[bob]

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.

[Steven Sullivan]

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

[Steven Sullivan]

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

[KH]

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

[bob]

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

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Steven Sullivan]

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

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Steven Sullivan]

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...html?ref=busin

"The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological. For
decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status
symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like a
new flat-screen TV today.

But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs musicangle.com,
which reviews albums, said that today, "a stereo has become an object
of scorn.""

Michael F. confuses 'audiophile pretension' with 'stereo'.

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

[Steven Sullivan]

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

[Jenn[_2_]]

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.

[Steven Sullivan]

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

[dave a]

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.

[Harry Lavo]

"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.

[Jenn[_2_]]

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.

[Audio Empire]

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.

[Scott[_6_]]

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.

[Scott[_6_]]

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?

[Scott[_6_]]

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.

[Scott[_6_]]

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.

[Audio Empire]

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.

[Scott[_6_]]

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

[Scott[_6_]]

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.

[Harry Lavo]

"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.

[bob]

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

[Audio Empire]

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.

[Audio Empire]

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

[Audio Empire]

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.

[Scott[_6_]]

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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Andrew Haley]

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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Harry Lavo]

"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?

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Audio Empire]

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.

[Audio Empire]

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^)

[Harry Lavo]

"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?

[Scott[_6_]]

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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.