Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
On May 15, 12:49=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
Cutting "live music" out of the equation is what is wrong with much of th= e "objectivist" philosophy extant today. So tell us Harry, how close does your system sound to the last time you had a symphony orchestra in your living room? What? You've never had a symphony orchestra in your living room? See that's the trouble with subjectivists. They've cut live music out of the equation. IF, and only, IF you attend lots of live music concerts of your choice (i= n my case unamplified, but that is my choice) can you decided what set of speakers you think sound most like live, in your room, with your equipmen= t. |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
jwvm wrote:
On May 10, 11:50=A0am, wrote: snip =A0 =A0"The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological.= For =A0 =A0decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status =A0 =A0symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like= a =A0 =A0new flat-screen TV today. With advances in technology, better quality performance is available at much lower prices. An implicitly negative comment was made about portable music players but in actuality, they actually provide excellent sound quality, at least with decent headphones and vastly better than cassette players. For portable music in the 1950s, there was the wonderful AM transistor radio which was truly low fidelity. indeed, this is the real revolution -- that *extremely* high quality sound of gear and formats routinely available to consumers for a pittance, compared to the 'good old days' of vinyl. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2010 07:17:06 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message ... Good ones aren't. Good speakers, especially, are quite expensive. For instance, there is little decent in the way of speakers below about the $1K level (actually I only know of one really decent speaker below $1K and that's the Magnepan MMG at $599. I certainly hear artifacts in lossy compression, but I wouldn't exactly characterize them as a crackling noise, I would say that it's more like a buzzing bee-like distortion that rides the waveform. It's only audible during low level passages and during transitions between loud and soft passages (and vice versa) and then only on headphones and very loud speaker listening. As background music and in the car, lossy compression artifacts are lost in the ambient noise. I find it ironic that the entirety of the previous comments could be put into a vastly different perspective if unbiased listening techniques were used by the writer. I don't need a DBT to tell me what I hear. You could very well need on to tell you if what you believe, is true. anything here, so I cannot see what good "unbiased" listening tests would do. It's not a question of whether this sounds different from that, it's a question of whether these artifacts are present or not, and if they are present, are they audible? "Present or not' is another way of saying 'different or same'.In the former you are comparing to an idea of what it SHOULD sound like, in the latter you are comparing to a second external stimulus. I can hear them. I acknowledge that certain kinds of music effectively mask these artifacts, and I acknowledge, that ambient noise in the listening environment will do likewise. The codec and bitrate also matter. For the zillionth time, just saying 'mp3' doesn't define either. Since the format involves perceptual encoding, beyond a rather low bitrate you generally need a DBT to validate a claim that these artifacts are audible to you. None of that alters the fact that some of us do hear them and find them objectionable. But you haven't defined 'them', much less proveded evidence to conclude 'some of us' actually heard artifacts in specific cases. I for one would much rather put-up with the tics and pops in an LP than listen to the "correlated" distortion of an MP3. Apparently you feel just the opposite. A tick or pop correlated to the revolution rate of a disc was always pretty annoying to me. I don't have any misapprehensions about MP3. For the types of music that I listen to and the way I listen, MP3 is inadequate - even at the higher bit-rates. Even Sony's ATRAC lossy compression algorithm was better and less objectionable than MP3. What type of music, what bitrate what codec what controls for bias etc. You should know the drill by now. I recently participated in blind listening tests comparing a $12,000 speaker system from a well-known designer with excellent technical chops to a European-designed, China-built studio monitor system that sells for under $400 the pair. They did sound a little different from each other. The listening panel was about evenly split as to which they preferred based on dynamic range, tone quality and imaging. They all agreed that both pairs of speakers sounded very, very good. I'll bet that the 400 mini-monitors don't have as much or as good quality bass as did the $12000 system nor could it load the room like a big system. Sure, you can design tests which minimize differences in things like amplifiers and speakers. I could easily construct a DBT where a small mini-monitor and a large full-range system would sound as similar as possible - I'd just play solo harpsichord or flute music, or something similar that has no bass and little in the way of dynamic contrast. I'm sure you could, but why do you assume Arny's test was like that? -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
On 5/15/2010 9:49 AM, Harry Lavo wrote:
"Arny wrote in message ... "Audio wrote in message snip There's another fallacy - that you need live music to be present to compare 2 speakers???? Please notice that we're comparing loudspeakers, not live versus recorded. And also notice that much of what's wrong with live versus recorded happens at the live performance end of the system. Cutting "live music" out of the equation is what is wrong with much of the "objectivist" philosophy extant today. He was only talking about comparing *two* speakers. Nothing to do with live vs recorded. *AND* he was talking about a purely *subjective* test, with some controls. IF, and only, IF you attend lots of live music concerts of your choice (in my case unamplified, but that is my choice) can you decided what set of speakers you think sound most like live, in your room, with your equipment. You can't be serious, surely. Anyone can decide what speakers sound most like live music *to them* under whatever conditions works for them. Your perceived "requirements" are irrelevant to anyone but you when individual *preference* is the question. But say that were not the case, how do you define "lots"? If someone goes to "Lots - 1" concerts in your chosen interval, then they're not qualified? snip Keith Hughes |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
On May 15, 10:23=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 15:59:39 -0700, bob wrote (in article ): But how do you evaluate this now? You don't have the string quartet right there in your living room between the speakers. So you do what you can do: You listen to one set of speakers, then you listen to another, and you decide which sounds closer to real live music. Yes, I agree, but how do you know which these are? And a DBT isn't going = to really help here. All such a test will do is tell you that speaker A soun= ds different from speaker B and might tell you in a rather gross manner, wha= t ways in which they differ. But they still won't tell you which speaker is closer to real live music. Please accept the following as a constructive suggestion: Before you tell us on what's wrong with someone's research, try reading it. If you would do that, it would raise the level of this conversation substantially. For the record, Olive's research does NOT "tell you that speaker A sounds different from speaker B," nor "which speaker is closer to [what you think is] real live music." That's not what it's designed to do. It is designed to compare measurements to listener preferences. But his approach could easily be adapted by anyone interested in determining which speakers come closest to what listeners think real live music sounds like. Well, you can do exactly the same comparison blind. All you need is a helper or two. And the advantage of doing it blind is that your judgment will no longer be influenced by your knowledge of the speakers--their price, size, configuration, reputation, etc. But the results will still, be, in the final analysis, inconclusive. But closer to conclusive than any speaker comparison you have ever done. bob |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
On Fri, 14 May 2010 15:59:39 -0700, bob wrote (in article ): But how do you evaluate this now? You don't have the string quartet right there in your living room between the speakers. So you do what you can do: You listen to one set of speakers, then you listen to another, and you decide which sounds closer to real live music. Yes, I agree, but how do you know which these are? And a DBT isn't going to really help here. All such a test will do is tell you that speaker A sounds different from speaker B and might tell you in a rather gross manner, what ways in which they differ. But they still won't tell you which speaker is closer to real live music. This begs the question how anyone ever had an opinon about a speaker's sound quality without ready reference to a string quartet. We've got plenty of factual records of many people on this forum opining long and hard about which speakers sound good and which sound bad. I'm taking a wild guess here, but I'm guessing that not one of them had a real live string quartet present for any of those speaker evaluations and/or comparisons. This is yet another example of how people hear the words "DBT" and immediately pile a ton of baggage on to the conversation. They pile on requirements that they themselves have paid little or no attention in their own personal evaluations. It is all obfuscation. |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: I recently participated in blind listening tests comparing a $12,000 speaker system from a well-known designer with excellent technical chops to a European-designed, China-built studio monitor system that sells for under $400 the pair. They did sound a little different from each other. The listening panel was about evenly split as to which they preferred based on dynamic range, tone quality and imaging. They all agreed that both pairs of speakers sounded very, very good. So, what were the speakers? Behringer B2031A That takes care of the studio monitors. What were the "big 'uns"? And what were the musical selections, sources, and other equipment used? And what type of rating system? And was it blind or double-blind? And a few other questions: Who were the listeners.....studio pros, audiophiles, SWM audio club members, the Boston Audio Society, college students, random off-the-street people, or whom? And finally, who (if anybody) sponsored the test? What is the point of this interrogation? There is a nice body of literature from the Harman guys involving double-blind quality rating of loudspeakers, dating back to the mid-80s, involving all the sorts of listeners you mention, demonstrating that high cost is *not* a sure predictor of high quality. IOW, that (then-)surprising 'equivalencies' in quality can result, even when trained listeners are used, when sighted biases are removed. So by nowresults such Arny reports *aren't* surprising, regardless of who was in the panel. You know this, I'd bet most of the participants on this thread know this, and Floyd Toole ever wrote it all up in his recent book 'Sound Reproduction' -- which was glowingly reviewed by Kal Rubinson in Stereophile -- for those who don't. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
Cutting "live music" out of the equation is what is wrong with much of the "objectivist" philosophy extant today. And exactly which objectivist is uniquely cutting live music out of the discussion? Just tell me the occasions when you personally evaluated *any* audio component by means of direct comparison with a non trivial live musical performance, and the occasions when you did not. Simple counts of each will suffice. |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2010 09:29:55 -0700, bob wrote (in article ): On May 10, 11:50=A0am, wrote: There is mention of a download page where full fidelity recordings can be had for $2.49. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/bu...ml?ref=3Dbusin =A0 =A0"The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological.= For =A0 =A0decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status =A0 =A0symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like= a =A0 =A0new flat-screen TV today. =A0 =A0But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs musicangle.com= , =A0 =A0which reviews albums, said that today, "a stereo has become an obj= ect =A0 =A0of scorn."" Fremer would know something about objects of scorn. :-) The article itself predictably muddles the issues of data compression and dynamic compression--and, of course, fails to note how much more benign the former is. It also fails to note the single biggest difference between listening to a high-end rig and listening to an iPod--the transducers. Fremer has a point. As I said in a related post yesterday, most commercial releases fall far short of being as good as their release format CAN BE, whether that format be vinyl, Redbook CD, SACD, DVD-A or some high-res WAV file. That's been true forever. It's just that since CD, the potential of what they 'can be' has been so great, the gap between the possible and the actual has been all the more depressing. I'd say roughly that we hit a gap minimum around the late 80s/early 90s (the first wave of remastered CDs 'from original master tapes') but it's been widening since, primarily due to the loudness race (NOT lossy compression). -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
In article , bob
wrote: On May 15, 12:49*pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote: Cutting "live music" out of the equation is what is wrong with much of the "objectivist" philosophy extant today. So tell us Harry, how close does your system sound to the last time you had a symphony orchestra in your living room? I've heard enough live music in enough spaces to know how an orchestra CANNOT sound in a typical performance space. When evaluating speakers for purchase, I go for those that can give me the closest to how that orchestra (piano, singer, flute) COULD sound, given my budget, and reject those that make the music sound like it CANNOT. |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
Audio Empire wrote:
advantage of bias controlled tests. When I'm trying to decide whether a difference makes any difference at all, I agree. But speakers are a matter of taste (because none are perfect and people pick and choose the characteristics of music that are important to them and tend to focus on those). and therefore DBTs are pretty worthless for comparing one speaker to another. If it's taste in *sound* that you hope to be relying on *exclusively*, then DBTs are actually *necessary*, to eliminate sighted bias. They're rather hard to do for loudspeakers, though. Why not just concede that your 'taste' in loudspeaker sound can hardly help being contaminated (or more politely, 'informed') by non-audio factors? -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
On 5/15/2010 4:47 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:
This begs the question how anyone ever had an opinon about a speaker's sound quality without ready reference to a string quartet. We've got plenty of factual records of many people on this forum opining long and hard about which speakers sound good and which sound bad. I'm taking a wild guess here, but I'm guessing that not one of them had a real live string quartet present for any of those speaker evaluations and/or comparisons. This is yet another example of how people hear the words "DBT" and immediately pile a ton of baggage on to the conversation. They pile on requirements that they themselves have paid little or no attention in their own personal evaluations. It is all obfuscation. Since when is a string quartet the standard reference? What if I like hard rock or a cappella choir? I've been to rock concerts where the hall acoustics were terrible and the recorded versions of the same band sound much better on almost any system. And, I really doubt my living room would sound that good with either a choir or a rock band. I thought the discussion was about comparing two speaker systems, not speakers to live performances. |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: I recently participated in blind listening tests comparing a $12,000 speaker system from a well-known designer with excellent technical chops to a European-designed, China-built studio monitor system that sells for under $400 the pair. They did sound a little different from each other. The listening panel was about evenly split as to which they preferred based on dynamic range, tone quality and imaging. They all agreed that both pairs of speakers sounded very, very good. So, what were the speakers? Behringer B2031A That takes care of the studio monitors. What were the "big 'uns"? And what were the musical selections, sources, and other equipment used? And what type of rating system? And was it blind or double-blind? And a few other questions: Who were the listeners.....studio pros, audiophiles, SWM audio club members, the Boston Audio Society, college students, random off-the-street people, or whom? And finally, who (if anybody) sponsored the test? What is the point of this interrogation? You don't think knowing who sponsored a test that found a $500 minimonitor to be equally preferred to $12,000 speakers isn't germane? Suppose I told you the test found a $500 turntable/cartridge to be equally preferred to a state-of-the-art CD player playing the same recording....you don't think you'd want to know under what auspices the test was held, among whom, and whether or not it was sponsored by the manufacturer of the record player? And assuming that the test was not sponsored or rigged somehow, would you not want to know what music was used, and how familiar the people listening would be to that kind of music, how accustomed they might be to listening to speakers similar to either of the speakers under test, or whether or not they had even ever heard anything similar (perhaps only earbuds)? There is a nice body of literature from the Harman guys involving double-blind quality rating of loudspeakers, dating back to the mid-80s, involving all the sorts of listeners you mention, demonstrating that high cost is *not* a sure predictor of high quality. IOW, that (then-)surprising 'equivalencies' in quality can result, even when trained listeners are used, when sighted biases are removed. So by nowresults such Arny reports *aren't* surprising, regardless of who was in the panel. I have read much, if not all, of the Olive/Harmon literature up to about two years ago. I recall one test that found the preferences of trained and largely untrained listeners to have come out similar.....and that was a test conducted in a rather austere testing environment, not in a relaxed home setting, for the specific purpose of finding how comparative their ratings were. I am not aware of any independent third-party replication of such a test. Are you? If so, perhaps you could share it with us with a descriptive summary and a citation? You know this, I'd bet most of the participants on this thread know this, and Floyd Toole ever wrote it all up in his recent book 'Sound Reproduction' -- which was glowingly reviewed by Kal Rubinson in Stereophile -- for those who don't. Wow! One test, cited by one of its constructors, in a book viewed favorably by a Stereophile reviewer. That is impressive! Don't get me wrong....I'm not knocking Olive's test....but it was just that....one test, and done for a specific purpose....to find out how many hours of training or not had to be imbued or found in listeners in order to get comparable ratings of a loudspeakers objective qualites in a test facility. It was hardly the holy grail of speaker testing. And he has done other interesting tests as well....useful, I guess, for Harmon's development of car radios, single box systems, etc. not just (or even necessarily primarily) hi-fi speakers. But as I said in my earlier post, there is no evidence that this research has put Harman ahead of the pack when it comes to audiophile preferences. |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote: Audio Empire wrote: I'll bet that the 400 mini-monitors don't have as much or as good quality bass as did the $12000 system nor could it load the room like a big system. Sure, you can design tests which minimize differences in things like amplifiers and speakers. I could easily construct a DBT where a small mini-monitor and a large full-range system would sound as similar as possible - I'd just play solo harpsichord or flute music, or something similar that has no bass and little in the way of dynamic contrast. I'm sure you could, but why do you assume Arny's test was like that? I see no such assumption. |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
On Sat, 15 May 2010 07:23:45 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message snip Now, if one could blindly switch between real, live music and a speaker under evaluation, then PERHAPS, using the live music as a control, we could get somewhere. There's another fallacy - that you need live music to be present to compare 2 speakers???? To find out which is the more accurate of the two? You bet. Please notice that we're comparing loudspeakers, not live versus recorded. Comparing one set of inaccuracies against another set of inaccuracies seems to me an empty procedure, that in the end tells us nothing useful. And also notice that much of what's wrong with live versus recorded happens at the live performance end of the system. Yes, that, entirely possible; probable even. It doesn't alter the fact taht a double blind comparison of two loudspeakers ultimately tells us nothing about either speaker's accuracy to the waveform being reproduced. |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
On May 13, 6:19=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Audio Empire" wrote in message You're joking, right? They might be fine for speech in a movie theater, but for music? Last time I went to a movie, there was music and speech. It would seem to= me that reproducing a movie well precludes trashing the speech or music. He said nothing about "reproducing a movie well." He said "they might be fine for speech in a movie theater." He said nothing about being fine for movie soundtracks in their entirety. |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
On May 11, 12:23=A0pm, Dick Pierce
wrote: But, that being said, the ability to produce an under $1k speaker of high quality is a function primarily of designer competence and knowledge as well as marketing and sales prowess, both of which are in increasing short supply in the high-end or component audio market, which itself is becoming a vanishingly small portion of the total audio market. So are these just grossly overpriced speakers? http://viewer.zmags.com/showmag.php?mid=3Dghsfs#/page2/ If one can produce something of "high quality" for under 1K what does one get from these guys for the extra 21K? |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
On May 15, 4:47=A0pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
What is the point of this interrogation? There is a nice body of literature from the Harman guys involving double-blind quality rating of loudspeakers, dating back to the mid-80s, involving all the sorts of listeners you mention, demonstrating that high cost is *not* a sure predictor of high quality. IOW, that (then-)sur= prising 'equivalencies' in quality can result, even when trained listeners are used, when sighted biases are removed. So by nowresults such Arny reports *aren't* surprising, regardless of who was in the panel. You know this, I'd bet most of the participants on this thread know this, and Floyd Toole ever wrote it all up in his recent book 'Sound Reproduction' -- which was glowingly reviewed by Kal Rubinson in Stereophile =A0-- for those who don't. And yet the flagship speakers coming from his work at HK cost a cool 22K. So either HK are ripping the consumers off with their flagship speakers or Toole and co. believe that SOTA playback performance does come at a premium. 22K ain't couch change. |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
On May 13, 9:13=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Audio Empire" wrote in message On Wed, 12 May 2010 06:28:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: I recently participated in blind listening tests comparing a $12,000 speaker system from a well-known designer with excellent technical chops to a European-designed, China-built studio monitor system that sells for under $400 the pair. They did sound a little different from each other. =A0The listening panel was about evenly split as to which they preferred based on dynamic range, tone quality and imaging. =A0They all agreed that both pairs of speakers sounded very, very good. So, what were the speakers? Behringer =A0B2031A I have a pair of those connected to my computer. I use them as "near-field" monitors when I'm using my computer as a DAW. They're pretty good and well made, (I'm actually a big Behringer fan and have lots of their gear. They generally represent good value and performance for money spent)), You may be under-appreciating what you have before you. but the B2031As are similar to a lot of near-field monitors in that price-range. For instance, they have little in the way of bass below about 60 Hz. We were listening to classical orchestral and choir music, not rap. =A0Th= e B2031s do have audible response below 60 Hz and it was good enough. Classical orchestral music has particularly challenging and important content in the deep bass. I will say that they are better than ANY "audiophile" speakers of that size at up to three times the price. But a pair of Magnepan's new 1.7s will blow em out of the water at $2000, as will M-L's little Source ES hybrid at the same price. I do agree that they are a great buy at less than $500/pair street price. Phrases like "blow them out of the water" does not exactly sound like the results of a careful evaluation to me. :-( Hyperbole in the final analysis of a subjective evaluation has no bearing on the care given to the protocols and execution of the evaluation process. |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
On Sat, 15 May 2010 09:49:49 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ): "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Audio Empire" wrote in message snip There's another fallacy - that you need live music to be present to compare 2 speakers???? Please notice that we're comparing loudspeakers, not live versus recorded. And also notice that much of what's wrong with live versus recorded happens at the live performance end of the system. Cutting "live music" out of the equation is what is wrong with much of the "objectivist" philosophy extant today. IF, and only, IF you attend lots of live music concerts of your choice (in my case unamplified, but that is my choice) can you decided what set of speakers you think sound most like live, in your room, with your equipment. "Obective" comparative testing of speakers may be useful for development of speakers, but it is hardly a mechanism for deciding even which speakers are "best" or "preferred" when it comes to long term satisfaction. That comes from monadic evaluation against an imbedded sense of "rightness" about live sound. Agreed. You and I are definitely of a single mind here about this subject. Amplifiers and preamps and CD players are different because we assume that they are so good nowadays that differences are apt to be small to non-existent. In such a case, DBTs will tell us if there is a difference between two devices of these types and if there are differences what are their magnitudes and how important are they? This can be very useful in determining whether one amp, costing 10X the price of another amplifier is, from the sound it produces, worth that delta. And with all due respect to Sean Olive and Harmon International, despite a decades worth of objective testing there is hardly any consensus among pro audio folk or home audiophiles that their speakers outperform any number of competing designs when it comes to which speakers people feel best for their assigned tasks or tastes. Also correct. If you listen to a lot of live music, and then carefully audition equipment both in-shop and at-home before making choices, you can assemble a system that is unfailingly musical (for music of your choice) and satisfying to you with nary a blind test in the process. This is especially true with transducers (speakers, microphones, phono cartridges) because these are the least waveform accurate of all audio components. |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
On May 15, 1:42=A0pm, bob wrote:
On May 15, 12:49=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote: Cutting "live music" out of the equation is what is wrong with much of = the "objectivist" philosophy extant today. So tell us Harry, how close does your system sound to the last time you had a symphony orchestra in your living room? Why would you ask that? The correct, or at least better question would be how close does his system sound to the last time he went to see a good symphony orchestra in a good concert hall with good seats? Your question is pretty useless. What? You've never had a symphony orchestra in your living room? See that's the trouble with subjectivists. They've cut live music out of the equation. Frankly what I see is a lot of huge fallacies in your premises here. One does not need to have heard a symphony orchestra in their living room to be familiar with the sound of live symphonic music. IF, and only, IF you attend lots of live music concerts of your choice = (in my case unamplified, but that is my choice) can you decided what set of speakers you think sound most like live, in your room, with your equipm= ent. Well, not really. Even if =A0you've only been to a few live events, you may still have a sense of what live music sounds like. And as it's your sense, that's all that matters. No really, better familiarity with the reference will help in judging what is closer to that reference. "Obective" comparative testing of speakers may be useful for developmen= t of speakers, but it is hardly a mechanism for deciding even which speakers= are "best" or "preferred" when it comes to long term satisfaction =A0That c= omes from monadic evaluation against an imbedded sense of "rightness" about = live sound. Well if "monadic evaluation" is what you want to insist on (even though the experts in the field don't seem to agree), what's wrong with objective monadic evaluation? Nothing other than inconvenience. IMO |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
On May 13, 2:07=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2010 06:28:21 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote If you want to listen to the true quality of sound, then you must take advantage of bias controlled tests. When I'm trying to decide whether a difference makes any difference at al= l, I agree. But speakers are a matter of taste (because none are perfect and people pick and choose the characteristics of music that are important to them and tend to focus on those). and therefore DBTs are pretty worthless= for comparing one speaker to another. Bias effects are in play whether one is judging for differences or preference under sighted conditions. Even when it is a matter of taste bias effects affect the outcome of comparisons. So they are pretty far from worthless if they are done well. If you want to reinforce your prejudices, then avoid bias controlled te= sts. I agree that bias controlled tests are the gold standard for finding out = if there are significant differences between components, but they can't tell= me which speakers are the most accurate (since all speakers are terribly fla= wed, what would one use as the control?), nor can they tell me, ultimately, wh= ich of all the speakers in a given price range that I like. Bias controls do not make it any more difficult to make those determinations. It is other aspects of the design and execution of any comparison that will determine if they will tell you which speakers are "the most accurate" or what you like in a given price range. Nothing about blind protocols should ever prevent an otherwise effective test for determining those aspects of audio from doing so. All bias controls will do is control the biases they are designed to control from affecting the outcome. IF the bias controls are designed and implimented well. |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message Cutting "live music" out of the equation is what is wrong with much of the "objectivist" philosophy extant today. And exactly which objectivist is uniquely cutting live music out of the discussion? Just tell me the occasions when you personally evaluated *any* audio component by means of direct comparison with a non trivial live musical performance, and the occasions when you did not. Simple counts of each will suffice. I didn't say "direct comparison", I said comparing two speakers is not nearly as relevant as comparing (monadically) the speakers reproduction ability compared to the (remembered) sound of live music. But in my case, that was extremely possible based on about a decade of semi-pro recording of chamber music, orchestras and choruses, and folk-music, followed by the ability to listen to copies of the tapes in my home system. Maybe a hundred, hundred-and-fifty concerts? In addition to many years of subscriptions to Carnegie Hall's visiting orchestra's series, plus classical concerts elsewhere, plus many, many jazz clubs and venues? Will that do? For how this is relevant, if it escapes you, please see Audio Empires description and my response in another post. |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
On May 16, 10:13=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 15 May 2010 07:23:45 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): There's another fallacy - that you need live music to be present to com= pare 2 speakers???? To find out which is the more accurate of the two? You bet. This is essentially an admission that it is impossible under any realistic circumstances for a listener to determine which of two speakers is more accurate (as you define it). Anyone who thinks he can or does do this is therefore deluding himself. snip It doesn't alter the fact taht a double blind comparison of two loudspeakers ultimately tells us nothing a= bout either speaker's accuracy to the waveform being reproduced. Again, I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with the work of Olive and Toole. They do precisely what you claim cannot be done. bob |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
On Sat, 15 May 2010 16:46:20 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ): Audio Empire wrote: On Tue, 11 May 2010 07:17:06 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message ... snip Sure, you can design tests which minimize differences in things like amplifiers and speakers. I could easily construct a DBT where a small mini-monitor and a large full-range system would sound as similar as possible - I'd just play solo harpsichord or flute music, or something similar that has no bass and little in the way of dynamic contrast. I'm sure you could, but why do you assume Arny's test was like that? Since he doesn't feel like explaining any of the circumstances of the test, and because his conclusions are fairly unlikely, I have no alternative but to doubt the efficacy and the methodology (which he hasn't revealed) of his tests. When I cite some double-blind test here that I have been party to, I am careful to explain everything in some detail and get all kinds of criticisms about the efficacy of the tests and the conclusions drawn from it. Arny comes here and gives a sketchy outline of a DBT that finds a pair of $400 mini-monitors equally preferred over a pair of (unnamed) $12000 audiophile speakers, using a methodology that isn't explained, music that is not identified and circumstances that he says he doesn't recollect, and you, based on your comment above, seem to accept HIS conclusions without question. Is it any wonder that some of us doubt Arny's conclusions? Ands just for the record, I merely said that it IS possible to design a test which would minimize the differences between speakers by carefully selecting the program material. I didn't actually accuse Arny of being party to such a test. It's merely a possible methodology which COULD account for the favorable comparison between an expensive pair of speakers and a pair of self-powered cheap ones. |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
On Sun, 16 May 2010 12:12:28 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ): On May 16, 10:13=A0am, Audio Empire wrote: On Sat, 15 May 2010 07:23:45 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): There's another fallacy - that you need live music to be present to com= pare 2 speakers???? To find out which is the more accurate of the two? You bet. This is essentially an admission that it is impossible under any realistic circumstances for a listener to determine which of two speakers is more accurate (as you define it). Anyone who thinks he can or does do this is therefore deluding himself. I disagree. My memory of the what real music sounds like (at least in a general way) allows me to eliminate many speakers right off the bat. This one is too boomy; real bass doesn't sound like that, this one's tweeter is too shrill, or metallic, or too dull; real highs don't sound like that either. This other one has no bass, and is too reticent in the midrange, etc. etc., etc. I hear a lot of live music. Like Harry, I record, often. I hear live music several times a week; Orchestral, symphonic winds, chamber classical, as well as jazz. My memory of what live music sounds like stays pretty fresh. But even that isn't necessary. I have audio-hobbyist friends who hear live music much less often than I do, yet their sense of which speakers are the more accurate, is, for the most part very good as well. snip |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
On Sun, 16 May 2010 11:37:25 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ): On May 13, 2:07=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: On Wed, 12 May 2010 06:28:21 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote If you want to listen to the true quality of sound, then you must take advantage of bias controlled tests. When I'm trying to decide whether a difference makes any difference at al= l, I agree. But speakers are a matter of taste (because none are perfect and people pick and choose the characteristics of music that are important to them and tend to focus on those). and therefore DBTs are pretty worthless= for comparing one speaker to another. Bias effects are in play whether one is judging for differences or preference under sighted conditions. Even when it is a matter of taste bias effects affect the outcome of comparisons. So they are pretty far from worthless if they are done well. If you want to reinforce your prejudices, then avoid bias controlled te= sts. I agree that bias controlled tests are the gold standard for finding out = if there are significant differences between components, but they can't tell= me which speakers are the most accurate (since all speakers are terribly fla= wed, what would one use as the control?), nor can they tell me, ultimately, wh= ich of all the speakers in a given price range that I like. Bias controls do not make it any more difficult to make those determinations. It is other aspects of the design and execution of any comparison that will determine if they will tell you which speakers are "the most accurate" or what you like in a given price range. Nothing about blind protocols should ever prevent an otherwise effective test for determining those aspects of audio from doing so. All bias controls will do is control the biases they are designed to control from affecting the outcome. IF the bias controls are designed and implimented well. Bias controlled tests, ultimately compare one one set of speaker compromises to another set of compromises, and tell me very little about which is the more accurate. |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
On May 16, 6:07=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2010 11:37:25 -0700, Scott wrote =A0Bias controls do not make it any more difficult to make those determinations. It is other aspects of the design and execution of any comparison that will determine if they will tell you which speakers are "the most accurate" or what you like in a given price range. Nothing about blind protocols should ever prevent an otherwise effective test for determining those aspects of audio from doing so. All bias controls will do is control the biases they are designed to control from affecting the outcome. IF the bias controls are designed and implimented well. Bias controlled tests, ultimately compare one one set of speaker compromi= ses to another set of compromises, and tell me very little about which is the more accurate. How does removing the bias controls of any given test allow the test to tell you *more* about which speaker is more accurate? If a given test is telling you little about which is the more accurate speaker then the flaw in that test lies in the design of that test not in any particular bias controls that may be implimented in that test unless those specific bias controls are causing some sort of problem. That is not an intrinsic propperty of bias controls. If that is happening then the bias controls are being poorly designed or poorly implimented. Any test one designs for measuring the relative accuracy of speakers against some sort of reference by ear can only be helped by well designed and well executed bias controls. If you disagree then please offer an argument to support *that.* There is no reason to talk about other bias controlled test designs that are simply not designed to measure percieved relative accuracy of loudspeakers. |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
"Scott" wrote in message
On May 11, 12:23 pm, Dick Pierce wrote: But, that being said, the ability to produce an under $1k speaker of high quality is a function primarily of designer competence and knowledge as well as marketing and sales prowess, both of which are in increasing short supply in the high-end or component audio market, which itself is becoming a vanishingly small portion of the total audio market. So are these just grossly overpriced speakers? http://viewer.zmags.com/showmag.php?mid=ghsfs#/page2/ If one can produce something of "high quality" for under 1K what does one get from these guys for the extra 21K? I would presume that all those drivers provide more dynamic range and better directivity control at low-middle frequencies. The dyamic range reserves may have no audible signficance at normal listening levels, and the directivity control may have minimal benefits in many fairly absorbtive listening rooms. |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
Scott wrote:
On May 15, 1:42=A0pm, bob wrote: On May 15, 12:49=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote: Cutting "live music" out of the equation is what is wrong with much of the "objectivist" philosophy extant today. So tell us Harry, how close does your system sound to the last time you had a symphony orchestra in your living room? Why would you ask that? The correct, or at least better question would be how close does his system sound to the last time he went to see a good symphony orchestra in a good concert hall with good seats? There seems to be a presumption here that the sound in a concert hall is ideal. But there are fairly well-known acoustic phenomena such as the "seat-dip effect" where there is a dip of some 10-15 dB over two octaves, centred on about 150 Hz. (This is just an example: real halls have other problems too.) We can to some extent compensate for this when we listen at concerts, but it's highly questionable whether we want the sound of real halls in our homes. This is a matter of goals: do we want to replicate the concertgoer's experience, or the "pure" sound of a performance, whatever that may be? There are no simple answers. Andrew. |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
On Sat, 15 May 2010 16:46:20 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote (in article ): Audio Empire wrote: On Tue, 11 May 2010 07:17:06 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message ... snip Sure, you can design tests which minimize differences in things like amplifiers and speakers. I could easily construct a DBT where a small mini-monitor and a large full-range system would sound as similar as possible - I'd just play solo harpsichord or flute music, or something similar that has no bass and little in the way of dynamic contrast. I'm sure you could, but why do you assume Arny's test was like that? Since he doesn't feel like explaining any of the circumstances of the test, and because his conclusions are fairly unlikely, I have no alternative but to doubt the efficacy and the methodology (which he hasn't revealed) of his tests. The speaker evaluation was similar to zillions of other speaker evaluations that one finds on the web except that it was level matched, time-synched, and blind. The spekers were set behind an acoustically transparent barrier that prevented the listeners from knowing what they were listening to at any particualar moment. When I cite some double-blind test here that I have been party to, I am careful to explain everything in some detail and get all kinds of criticisms about the efficacy of the tests and the conclusions drawn from it. No conclusions were drawn from the test other than that it was hard to form a preference for one speaker as compared to the other. If there was a conclusion, then the conclusion was a non-conclusion. Arny comes here and gives a sketchy outline of a DBT that finds a pair of $400 mini-monitors equally preferred over a pair of (unnamed) $12000 audiophile speakers, using a methodology that isn't explained, music that is not identified and circumstances that he says he doesn't recollect, and you, based on your comment above, seem to accept HIS conclusions without question. I was simply presenting a relevant data point in rebuttal to some pretty dogmatic global statements that were made about speaker sound quality and price. Is it any wonder that some of us doubt Arny's conclusions? Such conclusions as were reached weren't just mine. Ands just for the record, I merely said that it IS possible to design a test which would minimize the differences between speakers by carefully selecting the program material. Here's exactly what you said: " Good ones aren't. Good speakers, especially, are quite expensive. For instance, there is little decent in the way of speakers below about the $1K level (actually I only know of one really decent speaker below $1K and that's the Magnepan MMG at $599. My story shows that we had no difficulty at all in finding decent speakers that are widely available for far less than $1K. BTW, the purpose of the evaluation was *not* price/performance but rather the goal was to evaluate loudspeaker "Acoustic Scene" (AS) formation, or if you will soundstaging. We obtained a good AS with the $12,000 speaker pair and simply wondered if less costly speakers would be similarly effective. The less costly speakers were surprisingly effective, and that is what I reported. AFAIK the Behringer "Truth" monitors are not exceptional, but in fact representative a large group of good-sounding speakers that cost much less than $1,000 or even $599. I think the moral of the story is that hyperbole is easy to effectively contradict. ;-) |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
"dave a" wrote in message
On 5/15/2010 4:47 PM, Arny Krueger wrote: This begs the question how anyone ever had an opinon about a speaker's sound quality without ready reference to a string quartet. We've got plenty of factual records of many people on this forum opining long and hard about which speakers sound good and which sound bad. I'm taking a wild guess here, but I'm guessing that not one of them had a real live string quartet present for any of those speaker evaluations and/or comparisons. This is yet another example of how people hear the words "DBT" and immediately pile a ton of baggage on to the conversation. They pile on requirements that they themselves have paid little or no attention in their own personal evaluations. It is all obfuscation. Since when is a string quartet the standard reference? Good question. What if I like hard rock or a cappella choir? Good question. I've been to rock concerts where the hall acoustics were terrible and the recorded versions of the same band sound much better on almost any system. And, I really doubt my living room would sound that good with either a choir or a rock band. I've had many similar experiences. I thought the discussion was about comparing two speaker systems, not speakers to live performances. Agreed. It would appear that the discussion is being distracted by someone dragging out a figurative red herring. |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Audio Empire" wrote in message snip a irrelevent to following point BTW, the purpose of the evaluation was *not* price/performance but rather the goal was to evaluate loudspeaker "Acoustic Scene" (AS) formation, or if you will soundstaging. We obtained a good AS with the $12,000 speaker pair and simply wondered if less costly speakers would be similarly effective. The less costly speakers were surprisingly effective, and that is what I reported. snip, as not relevant to my point If you were testing for soundstaging, how were the speakers arranged behind the screen such that one did not interfere with the other. Do you know? If the small were on stands, as typically the would be, would not the presumably larger $12,000 interfere? And if the smaller were set on top of the large, is this a truly accourate representation of them, since the larger speaker would to some degree act as a planar bass reinforcer? Finally, is this a test you participated in, or only one you are reporting on? Since you say "we" I assume you were there. And you still haven't indicated who sponsored the test, and whom the listeners were. May I assume the test was run by your audio club and the listeners were your buddies in the club? Was a manufacturer involved? |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
If you were testing for soundstaging, how were the speakers arranged behind the screen such that one did not interfere with the other. Each speaker was positioned separately and it was found that different locations were optimal for each loudspeaker. The speakers were technologically different. One pair was bipolar and the other was unipolar. If the small were on stands, as typically the would be, would not the presumably larger $12,000 interfere? Each speaker was positioned separately and it was found that the presence of the other speaker had no consequences. Finally, is this a test you participated in, or only one you are reporting on? Since you say "we" I assume you were there. I participated. And you still haven't indicated who sponsored the test, It was a private test that was open to club members and other members of the audio community in this area. Several have designed audio systems that retailed for well over $1,000 and that have sold over 100,000 units each person. One other was an AES fellow. Two have had numerous articles published in the audiophile press. and whom the listeners were. The listeners were audio engineers and/or long time audiophiles with decade(s) of experience in organizing and participating in formal and informal tests. Was a manufacturer involved? The manufacturer of the more expensive system loaned his equipment. Note that his equipment performed very, very well in the estimation of the listeners. It was beautifully made of expensive woods and speaker components. |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
On Mon, 17 May 2010 07:07:58 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ): On May 16, 6:07=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: On Sun, 16 May 2010 11:37:25 -0700, Scott wrote =A0Bias controls do not make it any more difficult to make those determinations. It is other aspects of the design and execution of any comparison that will determine if they will tell you which speakers are "the most accurate" or what you like in a given price range. Nothing about blind protocols should ever prevent an otherwise effective test for determining those aspects of audio from doing so. All bias controls will do is control the biases they are designed to control from affecting the outcome. IF the bias controls are designed and implimented well. Bias controlled tests, ultimately compare one one set of speaker compromi= ses to another set of compromises, and tell me very little about which is the more accurate. How does removing the bias controls of any given test allow the test to tell you *more* about which speaker is more accurate? If a given test is telling you little about which is the more accurate speaker then the flaw in that test lies in the design of that test not in any particular bias controls that may be implimented in that test unless those specific bias controls are causing some sort of problem. That is not an intrinsic propperty of bias controls. If that is happening then the bias controls are being poorly designed or poorly implimented. Any test one designs for measuring the relative accuracy of speakers against some sort of reference by ear can only be helped by well designed and well executed bias controls. If you disagree then please offer an argument to support *that.* There is no reason to talk about other bias controlled test designs that are simply not designed to measure percieved relative accuracy of loudspeakers. I think you misunderstand me. Comparing one speaker to another using bias controlled tests like DBT and ABX tells me nothing in and of itself. HOWEVER, if I am allowed to have this same setup over a long period of time (say several hours to several days), using recordings of my own choosing, I will be able to compare BOTH to my memory of what real, live music sounds like and be able to tell which of the two speakers is the more "realistic" (or, if you prefer, accurate to my memory of the sound of live music). Of course, this assumes that an accurate DBT test can be devised for speakers, which I seriously doubt. For instance: How do you normalize such a test? Suppose one speaker is 89 dB/Watt and the other is 93 dB/Watt? You'd have to use a really accurate SPL meter. Few have that. I have a Radio Shack SPL meter like most of us, but it's probably not accurate enough to set speaker levels within less than 1 dB for such a test. Secondly, speakers (and rooms) are NOT amplifiers or CD decks with ruler-flat frequency response. How do you make them the same level? You certainly don't want to put T-Pads between the amp and speakers to equalize them as that would screw-up the impedance matching between amp and speaker. All that I can come up with is that you not only need two sets of speakers for such a test, you'll also need two IDENTICAL stereo amplifiers with some way to trim them on their inputs to give equal SPL for both the 89 dB/Watt speaker and the 93 dB/Watt speaker - and at what frequency? Each speaker can vary wildly from one frequency to another and these frequency response anomalies are exacerbated by the room in which the test is being conducted, as well as by the placement of each set of speakers in that room and It would be difficult to have both test samples occupy the same space at the same time. Thirdly, you can set them to both to produce a single frequency, say 1KHz, at exactly (less than 1 dB difference) the same level but what happens when you switch frequencies to, say, 400 Hz or 5 KHz? One speaker could exhibit as much as 6 dB difference in volume (or more) from the other depending upon whether speaker "A", for instance, has a 3 dB peak at 400 Hz (with respect to 1KHz) and speaker "B" has a three dB trough at 400 Hz (again referenced to 1 KHz). It seems to me that such a test would be incredibly difficult to pull off, in any environment but an anechoic chamber (to eliminate room interaction) and even then would only really work for two speakers who's frequency response curves were very similar. Even so, people's biases are going to still come into play. If one likes big bass, the speaker which has the best bass is going to be his pick, every time. If a listener likes pin-point imaging, he's going to pick the speaker that images the better of the two - every time. These are just a few of my real-world doubts as to the efficacy of DBT testing for speakers and why I believe that they are not only impractical (because they would be darned difficult to set up), but would not yield any kind of a consensus as to which speaker was the most accurate. One might as well use the old "Consumer Reports" method of testing speakers: Measure the frequency response with a with an oscillator in a "standard room" (one that they used for all speaker tests) and plot out each speaker's response on a chart. Draw two arbitrary lines on that graph, one at say +2dB and one at, say, -2dB, and then count how many times the frequency response graph of each speaker tested wanders over those lines. The one whose frequency response crosses those lines the least number of times wins and gets rated as the best speaker of the bunch. (yes, they really did this!). It's about as telling about overall speaker performance as would be the kind of DBT that most mortals would be able to set-up. |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
On Mon, 17 May 2010 07:45:51 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message snip And just for the record, I merely said that it IS possible to design a test which would minimize the differences between speakers by carefully selecting the program material. Here's exactly what you said: " Good ones aren't. Good speakers, especially, are quite expensive. For instance, there is little decent in the way of speakers below about the $1K level (actually I only know of one really decent speaker below $1K and that's the Magnepan MMG at $599. That's nice. Unfortunately the statement of mine that you just quoted has nothing whatsoever to do with the statement I made about the possibility of being able to rig a test where many of a speaker's attributes (or shortcomings) could be masked by the types of program material played. My story shows that we had no difficulty at all in finding decent speakers that are widely available for far less than $1K. BTW, the purpose of the evaluation was *not* price/performance but rather the goal was to evaluate loudspeaker "Acoustic Scene" (AS) formation, or if you will soundstaging. We obtained a good AS with the $12,000 speaker pair and simply wondered if less costly speakers would be similarly effective. The less costly speakers were surprisingly effective, and that is what I reported. It's a well-known fact that small monitor-type speakers (of the kind pioneered by the BBC), because they more closely approach the ideal "point source" tend to image better than speakers with large radiating surfaces. That conclusion should have been foregone. AFAIK the Behringer "Truth" monitors are not exceptional, but in fact representative a large group of good-sounding speakers that cost much less than $1,000 or even $599. I think that I agreed with you on that point at the beginning of this thread. That's why I use them to edit my recordings with and have used them on location as monitors (when I've been allowed to set-up in a separate room from where the performance was taking place). I think the moral of the story is that hyperbole is easy to effectively contradict. ;-) Hyperbole is for effect and should be taken as such 8^) |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message If you were testing for soundstaging, how were the speakers arranged behind the screen such that one did not interfere with the other. Each speaker was positioned separately and it was found that different locations were optimal for each loudspeaker. The speakers were technologically different. One pair was bipolar and the other was unipolar. If the small were on stands, as typically the would be, would not the presumably larger $12,000 interfere? Each speaker was positioned separately and it was found that the presence of the other speaker had no consequences. Finally, is this a test you participated in, or only one you are reporting on? Since you say "we" I assume you were there. I participated. And you still haven't indicated who sponsored the test, It was a private test that was open to club members and other members of the audio community in this area. Several have designed audio systems that retailed for well over $1,000 and that have sold over 100,000 units each person. One other was an AES fellow. Two have had numerous articles published in the audiophile press. and whom the listeners were. The listeners were audio engineers and/or long time audiophiles with decade(s) of experience in organizing and participating in formal and informal tests. Was a manufacturer involved? The manufacturer of the more expensive system loaned his equipment. Note that his equipment performed very, very well in the estimation of the listeners. It was beautifully made of expensive woods and speaker components. Thank you Arny...although I had to ask three times to get this info...thank you for finally giving it. I do have concern about your first answer and about the screening in general. You mentioned the speakers were screened. It is hard to find material that is acoustically transparent and yet visually opaque. Were the two sets of speakers at all muffled in the high frequencies by the screening? Were they visible in vague outline? Secondly, if the speakers were seperately and independently placed for best sound, wouldn't listeners be able to tell just by slight shifts in soundstage which speakers were which? And finally, you say that the speakers did not affect each other's soundstaging. For that to be highly likely, the larger speakers most likely would have to be planar or electrostatic in nature, presenting their "edge" to the smaller speakers. If the larger speakers were box speakers, then despite your claims the soundstage of the smaller speakers must have been affected to a least a slight degree....which kind of challenges the whole idea of testing soundstaging this way (I can think of a monadic way to do it without this problem. :-) ) Can you confirm or deny the type of large speaker? One follow on question.....I know you and many of your friends are high on Berringher.....how many of you in the test would you estimate own the Beringher monitors or their kissin' kin? |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
On May 17, 7:43=A0am, Andrew Haley
wrote: Scott wrote: On May 15, 1:42=3DA0pm, bob wrote: On May 15, 12:49=3DA0pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote: Cutting "live music" out of the equation is what is wrong with much of the "objectivist" philosophy extant today. So tell us Harry, how close does your system sound to the last time you had a symphony orchestra in your living room? Why would you ask that? The correct, or at least =A0better question would be how close does his system sound to the last time he went to see a good symphony orchestra in a good concert hall with good seats? There seems to be a presumption here that the sound in a concert hall is ideal. =A0But there are fairly well-known acoustic phenomena such as the "seat-dip effect" where there is a dip of some 10-15 dB over two octaves, centred on about 150 Hz. =A0(This is just an example: real halls have other problems too.) =A0We can to some extent compensate for this when we listen at concerts, but it's highly questionable whether we want the sound of real halls in our homes. This is a matter of goals: do we want to replicate the concertgoer's experience, or the "pure" sound of a performance, whatever that may be? =A0There are no simple answers. Andrew. You raise an important issue. Yes the presumption is that the sound of the concert hall is ideal for a symphonic orchestra. But this is too broad to be true. There are bad halls and there are bad seats in many good halls. When *I* talk about live acoustic music as a reference I am refering to live music that excels. That means excellent music played on excellent instruments by excellent musicians in an excellent hall from an excellent position in that hall. The reason to strive for such sound is because IMO it sets the standard for aesthetic musical beauty. |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
In Mobile Age, Sound Quality Steps Back
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
I do have concern about your first answer and about the screening in general. You mentioned the speakers were screened. It is hard to find material that is acoustically transparent and yet visually opaque. It was not opaque cloth. The effect of opaqueness was achieved by lighting - like a theatrical scrim. Were the two sets of speakers at all muffled in the high frequencies by the screening? Were they visible in vague outline? No and no. Secondly, if the speakers were seperately and independently placed for best sound, wouldn't listeners be able to tell just by slight shifts in soundstage which speakers were which? No. Both speakers projected soundstanges that were alike enough, and there was nothing about them that gave any clues as to the speaker's technology. And finally, you say that the speakers did not affect each other's soundstaging. For that to be highly likely, the larger speakers most likely would have to be planar or electrostatic in nature, presenting their "edge" to the smaller speakers. I'm not going to try to match reality up with someone's personal acoustical theory. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
One step forward, ten steps back | Audio Opinions | |||
Key steps to make a recording sound "commercial" | Pro Audio | |||
Key steps to make a recording sound "commercial" | Pro Audio | |||
WTB: Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs Cassettes | Marketplace | |||
XOVISION -- quality mobile video / audio manufacturer and distributor | Marketplace |