Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Stereophile again!
Today I received the February issue of Stereophile. A letter on page 11
had the title "not so nice magazine". The writer really took them to task for their misleading reviews. I'm surprised that they printed it. ---MIKE--- |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
---MIKE--- wrote:
Today I received the February issue of Stereophile. A letter on page 11 had the title "not so nice magazine". The writer really took them to task for their misleading reviews. I'm surprised that they printed it. I suppose that will have to suffice for 'controversy' in audiophilia. Meanwhile, I've been reading back issues of 'The Audio Critic' (they're offering a deal on 19 back issuesat their website) -- bracing stuff! My only question is why I haven't seen Peter Aczel on Usenet or WWW audio forums -- his personality, ('tart' would be putting it mildly) would seem a natural fit. -- -S If you're a nut and knock on enough doors, eventually someone will open one, look at you and say, Messiah, we have waited for your arrival. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Hell, I'm surprised that you read it. I grew tired of the "cancel my
subscription" type rants long ago! -Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "---MIKE---" wrote in message ... Today I received the February issue of Stereophile. A letter on page 11 had the title "not so nice magazine". The writer really took them to task for their misleading reviews. I'm surprised that they printed it. ---MIKE--- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
My thoughts exactly. In addition it sets up the example as one which the
"believers" can see as a touch stone by which to have their views measured in oppisition,ie. the glaring ugly duckling among the swans. It also sets up te editorial chance in a coming response to allow exposition why the content of the mag is doing just fine in accord with the best standards of the subjective camp, as we saw demonstrated here from the mag staff. It is a way to react to any action that might have come to the subscriber's attention to the Randi flap and discussion here of similar issues as the letter poses for those who didn't follow the online interaction. Let's see if it gets an editorial mention along these lines. It will also elicit views supporting themag which subscribers can use in their own minds as positive reassurance that a defense is possible and readers would not have it any other way. Why are you surprised as it makes perfectly good sense to me? They have taken quite a lot of heat recently regarding positive reviews of snake oil or poorly performing products. One of the best ways to counter this kind of publicity is to deny, deny, and deny these claims while allowing others to comment. The magazine can then point to this generous policy while appearing to let the other side have their say. One only has to observe what the magazine actually _DOES_ in print and not what they _SAY_ that they do. As long as they continue their current policy without actual change then their true motives remain perfectly clear IMHO. To me, those motives are to cater to an audience that does not necessarily care about what is real but would rather see, in writing, articles that support their beliefs. At the same time the magazine continues making lots of money from advertisers of said products. Profit is certainly not a dirty word, but allowing positive articles about snake oil or unproven products is dishonest at best. Richard Richard |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ...
My thoughts exactly. In addition it sets up the example as one which the "believers" can see as a touch stone by which to have their views measured in oppisition,ie. the glaring ugly duckling among the swans. It also sets up te editorial chance in a coming response to allow exposition why the content of the mag is doing just fine in accord with the best standards of the subjective camp, as we saw demonstrated here from the mag staff. It is a way to react to any action that might have come to the subscriber's attention to the Randi flap and discussion here of similar issues as the letter poses for those who didn't follow the online interaction. Let's see if it gets an editorial mention along these lines. It will also elicit views supporting themag which subscribers can use in their own minds as positive reassurance that a defense is possible and readers would not have it any other way. Why are you surprised as it makes perfectly good sense to me? They have taken quite a lot of heat recently regarding positive reviews of snake oil or poorly performing products. One of the best ways to counter this kind of publicity is to deny, deny, and deny these claims while allowing others to comment. The magazine can then point to this generous policy while appearing to let the other side have their say. One only has to observe what the magazine actually _DOES_ in print and not what they _SAY_ that they do. As long as they continue their current policy without actual change then their true motives remain perfectly clear IMHO. To me, those motives are to cater to an audience that does not necessarily care about what is real but would rather see, in writing, articles that support their beliefs. At the same time the magazine continues making lots of money from advertisers of said products. Profit is certainly not a dirty word, but allowing positive articles about snake oil or unproven products is dishonest at best. You guys are unbelievable. Why is it so hard to believe that a responsible magazine carries critical letters to the editor? Doesn't the New York Times? Wall Street Jouranl? Time Magazine? Business Week? CNN? Even O'Reilly? It seems to me your ruminations are simply slightly paranoid fantasy..with no foundation in fact whatsoever. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Harry Lavo wrote:
You guys are unbelievable. Why is it so hard to believe that a responsible magazine carries critical letters to the editor? Doesn't the New York Times? Wall Street Jouranl? Time Magazine? Business Week? CNN? Even O'Reilly? No, not O'Reilly. But on the general point, I agree with Harry. Stereophile deserves all the criticism it gets for its pseudoscientific approach to reviewing, but its letters column has always been praiseworthy for its openness to contrary opinions. bob |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Harry Lavo" wrote:
wrote in message ... My thoughts exactly. In addition it sets up the example as one which the "believers" can see as a touch stone by which to have their views measured in oppisition,ie. the glaring ugly duckling among the swans. It also sets up te editorial chance in a coming response to allow exposition why the content of the mag is doing just fine in accord with the best standards of the subjective camp, as we saw demonstrated here from the mag staff. It is a way to react to any action that might have come to the subscriber's attention to the Randi flap and discussion here of similar issues as the letter poses for those who didn't follow the online interaction. Let's see if it gets an editorial mention along these lines. It will also elicit views supporting themag which subscribers can use in their own minds as positive reassurance that a defense is possible and readers would not have it any other way. Why are you surprised as it makes perfectly good sense to me? They have taken quite a lot of heat recently regarding positive reviews of snake oil or poorly performing products. One of the best ways to counter this kind of publicity is to deny, deny, and deny these claims while allowing others to comment. The magazine can then point to this generous policy while appearing to let the other side have their say. One only has to observe what the magazine actually _DOES_ in print and not what they _SAY_ that they do. As long as they continue their current policy without actual change then their true motives remain perfectly clear IMHO. To me, those motives are to cater to an audience that does not necessarily care about what is real but would rather see, in writing, articles that support their beliefs. At the same time the magazine continues making lots of money from advertisers of said products. Profit is certainly not a dirty word, but allowing positive articles about snake oil or unproven products is dishonest at best. You guys are unbelievable. Why is it so hard to believe that a responsible magazine carries critical letters to the editor? Doesn't the New York Times? Wall Street Jouranl? Time Magazine? Business Week? CNN? Even O'Reilly? It seems to me your ruminations are simply slightly paranoid fantasy..with no foundation in fact whatsoever. Exactly what in my message, do you object to Harry? I _NEVER_ said or even implied that the editors do not see these critical letters. I rather thought that I made it clear that they think publishing these letters makes them look as if they are trying to be impartial when; in fact, the editorial content and advertising policies appear to remain unchanged. As to your "responsible" comment, I believe that would seem to be determined by the validity or veracity of the claims made about the various products in the magazine would it not? These are just my opinions so feel free to disagree. ;^) Richard |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote: wrote in message ... My thoughts exactly. In addition it sets up the example as one which the "believers" can see as a touch stone by which to have their views measured in oppisition,ie. the glaring ugly duckling among the swans. It also sets up te editorial chance in a coming response to allow exposition why the content of the mag is doing just fine in accord with the best standards of the subjective camp, as we saw demonstrated here from the mag staff. It is a way to react to any action that might have come to the subscriber's attention to the Randi flap and discussion here of similar issues as the letter poses for those who didn't follow the online interaction. Let's see if it gets an editorial mention along these lines. It will also elicit views supporting themag which subscribers can use in their own minds as positive reassurance that a defense is possible and readers would not have it any other way. Why are you surprised as it makes perfectly good sense to me? They have taken quite a lot of heat recently regarding positive reviews of snake oil or poorly performing products. One of the best ways to counter this kind of publicity is to deny, deny, and deny these claims while allowing others to comment. The magazine can then point to this generous policy while appearing to let the other side have their say. One only has to observe what the magazine actually _DOES_ in print and not what they _SAY_ that they do. As long as they continue their current policy without actual change then their true motives remain perfectly clear IMHO. To me, those motives are to cater to an audience that does not necessarily care about what is real but would rather see, in writing, articles that support their beliefs. At the same time the magazine continues making lots of money from advertisers of said products. Profit is certainly not a dirty word, but allowing positive articles about snake oil or unproven products is dishonest at best. You guys are unbelievable. Why is it so hard to believe that a responsible magazine carries critical letters to the editor? Doesn't the New York Times? Wall Street Jouranl? Time Magazine? Business Week? CNN? Even O'Reilly? It seems to me your ruminations are simply slightly paranoid fantasy..with no foundation in fact whatsoever. Exactly what in my message, do you object to Harry? I _NEVER_ said or even implied that the editors do not see these critical letters. I rather thought that I made it clear that they think publishing these letters makes them look as if they are trying to be impartial when; in fact, the editorial content and advertising policies appear to remain unchanged. As to your "responsible" comment, I believe that would seem to be determined by the validity or veracity of the claims made about the various products in the magazine would it not? These are just my opinions so feel free to disagree. ;^) We have covered this ground here, Richard. The magazine is exactly what it purports to be...a review and information magazine. It's reviews are both objective (the measurements) and subjective (the listening evaluation). The magazine stresses the need for people to listen for themselves if the are intrigued by something they read. They spend most of their space on mainstream components and very little on tweaks, isolation devices, cables, record clamps, etc. There does not seem to be a 1:1 correlation between editorial and advertising as there is in some magazines. They have published negative as well as positive letters for years. As far as I can tell, probably in proportion to what they receive. They receive very few complaints about the magazines philosophy or policies; most are about specific disagreements with a writer about something. Most of their readers find them useful and interesting, and their circulation has held up well despite the swing to A/V as a result. "They have taken quite a lot of heat recently regarding positive reviews of snake oil or poorly performing products." Only here on RAHE....not from the vast majority of their readers. Do you really think that John or the Publisher devise devious Letters to the Editors Policies just to ward off criticism from RAHE'rs. As far as I can see their Letters policy has been consistent for years and is totally in the mainstream of responsible journalism. The problem I have is that the two of you are both speculating wildly as to their motives, and fantasizing up convoluted rationales as to why they publish the occasional really negative letter....when a much simpler motive is much more likely...because they are journalists and have a sense of professionalism about their work and about the magazine. If you and others don't like it, that's your prerogative. But "smearing" them with dubious motives that you concoct because you don't like them, subjective reviews, or their policies is just what I said... fairly paranoid, with only your personal opinion to back it up and no factual basis. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: Harry Lavo wrote: You guys are unbelievable. Why is it so hard to believe that a responsible magazine carries critical letters to the editor? Doesn't the New York Times? Wall Street Jouranl? Time Magazine? Business Week? CNN? Even O'Reilly? No, not O'Reilly. But on the general point, I agree with Harry. Stereophile deserves all the criticism it gets for its pseudoscientific approach to reviewing, but its letters column has always been praiseworthy for its openness to contrary opinions. But calling it a 'responsible magazine' is going a bit far, don't you think? Its letters policy seems to be, and that's the subject of this thread. In fact, for many high-enders, Stereophile's letters column is perhaps the only place they will ever encounter an objectivist argument made by an objectivist, however rare such encounters might be. Be thankful for small favors. bob |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... "Richard" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote: The problem I have is that the two of you are both speculating wildly as to their motives, and fantasizing up convoluted rationales as to why they publish the occasional really negative letter....when a much simpler motive is much more likely...because they are journalists and have a sense of professionalism about their work and about the magazine. Wild speculation is engendered by the wild rationaizations the magazine uses for going out oif its way to be as non-reliable and as disinformational in some cases, as it can be. Shakti Stones being just one example. If you and others don't like it, that's your prerogative. But "smearing" them with dubious motives that you concoct because you don't like them, subjective reviews, or their policies is just what I said... fairly paranoid, with only your personal opinion to back it up and no factual basis. Fact: One of their reviewers couldn't hear what a piece of crap a wildly expensive tube amp was. Fact: SP has endorsed and helped promote audio mythology over the years on such topics as green pens, magic wire, and other non-operational nonsense. Fact: There have been a host of reason given for why such things as Shakti Stones haven't been better scrutinized. Fact: Their goofs are the stuff of legend. How do you take seriously, a magazine where one of their speaker measurement people openly admits in the current issue that he just learned about ground plane measurements LAST SPRING! Bottom line: It is a good magazine for a goof and to look at some of the more ridiculously priced equipment on the market. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
I had major issues with them 20 years ago respecting the people who were
doing their reviews. I was particularly incensed by a featured review extolling the sonic virtues of a LP recording of the tone poem Church Windows by Respighi. The reviewer began by extolling the acoustic wonders of the performing venue which on investigation turned out to be that of a local high school. The ensemble of the orchestra, a horrible pick up scratchy band led by a non entity and the biggest blooper of all; expressions of wonderment of the colossal timbers of the featured "mighty" pipe organ which was obviously an electronic abomination perhaps on loan from a local funeral parlor. All this led to the inescapable conclusion that the reviewer (very prominent at the time) knew nothing of the sound of a major symphony orchestra playing in a respectable concert hall! I am of the opinion that the recording at issue (made on a shoe string) probably presented the performance pretty much as it actually sounded. If the review had been cast from that prospective I would have let it pass. But, to pretend that this pathetic venture into the world of sonic block busters represented some sort of artistic and audio milestone was totally out of place. In protest I fired off a letter to Stereophile (which they published) and canceled my subscription (which they accepted) The above episode led to my disinterest in hi-end audio for two decades. Richard Smith |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Christine Allison" wrote in message
... I had major issues with them 20 years ago respecting the people who were doing their reviews. I was particularly incensed by a featured review extolling the sonic virtues of a LP recording of the tone poem Church Windows by Respighi. The reviewer began by extolling the acoustic wonders of the performing venue which on investigation turned out to be that of a local high school. The ensemble of the orchestra, a horrible pick up scratchy band led by a non entity and the biggest blooper of all; expressions of wonderment of the colossal timbers of the featured "mighty" pipe organ which was obviously an electronic abomination perhaps on loan from a local funeral parlor. All this led to the inescapable conclusion that the reviewer (very prominent at the time) knew nothing of the sound of a major symphony orchestra playing in a respectable concert hall! I am of the opinion that the recording at issue (made on a shoe string) probably presented the performance pretty much as it actually sounded. If the review had been cast from that prospective I would have let it pass. But, to pretend that this pathetic venture into the world of sonic block busters represented some sort of artistic and audio milestone was totally out of place. In protest I fired off a letter to Stereophile (which they published) and canceled my subscription (which they accepted) The above episode led to my disinterest in hi-end audio for two decades. Richard Smith I'm still convinced that aside from possible improvements in recording media, (what will be better than CD?) and loudspeaker design, (better drivers and DSP EQ), the high end is mostly about hype and myth. Amps and preamps have been able to reproduce cleanly for decades, CD's are producing exact copies of the master tape or whatever media the record company uses, so what's left? Speakers! Truly the most important problem to be solved is how to get the speakers to work in any given room without adding significant distortion and without drastic changes in the way a given recording was intended to sound, especially a live concert. YMMV |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Michael McKelvy wrote:
How do you take seriously, a magazine where one of their speaker measurement people openly admits in the current issue that he just learned about ground plane measurements LAST SPRING! While I have no wish to argue with your opinions of Stereophile, Mr. McKelvy, it is fair to point out that there is no such admission in the January issue. What there is a tutorial article written by Keith Howard on accurately measuring the lower-frequency performance of loudspeakers, in connection with asessing the farfield impact of cabinet resonances. Part 2 of this article, scheduled to appear in the April issue, examines the success (or lack thereof) of practical, non-anechoic measurement techniques in uncovering speaker aberrations between 100Hz and 500Hz. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
See my responses within your test.
"Harry Lavo" wrote: We have covered this ground here, Richard. The magazine is exactly what it purports to be...a review and information magazine. A definition of INFORMATION: A collection of facts or data: statistical information. A definition of FACT: Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact. In my opinion, Stereophile and some other magazines seem to have problems with some of the "information" they print and I am afraid that people interpret this "information" as fact. It's reviews are both objective (the measurements) and subjective (the listening evaluation). The magazine stresses the need for people to listen for they if the are intrigued by something they read. They spend most of their space on mainstream components and very little on tweaks, isolation devices, cables, record clamps, etc. There does not seem to be a 1:1 correlation between editorial and advertising as there is in some magazines. You seem to be quite knowledgeable about this. I assume you are a fan. As to your statement that they spend "very little on tweaks, isolation devices, etc., that is all well and good. My point was/is if they or ANY magazine for that matter perpetuates false or misleading "information" then I have a problem with them! They have published negative as well as positive letters for years. As far as I can tell, probably in proportion to what they receive. They receive very few complaints about the magazines philosophy or policies; most are about specific disagreements with a writer about something. Most of their readers find them useful and interesting, and their circulation has held up well despite the swing to A/V as a result. OK. But, as I said before, I suspect that the vast majority of their readership believes most of what they read in that magazine because the magazine caters to the audiophile tweak. I.e., those looking for the Holy Grail in sound and many of whom trade gear often looking for the ultimate system. I know one audiophile who buys and sells every year and each time he buys a new speaker or amp, etc. it is the very best of any available.... until he gets the next one. "They have taken quite a lot of heat recently regarding positive reviews of snake oil or poorly performing products." Only here on RAHE....not from the vast majority of their readers. RAHE includes intelligent independent thinkers who only ask for simple proof. See my comments above. Do you really think that John or the Publisher devise devious Letters to the Editors Policies just to ward off criticism from RAHE'rs. As far as I can see their Letters policy has been consistent for years and is totally in the mainstream of responsible journalism. I have no problems with their Letters policy. I never said I did! I simply offered an alternate possibility for why they publish negative letters. The problem I have is that the two of you are both speculating wildly as to their motives, and fantasizing up convoluted rationales as to why they publish the occasional really negative letter....when a much simpler motive is much more likely...because they are journalists and have a sense of professionalism about their work and about the magazine. If you and others don't like it, that's your prerogative. But "smearing" them with dubious motives that you concoct because you don't like them, subjective reviews, or their policies is just what I said... fairly paranoid, with only your personal opinion to back it up and no factual basis. As far as fantasies go, Harry, I hope I can do better than fantasize about an audio magazine. That would seem to be a characteristic more applicable to you. ;^) I do, however, resent the name-calling and I am certainly not "smearing" anyone. As to the facts, the magazines history speaks for itself. I see Michael stole my thunder in his post but, because I am tired of typing I will commit a bit of plagiarism with thanks and apologies to Michael. Fact: One of their reviewers couldn't hear what a piece of crap a wildly expensive tube amp was. Fact: SP has endorsed and helped promote audio mythology over the years on such topics as green pens, magic wire, and other non-operational nonsense. Fact: There has been a host of reason given for why such things as Shakti Stones haven't been better scrutinized. Fact: Their goofs are the stuff of legend. This has been fun but these will be my last comments on this particular topic. Again so as to be perfectly clear on the matter, the only expectation I have of any magazine is that they print scientifically accurate and verifiable articles. I know, many would fail this test. While a single or even a very small number of items might get by, continuing to perpetuate myths or unscientific claims about tweaks and equipment is at best a disservice. The simple answer to all this is to incorporate ABX testing ESPECIALLY on controversial tweaks. Of course if printing facts were what it is about then it would be happening already. Richard |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Michael McKelvy wrote:
I'm still convinced that aside from possible improvements in recording media, (what will be better than CD?) re-Recordable solid state storage media of a density which will allow me to carry data of CD resolution with the form factor of a USB flashdrive. 100 CD's worth of storage would be a good start, but I'm not greedy and would buy something with 50 CD's worth of density. Oh yeah, a price of about $35.00 would be nice. :-) michael |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
I'm still convinced that aside from possible improvements in recording
media, (what will be better than CD?) and loudspeaker design, (better drivers and DSP EQ), the high end is mostly about hype and myth. Until someone discovers a new principal of transduction we are going to be stuck with very imperfect sound reproducers. I would like to point out that my remarks concern only music produced by acoustic instruments playing music cast in the western art music form. I recognize that these remarks are possibly non-applicable to most popular music being performed today. Accordingly my views are almost certainly meaningless to the needs of most. That said I feel that without a doubt what the hi-end needs is to embrace multi-channel recording and playback. As far as I am concerned, if I want to hear a convincing recreation the sound of a symphony orchestra I have only to play a good DVD with a DTS track and I am there. The weight and texture of the bass, the sonic signature of the instruments and the ambiance of the recording venue are frequently reproduced with startling immediacy! It's a rare classical CD which has proper weight in the bass registers. I speak with a bit of authority here. My daughter and my wife are concert flute players. My other daughters boy friend is an accomplished saxophonist. We have frequent visits by instrumentalists who frequently pass their time by concretizing in my home. When I am home I experience at least 4 hours of live acoustic music per day! I am a subscriber to the Met Opera and frequently attend symphony orchestra concerts and organ recitals. With all this I think that I know what live acoustic music sounds like. Shortly after I cancelled my Sterophile subscription I had the misfortune of attending as a guest, one of Sterophiles Hi-End shows (in midtown Manhattan.) After spending 4 hours listening to a variety of systems from "budget" to almost six digits my wife and I agreed that not one single one of them sounded even vaguely musical! Most could be described as HORRIBLE. I can recall stumbling into a demo room where a live guitarist was playing. After the screeching scratching, booming we had been suffering all afternoon what a relief. My present multichannel home set up featuring Definitive Tech Bi-polars is "musical". I am dammed sure it's not "accurate" I am positive that it modifies the sources acoustic venue and violates most of the Hi-End dictates... BUT its MUSICAL and I don't care! Isn't that the whole purpose of the exercise? Richard Smith |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
... Michael McKelvy wrote: How do you take seriously, a magazine where one of their speaker measurement people openly admits in the current issue that he just learned about ground plane measurements LAST SPRING! While I have no wish to argue with your opinions of Stereophile, Mr. McKelvy, it is fair to point out that there is no such admission in the January issue. What there is a tutorial article written by Keith Howard on accurately measuring the lower-frequency performance of loudspeakers, in connection with asessing the farfield impact of cabinet resonances. And in this tutorial, Mr. Howard states on page 68 "It was on a trip to Harman International's headquarters in Northridge, California, last summer that a better approach hove into view. While on a whistle-stop tour of the JBL Professioanl division, I was shown the roof space where they preform bass measurements using Mark Gander's ground plane technique, developed at JBL in the early 1980's." Is it unresonable to ask why it took so long for Mr. Howard to become aware of this method? Is it unreasoanble to ask why subjective reviews by people the reader is expected to believe can hear reasonably well would praise a speaker that like the Kaya mentioned below, have such horrific frequency response? If I am incorrect in stating that he does speaker measurements for you rmagazine I apologize. He does list himself and you as reviewers who measure loudspeakers, so it seems a fair statement. Part 2 of this article, scheduled to appear in the April issue, examines the success (or lack thereof) of practical, non-anechoic measurement techniques in uncovering speaker aberrations between 100Hz and 500Hz. Am I correct in my understanding that SP does not have an anechoic chamber? If not, why not? Perhaps if SP had such a facility there wouldn't be a review of speakers like Innersound's Kaya, that praises the spaeker's performance but asks for more bass clarity in the deepest bass, and also says its bass driver didn't provide the expected impact. This clearly flies in the face of the measurement of it's anechoic frequency response in fig. 6 page 97 of the December issue, where there is clearly a monstorous peak escalating from around 6 kHz ending at 60 Hz. The response shown is at aprox. -18 at 6 kHz and +8 at 60 Hz! This is not what one would expect in a speaker selling for $20,000.00. Such contradictions, IMO show something is incredibly wrong somewhere. Either the reviewers need to spend more time listening to what accurate frequency response sounds like,or the measurements are completely screwy. Perhaps a reference speaker system should be in place for comparison on all reviews. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"michael" wrote in message
... Michael McKelvy wrote: I'm still convinced that aside from possible improvements in recording media, (what will be better than CD?) re-Recordable solid state storage media of a density which will allow me to carry data of CD resolution with the form factor of a USB flashdrive. 100 CD's worth of storage would be a good start, but I'm not greedy and would buy something with 50 CD's worth of density. Oh yeah, a price of about $35.00 would be nice. :-) michael When I said better, I was speaking of sound quality, but certainly there is a case to be made for improved portability. Personally I would miss the cover art. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Michael McKelvy wrote:
wrote in message ... Michael McKelvy wrote: How do you take seriously, a magazine where one of their speaker measurement people openly admits in the current issue that he just learned about ground plane measurements LAST SPRING! While I have no wish to argue with your opinions of Stereophile, Mr. McKelvy, it is fair to point out that there is no such admission in the January issue. What there is a tutorial article written by Keith Howard on accurately measuring the lower-frequency performance of loudspeakers, in connection with asessing the farfield impact of cabinet resonances. And in this tutorial, Mr. Howard states on page 68 "It was on a trip to Harman International's headquarters in Northridge, California, last summer that a better approach hove into view. While on a whistle-stop tour of the JBL Professioanl division, I was shown the roof space where they perform bass measurements using Mark Gander's ground plane technique, developed at JBL in the early 1980's." Is it unresonable to ask why it took so long for Mr. Howard to become aware of this method? Where in th text you quoted it is stated that Keith Howard "just" became aware of ground-plane measurements. He states that in his visit he was "shown" where Harman perform their ground-plane measurements. That does not mean he was unaware of the technique before then. That is your interpretation, Mr. McKelvy. I note that you have now posted this incorrect interpretation to various newsgroups on 5 separate occasions; that still doesn't make it correct. Is it unreasoanble to ask why subjective reviews by people the reader is expected to believe can hear reasonably well would praise a speaker that like the Kaya mentioned below, [has] such horrific frequency response? As I have repeatedly said in the maagazine and on the website, a speaker's frequency response needs to be measured in the farfield and this is not possible for a physically large speaker without access to a very large anechoic chamber. All my measurements of such speakers are published with this caution. When possible, I perform in-room measurements also; for the Innersound Kaya, I did so for the similarly sized Eros; you can find that measuement online in our free archives. Am I correct in my understanding that SP does not have an anechoic chamber? If not, why not? Because the capital investment in such a chamber and the real estate is beyond the magazine's financial capability, unfortunately. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Christine Allison" wrote in message
... I'm still convinced that aside from possible improvements in recording media, (what will be better than CD?) and loudspeaker design, (better drivers and DSP EQ), the high end is mostly about hype and myth. Until someone discovers a new principal of transduction we are going to be stuck with very imperfect sound reproducers. No arguement there. I would like to point out that my remarks concern only music produced by acoustic instruments playing music cast in the western art music form. I recognize that these remarks are possibly non-applicable to most popular music being performed today. Accordingly my views are almost certainly meaningless to the needs of most. That said I feel that without a doubt what the hi-end needs is to embrace multi-channel recording and playback. As far as I am concerned, if I want to hear a convincing recreation the sound of a symphony orchestra I have only to play a good DVD with a DTS track and I am there. The weight and texture of the bass, the sonic signature of the instruments and the ambiance of the recording venue are frequently reproduced with startling immediacy! Multichanel systems are becoming, (if not already) the dominant systems people are buying. Maybe not those who consider themselves to be highenders. It's coming for sure, even SP has a Home Theatre magazine. It's a rare classical CD which has proper weight in the bass registers. I don't know if many people have the capability to reproduce it, if it were. I speak with a bit of authority here. My daughter and my wife are concert flute players. My other daughters boy friend is an accomplished saxophonist. We have frequent visits by instrumentalists who frequently pass their time by concretizing in my home. When I am home I experience at least 4 hours of live acoustic music per day! I am a subscriber to the Met Opera and frequently attend symphony orchestra concerts and organ recitals. With all this I think that I know what live acoustic music sounds like. Shortly after I cancelled my Sterophile subscription I had the misfortune of attending as a guest, one of Sterophiles Hi-End shows (in midtown Manhattan.) After spending 4 hours listening to a variety of systems from "budget" to almost six digits my wife and I agreed that not one single one of them sounded even vaguely musical! Most could be described as HORRIBLE. They do seem to have a wierd dichotomy in claiming to represent the high end but their reviewers seem to gush over stuff that anybody looking for accurate reproduction would never own. I do have to ammend some earlier comments on their speaker measurements of speakers. Apparently they do them better than I thought, indeed they do them as well as anybody from what I am told by an authoritative source. Thanks Tom. I can recall stumbling into a demo room where a live guitarist was playing. After the screeching scratching, booming we had been suffering all afternoon what a relief. My present multichannel home set up featuring Definitive Tech Bi-polars is "musical". I am dammed sure it's not "accurate" I am positive that it modifies the sources acoustic venue and violates most of the Hi-End dictates... BUT its MUSICAL and I don't care! Isn't that the whole purpose of the exercise? Depends on your point of view. If you want something that pleases you for reasons unrelated to accuracy, you get it. If you want a system that produces sound from your recorded media that is accurate, you look for different things. IME, speakers with flat FR have always sounded better than those that don't have it. You might wish to augment those Def Tech's with a good subwoofer and then see how that bass sounds. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Depends on your point of view. If you want something that pleases you for
reasons unrelated to accuracy, you get it. If you want a system that produces sound from your recorded media that is accurate, you look for different things. After concert going for five decades one thing I have discovered is that every seat in the house provides a different musical prospective! If that is the case how can anyone claim that one Hi-Fi system is more accurate then another? In the ideal situation would be a direct wired connection providing the aural and tactile information directly to the listeners nerve circuits. This would impart exactly what the mike heard. Everything outside of that is an approximation. I think this is where the entire notion of "accurate" music reproduction in the home falls flat. It's impossible to achieve. I have recordings of my wife and daughter playing the flute in my listening room. When played back these recordings don't have the richness and complexities of the actual live playing. That's why I say the Definitive Tech's are musical. They produce a pleasing approximation of what the actual musical event sounded like. With the addition of ambiance tracks this approximation becomes even more convincing. Some DTS movie soundtracks reproduce with great (figurative and literal) impact. I think that's because they capture the ESSENCE of the musical happening but not the actual event it's self. IME, speakers with flat FR have always sounded better than those that don't have it. That's really not true. The response should smoothly slope downward into the treble It's the presence of peaks in the response that's the killer. A 5 db or higher peak/null grossly effects the coloration of a given speaker and badly distorts the program source. If you stop to think of it flat response differs from the way we hear things. When she is playing in a symphonic ensemble my daughters piccolo sounds very loud. However it's actual output is less then that of a string bass. The fact of the matter is that from the standpoint of frequency we don't hear things in a liner fashion. A 32 foot organ pipe needs a powerful blower to sound as load as a hi pitched pipe blown by a few cubic inches of air per second. Since perceived loudness is logarithmic it becomes obvious that it is very difficult to properly trannsduce into a remote listening environment. You might wish to augment those Def Tech's with a good subwoofer and then see how that bass sounds. One year ago I sold my fourth and last sub woofer. It was a big SVS cylindrical affair that could produce meaningful output to 16hz. This monster had been proceeded by a Velodyne, Definitive-Tech and an Infinity. The one generalization I can make is that it is extraordinarily difficult to match the sub to the mains. I found that the gain in response was plagued by some many other issues that (on balance) made it not worth it. My present Definitive Techs each have a powered woofer/subwoofer section incorporated into the cabinetry. The reason I bought this model (2002TL) is that the bass is psudo transmission line loaded. If you know much about woofers this is the best (short of a real TL) to deal with the out of phase backwave. The results speak for themselves powerful bass to 25 hz and meaningful response to about 22. More importantly, when properly set up the bass is beautifully smooth, controlled and integrated. Richard Smith |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
John A. Lichtenberger wrote:
wrote: When possible, I perform in-room measurements also; for the Innersound Kaya, I did so for the similarly sized Eros; you can find that measuement online in our free archives. "Doctor... I believe only a human heart transplant will work for this patient." "Ah.. yes Mr. Basco, that's true, but we only have rat hearts available, and seeing as they serve the same basic physiologic function, I believe we'll proceed accordingly..." I am not sure I grasp your point, Mr. Lichtenberger. The Innersound Kaya uses a very similar, large electrostatic panel to that used in the same manufacturer's Eros, which behaves identically with respect to dispersion and the nearfield vs farfield argument. Looking at the Eros' in-room measurement thus gives a very good idea of the Kaya's response in the frequency region covered by the panel in the same room. One would wonder what the relevance of a non-farfield measurement could be...other than to give the impression of some sort of scientific evaluation??? Would you prefer that I do what other magazines do, Mr. Lichtenberger, which is not to give the reader _any_ indication that the measurement has of necessity been taken with some practical restrictions? I prefer to supply that information so the restrictions be taken into consideration when the measured response is examined. If your criticism of my measurements is valid, then it is even more so when applied to those published in other magazines. You should note that in the case of the Kaya, the response I publish is averaged over a 30-degree horizontal listening window. With a speaker with such limited dispersion in this pane as the Kaya, the effect of the measuring microphone not being in farfield will be exaggerated by the enormous HF rolloff to the speaker's sides. There is also the practical matter that with a speaker using a radiating element with a large dimension, the listener is also going to sit to some extent in the nearfield, unless she has a very large room. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Christine Allison wrote:
Depends on your point of view. If you want something that pleases you for reasons unrelated to accuracy, you get it. If you want a system that produces sound from your recorded media that is accurate, you look for different things. After concert going for five decades one thing I have discovered is that every seat in the house provides a different musical prospective! If that is the case how can anyone claim that one Hi-Fi system is more accurate then another? Because they define accuracy differently than you are using the term here. From the point of view that you quote, accuracy means, "fidelity to the recording." It's the job of the person making the recording to capture, as best he can, the ambience of the live event. Assuming he does, an audio system should preserve that, as much as possible. (And if he doesn't, there's no hope of putting it back.) In the ideal situation would be a direct wired connection providing the aural and tactile information directly to the listeners nerve circuits. This would impart exactly what the mike heard. Everything outside of that is an approximation. I think this is where the entire notion of "accurate" music reproduction in the home falls flat. It's impossible to achieve. I have recordings of my wife and daughter playing the flute in my listening room. When played back these recordings don't have the richness and complexities of the actual live playing. There are probably a lot of reasons for that, but one of them is surely that your audio system is not as attractive as either of the women in your life! That's why I say the Definitive Tech's are musical. They produce a pleasing approximation of what the actual musical event sounded like. No, they don't. What they actually do is evoke in you the sensation that you are listening to AN actual musical event. Unless you were there, you have no idea what THE actual musical event sounded like. Plus, you've already contradicted this point twice: First, when you noted that THE event differs, depending on where you sit. And second, when you complained that your system COULDN'T reproduce the actual musical event when the actual musical event had just played right in front of you. One thing you are right about is that there is no necessary correlation between technical accuracy, as I defined it above, and the evoking of the sensation that you are listening to an actual musical event. It's quite possible that for many listeners, a less accurate system will do a better job of promoting what the lit-crit folks call "a willing suspension of disbelief." But you should also be aware that there is research (see references to Floyd Toole earlier in this thread) that finds that most people do indeed prefer speakers which are more technically accurate. With the addition of ambiance tracks this approximation becomes even more convincing. Some DTS movie soundtracks reproduce with great (figurative and literal) impact. I think that's because they capture the ESSENCE of the musical happening but not the actual event it's self. It may also be because they are accompanied by video, which will certainly add to any sense of realism. bob |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Michael McKelvy wrote:
Am I correct in my understanding that SP does not have an anechoic chamber? If not, why not? To be fair to the good Mr. Atkinson, have you priced what an anechoic chamber meeting the requirements you outline would cost? Assume you're looking for a lower limiting frequency of 20 Hz. That defines the MINIMUM absorber size needed to achieve the needed absorbtion at 20 Hz. You'd need wedges at least 14 feet deep. Now, assume you'll be placing the object to be tested in the center of the chamber, and that you want to measure reasonable far field response, say, at 10 feet from the device. You'll want to stay at least another 1/4 wavelength away from the wedges to minimize residual diffraction and reflection effects. That the defines the minimum free volume of the chamber as having a radius of 10+14 feet, meaning the total free volume is 28x28x28, or some 22,000 cubic feet. Add to that the wedges, and you have a volme 56x56x56 feet. At 175,000 cubic feet, it would probably be one of the 20 largest acoustic anechoic chambers in the world. As such, expect to pay in the MILLIONS of dollars for such a contrivance. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ...
Christine Allison wrote: Depends on your point of view. If you want something that pleases you for reasons unrelated to accuracy, you get it. If you want a system that produces sound from your recorded media that is accurate, you look for different things. After concert going for five decades one thing I have discovered is that every seat in the house provides a different musical prospective! If that is the case how can anyone claim that one Hi-Fi system is more accurate then another? Because they define accuracy differently than you are using the term here. From the point of view that you quote, accuracy means, "fidelity to the recording." It's the job of the person making the recording to capture, as best he can, the ambience of the live event. Assuming he does, an audio system should preserve that, as much as possible. (And if he doesn't, there's no hope of putting it back.) No, not exactly, the man is absolutely correct. My Maggies sound more like my preferred seat than do any Martin-Logans, given any particular recording and its captured ambience. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"Christine Allison" wrote in message
... Depends on your point of view. If you want something that pleases you for reasons unrelated to accuracy, you get it. If you want a system that produces sound from your recorded media that is accurate, you look for different things. After concert going for five decades one thing I have discovered is that every seat in the house provides a different musical prospective! If that is the case how can anyone claim that one Hi-Fi system is more accurate then another? Bravo! Here is an individual who knows what he/she is talking about. That's exactly why the "layman" (read: non-audiophile) finally gets a subscription at a preferred location and keeps it. You don't have to buy into wires, cables (and a lot of chazzerei; see http:stillfree.com, if necessary) to know this is indeed the case. The Hi-Fi systems one auditions in stores and then finds acceptable at home IS the one you keep. Perhaps improvements come along and the hobbyist dabbles around to see whether or not they add to, detract from, or make no difference in mimicking the sound heard from this preferred seat in a given hall. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
John A. Lichtenberger" wrote in
message : John Atkinson wrote in message John A. Lichtenberger" wrote: ... As I have repeatedly said in the magazine and on the website, a speaker's frequency response needs to be measured in the farfield and this is not possible for a physically large speaker without access to a very large anechoic chamber. All my measurements of such speakers are published with this caution. You say, on the one hand, that a large speaker needs to be measured in the farfield, but you can't do this...then you say you made a nearfield measurement of a large speaker, here are the results, and here are my conclusions that support my argument. Not exactly a rigorous scientific method here. My apologies if my language was not sufficently clear, Mr. Lichtenberger. What I have written is that with _any_ speaker, the measuring microphone needs to be in that speaker's farfield if its "frequency response" is to be accurately characterized. It is generally assumed that if the distance to that microphone is a few multiples of the speaker's largest dimension, the farfield requirement has been met. However, with a physically large speaker, that condition cannot be met under practical conditions. The measured response will therefore be affected to some extent by this factor; a proximity effect will exist which will tend to result in a sloped-down response, just as described by Mr. McKelvy in the posting to which I was originally responding. If you wish technical data reported in Stereophile to be taken seriously, at least don't contradict your own argument in the same paragraph. I don't believe I am contradicting myself, Mr. Lichtenberger, merely stating the practical limitations of the measurements. If your criticism of my measurements is valid, then it is even more so when applied to those published in other magazines. Never said it wasn't. So, if the other magazines are doing it wrong, you should too? I didn't say others are "doing it wrong." Instead, I noted that without access to a very large anechoic chamber, speaker measurements performed and published by others are subject to the same limitations. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"Christine Allison" wrote in message
... Depends on your point of view. If you want something that pleases you for reasons unrelated to accuracy, you get it. If you want a system that produces sound from your recorded media that is accurate, you look for different things. After concert going for five decades one thing I have discovered is that every seat in the house provides a different musical prospective! If that is the case how can anyone claim that one Hi-Fi system is more accurate then another? In the ideal situation would be a direct wired connection providing the aural and tactile information directly to the listeners nerve circuits. This would impart exactly what the mike heard. Everything outside of that is an approximation. I think this is where the entire notion of "accurate" music reproduction in the home falls flat. It's impossible to achieve. I have recordings of my wife and daughter playing the flute in my listening room. When played back these recordings don't have the richness and complexities of the actual live playing. That's why I say the Definitive Tech's are musical. They produce a pleasing approximation of what the actual musical event sounded like. With the addition of ambiance tracks this approximation becomes even more convincing. Some DTS movie soundtracks reproduce with great (figurative and literal) impact. I think that's because they capture the ESSENCE of the musical happening but not the actual event it's self. IME, speakers with flat FR have always sounded better than those that don't have it. That's really not true. You missed the part about MY EXPERIENCE? IME speakers with flat FR sound better. The response should smoothly slope downward into the treble It's the presence of peaks in the response that's the killer. The 2 work hand in hand IMO. I want flat FR with a nice smooth rolloff off axis. A 5 db or higher peak/null grossly effects the coloration of a given speaker and badly distorts the program source. If you stop to think of it flat response differs from the way we hear things. When she is playing in a symphonic ensemble my daughters piccolo sounds very loud. However it's actual output is less then that of a string bass. The fact of the matter is that from the standpoint of frequency we don't hear things in a liner fashion. A 32 foot organ pipe needs a powerful blower to sound as load as a hi pitched pipe blown by a few cubic inches of air per second. Since perceived loudness is logarithmic it becomes obvious that it is very difficult to properly trannsduce into a remote listening environment. You aparently don't understand what I mean by flat FR. I mean a speaker that produces the same spl for each frequency given the same electrical input. If the speaker produces one frequency louder with one watt of power than it does others, it's not as good a a speaker that does. You might wish to augment those Def Tech's with a good subwoofer and then see how that bass sounds. One year ago I sold my fourth and last sub woofer. It was a big SVS cylindrical affair that could produce meaningful output to 16hz. This monster had been proceeded by a Velodyne, Definitive-Tech and an Infinity. The one generalization I can make is that it is extraordinarily difficult to match the sub to the mains. Then I believe you are doing it wrong. I found that the gain in response was plagued by some many other issues that (on balance) made it not worth it. My present Definitive Techs each have a powered woofer/subwoofer section incorporated into the cabinetry. The reason I bought this model (2002TL) is that the bass is psudo transmission line loaded. If you know much about woofers this is the best (short of a real TL) to deal with the out of phase backwave. In your opinion. I have a bass reflex sub that gives me all the bass I want and doesn't over power the other sound from the mains. The results speak for themselves powerful bass to 25 hz and meaningful response to about 22. More importantly, when properly set up the bass is beautifully smooth, controlled and integrated. Richard Smith Sounds like the same results I get with 2 sats and a sub. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
... Michael McKelvy wrote: wrote in message ... Michael McKelvy wrote: How do you take seriously, a magazine where one of their speaker measurement people openly admits in the current issue that he just learned about ground plane measurements LAST SPRING! While I have no wish to argue with your opinions of Stereophile, Mr. McKelvy, it is fair to point out that there is no such admission in the January issue. What there is a tutorial article written by Keith Howard on accurately measuring the lower-frequency performance of loudspeakers, in connection with asessing the farfield impact of cabinet resonances. And in this tutorial, Mr. Howard states on page 68 "It was on a trip to Harman International's headquarters in Northridge, California, last summer that a better approach hove into view. While on a whistle-stop tour of the JBL Professioanl division, I was shown the roof space where they perform bass measurements using Mark Gander's ground plane technique, developed at JBL in the early 1980's." Is it unresonable to ask why it took so long for Mr. Howard to become aware of this method? Where in th text you quoted it is stated that Keith Howard "just" became aware of ground-plane measurements. He states that in his visit he was "shown" where Harman perform their ground-plane measurements. That does not mean he was unaware of the technique before then. The way it is written it seems that this was a revelation to him. It seemed to me that this was not a technique he had previously employed. That is your interpretation, Mr. McKelvy. I note that you have now posted this incorrect interpretation to various newsgroups on 5 separate occasions; that still doesn't make it correct. You will also note that I have admitted to being incorrect in my assesment of SP's measurements in another thread. I do so here once more. I am informed now that SP does very thourough and complete measurements that are as good as any done in the audio press. Is it unreasoanble to ask why subjective reviews by people the reader is expected to believe can hear reasonably well would praise a speaker that like the Kaya mentioned below, [has] such horrific frequency response? As I have repeatedly said in the maagazine and on the website, a speaker's frequency response needs to be measured in the farfield and this is not possible for a physically large speaker without access to a very large anechoic chamber. All my measurements of such speakers are published with this caution. When possible, I perform in-room measurements also; for the Innersound Kaya, I did so for the similarly sized Eros; you can find that measuement online in our free archives. The Kaya is but one example of speakers that have gross bass bumps that get favorable reviews. Am I correct in my understanding that SP does not have an anechoic chamber? If not, why not? Because the capital investment in such a chamber and the real estate is beyond the magazine's financial capability, unfortunately. As Mr. Pierce has detailed, such a facility would be expensive. I have also learned that Madisound doesn't actually have a full fledged anechoic chamber. Would it be cost prohibitive for SP to obtain a set of reference speakers, that have flat FR and good off axis performance, so that your reviewers could have them for comparison? This seems like it might yield better reviews, with less praised heaped on speakers that have what would generally be considered ragged performance. Your magazine gave a very good review to the Merlin VSM, (I'd be surprised if they didn't) which has excellent FR and of axis response and is in the world of high end audio, not outrageously expensive. It would IMO, be a very good service and possibly a very popular feature if you could provide an occasional review of some of the DIY components that are available. There are kits that cover a variety of interests and skill levels. Tube kits seem to be quite popular and there are many resources for them as well as for SS gear. A few of the speaker kits IMO deserve to be reviewed for a wider audience than they currently enjoy. North Creek, SEAS, Scan-Speak, and some others all have kits that have been given praise in other places, not to mention the Orion kit from Linkwitz Labs. I would love to see more hands on by audiophiles, so that they might both learn and have something worthwhile to show from the effort. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Perhaps improvements come
along and the hobbyist dabbles around to see whether or not they add to, detract from, or make no difference in mimicking the sound heard from this preferred seat in a given hall. During the age of LP records endless debates raged regarding the optimum cartridge/arm combination. The English firm Decca London manufactured a very iconoclastic cartridge in which the stylus jewel was mounted on a vertical tube. Yes the transducing armature was perpendicular to the record. It goes without saying that such an arrangement guaranteed exact tracing of the groove as it had been recorded by a recording head because they both had exactly the same geometry. I bought a Decca London fro Lyric Hi-fi and mounted it on a Rabco tangential tracking servo controlled arm. In theory this arrangement should have provided perfect transduction from edge to center. For the debut of this combination I played the opening chorus of the Harnancourt (sp) recording of the St. Matthew Passion. I was startled at what emerged from my speakers! Without a doubt the reproduction of that band was superior to anything I had heard up to that time and I suspect better then anything I have heard to date. Unfortunately that's the only good thing I can say about the Decca London. It could not track it's way out of a paper bag was horribly fragile and given to hum. The point I am making is that one must select components that play pleasingly MOST of the time. Not some temperamental engineering extravaganza. Richard Smith |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
... Michael McKelvy wrote: wrote in message ... Michael McKelvy wrote: How do you take seriously, a magazine where one of their speaker measurement people openly admits in the current issue that he just learned about ground plane measurements LAST SPRING! While I have no wish to argue with your opinions of Stereophile, Mr. McKelvy, it is fair to point out that there is no such admission in the January issue. What there is a tutorial article written by Keith Howard on accurately measuring the lower-frequency performance of loudspeakers, in connection with asessing the farfield impact of cabinet resonances. And in this tutorial, Mr. Howard states on page 68 "It was on a trip to Harman International's headquarters in Northridge, California, last summer that a better approach hove into view. While on a whistle-stop tour of the JBL Professioanl division, I was shown the roof space where they perform bass measurements using Mark Gander's ground plane technique, developed at JBL in the early 1980's." Is it unresonable to ask why it took so long for Mr. Howard to become aware of this method? Where in th text you quoted it is stated that Keith Howard "just" became aware of ground-plane measurements. He states that in his visit he was "shown" where Harman perform their ground-plane measurements. That does not mean he was unaware of the technique before then. That is your interpretation, Mr. McKelvy. I note that you have now posted this incorrect interpretation to various newsgroups on 5 separate occasions; that still doesn't make it correct. Is it unreasoanble to ask why subjective reviews by people the reader is expected to believe can hear reasonably well would praise a speaker that like the Kaya mentioned below, [has] such horrific frequency response? As I have repeatedly said in the maagazine and on the website, a speaker's frequency response needs to be measured in the farfield and this is not possible for a physically large speaker without access to a very large anechoic chamber. All my measurements of such speakers are published with this caution. When possible, I perform in-room measurements also; for the Innersound Kaya, I did so for the similarly sized Eros; you can find that measuement online in our free archives. Am I correct in my understanding that SP does not have an anechoic chamber? If not, why not? Because the capital investment in such a chamber and the real estate is beyond the magazine's financial capability, unfortunately. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Have you ever thought about using a TEF analyzer? It can measure the frequency response with a swept sine wave and a time window can be set to only include first arrival of the sound, thereby ignoring reflections. The sine wave and a digital filter are tuned to the same frequency, by the time the reflections arrive, the filter is already tuned to the "current" frequency and rejects the reflection. I have compared the results of the TEF analyzer (living room conditions) with manufacturer's published anechoic chamber measurements, and they are very close. Regular RTA was totally different and more a reflection of the reflections. You can also measure the frequency response of the reflections, which can reveal room difficulties. And it's affordable! Michael |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Hasenpfeffer wrote:
wrote in message ... As I have repeatedly said in the maagazine and on the website, a speaker's frequency response needs to be measured in the farfield and this is not possible for a physically large speaker without access to a very large anechoic chamber. All my measurements of such speakers are published with this caution... Have you ever thought about using a TEF analyzer? It can measure the frequency response with a swept sine wave and a time window can be set to only include first arrival of the sound, thereby ignoring reflections. All in-room measurement techniques -- TEF, MLSSA, LEAP -- suffer from the problem I mentioned above. All trade-off practicability against the need to window out room reflections, which in turn places restrictions on how far away the microphone can be placed from the speaker and on how accurate the resultant response can be. This is examined in depth in the Keith Howard article that was criticized by Mr. McKelvy --- see http://www.stereophile.com/features/105kh/. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
I'd be happy to get a frequency response starting at 200 Hz. Anything below
that is up to chance in any given room anyway. The TEF can do a pretty good job with that. Perhaps a nearfield graph below 200 Hz? wrote in message ... Hasenpfeffer wrote: wrote in message ... As I have repeatedly said in the maagazine and on the website, a speaker's frequency response needs to be measured in the farfield and this is not possible for a physically large speaker without access to a very large anechoic chamber. All my measurements of such speakers are published with this caution... Have you ever thought about using a TEF analyzer? It can measure the frequency response with a swept sine wave and a time window can be set to only include first arrival of the sound, thereby ignoring reflections. All in-room measurement techniques -- TEF, MLSSA, LEAP -- suffer from the problem I mentioned above. All trade-off practicability against the need to window out room reflections, which in turn places restrictions on how far away the microphone can be placed from the speaker and on how accurate the resultant response can be. This is examined in depth in the Keith Howard article that was criticized by Mr. McKelvy --- see http://www.stereophile.com/features/105kh/. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Hasenpfeffer wrote:
wrote Hasenpfeffer wrote: Have you ever thought about using a TEF analyzer? It can measure the frequency response with a swept sine wave and a time window can be set to only include first arrival of the sound, thereby ignoring reflections. All in-room measurement techniques -- TEF, MLSSA, LEAP -- suffer from the problem I mentioned above. All trade-off practicability against the need to window out room reflections, which in turn places restrictions on how far away the microphone can be placed from the speaker and on how accurate the resultant response can be. I'd be happy to get a frequency response starting at 200 Hz... The TEF can do a pretty good job with that. I think you are still missing my point. If you want to measure a speaker in-room, you need to window out the reflections from room boundaries. It's simple geometry: The farther away from the speaker you place your microphone -- and remember this discussion involves assessing the farfield response of phyically large speakers -- the more closely in time the reflections follow the direct sound of the speaker and the more aggressively you have to window the data, resulting in a response that is meaningless below a much higher frequency than 200Hz. Conversely, if you put the microphone close to the speaker, to get better resolution and meaningful data at a frequency as low as 200Hz, you are no longer in a large speaker's farfield, and your measured resposnse will suffer from proximity effect. All gated in-room measurements techniques are affected by these factors and TEF is no better than the others in this respect. I use DRA Labs MLSSA, which I have found to be better in other ways than TEF, BTW. My preference is to go with the latter compromise, and it is that to which Mr, McKelvy was objecting. Perhaps a nearfield graph below 200 Hz? If you read any of the loudspeakers reviews in Stereophile, reprinted in our free online archives at www.stereophile.com, you will see that I do use nearfield measurements below 300Hz. But nearfield measurements has its own set of compromises, one being the problem presented by multiple radiators covering the same range, the other being the inherent assumption of a 2pi acoustic environment for those drivers. The point I am making is that without access to a very large, hence very expensive anechoic chamber, measuring a loudspeaker's "frequency response" is not a trivial matter, and involves necessary compromises. You can read my articles on this subject starting at www.stereophile.com/reference/99/ . John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Michael & Richard,
IME, speakers with flat FR have always sounded better than those that don't have it. That's really not true. You missed the part about MY EXPERIENCE? IME speakers with flat FR sound better. The response should smoothly slope downward into the treble It's the presence of peaks in the response that's the killer. The 2 work hand in hand IMO. I want flat FR with a nice smooth rolloff off axis. The problem here is that you are both correct, but are talking about different things. Michael is talking about the anechoic frequency response of a speaker, and Richard is talking about the in-room frequency response of a speaker at the listening position. The response of a "flat" speaker will not be "flat" at the listening position, but, ignoring the peaks and dips caused by the room modes, it will have a downward slope from the low to high frequencies. If you stop to think of it flat response differs from the way we hear things. When she is playing in a symphonic ensemble my daughters piccolo sounds very loud. However it's actual output is less then that of a string bass. The fact of the matter is that from the standpoint of frequency we don't hear things in a liner fashion. The Fletcher-Munson "Equal Loudness Contours" apply only to our ears, not speakers and microphones. We are recording the sound as it occurred, not as we heard it. If it is reproduced as it occurred, we will hear it correctly even though we don't have "flat" hearing. That is, we also would have heard the original performance with our "non-flat" ears. I believe the Fletcher-Munson contours really only apply when we are listening at a different SPL than what we would have heard at the original performance. Regards, Tip |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Stereophile Tries To Come Clean About The DiAural Fiasco | Audio Opinions | |||
Anyone have the Stereophile test LP | Pro Audio | |||
Free Stereophile, Absolute Sound | Marketplace | |||
FS: Back issues of Stereophile | Marketplace | |||
FS: Back issues of Stereophile | Marketplace |