then one of the amps is seriously bad, or the M-Ls are posing a particularly difficult load that only the Krell can handle. bob |
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Announcing Vinylphile: a freely-downloadable, vinyl-centric
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 21:48:59 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ): On Jul 3, 8:59=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: But I have found that amps DO sound different, not importantly different,= but subtly different enough to show up in a DBT test. I have a Krell amp at t= he moment that sounds cleaner than any amp I've ever had in my system (and that's a lot of amps). It doesn't measure spectacularly, or really any differently from other amps I've used, but it sounds MUCH cleaner with my Martin-Logans than all the other amps in the house. This is easy to hear = in a DBT, or just by swapping amps. matching levels and listening. Have you actually done a DBT to compare this amp to another? Oh yes. It involves something more than listening to both and deciding if they sound different or not. If your Krell does sound different in a properly controlled test, then one of the amps is seriously bad, or the M-Ls are posing a particularly difficult load that only the Krell can handle. They ALL can't be bad. The M-L's drop to below 2 ohms (IIRC) at 20 KHz, but that's pretty inconsequential. |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Announcing Vinylphile: a freely-downloadable, vinyl-centric
On Jul 3, 10:25=A0pm, bob wrote:
That's why I specified *good* measurements. Good measurements would definitely have to include off-axis response, which I suspect would have weeded this speaker from consideration without even listening to it. (And I suspect that's the kind of information Klaus was having difficulty getting from speaker manufacturers.) That's right, I was asking for a full set of measurements, on-axis, off-axis, waterfall, step/impulse response, distortion, pair matching, group delay. Some manufacturers told me I wouldn't understand the graphs, so they didn't send any. Others told that they did not do measurements at all and referred to audio mags. Others told me that anechoic measurements did not relate to how speakers behave in rooms. Again others did not reply at all. As I said, a sorry state. Klaus |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Announcing Vinylphile: a freely-downloadable, vinyl-centric
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| almost no productive wee registrations freely swallow as the important listings wave | Car Audio | |||
| * Downloadable WAV File Update * | Pro Audio | |||
| r Songs downloadable | Marketplace | |||
| I want to make a downloadable file from an audio CD | General | |||
| I want to make a downloadable file from an audio CD | Tech | |||
Linear Mode
