Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
James Price[_5_] James Price[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors

In your experience, how common is it for monitors with the same tolerances and a similar frequency response to sound perceptibly different?
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors

In article ,
James Price wrote:
In your experience, how common is it for monitors with the same tolerances and a similar frequency response to sound perceptibly different?


Very common.
The on-axis frequency response is a nice enough thing but doesn't tell you
very much about how a speaker performs in a given room, because many
listeners are off-axis and much of the lower frequencies are coming to you
by room reflections even if you are on-axis.

And -nobody- ever plots speaker distortion in a useful way.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
James Price[_5_] James Price[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors

On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 11:26:37 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Very common.
The on-axis frequency response is a nice enough thing but doesn't tell you
very much about how a speaker performs in a given room, because many
listeners are off-axis and much of the lower frequencies are coming to you
by room reflections even if you are on-axis.

And -nobody- ever plots speaker distortion in a useful way.


So, just to be clear, even in the same listening environment / position,
differences are very common?
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors

On 27/05/2019 5:18 PM, James Price wrote:
On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 11:26:37 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Very common.
The on-axis frequency response is a nice enough thing but doesn't tell you
very much about how a speaker performs in a given room, because many
listeners are off-axis and much of the lower frequencies are coming to you
by room reflections even if you are on-axis.

And -nobody- ever plots speaker distortion in a useful way.


So, just to be clear, even in the same listening environment / position,
differences are very common?



Yes.

geoff
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Phil Allison[_4_] Phil Allison[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 499
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors



James Price = brain dead, ****wit troll wrote:


In your experience, how common is it for monitors with the same
tolerances and a similar frequency response to sound perceptibly
different?



** Yawnnnnnnnnnn.....


This proven, vile, narcissistic, juvenile POS has the unmitigated gall to post yet another of his wild delusions as a fake question.

FYI:

It is a very sad reflection on the current state of demise that has befallen a once valuable NG.

Usenet is completely ****ed.

The only sport left is to **** on morons like the OP.



...... Phil





  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors

On 5/26/2019 11:15 PM, James Price wrote:
In your experience, how common is it for monitors with the same tolerances and a similar frequency response to sound perceptibly different?


All the time. Some of us here differ in the legitimacy of some published
loudspeaker specifications, but one thing that's always smoothed too
much to be comparable is frequency response - both on-axis and off-axis.
And distortion measurements, if published at all, are usually kind of
ambiguous.

It's a bit of a miracle, really, that two identical speaker systems
sound as close to identical as they do, particularly when compared as a
pair, because they can't be in exactly the same position at the same
time, and a couple of inches can make a perceptible difference, if
you're perceptive enough (and not all of us are).


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors

James Price wrote:
On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 11:26:37 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Very common.
The on-axis frequency response is a nice enough thing but doesn't tell you
very much about how a speaker performs in a given room, because many
listeners are off-axis and much of the lower frequencies are coming to you
by room reflections even if you are on-axis.

And -nobody- ever plots speaker distortion in a useful way.


So, just to be clear, even in the same listening environment / position,
differences are very common?


Sure, because technologies are radically different and applications
are different. You can have a big horn-loaded system with narrow angle
of radiation that is designed to play really loud, and you can have a
conventional minimonitor designed for close-listening and you can have a
big analytic-sounding monitor like a PMC and they will sound totally
different in spite of an on-axis third-octave response being the same.

Not only that, you can take one of those monitors into a different room
and it'll sound totally different. You can even put a blanket on top of
the console to reduce the reflection off the consolee surface and the midrange
will change complately. (That will affect measured response at the
listening position though.)
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
James Price[_5_] James Price[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors

On Monday, May 27, 2019 at 6:00:21 AM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/26/2019 11:15 PM, James Price wrote:
In your experience, how common is it for monitors with the same tolerances and a similar frequency response to sound perceptibly different?


All the time. Some of us here differ in the legitimacy of some published
loudspeaker specifications, but one thing that's always smoothed too
much to be comparable is frequency response - both on-axis and off-axis.
And distortion measurements, if published at all, are usually kind of
ambiguous.

It's a bit of a miracle, really, that two identical speaker systems
sound as close to identical as they do, particularly when compared as a
pair, because they can't be in exactly the same position at the same
time, and a couple of inches can make a perceptible difference, if
you're perceptive enough (and not all of us are).


Thank you, I appreciate the input.
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
James Price[_5_] James Price[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors

On Monday, May 27, 2019 at 8:16:19 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
James Price wrote:
On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 11:26:37 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Very common.
The on-axis frequency response is a nice enough thing but doesn't tell you
very much about how a speaker performs in a given room, because many
listeners are off-axis and much of the lower frequencies are coming to you
by room reflections even if you are on-axis.

And -nobody- ever plots speaker distortion in a useful way.


So, just to be clear, even in the same listening environment / position,
differences are very common?


Sure, because technologies are radically different and applications
are different. You can have a big horn-loaded system with narrow angle
of radiation that is designed to play really loud, and you can have a
conventional minimonitor designed for close-listening and you can have a
big analytic-sounding monitor like a PMC and they will sound totally
different in spite of an on-axis third-octave response being the same.

Not only that, you can take one of those monitors into a different room
and it'll sound totally different. You can even put a blanket on top of
the console to reduce the reflection off the consolee surface and the midrange
will change complately. (That will affect measured response at the
listening position though.)


Thanks, I appreciate the input.
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors

On 28/05/2019 1:16 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
James Price wrote:
On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 11:26:37 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Very common.
The on-axis frequency response is a nice enough thing but doesn't tell you
very much about how a speaker performs in a given room, because many
listeners are off-axis and much of the lower frequencies are coming to you
by room reflections even if you are on-axis.

And -nobody- ever plots speaker distortion in a useful way.


So, just to be clear, even in the same listening environment / position,
differences are very common?


Sure, because technologies are radically different and applications
are different. You can have a big horn-loaded system with narrow angle
of radiation that is designed to play really loud, and you can have a
conventional minimonitor designed for close-listening and you can have a
big analytic-sounding monitor like a PMC and they will sound totally
different in spite of an on-axis third-octave response being the same.

Not only that, you can take one of those monitors into a different room
and it'll sound totally different. You can even put a blanket on top of
the console to reduce the reflection off the consolee surface and the midrange
will change complately. (That will affect measured response at the
listening position though.)
--scott


Or move your head a few inches.

geoff


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] makolber@yahoo.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 614
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors


I recently bought a measurement mic and have been experimenting with looking at speaker frequency response. I am surprised at how even a small difference in the measured response across the band can make a big difference in the sound of the tonal balance.

For example even a 3 dB tilt across the spectrum changes the sound from "warm" to "cold".

The measurements seem useful for determining the extent of the response ie down to 30 Hz vs 60 Hz or up to 15 kHz vs 10 kHz but not very useful for overall tonal balance.

Mark
  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Neil[_9_] Neil[_9_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 196
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors

On 5/27/2019 1:18 AM, James Price wrote:
On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 11:26:37 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Very common.
The on-axis frequency response is a nice enough thing but doesn't tell you
very much about how a speaker performs in a given room, because many
listeners are off-axis and much of the lower frequencies are coming to you
by room reflections even if you are on-axis.

And -nobody- ever plots speaker distortion in a useful way.


So, just to be clear, even in the same listening environment / position,
differences are very common?

Not just common, but unavoidable. Even with the same monitors of the
same brand used in the same position, etc. The ability of human senses
to discern small differences is still well beyond the capability to
manufacture products with more precision than one may be able to detect.

As I see it, the real question is, "So what?" The primary purpose of
monitors is to allow one to manage the sound of their production and
reduce problems with the understanding that it will sound very different
in every environment that the material is played in, regardless of the
hardware used.

--
best regards,

Neil
  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Phil Allison[_4_] Phil Allison[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 499
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors

Neil wrote:


Even with the same monitors of the
same brand used in the same position, etc. The ability of human senses
to discern small differences is still well beyond the capability to
manufacture products with more precision than one may be able to detect.


** Sounds dangerously close to audiophool nonsense that insist ears are better then any test gear and everything makes an audible difference.


As I see it, the real question is, "So what?" The primary purpose of
monitors is to allow one to manage the sound of their production and
reduce problems with the understanding that it will sound very different
in every environment that the material is played in, regardless of the
hardware used.


** Now that IS audiophool nonsense.



..... Phil








  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors

Phil Allison wrote: "** Sounds dangerously close to audiophool nonsense that insist ears are better
then any test gear and everything makes an audible difference. "

Careful.... Mssrs. geoff, Mike R., and others are
of the "use your ears!" crowd, despite being of
scientific capacity! lol "Measurements? We don't
need no steenkin' measurements!"
  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors

geoff:

You two don't even trust the measurements/meters
on a DAW in front of you, let alone "published specs".
  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Neil[_9_] Neil[_9_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 196
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors

On 5/28/2019 8:16 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
Neil wrote:


Even with the same monitors of the
same brand used in the same position, etc. The ability of human senses
to discern small differences is still well beyond the capability to
manufacture products with more precision than one may be able to detect.


** Sounds dangerously close to audiophool nonsense that insist ears are better then any test gear and everything makes an audible difference.

When one is referring to AUDIBLE DIFFERENCES it is not a contest between
ears and test gear. Both require one to understand the limitations to
know what the measurements actually represent. Turn your head or move
your Schoeps a couple inches off-center and you'll get measurable and
audibly different results.


As I see it, the real question is, "So what?" The primary purpose of
monitors is to allow one to manage the sound of their production and
reduce problems with the understanding that it will sound very different
in every environment that the material is played in, regardless of the
hardware used.


** Now that IS audiophool nonsense.

If you believe that monitors in one environment accurately represent
reproduction in another then you don't understand much about acoustics.

--
best regards,

Neil
  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors

On 29/05/2019 9:37 PM, wrote:
geoff:

You two don't even trust the measurements/meters
on a DAW in front of you, let alone "published specs".


Bull**** for the first claim, and spot on for the second.

geoff
  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors

In article , Neil wrote:
As I see it, the real question is, "So what?" The primary purpose of
monitors is to allow one to manage the sound of their production and
reduce problems with the understanding that it will sound very different
in every environment that the material is played in, regardless of the
hardware used.


I learned to mix on Altec 604s. I listen to recordings that I made using
604s today on modern monitors, and I hear all kinds of things that I never
heard during the original sessions. Squeaky chairs, thumping feet, mechanical
noises from pianos.

So... the recordings I make today, what are they going to sound like in
another 40 years? I hope that people will be playing them back on systems
that are better than we have today. So I want monitors that will get me
as close to that as possible.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
None None is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors

Theckmah, the retarded dumb**** theck-tard @ shortbus . edu
wrote in message
...

Careful.... theckmah's fecal post courtesy-flushed


Oh, look! The theck-tard was worried that someone might have forgotten what
a retarded dumb-**** he is. He's back, to remind everyine that he has his
head jammed firmly up his festering colon. As always, he has no intention
of learning anything. He just likes to gibber and kook-dance, reminding
everyone that his granite skull has no functioning gray matter inside.

Maybe the sad little skid-mark will randomly shift the subject to try to
change the subject to tire-pressure. That's always entertaining, in a
village idiot kind of way! It's one of the ways that he proves that he's
a retarded dumb-**** from the short bus of life.

FCKWAFA! WARDFT.



  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Neil[_9_] Neil[_9_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 196
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors

On 5/29/2019 8:29 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Neil wrote:
As I see it, the real question is, "So what?" The primary purpose of
monitors is to allow one to manage the sound of their production and
reduce problems with the understanding that it will sound very different
in every environment that the material is played in, regardless of the
hardware used.


I learned to mix on Altec 604s. I listen to recordings that I made using
604s today on modern monitors, and I hear all kinds of things that I never
heard during the original sessions. Squeaky chairs, thumping feet, mechanical
noises from pianos.

So... the recordings I make today, what are they going to sound like in
another 40 years? I hope that people will be playing them back on systems
that are better than we have today. So I want monitors that will get me
as close to that as possible.
--scott

Of course, the ability to record and reproduce is always improving. The
604s had serious limitations with regard to broad-spectrum reproduction,
as you've discovered. That doesn't mean that they weren't useful for
their intended purpose (I saw them used for voice-overs most of the
time). Had you heard the thumping feet, mechanical noises and squeaky
chairs, your options to correct for them would have been limited, as well.

--
best regards,

Neil
  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors

In article , Neil wrote:
604s had serious limitations with regard to broad-spectrum reproduction,
as you've discovered. That doesn't mean that they weren't useful for
their intended purpose (I saw them used for voice-overs most of the
time). Had you heard the thumping feet, mechanical noises and squeaky
chairs, your options to correct for them would have been limited, as well.


Not at all! I have gaffer's tape and foam to fix all of those problems!

That's the thing about audio.... the sooner in the chain you can correct
something, the easier it is. Stuff that would have taken a minute at the
tracking session can take a week to fix in mastering. Monitors exist to
let you know what is going on so you can fix it.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Phil Allison[_4_] Phil Allison[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 499
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors

Neil wrote:



Even with the same monitors of the
same brand used in the same position, etc. The ability of human senses
to discern small differences is still well beyond the capability to
manufacture products with more precision than one may be able to detect.


** Sounds dangerously close to audiophool nonsense that insist ears are better then any test gear and everything makes an audible difference.

When one is referring to AUDIBLE DIFFERENCES it is not a contest between
ears and test gear. Both require one to understand the limitations to
know what the measurements actually represent. Turn your head or move
your Schoeps a couple inches off-center and you'll get measurable and
audibly different results.


** Fraid that has SFA to do with what I posted.


As I see it, the real question is, "So what?" The primary purpose of
monitors is to allow one to manage the sound of their production and
reduce problems with the understanding that it will sound very different
in every environment that the material is played in, regardless of the
hardware used.


** Now that IS audiophool nonsense.

If you believe that monitors in one environment accurately represent
reproduction in another then you don't understand much about acoustics.


** My complaint was about the wording above my comment.

Your "if" statement changes to context so I would have to debate your idea instead of defending my comment.

No way.


..... Phil


  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Neil[_9_] Neil[_9_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 196
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors

On 5/29/2019 4:10 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Neil wrote:
604s had serious limitations with regard to broad-spectrum reproduction,
as you've discovered. That doesn't mean that they weren't useful for
their intended purpose (I saw them used for voice-overs most of the
time). Had you heard the thumping feet, mechanical noises and squeaky
chairs, your options to correct for them would have been limited, as well.


Not at all! I have gaffer's tape and foam to fix all of those problems!

That's the thing about audio.... the sooner in the chain you can correct
something, the easier it is. Stuff that would have taken a minute at the
tracking session can take a week to fix in mastering. Monitors exist to
let you know what is going on so you can fix it.
--scott


I agree with what you've written about the fixes. The difference in our
approach is that I didn't rely on monitors to expose those problems...I
stood in the room near the instruments while determining things like mic
position.

--
best regards,

Neil
  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors

On 29/05/2019 10:29 pm, Scott Dorsey wrote:
I learned to mix on Altec 604s. I listen to recordings that I made using
604s today on modern monitors, and I hear all kinds of things that I never
heard during the original sessions. Squeaky chairs, thumping feet, mechanical
noises from pianos.


Even 604's can happily reproduce all those things. The big difference I
suggest is *many* years experience at actually listening.






  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] markspilberg@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors

On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 11:26:37 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article ,
James Price wrote:
In your experience, how common is it for monitors with the same tolerances and a similar frequency response to sound perceptibly different?


Very common.
The on-axis frequency response is a nice enough thing but doesn't tell you
very much about how a speaker performs in a given room, because many
listeners are off-axis and much of the lower frequencies are coming to you
by room reflections even if you are on-axis.

And -nobody- ever plots speaker distortion in a useful way.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."



In my opinion Stereophile magazine publishes excellent measurement, on almost everything they review. For speakers, am a fan of the frequency response charts, on axis and off, cumulative spectral-decay plot, Amplitude vs Frequency charts, with different colors, for each driver, to point obvious crossover points, on the internal crossover, etc... Interesting to compare specs, and reviewers opinion, usually there is an obvious correlation, and others there are personal biases to consider.

I prefer the Absolute sound, and Stereophile from the late 70s early 80s, at that time both magazines had better reviewers in my opinion.


Stereophile uses: DRA Labs' MLSSA system and a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone



https://www.stereophile.com/content/...Qk5LwuPMmFb.99
  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mark Spilberg Mark Spilberg is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors

On Monday, May 27, 2019 at 6:00:21 AM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/26/2019 11:15 PM, James Price wrote:
In your experience, how common is it for monitors with the same tolerances and a similar frequency response to sound perceptibly different?


All the time. Some of us here differ in the legitimacy of some published
loudspeaker specifications, but one thing that's always smoothed too
much to be comparable is frequency response - both on-axis and off-axis.
And distortion measurements, if published at all, are usually kind of
ambiguous.

It's a bit of a miracle, really, that two identical speaker systems
sound as close to identical as they do, particularly when compared as a
pair, because they can't be in exactly the same position at the same
time, and a couple of inches can make a perceptible difference, if
you're perceptive enough (and not all of us are).


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com


Agree 100%, and same thing goes for Amplifiers, D/A convertors, Pre-amps, Compressors, EQs, etc...
  #28   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mark Spilberg Mark Spilberg is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors

On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 11:54:58 AM UTC-5, Mark Spilberg wrote:
On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 11:26:37 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article ,
James Price wrote:
In your experience, how common is it for monitors with the same tolerances and a similar frequency response to sound perceptibly different?


Very common.
The on-axis frequency response is a nice enough thing but doesn't tell you
very much about how a speaker performs in a given room, because many
listeners are off-axis and much of the lower frequencies are coming to you
by room reflections even if you are on-axis.

And -nobody- ever plots speaker distortion in a useful way.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."



In my opinion Stereophile magazine publishes excellent measurement, on almost everything they review. For speakers, am a fan of the frequency response charts, on axis and off, cumulative spectral-decay plot, Amplitude vs Frequency charts, with different colors, for each driver, to point obvious crossover points, on the internal crossover, etc... Interesting to compare specs, and reviewers opinion, usually there is an obvious correlation, and others there are personal biases to consider.

I prefer the Absolute sound, and Stereophile from the late 70s early 80s, at that time both magazines had better reviewers in my opinion.


Stereophile uses: DRA Labs' MLSSA system and a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone



https://www.stereophile.com/content/...Qk5LwuPMmFb.99


I agree with Scott's description, of Speaker room integration, response patterns of speakers, and how they effect the resulting perceived balance.
  #29   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Audible Difference Between Monitors

On 24/06/2019 3:01 am, Mark Spilberg wrote:
On Monday, May 27, 2019 at 6:00:21 AM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/26/2019 11:15 PM, James Price wrote:
In your experience, how common is it for monitors with the same tolerances and a similar frequency response to sound perceptibly different?


All the time. Some of us here differ in the legitimacy of some published
loudspeaker specifications, but one thing that's always smoothed too
much to be comparable is frequency response - both on-axis and off-axis.
And distortion measurements, if published at all, are usually kind of
ambiguous.

It's a bit of a miracle, really, that two identical speaker systems
sound as close to identical as they do, particularly when compared as a
pair, because they can't be in exactly the same position at the same
time, and a couple of inches can make a perceptible difference, if
you're perceptive enough (and not all of us are).


Agree 100%, and same thing goes for Amplifiers, D/A convertors, Pre-amps, Compressors, EQs, etc...



Er NO. Unlike speakers, *most* electronics have long since passed the
ability of the human auditory system to actually hear differences, as
opposed to convincing yourself you can, but easily dismissed in double
blind testing. When there are real audible differences it is usually
because of poor design, cost cutting, user error, or just plain broken.



Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is there really an audible difference between different fiber optic eye bro kit[_2_] High End Audio 5 April 24th 07 11:23 PM
Schoeps CMC6 vs. CMC6XT - any audible sound difference ? Ivo Pro Audio 12 February 26th 05 09:31 AM
Schoeps CMC6 vs. CMC6XT - any audible sound difference ? Ivo Pro Audio 0 October 5th 04 05:05 PM
Audible Audiobooks Gene Venable Marketplace 0 September 23rd 04 03:15 PM
Audible difference?: 1cu-ft and 1.25cu-ft Tony Car Audio 4 December 30th 03 02:17 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:25 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"