Loudness Matching - is it important?

[Arny Krueger]

Audio Bandwidth Extension: Application of Psychoacoustics, Signal
Processing and Loudspeaker Design
Erik R. Larsen, Ronald M. Aarts
November 2004
ISBN: 0-470-85864-8

pp 40-41:

"For example, to evaluate
certain low-frequency enhancement algorithms (discussed in Chapter 2),
one might want
to subjectively compare a processed signal reproduced on a flat-panel
loudspeaker with
an unprocessed signal on a high-quality electrodynamic loudspeaker.
Loudness matching
across loudspeakers is especially important as it is well known that a
higher reproduction
level, or loudness level, of a loudspeaker can lead to a higher
appreciation score than
that of another one of the same quality, or even the same loudspeaker.

"The importance of
equal-loudness levels of the sounds being compared is shown by a
striking investigation of
From Physics to Psychophysics 41 Illenyi and Korpassy [116]. They
found that the rank order of the loudspeakers, according to the
subjective quality judgements, was in good agreement with the rank
order obtained by the corresponding calculated loudness.

"In Aarts [4], it was found that the ISO 532B method was the most
suitable of the
two ISO methods to adjust interloudness levels of loudspeakers, while
the simple Bweighting
gave the most satisfactory results of all the tested methods (both ISO
and
A-D weightings).

"The widely used A-weighting gave poor results, though (see related
comments in Sec. 1.4.4.2). It was also found that loudness levels were
hardly influenced
by the choice of the repertoire, more specifically that a varied
repertoire, on average,
sounds equally loud, as was computed for pink noise. This considerably
facilitates the
computation of appropriate loudness levels if multiple loudspeakers
are used.

[Robert Morein]

For loudspeakers, loudness matching is not important, unless comparison
units are in a dead heat. I have never witnessed this with respect to
speakers, though for other components, it can be a very valid consideration.

For speakers, is only necessary that the user be provided with a novel
device, called a "remote volume control", that allows him to adjust the
volume to his pleasure.

The user can simply decide which loudspeaker he prefers, and chuck the
losers.

[Arny Krueger]

Robert Morein wrote:

> For loudspeakers, loudness matching is not important, unless
> comparison units are in a dead heat.

I've never heard two loudspeakers in a dead heat.


>I have never witnessed this with
> respect to speakers, though for other components, it can be a very
> valid consideration.

Apparenly you've never heard a closely-matched comparison between two
loudspeakers.

> For speakers, is only necessary that the user be provided with a
novel
> device, called a "remote volume control", that allows him to adjust
> the volume to his pleasure.

Seems like a good way to blow off the comparison by allowing trivial
audible differences to be easily introduced.

> The user can simply decide which loudspeaker he prefers, and chuck
the
> losers.

Based on which one is louder or softer or what?

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Morein wrote:
>
> > For loudspeakers, loudness matching is not important, unless
> > comparison units are in a dead heat.
>
> I've never heard two loudspeakers in a dead heat.
>
>
> >I have never witnessed this with
> > respect to speakers, though for other components, it can be a very
> > valid consideration.
>
> Apparenly you've never heard a closely-matched comparison between two
> loudspeakers.
>
Arny, you're so argumentative, you've just contradicted yourself. First you
agree with me by saying, "I've never heard two loudspeakers in a dead
heat.", and then you blow yourself up.

> > For speakers, is only necessary that the user be provided with a
> novel
> > device, called a "remote volume control", that allows him to adjust
> > the volume to his pleasure.
>
> Seems like a good way to blow off the comparison by allowing trivial
> audible differences to be easily introduced.
>
> > The user can simply decide which loudspeaker he prefers, and chuck
> the
> > losers.
>
> Based on which one is louder or softer or what?
>
Based on which he likes more.

[Howard Ferstler]

Robert Morein wrote:
>
> For loudspeakers, loudness matching is not important, unless comparison
> units are in a dead heat.

Nonsense. Level matching is very important.

However, it is also difficult to do with speakers that have
differing response curves. If one matches at a specific
frequency, and one speaker is loud at that frequency,
compared to what we have with its average level, and the
other speaker is not so loud at that frequency, compared to
what its average level is, then the comparison goes down the
tubes.

The best way to level match speakers is to do an RTA readout
of each and then adjust levels so that the curves overlap as
much as possible. However, a good second choice is to use an
SPL meter with a pink-noise source and then adjust levels
for a match. While an SPL meter is no good at all when
adjusting levels for amp or CD-player comparisons, the
device will do a good job of averaging the overall levels
with speakers.

Note that white noise might be a better signal source with
an SPL balancing job if one of the speakers in the
comparison has much better bass response than the other. The
heavier output at the bottom with that speaker would skew
the balancing work. White noise does not lay down as much
low bass, and so the playing field would be more level with
levels matched using that source.

Of course, if one speaker has better bass and the listener
considers that an automatic advantage, then obviously the
system with that better bass would probably be preferred by
him, anyway.

> For speakers, is only necessary that the user be provided with a novel
> device, called a "remote volume control", that allows him to adjust the
> volume to his pleasure.

This would make a mess of the comparison.

> The user can simply decide which loudspeaker he prefers, and chuck the
> losers.

One can do the same thing with the levels decently matched,
and the result would be a more intelligent choice.

Howard Ferstler

[Robert Morein]

Nonsense. It's irrelevant.
As you've pointed out, Howard, loudness matching via instruments only
matches according to the spectral response of the instrument used.
However, each of us has frequency dependent volume sensitivity that is
individual to our own ears.
This is the "apparent", or psychoacoustic loudness.
No instrument exists that can replicate the curve particular to an
indivdual's own ears. Look at a hearing report; it's an indivdual curve,
different even for the left and right ears of a single individual.
To match volume, an instrument would be required that would match those
curves.

What Howard is trying to say, with the defective logic of a blowhard's
mindless brain, is that we should skew our preferences with faulty
measurement techniques.

Loudness matching is relevant for all parts of the reproduction chain --
except for loudspeakers and headphones.

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Morein wrote:
> >
> > For loudspeakers, loudness matching is not important, unless comparison
> > units are in a dead heat.
>
> Nonsense. Level matching is very important.
>
> However, it is also difficult to do with speakers that have
> differing response curves. If one matches at a specific
> frequency, and one speaker is loud at that frequency,
> compared to what we have with its average level, and the
> other speaker is not so loud at that frequency, compared to
> what its average level is, then the comparison goes down the
> tubes.
>
> The best way to level match speakers is to do an RTA readout
> of each and then adjust levels so that the curves overlap as
> much as possible. However, a good second choice is to use an
> SPL meter with a pink-noise source and then adjust levels
> for a match. While an SPL meter is no good at all when
> adjusting levels for amp or CD-player comparisons, the
> device will do a good job of averaging the overall levels
> with speakers.
>
> Note that white noise might be a better signal source with
> an SPL balancing job if one of the speakers in the
> comparison has much better bass response than the other. The
> heavier output at the bottom with that speaker would skew
> the balancing work. White noise does not lay down as much
> low bass, and so the playing field would be more level with
> levels matched using that source.
>
> Of course, if one speaker has better bass and the listener
> considers that an automatic advantage, then obviously the
> system with that better bass would probably be preferred by
> him, anyway.
>
> > For speakers, is only necessary that the user be provided with a novel
> > device, called a "remote volume control", that allows him to adjust the
> > volume to his pleasure.
>
> This would make a mess of the comparison.
>
> > The user can simply decide which loudspeaker he prefers, and chuck the
> > losers.
>
> One can do the same thing with the levels decently matched,
> and the result would be a more intelligent choice.
>
> Howard Ferstler

[Michael Conzo]

In article , "Howard Ferstler"
> wrote:

> One can do the same thing with the levels decently matched,
> and the result would be a more intelligent choice.

I've read AES and Acoustica papers that agree, Howard. This is due to the
psychological desire to select "loud" as "better" by most people. A
phenomena used with great effect by the TV and radio advertising business.
Without level matching, this kind of testing is horribly coloured with this
listener bias.

[Robert Morein]

"Michael Conzo" > wrote in message
...
> In article , "Howard Ferstler"
> > wrote:
>
> > One can do the same thing with the levels decently matched,
> > and the result would be a more intelligent choice.
>
> I've read AES and Acoustica papers that agree, Howard. This is due to the
> psychological desire to select "loud" as "better" by most people. A
> phenomena used with great effect by the TV and radio advertising business.
> Without level matching, this kind of testing is horribly coloured with
this
> listener bias.
>
"Michael Conzo" is actually Brian L. McCarty.
I advise everyone to avoid interaction with this person.
His history on usenet is unsavory, and involves harassment of others on
usenet by identity theft, as well as websites that may have been attempts at
investment fraud.

[Arny Krueger]

Robert Morein wrote:

> Nonsense. It's irrelevant.

Morein, all the regulars here have known that you're nuts for a long
time, so why do you feel obliged to demonstrate it so conclusively,
again?

BTW Bob, that's *partial* payback for your childish, insulting change
to the thread title. Howard's not perfect, nobody is. But Howard with
all his faults has got more common sense and audio knowlege in his
little finger than you, Middius, Stephen, and Weil have, all put
together into your favorite little RAO figurative circle jerk. If you
guys could keep your figurative hands off of each other, the RAO world
might be a better place.

> As you've pointed out, Howard, loudness matching via instruments
only
> matches according to the spectral response of the instrument used.

However, the spectral response of test equipment is 10 or 100 times
better than that of the ear.

> However, each of us has frequency dependent volume sensitivity that
is
> individual to our own ears.

The way it works is that anything that is properly matched with test
equipment is also well-matched by ear. That's why we spec 0.1 dB
level-matching for electronic audio gear comparison tests. We know
that if we match levels within 0.1 dB across the audio band, no matter
how the listen's ears have frequency dependent volume sensitivity, the
equipment will be level-matched for that listener.


> This is the "apparent", or psychoacoustic loudness.
> No instrument exists that can replicate the curve particular to an
> indivdual's own ears.

That may not be true. You know that we have computers these days Bob,
that can do wonderful things.

However, we don't need to replicate the curve particular to an
individual's ears if we do the level-matching right.

<Look at a hearing report; it's an indivdual
> curve, different even for the left and right ears of a single
> individual.
> To match volume, an instrument would be required that would match
> those curves.

Not true. If you match levels at every frequency 20-20KHz, then no
matter how an individual's ears vary, the levels will be matched for
the frequencies he hears, no matter how his personal measuring
functionality weights them. It's basic measurement theory and
practice, which Bob you obviously are highly confused about.

> What Howard is trying to say, with the defective logic of a
blowhard's
> mindless brain, is that we should skew our preferences with faulty
> measurement techniques.

Balderdash! While faulty measurement techniques exist and may be all
that Morein's defective brain can comprehend, some of us can and do a
better job.

> Loudness matching is relevant for all parts of the reproduction
chain
> -- except for loudspeakers and headphones.

Balderdash. It's tougher to level-match speakers, but just because
it's beyond Morein's ability to comprehend, doesn't mean we can't do
it.

[Arny Krueger]

Michael Conzo wrote:

> In article , "Howard Ferstler"
> > wrote:
>
>> One can do the same thing with the levels decently matched,
>> and the result would be a more intelligent choice.
>
> I've read AES and Acoustica papers that agree, Howard.

Probably authored by guys like Floyd Toole.

Of course Morien wants us to believe that he knows more about speakers
than guys like Floyd Toole, Earl Geddes and David Clark.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Morein wrote:
>
> > Nonsense. It's irrelevant.
>
> Morein, all the regulars here have known that you're nuts for a long
> time, so why do you feel obliged to demonstrate it so conclusively,
> again?
>
> BTW Bob, that's *partial* payback for your childish, insulting change
> to the thread title.

Well now it's yours.

Howard's not perfect, nobody is. But Howard with
> all his faults has got more common sense and audio knowlege in his
> little finger than you, Middius, Stephen, and Weil have, all put
> together into your favorite little RAO figurative circle jerk.
[snip]
Nah, Arny, you're a loudmouth jerk. Not as loud as Howard, but considerably
more damaging, because you spin more deceptive pseudo-science.

>
> > As you've pointed out, Howard, loudness matching via instruments
> only
> > matches according to the spectral response of the instrument used.
>
> However, the spectral response of test equipment is 10 or 100 times
> better than that of the ear.
>
> > However, each of us has frequency dependent volume sensitivity that
> is
> > individual to our own ears.
>
> The way it works is that anything that is properly matched with test
> equipment is also well-matched by ear.

That is not the way it works, idiot.

>That's why we spec 0.1 dB
I don't give a **** what you do, Arny. Your reasoning is highly defective.
You must use it to defend your life -- it certainly has no technical meaning
with respect to loudspeakers.

> level-matching for electronic audio gear comparison tests. We know
> that if we match levels within 0.1 dB across the audio band, no matter
> how the listen's ears have frequency dependent volume sensitivity, the
> equipment will be level-matched for that listener.
>
That would only be meaningful with a speaker if it had flat response. No
speaker does.
What sense does it make to match loudness at one frequency if the two units
under test have different frequency response everywhere else, as speakers
inevitably do? NONE.

You can pick ten different frequencies to match two loudspeakers, and you'll
get ten different levels. It's MEANINGLESS.
And don't tell me 1 kHz is the one to choose. Every ear is different. Only
the stone-casting called your brain would fail to recognize this.

Arny, you're the worst kind of pseudo-scientist. You are so knuckleheaded in
your thought processes the theory of relativity would still be begging for
acceptance if it were in your hands.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Michael Conzo wrote:
>
> > In article , "Howard Ferstler"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> One can do the same thing with the levels decently matched,
> >> and the result would be a more intelligent choice.
> >
> > I've read AES and Acoustica papers that agree, Howard.
>
> Probably authored by guys like Floyd Toole.
>
> Of course Morien wants us to believe that he knows more about speakers
> than guys like Floyd Toole, Earl Geddes and David Clark.
>
Arny, don't consort with the devil, which is what McCarty is. Even you don't
need that.

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> Arny, you're the worst kind of pseudo-scientist. You are so knuckleheaded in
> your thought processes the theory of relativity would still be begging for
> acceptance if it were in your hands.

But Arnii wanted to be an injuhnear, just as Harold wanted to be a
fillahsophur. As we know, Harold's career in academia was derailed by his
ineptness and compulsion to steal others' work. Arnii failed to get a real
degree because, sadly, his untreated mental infirmities limit his ability
to function in the world. Also because his judgment is somewhat less than
stellar, as witnessed by his wanton slandering of audio notables.

One has be appalled at the thought of the Kroo taking the stage against a
knowledgeable and astute debater like John Atkinson. Arnii thinks of
Usenet as his front lawn, which as we know from eyewitness accounts is
untended and has all the appeal of a prison yard. In his demented state,
he believes he is an anointed monarch of this "lawn", and all of us are
his subjects. But instead of the tribute he expects, he sees the torrents
of abuse as "garbage" being dumped on his "****ing lawn".

Outside of his "front lawn", will Krooger's delusions persist? Will he be
able to shed his obsessions with meters & measurements in favor of a
rational exchange? How will he defend his long and sordid history of
insults against John Atkinson and calumnies against Stereophile? These are
the questions in the forefront of RAO regulars' thoughts. Personally, I
think Krooger won't show up; but if he does, he'll inevitably be driven to
a screaming, purple rage, or he'll bolt from the room in tears. Science?
LOL!

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> Arny, don't consort with the devil, which is what McCarty is. Even you don't
> need that.

Krooger doesn't care who he consorts with. He welcomes support from
anybody who doesn't recognize him for what he is. Or, perhaps, anybody who
denies what Krooger is. (Hi Harold!)

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Morein wrote:
>
>> Nonsense. It's irrelevant.
>
> Morein, all the regulars here have known that you're nuts for a long
> time, so why do you feel obliged to demonstrate it so conclusively,
> again?
>
> BTW Bob, that's *partial* payback for your childish, insulting change
> to the thread title. Howard's not perfect, nobody is. But Howard with
> all his faults has got more common sense and audio knowlege in his
> little finger than you, Middius, Stephen, and Weil have, all put
> together into your favorite little RAO figurative circle jerk. If you
> guys could keep your figurative hands off of each other, the RAO world
> might be a better place.
>

Is this the kind of Christian goodness you are going to lay on Atkinson?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > you, Middius, Stephen, and Weil

> Is this the kind of Christian goodness you are going to lay on Atkinson?

Are you miffed because Mr. **** forgot to include you in his list of
Greatly Feared Normals? ;-)

[Clyde Slick]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Robert Morein wrote:
>>
>> > Nonsense. It's irrelevant.
>>
>> Morein, all the regulars here have known that you're nuts for a long
>> time, so why do you feel obliged to demonstrate it so conclusively,
>> again?
>>
>> BTW Bob, that's *partial* payback for your childish, insulting change
>> to the thread title.
>
> Well now it's yours.
>
> Howard's not perfect, nobody is. But Howard with
>> all his faults has got more common sense and audio knowlege in his
>> little finger than you, Middius, Stephen, and Weil have, all put
>> together into your favorite little RAO figurative circle jerk.
> [snip]
> Nah, Arny, you're a loudmouth jerk. Not as loud as Howard, but
> considerably
> more damaging, because you spin more deceptive pseudo-science.
>
>>
>> > As you've pointed out, Howard, loudness matching via instruments
>> only
>> > matches according to the spectral response of the instrument used.
>>
>> However, the spectral response of test equipment is 10 or 100 times
>> better than that of the ear.
>>
>> > However, each of us has frequency dependent volume sensitivity that
>> is
>> > individual to our own ears.
>>
>> The way it works is that anything that is properly matched with test
>> equipment is also well-matched by ear.
>
> That is not the way it works, idiot.
>
>>That's why we spec 0.1 dB
> I don't give a **** what you do, Arny. Your reasoning is highly
> defective.
> You must use it to defend your life -- it certainly has no technical
> meaning
> with respect to loudspeakers.
>
>> level-matching for electronic audio gear comparison tests. We know
>> that if we match levels within 0.1 dB across the audio band, no matter
>> how the listen's ears have frequency dependent volume sensitivity, the
>> equipment will be level-matched for that listener.
>>
> That would only be meaningful with a speaker if it had flat response. No
> speaker does.
> What sense does it make to match loudness at one frequency if the two
> units
> under test have different frequency response everywhere else, as speakers
> inevitably do? NONE.
>
> You can pick ten different frequencies to match two loudspeakers, and
> you'll
> get ten different levels. It's MEANINGLESS.
> And don't tell me 1 kHz is the one to choose. Every ear is different. Only
> the stone-casting called your brain would fail to recognize this.
>

Fianlly someone is calling Arny andHoward on this
Being that they are different, they CAN"T be perfectly level
matched by measurement across the spectrum. Best to
do it by perception!



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > You can pick ten different frequencies to match two loudspeakers, and you'll
> > get ten different levels. It's MEANINGLESS.
> > And don't tell me 1 kHz is the one to choose. Every ear is different. Only
> > the stone-casting called your brain would fail to recognize this.

> Fianlly someone is calling Arny andHoward on this
> Being that they are different, they CAN"T be perfectly level
> matched by measurement across the spectrum. Best to
> do it by perception!

I never thought there was any need to "call them" on this. Did you ever
really believe either Arnii or Harold is motivated by a desire to discover
facts? The hallmark of Audio 'Borgism is *denial* of reality and absolute
fealty to a fatalistic construct of unreality. I thought this has been
well known for several years.

[Arny Krueger]

Robert Morein wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Robert Morein wrote:
>>
>>> Nonsense. It's irrelevant.
>>
>> Morein, all the regulars here have known that you're nuts for a
long
>> time, so why do you feel obliged to demonstrate it so conclusively,
>> again?
>>
>> BTW Bob, that's *partial* payback for your childish, insulting
change
>> to the thread title.
>
> Well now it's yours.
>
> Howard's not perfect, nobody is. But Howard with
>> all his faults has got more common sense and audio knowlege in his
>> little finger than you, Middius, Stephen, and Weil have, all put
>> together into your favorite little RAO figurative circle jerk.
> [snip]

> Nah, Arny, you're a loudmouth jerk. Not as loud as Howard, but
> considerably more damaging, because you spin more deceptive
> pseudo-science.

Flattery will get you nowhere, lover boy. ;-)

>>> As you've pointed out, Howard, loudness matching via instruments
only
>>> matches according to the spectral response of the instrument used.

>> However, the spectral response of test equipment is 10 or 100 times
>> better than that of the ear.

>>> However, each of us has frequency dependent volume sensitivity
that is
>>> individual to our own ears.

>> The way it works is that anything that is properly matched with
test
>> equipment is also well-matched by ear.

> That is not the way it works, idiot.

Prove it.

>> That's why we spec 0.1 dB

> I don't give a **** what you do, Arny. Your reasoning is highly
> defective. You must use it to defend your life -- it certainly has
no
> technical meaning with respect to loudspeakers.

Thanks Robert for admitting that you have no response to my questions
other than insults.

>> level-matching for electronic audio gear comparison tests. We know
>> that if we match levels within 0.1 dB across the audio band, no
>> matter how the listen's ears have frequency dependent volume
>> sensitivity, the equipment will be level-matched for that listener.

> That would only be meaningful with a speaker if it had flat
response.

Totally flast response is not a requirement when we level-match other
equipment. How are speakers different?

> No speaker does.

Agreed with the fact but nevertheless the fact is irrelevant to the
discusion.

> What sense does it make to match loudness at one frequency if the
two
> units under test have different frequency response everywhere else,
> as speakers inevitably do? NONE.

Now, you're changing your story Robert. The problem you are referring
now is not the fact that the speakers have the perfectly flat
response, but that the speakers have different response. Now which is
it? Is the problem the absense of flat response or the absence of the
same response?

> You can pick ten different frequencies to match two loudspeakers,
and
> you'll get ten different levels. It's MEANINGLESS.

Of course, given that good equalizers are about $0.10 a dozen ;-), why
not use a good equalizer to equalize the frequency response of the two
speakers? I know from practical experience that if you equalize
non-flat electronic equipment in 1/12 octave bands, they are very hard
to tell apart. Why not do the same with speakers?

> And don't tell me 1 kHz is the one to choose.

I wouldn't.

>Every ear is different.

A true fact but irrelevant to the over-all discussion because I
wouldn't tell you to equalize just one frequency. This was just
another one of your debating trade straw men, Robert.

> Only the stone-casting called your brain would fail to recognize
this.

Since I would never tell you to match just one frequency (even if
these were power amps), this is just a gratuitous insult, Robert. I
take it that you know that you are losing the argument, and hope to
drive me away with gratuitous insults.

> Arny, you're the worst kind of pseudo-scientist. You are so
> knuckleheaded in your thought processes the theory of relativity
> would still be begging for acceptance if it were in your hands.

Proof for sure that Robert knows that he's over his head, and the only
way to save face is to insult me until I go away.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Morein wrote:
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Robert Morein wrote:
> >>
> >>> Nonsense. It's irrelevant.
> >>
> >> Morein, all the regulars here have known that you're nuts for a
> long
> >> time, so why do you feel obliged to demonstrate it so conclusively,
> >> again?
> >>
> >> BTW Bob, that's *partial* payback for your childish, insulting
> change
> >> to the thread title.
> >
> > Well now it's yours.
> >
> > Howard's not perfect, nobody is. But Howard with
> >> all his faults has got more common sense and audio knowlege in his
> >> little finger than you, Middius, Stephen, and Weil have, all put
> >> together into your favorite little RAO figurative circle jerk.
> > [snip]
>
> > Nah, Arny, you're a loudmouth jerk. Not as loud as Howard, but
> > considerably more damaging, because you spin more deceptive
> > pseudo-science.
>
> Flattery will get you nowhere, lover boy. ;-)
>
> >>> As you've pointed out, Howard, loudness matching via instruments
> only
> >>> matches according to the spectral response of the instrument used.
>
> >> However, the spectral response of test equipment is 10 or 100 times
> >> better than that of the ear.
>
> >>> However, each of us has frequency dependent volume sensitivity
> that is
> >>> individual to our own ears.
>
> >> The way it works is that anything that is properly matched with
> test
> >> equipment is also well-matched by ear.
>
> > That is not the way it works, idiot.
>
> Prove it.
>
> >> That's why we spec 0.1 dB
>
> > I don't give a **** what you do, Arny. Your reasoning is highly
> > defective. You must use it to defend your life -- it certainly has
> no
> > technical meaning with respect to loudspeakers.
>
> Thanks Robert for admitting that you have no response to my questions
> other than insults.
>
> >> level-matching for electronic audio gear comparison tests. We know
> >> that if we match levels within 0.1 dB across the audio band, no
> >> matter how the listen's ears have frequency dependent volume
> >> sensitivity, the equipment will be level-matched for that listener.
>
> > That would only be meaningful with a speaker if it had flat
> response.
>
> Totally flast response is not a requirement when we level-match other
> equipment. How are speakers different?
>
> > No speaker does.
>
> Agreed with the fact but nevertheless the fact is irrelevant to the
> discusion.
>
> > What sense does it make to match loudness at one frequency if the
> two
> > units under test have different frequency response everywhere else,
> > as speakers inevitably do? NONE.
>
> Now, you're changing your story Robert. The problem you are referring
> now is not the fact that the speakers have the perfectly flat
> response, but that the speakers have different response. Now which is
> it? Is the problem the absense of flat response or the absence of the
> same response?
>
> > You can pick ten different frequencies to match two loudspeakers,
> and
> > you'll get ten different levels. It's MEANINGLESS.
>
> Of course, given that good equalizers are about $0.10 a dozen ;-), why
> not use a good equalizer to equalize the frequency response of the two
> speakers? I know from practical experience that if you equalize
> non-flat electronic equipment in 1/12 octave bands, they are very hard
> to tell apart.

You don't know, Arny. You experience. Your aping of the scientific method
renders you incapable of perceiving the difference between these two
concepts.

Why not do the same with speakers?
>
You would compare speakers by equalizing them first?
Speakers are not flat, and people choose according to the frequency response
they prefer, among other factors.

> > And don't tell me 1 kHz is the one to choose.
>
> I wouldn't.

So what would you choose? "A", "B", or "C":
http://www.norsonic.com/web_pages/correlation.html
All these curves are approximations for the average ear.
But the individual has a luxury: he has to deal only with HIS ear.
It is pointless to choose a weighting that is influenced by the general
population, when only his hearing counts for his pleasure.

>
> >Every ear is different.
>
> A true fact but irrelevant to the over-all discussion because I
> wouldn't tell you to equalize just one frequency. This was just
> another one of your debating trade straw men, Robert.
>

So prove that one standard level curve applies to everybody's ears, without
compromise.
After all, each of us has the perfect response curve for our own ears, built
into our own ears.
Conclusion: skip level matching, because commercial weighting curves do not
reflect individual audiometric curves.

[snip garbage]

Arny, you've lost. Keep digging your hole.

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> Of course, given that good equalizers are about $0.10 a dozen ;-), why
> not use a good equalizer to equalize the frequency response of the two
> speakers? I know from practical experience that if you equalize
> non-flat electronic equipment in 1/12 octave bands, they are very hard
> to tell apart. Why not do the same with speakers?

Because you wouldn't be comparing speakers anymore. That would be like
testing non-linear amps with an external feedback loop implemented.
What good is it? Sort of like far field listening tests in an anechoic
chamber. Not much use for determining home response. Howard's Allisons
would probably suck in such a test.

Why not match SPL with broadband noise rather than nullifying the test by
eq'ing the speakers flat...... you're probably doing more room correction
than speaker correction when doing that anyway.


ScottW

[Robert Morein]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:YeSae.27569$B93.10612@lakeread06...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Of course, given that good equalizers are about $0.10 a dozen ;-), why
> > not use a good equalizer to equalize the frequency response of the two
> > speakers? I know from practical experience that if you equalize
> > non-flat electronic equipment in 1/12 octave bands, they are very hard
> > to tell apart. Why not do the same with speakers?
>
> Because you wouldn't be comparing speakers anymore. That would be like
> testing non-linear amps with an external feedback loop implemented.
> What good is it? Sort of like far field listening tests in an anechoic
> chamber. Not much use for determining home response. Howard's Allisons
> would probably suck in such a test.
>
> Why not match SPL with broadband noise rather than nullifying the test by
> eq'ing the speakers flat...... you're probably doing more room correction
> than speaker correction when doing that anyway.
>
>
> ScottW
>
Because broadband noise doesn't have the same spectrum as one's favorite
music.

[ScottW]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:YeSae.27569$B93.10612@lakeread06...
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Of course, given that good equalizers are about $0.10 a dozen ;-), why
>> > not use a good equalizer to equalize the frequency response of the two
>> > speakers? I know from practical experience that if you equalize
>> > non-flat electronic equipment in 1/12 octave bands, they are very hard
>> > to tell apart. Why not do the same with speakers?
>>
>> Because you wouldn't be comparing speakers anymore. That would be like
>> testing non-linear amps with an external feedback loop implemented.
>> What good is it? Sort of like far field listening tests in an anechoic
>> chamber. Not much use for determining home response. Howard's Allisons
>> would probably suck in such a test.
>>
>> Why not match SPL with broadband noise rather than nullifying the test by
>> eq'ing the speakers flat...... you're probably doing more room correction
>> than speaker correction when doing that anyway.
>>
>>
>> ScottW
>>
> Because broadband noise doesn't have the same spectrum as one's favorite
> music.

My favorite musics don't have the same sprectrum either. In fact no two
passages of any song have the same spectrum.... in fact no two moments of
the same passage have the same spectrum.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

Robert Morein wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

>> Of course, given that good equalizers are about $0.10 a dozen ;-),
>> why not use a good equalizer to equalize the frequency response of
>> the two speakers? I know from practical experience that if you
>> equalize non-flat electronic equipment in 1/12 octave bands, they
>> are very hard to tell apart.

> You don't know, Arny.

Delusions of mind-reading noted.

>You experience.

OK.

> Your aping of the scientific
> method renders you incapable of perceiving the difference between
> these two concepts.

Since this statement is based on a tacit claim of mind-reading, which
we all know is a rediculous claim, it can easily be dismissed.

> Why not do the same with speakers?

Do the same what? Read my mind again?

> You would compare speakers by equalizing them first?

Been there, done that.

> Speakers are not flat, and people choose according to the frequency
> response they prefer, among other factors.

That would be people who lack proper equalizers and know how to use
them.

Not gulity.

>>> And don't tell me 1 kHz is the one to choose.
>>
>> I wouldn't.
>
> So what would you choose? "A", "B", or "C":

Those are weighting curves, which seem to be irrelevant.

> http://www.norsonic.com/web_pages/correlation.html

Still irrelevant.


> All these curves are approximations for the average ear.
> But the individual has a luxury: he has to deal only with HIS ear.
> It is pointless to choose a weighting that is influenced by the
> general population, when only his hearing counts for his pleasure.

Irrelevant straw man argument.

>>> Every ear is different.
>>
>> A true fact but irrelevant to the over-all discussion because I
>> wouldn't tell you to equalize just one frequency. This was just
>> another one of your debating trade straw men, Robert.

> So prove that one standard level curve applies to everybody's ears,
> without compromise.

Irrelevant.

> After all, each of us has the perfect response curve for our own
> ears, built into our own ears.

True but irrelevant.

> Conclusion: skip level matching, because commercial weighting curves
> do not reflect individual audiometric curves.

Irrelevant.

> [snip garbage]
>
> Arny, you've lost. Keep digging your hole.

Brave talk from someone who bases his arguments on mind reading.

[Arny Krueger]

ScottW wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Of course, given that good equalizers are about $0.10 a dozen ;-),
>> why not use a good equalizer to equalize the frequency response of
>> the two speakers? I know from practical experience that if you
>> equalize non-flat electronic equipment in 1/12 octave bands, they
>> are very hard to tell apart. Why not do the same with speakers?

> Because you wouldn't be comparing speakers anymore.

Sure I would.

>That would be like testing non-linear amps with an external
feedback loop
> implemented.

Nope.

> What good is it?

The argument goes something like this. We know that we can easily
equalize the on-axis response of speakers so that they meet any
reasnoable target response curve. Therefore, such an easily manageable
property is not very interesting. We therefore equalize the on-axis
response of both speakers to meet some target response curve and then
compare them to determine their other, more interesting properties.


>Sort of like far field listening tests in an anechoic chamber.

Not necessarily.

> Not much use for determining home response.

Every home is different, therefore response in any particular home has
pretty narrow relevance.

> Howard's Allisons would probably suck in such a test.

That would be Howard's problem, not mine.

> Why not match SPL with broadband noise rather than nullifying the
> test by eq'ing the speakers flat...... you're probably doing more
> room correction than speaker correction when doing that anyway.

See former comment about tests in any particular home, which obviously
relates to rooms.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW wrote:
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> Of course, given that good equalizers are about $0.10 a dozen ;-),
> >> why not use a good equalizer to equalize the frequency response of
> >> the two speakers? I know from practical experience that if you
> >> equalize non-flat electronic equipment in 1/12 octave bands, they
> >> are very hard to tell apart. Why not do the same with speakers?
>
> > Because you wouldn't be comparing speakers anymore.
>
> Sure I would.
>
> >That would be like testing non-linear amps with an external
> feedback loop
> > implemented.
>
> Nope.
>
> > What good is it?
>
> The argument goes something like this. We know that we can easily
> equalize the on-axis response of speakers so that they meet any
> reasnoable target response curve. Therefore, such an easily manageable
> property is not very interesting. We therefore equalize the on-axis
> response of both speakers to meet some target response curve and then
> compare them to determine their other, more interesting properties.
>
Which messes up the designed off-axis response; the total power response;
the phase angle, and more generally, the intended purpose of the design.

This has nothing to do with comparing speakers. It has everything to do with
Arny Krueger hopelessly defending an untenable position.

Up till now, I thought you were a little off. I didn't realize that you're a
nutcase. You have a bug up your ass about instrumenting human decision
processes. The method you promote above is a parody of anything good and
beautiful about listening to music.

Baby, you're nuts.

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW wrote:
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Of course, given that good equalizers are about $0.10 a dozen ;-),
>>> why not use a good equalizer to equalize the frequency response of
>>> the two speakers? I know from practical experience that if you
>>> equalize non-flat electronic equipment in 1/12 octave bands, they
>>> are very hard to tell apart. Why not do the same with speakers?
>
>> Because you wouldn't be comparing speakers anymore.
>
> Sure I would.
>
>>That would be like testing non-linear amps with an external
> feedback loop
>> implemented.
>
> Nope.
>
>> What good is it?
>
> The argument goes something like this. We know that we can easily
> equalize the on-axis response of speakers so that they meet any
> reasnoable target response curve. Therefore, such an easily manageable
> property is not very interesting. We therefore equalize the on-axis
> response of both speakers to meet some target response curve and then
> compare them to determine their other, more interesting properties.

So are you saying on-axis response of a speaker is a second order factor on
how they sound? Something of little interest when evaluating a speaker?

Matching levels is one thing.... equalizing response a completely different
matter.

ScottW

[Robert Morein]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:Lo_ae.31827$gV.11542@lakeread02...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>> Of course, given that good equalizers are about $0.10 a dozen ;-),
> >>> why not use a good equalizer to equalize the frequency response of
> >>> the two speakers? I know from practical experience that if you
> >>> equalize non-flat electronic equipment in 1/12 octave bands, they
> >>> are very hard to tell apart. Why not do the same with speakers?
> >
> >> Because you wouldn't be comparing speakers anymore.
> >
> > Sure I would.
> >
> >>That would be like testing non-linear amps with an external
> > feedback loop
> >> implemented.
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> >> What good is it?
> >
> > The argument goes something like this. We know that we can easily
> > equalize the on-axis response of speakers so that they meet any
> > reasnoable target response curve. Therefore, such an easily manageable
> > property is not very interesting. We therefore equalize the on-axis
> > response of both speakers to meet some target response curve and then
> > compare them to determine their other, more interesting properties.
>
> So are you saying on-axis response of a speaker is a second order factor
on
> how they sound? Something of little interest when evaluating a speaker?
>
> Matching levels is one thing.... equalizing response a completely
different
> matter.
>
> ScottW
>
I'm sure there are knowledgeable lurkers who are watching this exchange with
bemusement.
Arny has committed a tremendous technical blunder, as well as a personal
one, in trying to foist this claptrap just to win an argument. Arny simply
cannot bear to lose, and the result is that he loses most of the time.

Arny has also tried a "debating trade" trick as well. With "and then compare
them to determine their other, more interesting properties", he tries to
move the discussion away from the original question, which is how a
prospective buyer should compare loudspeakers, to a rather more abstruse and
undefinable goal, ie., "interesting properties."

Hifi listeners are not interested in the "interesting properties" of
prospective loudspeakers. They are interested in how they sound, TO THEM.

Arny, you've hit the six feet mark with this one.

[Arny Krueger]

Robert Morein wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

>> The argument goes something like this. We know that we can easily
>> equalize the on-axis response of speakers so that they meet any
>> reasnoable target response curve. Therefore, such an easily
>> manageable property is not very interesting. We therefore equalize
>> the on-axis response of both speakers to meet some target response
>> curve and then compare them to determine their other, more
>> interesting properties.

> Which messes up the designed off-axis response; the total power
> response; the phase angle, and more generally, the intended purpose
> of the design.

It doesn't mess them up, it just makes them part of the evaluation.

> This has nothing to do with comparing speakers. It has everything to
> do with Arny Krueger hopelessly defending an untenable position.

No, it has to do with me trying to feed you a dose of reality, Robert.

> Up till now, I thought you were a little off. I didn't realize that
> you're a nutcase. You have a bug up your ass about instrumenting
> human decision processes. The method you promote above is a parody
of
> anything good and beautiful about listening to music.

> Baby, you're nuts.

Don't wake up Robert. You'll hate yourself.

[Arny Krueger]

ScottW wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

>> The argument goes something like this. We know that we can easily
>> equalize the on-axis response of speakers so that they meet any
>> reasnoable target response curve. Therefore, such an easily
>> manageable property is not very interesting. We therefore equalize
>> the on-axis response of both speakers to meet some target response
>> curve and then compare them to determine their other, more
>> interesting properties.

> So are you saying on-axis response of a speaker is a second order
> factor on how they sound? Something of little interest when
> evaluating a speaker?

Nope, I'm exactly falling in line with accepted wisdom, which is that
on-axis response is *THE* first order effect when evaluating speakers.

The hidden agenda is that in 2005, the on-axis response of a speaker
can be almost anything you want it to be, within a very wide range.

> Matching levels is one thing.... equalizing response a completely
different matter.

Equalizing on-axis response is no less logical than evaluating a
speaker in any particular listening room. Probably, its more logical
than that.

[Arny Krueger]

Robert Morein wrote:

> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:Lo_ae.31827$gV.11542@lakeread02...

>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...

>>> The argument goes something like this. We know that we can easily
>>> equalize the on-axis response of speakers so that they meet any
>>> reasnoable target response curve. Therefore, such an easily
>>> manageable property is not very interesting. We therefore equalize
>>> the on-axis response of both speakers to meet some target response
>>> curve and then compare them to determine their other, more
>>> interesting properties.

> I'm sure there are knowledgeable lurkers who are watching this
> exchange with bemusement.

Yes, and the more knowlegable of them are laughing with me, not at me.

> Arny has committed a tremendous technical blunder, as well as a
> personal one, in trying to foist this claptrap just to win an
> argument.

Wrong again Robert.

> Arny simply cannot bear to lose, and the result is that he
> loses most of the time.

Brave words for someone who have no doubt never compared two speakers
with their on-axis response matched up reasonbly well using an
equalizer and appropriate test equipment.

> Arny has also tried a "debating trade" trick as well.

Even though I'm a global master of the debating trade as applied to
audio as John Atkinson will learn to his chagrin this weekend, this
discussion has nothing to do with it. This is about the cold hard
facts, the good stuff.

> With "and then
> compare them to determine their other, more interesting properties",
> he tries to move the discussion away from the original question,
> which is how a prospective buyer should compare loudspeakers,

Wrong. I have been pretty consistent about saying that loudspeakers,
as a rule should be used with appropriately adjusted equalizers in
their signal path. Some speakers even come with user-adjustable
equalizers built into them. I have at least one pair of speakers like
that.

I have been very consistent about recommending that equalizers be used
with surround systems. There's almost no way to properly set up a
really good sound system without at least one or two equalizers.

Note that many of the receiver manufacturers are putting sophsticated
equalizers in some of their highest-end surround receivers. That's
their way of agreeing with me.

> to a rather more abstruse and undefinable goal, ie., "interesting
properties."

Sue me for knowing that the other intersting properties exist and are
that some of them are important.

> Hifi listeners are not interested in the "interesting properties" of
> prospective loudspeakers. They are interested in how they sound, TO
> THEM.

It's all the same.

I'm saying that since on-axis response is so easy to manage, its
almost like not an interesting property. You just manage it, and move
on to the more interesting properties with your evaluation.

> Arny, you've hit the six feet mark with this one.

No Robert, I've thrown one so far over your head that you can't even
look up and see it. It's like a home run ball that went into the
stratosphere, right over your pointed little head. ;-)

[George M. Middius]

****-for-Brains lied:

> > I'm sure there are knowledgeable lurkers who are watching this
> > exchange with bemusement.

> Yes, and the more knowlegable of them are laughing with me, not at me.

A lie. As we all know, even without the video feed, you're on the verge of
tears. You're screaming swear words at the walls, flinging bits of dead
computers in every direction, and sticking yourself with P-chips.
Laughing? Hardly.™

[Howard Ferstler]

Robert Morein wrote:
>
> Nonsense. It's irrelevant.
> As you've pointed out, Howard, loudness matching via instruments only
> matches according to the spectral response of the instrument used.
> However, each of us has frequency dependent volume sensitivity that is
> individual to our own ears.
> This is the "apparent", or psychoacoustic loudness.

Loud is loud. If two speakers are level matched as best
possible, then they will be sounding pretty much equally
loud. However, if one or both have widely diverging response
curves, then, yes, getting a sensible overlap that has those
levels matched may be problematic. In that case, I suggest
that one or both speaker pairs is sub par enough to not rate
being evaluated at all.

> No instrument exists that can replicate the curve particular to an
> indivdual's own ears. Look at a hearing report; it's an indivdual curve,
> different even for the left and right ears of a single individual.
> To match volume, an instrument would be required that would match those
> curves.

Baloney. What has this to do with getting the levels equally
loud over as much of their response overlap as possible? The
hearing curve of the individual would treat each speaker's
response curve equally.
>
> What Howard is trying to say, with the defective logic of a blowhard's
> mindless brain, is that we should skew our preferences with faulty
> measurement techniques.
>
> Loudness matching is relevant for all parts of the reproduction chain --
> except for loudspeakers and headphones.

Your comment is utter crap.

Howard Ferstler

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW wrote:
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> >> The argument goes something like this. We know that we can easily
> >> equalize the on-axis response of speakers so that they meet any
> >> reasnoable target response curve. Therefore, such an easily
> >> manageable property is not very interesting. We therefore equalize
> >> the on-axis response of both speakers to meet some target response
> >> curve and then compare them to determine their other, more
> >> interesting properties.
>
> > So are you saying on-axis response of a speaker is a second order
> > factor on how they sound? Something of little interest when
> > evaluating a speaker?
>
> Nope, I'm exactly falling in line with accepted wisdom, which is that
> on-axis response is *THE* first order effect when evaluating speakers.
>
> The hidden agenda is that in 2005, the on-axis response of a speaker
> can be almost anything you want it to be, within a very wide range.
>
No, it can't.
And this has nothing to do with deciding between a pair of speakers, and
everything to do with the fact that you are an arrogant fool.

[Howard Ferstler]

Robert Morein wrote:
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

> >That's why we spec 0.1 dB
> > level-matching for electronic audio gear comparison tests. We know
> > that if we match levels within 0.1 dB across the audio band, no matter
> > how the listen's ears have frequency dependent volume sensitivity, the
> > equipment will be level-matched for that listener.

> That would only be meaningful with a speaker if it had flat response. No
> speaker does.

Sure. And it is impossible to get a precise, overlapping
level match at all frequencies with each pair over their
full operating ranges. However, you can adjust the levels of
each pair being compared so that there is maximum overlap.
Or, you can do SPL measurements and see to it that their
average spectra match.

> What sense does it make to match loudness at one frequency if the two units
> under test have different frequency response everywhere else, as speakers
> inevitably do? NONE.

Baloney. While level-matching perfection is not possible,
you certainly can get the average levels to overlap
reasonably well. Doing that certainly gets the playing field
more level than simply trying to judge the sound of two
pairs that are playing at wildly different levels.
>
> You can pick ten different frequencies to match two loudspeakers, and you'll
> get ten different levels. It's MEANINGLESS.
> And don't tell me 1 kHz is the one to choose.

Well, I never said this. One speaker may have a dip there
and the other may have a peak. That would make setting
levels at that frequency a joke. However, you can still
match their AVERAGE levels, either by adjusting their RTA
curves to overlap as much as possible or by matching with an
SPL meter, which will balance their average spectra. I
prefer the RTA approach, myself, because it allows one to
view the curves and compensate for extreme peaks and dips
that might throw off balancing by means of an SPL meter.

Of course, there is one way you can prove the point to
yourself. Do some comparing with speakers that are very
different in efficiency and do not level match. Draw your
conclusions and then do the same comparison again using two
amps that allow you to get maximum SPL overlap with the two
pairs. (At least one of those amps would have to have gain
controls that would allow for level matching.) Then see if
your prior conclusions hold.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> ScottW wrote:
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> >> The argument goes something like this. We know that we can easily
> >> equalize the on-axis response of speakers so that they meet any
> >> reasnoable target response curve. Therefore, such an easily
> >> manageable property is not very interesting. We therefore equalize
> >> the on-axis response of both speakers to meet some target response
> >> curve and then compare them to determine their other, more
> >> interesting properties.
>
> > So are you saying on-axis response of a speaker is a second order
> > factor on how they sound? Something of little interest when
> > evaluating a speaker?

> Nope, I'm exactly falling in line with accepted wisdom, which is that
> on-axis response is *THE* first order effect when evaluating speakers.

We agree with most things, but not this time. If on-axis
response was "THE first-order effect" (I assume that this
means that it is the major reason a speaker sounds as it
does) then I assume we are talking about the direct-field,
first arrival signal. In that case, speakers would sound the
same (or nearly the same) outdoors as indoors. Obviously,
this is not the case, and those wall reflections are
contributing a whole lot to the way speakers sound. Off-axis
energy, and this includes energy at wide off-axis angles as
well, is a much higher percentage of what the ear hears with
speakers than what it hears with that first-arrival signal.

> The hidden agenda is that in 2005, the on-axis response of a speaker
> can be almost anything you want it to be, within a very wide range.

Yep. If one concentrates of on-axis sound when setting up
levels or evaluating speaker sound (I assume this means the
direct-field sound, which is the only way the on-axis sound
would be meaningful in a typically reflective listening
room) they will be missing 99 percent or more of what a
speaker is doing in a typical listening room when they
listen in a normal manner. Worse, a reviewer can move the
microphone up or down a few degrees and change that on-axis
sound considerably.

> > Matching levels is one thing.... equalizing response a completely
> different matter.

> Equalizing on-axis response is no less logical than evaluating a
> speaker in any particular listening room. Probably, its more logical
> than that.

But if one speaker has wide dispersion and the other is more
directional, then setting up levels by means of an on-axis
measurement can cause problems. (This assumes that we are
measuring from close enough to have the direct-field signal
dominate, of course.) The reverberant-field reflections will
then make the wider-dispersion speaker seem louder when
listened to from a normal listening distance in a room with
a normal amount of reflecting surfaces.

Interestingly, if this kind of level matching is done in a
very large space then the wider-dispersing speaker will be
at a level-matching disadvantage, because the wide off-axis
energy will not be reflected back to the listener. This is
why wide-dispersion speakers are always at a disadvantage
compared to more directional jobs in really huge dealer
showrooms. They come into their own in more typical,
home-listening-room environments, however.

Howard Ferstler

[ScottW]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> >> The argument goes something like this. We know that we can easily
> >> equalize the on-axis response of speakers so that they meet any
> >> reasnoable target response curve. Therefore, such an easily
> >> manageable property is not very interesting. We therefore equalize
> >> the on-axis response of both speakers to meet some target response
> >> curve and then compare them to determine their other, more
> >> interesting properties.
>
> > So are you saying on-axis response of a speaker is a second order
> > factor on how they sound? Something of little interest when
> > evaluating a speaker?
>
> Nope, I'm exactly falling in line with accepted wisdom, which is that
> on-axis response is *THE* first order effect when evaluating
speakers.

Howard seems to think you're full of crap, however Atkinson appears to
be in agreement with you. You sure you don't want to rethink this :).

>
> The hidden agenda is that in 2005, the on-axis response of a speaker
> can be almost anything you want it to be, within a very wide range.
>
> > Matching levels is one thing.... equalizing response a completely
> different matter.
>
> Equalizing on-axis response is no less logical than evaluating a
> speaker in any particular listening room. Probably, its more logical
> than that.

Kind of my point... once you've equalized on axis you're left with
factors that are highly room influenced.

Bottom line is this.... evaluating speakers outside one's listening
room is a crapshoot. All the equalizing in the world isn't going to
change that.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

Howard Ferstler wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>> ScottW wrote:
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>>> The argument goes something like this. We know that we can easily
>>>> equalize the on-axis response of speakers so that they meet any
>>>> reasnoable target response curve. Therefore, such an easily
>>>> manageable property is not very interesting. We therefore
equalize
>>>> the on-axis response of both speakers to meet some target
response
>>>> curve and then compare them to determine their other, more
>>>> interesting properties.
>>
>>> So are you saying on-axis response of a speaker is a second order
>>> factor on how they sound? Something of little interest when
>>> evaluating a speaker?
>
>> Nope, I'm exactly falling in line with accepted wisdom, which is
that
>> on-axis response is *THE* first order effect when evaluating
>> speakers.

> We agree with most things, but not this time.

Maybe, maybe not.

>If on-axis
> response was "THE first-order effect" (I assume that this
> means that it is the major reason a speaker sounds as it
> does) then I assume we are talking about the direct-field,
> first arrival signal.

So far so good.

> In that case, speakers would sound the
> same (or nearly the same) outdoors as indoors.

That would obviously depend on how significant the second-order
effects were, no?

> Obviously, this is not the case,

Which means that the second order effects are also important.

>and those wall reflections are
> contributing a whole lot to the way speakers sound.

Thus being a significant second-order effect.

>Off-axis energy, and this includes energy at wide off-axis angles as
> well, is a much higher percentage of what the ear hears with
> speakers than what it hears with that first-arrival signal.

This is often true, depending on the speaker. If your room is highly
absorbant or the speaker has highly controlled directivity, then the
balance between direct and indirect sound varies from what it is for a
reflective room, or a speaker with wide directivity.

Remember, whether you have reviewed them or not Howard, there are such
things as high end speakers with carefully-designed waveguide (horn)
drivers covering most octaves. These speakers can sound appreciably
different from speakers with small and/or dome-shaped drivers and
broad directivity, even when the on-axis response is highly similar.

>> The hidden agenda is that in 2005, the on-axis response of a
speaker
>> can be almost anything you want it to be, within a very wide range.

> Yep. If one concentrates of on-axis sound when setting up
> levels or evaluating speaker sound (I assume this means the
> direct-field sound, which is the only way the on-axis sound
> would be meaningful in a typically reflective listening
> room) they will be missing 99 percent or more of what a
> speaker is doing in a typical listening room when they
> listen in a normal manner. Worse, a reviewer can move the
> microphone up or down a few degrees and change that on-axis
> sound considerably.

There are speakers with carefully-designed drivers and crossovers that
avoid lobing and other effects that make their response change quite a
bit near on-axis. These same speakers can also have vastly reduced
off-axis response as compared to typical audiophile speakers.

>>> Matching levels is one thing.... equalizing response a completely
>>> different matter.
>
>> Equalizing on-axis response is no less logical than evaluating a
>> speaker in any particular listening room. Probably, its more
logical
>> than that.
>
> But if one speaker has wide dispersion and the other is more
> directional, then setting up levels by means of an on-axis
> measurement can cause problems. (This assumes that we are
> measuring from close enough to have the direct-field signal
> dominate, of course.) The reverberant-field reflections will
> then make the wider-dispersion speaker seem louder when
> listened to from a normal listening distance in a room with
> a normal amount of reflecting surfaces.
>
> Interestingly, if this kind of level matching is done in a
> very large space then the wider-dispersing speaker will be
> at a level-matching disadvantage, because the wide off-axis
> energy will not be reflected back to the listener. This is
> why wide-dispersion speakers are always at a disadvantage
> compared to more directional jobs in really huge dealer
> showrooms. They come into their own in more typical,
> home-listening-room environments, however.
>
> Howard Ferstler

[Robert Morein]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Morein wrote:
> >
> > Nonsense. It's irrelevant.
> > As you've pointed out, Howard, loudness matching via instruments only
> > matches according to the spectral response of the instrument used.
> > However, each of us has frequency dependent volume sensitivity that is
> > individual to our own ears.
> > This is the "apparent", or psychoacoustic loudness.
>
> Loud is loud. If two speakers are level matched as best
> possible, then they will be sounding pretty much equally
> loud.

No, they won't. Apparent loudness depends very much on frequency response,
and the spectrum of the music.

> However, if one or both have widely diverging response
> curves,
as they all do.

>then, yes, getting a sensible overlap that has those
> levels matched may be problematic. In that case, I suggest
> that one or both speaker pairs is sub par enough to not rate
> being evaluated at all.
>
Wrong.
In a comparison of two speakers, "A" and "B", here is a possible outcome:
The listener prefers "A" over "B", but with different volume levels.
It is incorrect to assume that "volume level" is a valid independent
variable for the purpose of comparison.

The volume matching mavens do not understand this:
The listener enjoys listening to "A" at one level, in comparison to "B"
driven at any available level.
The preferential volume level can be part of the selection.


[snip Bloward's utter garbage]

[Howard Ferstler]

Robert Morein wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> ...

> > Loud is loud. If two speakers are level matched as best
> > possible, then they will be sounding pretty much equally
> > loud.

> No, they won't. Apparent loudness depends very much on frequency response,
> and the spectrum of the music.

So what? This has nothing to do with the need to match
levels with the speakers. You want to get both as close to
equally loud as possible, subjectively or objectively.

> > However, if one or both have widely diverging response
> > curves,
> as they all do.

> >then, yes, getting a sensible overlap that has those
> > levels matched may be problematic. In that case, I suggest
> > that one or both speaker pairs is sub par enough to not rate
> > being evaluated at all.

> Wrong.
> In a comparison of two speakers, "A" and "B", here is a possible outcome:
> The listener prefers "A" over "B", but with different volume levels.

No doubt. However, in this case the wild-card factor is the
different volume levels.

> It is incorrect to assume that "volume level" is a valid independent
> variable for the purpose of comparison.

Nonsense. How on earth can it be anything but a wild card
during any kind of comparison?

> The volume matching mavens do not understand this:
> The listener enjoys listening to "A" at one level, in comparison to "B"
> driven at any available level.

Sure, that is quite possible. Speaker B might be absolute
junk. However, if we match levels the superiority of A would
be even more apparent than it would be if it were playing at
a lower level than B. In any case, if we are comparing
speakers of just about equal quality, then it is obvious as
can be that the only way to fairly compare them is to get
their levels as closely matched as possible.

> The preferential volume level can be part of the selection.

Only if the levels for each speaker are similar.

Frankly, I do not know if you are taking the stand you are
taking because you are simply argumentative or if you are
genuinely stupid. Probably a bit of both.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler wrote:

> >Off-axis energy, and this includes energy at wide off-axis angles as
> > well, is a much higher percentage of what the ear hears with
> > speakers than what it hears with that first-arrival signal.

> This is often true, depending on the speaker.

Absolutely correct.

> If your room is highly
> absorbant or the speaker has highly controlled directivity, then the
> balance between direct and indirect sound varies from what it is for a
> reflective room, or a speaker with wide directivity.

Right. I have published the same type of comments in a
number of magazine articles and even in two of my books.
>
> Remember, whether you have reviewed them or not Howard, there are such
> things as high end speakers with carefully-designed waveguide (horn)
> drivers covering most octaves. These speakers can sound appreciably
> different from speakers with small and/or dome-shaped drivers and
> broad directivity, even when the on-axis response is highly similar.

I fully agree. Indeed, my Dunlavy Cantatas exhibit
controlled, wide-bandwidth directionality over a fairly
narrow angle. This is certainly in contrast to my Allison
IC-20 systems. When they are compared in my main room, both
exhibit similar spectral balance (with a room-curve
measurement over a 1 x 1 x 5 foot area at the listening
couch they both have similarly flat response curves) and
both sound surprisingly similar in every way but one:
up-front spatiality and soundstaging depth. In those areas,
the Allison systems pull ahead.

Now, there are times when I prefer the "tighter" sound
delivered by the Cantatas (string quartets, smaller-scale
baroque material, etc.), and there are times when the IC-20s
really show their advantages. I have stated many times in
published articles, speaker sound involves preference and
taste to a great degree, but it has to be preference and
taste that is backed up by at least one important attribute:
flat response at the listening position, be that response
dominated by the direct field (usually from the upper
midrange on up) or the reverberant field (in some cases,
such as with my Allison systems, even from the upper
midrange on up).

I like what both systems can do, but on the whole I favor a
good deal of reflective energy coming from up front. (Not
quite at the Bose 901 level, however.) Because of this, I
make use of a Yamaha processor with the Cantatas and employ
those famous Yamaha front "effects" speakers high up and in
the corners flanking the Cantatas. This allows them to
deliver their notable clarity and direct-field power, while
at the same time being given a degree of frontal
spaciousness, thanks to those effects channels.

> >> The hidden agenda is that in 2005, the on-axis response of a
> speaker
> >> can be almost anything you want it to be, within a very wide range.

> > Yep. If one concentrates of on-axis sound when setting up
> > levels or evaluating speaker sound (I assume this means the
> > direct-field sound, which is the only way the on-axis sound
> > would be meaningful in a typically reflective listening
> > room) they will be missing 99 percent or more of what a
> > speaker is doing in a typical listening room when they
> > listen in a normal manner. Worse, a reviewer can move the
> > microphone up or down a few degrees and change that on-axis
> > sound considerably.

> There are speakers with carefully-designed drivers and crossovers that
> avoid lobing and other effects that make their response change quite a
> bit near on-axis. These same speakers can also have vastly reduced
> off-axis response as compared to typical audiophile speakers.

I agree. One thing about the Cantatas is that their
first-order filtering does indeed generate lobing in the
vertical plane, thereby locking the listener into a
seated-position height. However, the horizontal plane is
well controlled.

Actually, one notable speaker I reviewed some time back was
the egg-shaped Waveform MC satellite. (The pair also
included two outboard subwoofers.) The unique enclosure
shape allowed for both wide dispersion and a very clean
first-arrival signal. The fourth-order crossover minimized
interference effects. I was very impressed with this system
designed by Claude Fortier, and reviewed in issue 84 of The
Sensible Sound.

Another interesting system was the NHT M6 satellite (the
pair also came with subwoofers), which had the tweeter and
upper midrange mounted side by side, with the tweeter
inboard (with the cabinet vertically oriented) and with the
larger lower-midrange drivers mounted over and under that
side-by-side pair. The result was reduced radiation to the
sides over much of the midrange, due to overlap. The systems
had both a spacious sound and a strong direct-field sound at
the same time. Very interesting design by Jack Hidley. It
was reviewed in Volume 8, Issue number 5 of The Audiophile
Voice.

Room response curves of both of these speakers, as well as
my Cantatas (which were reviewed in issue 87 of The Sensible
Sound) and IC-20s can be found in issue 95 of The Sensible
Sound.

Howard Ferstler

[dave weil]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:51:47 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>So what? This has nothing to do with the need to match
>levels with the speakers. You want to get both as close to
>equally loud as possible, subjectively or objectively.

Ummm Howard, most people would say that there is no "subjectively" to
it. If you're going to have to match levels with speakers, you're
going to have to measure in some fashion. Most people wouldn't have
the ability to get close enough for a level mismatch to be prevented
without first measuring.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 11:16:52 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>I fully agree. Indeed, my Dunlavy Cantatas exhibit
>controlled, wide-bandwidth directionality over a fairly
>narrow angle.

Just pointing out that those speakers actually probably technically
belong to some creditor or creditors under the bankruptcy agreement
covering Dunlavy.

However, that's not *your* problem, but the problem of a creditors
finding all of Dunlavy's assets. Hopefully for you, the statute of
limitations is up on that one. But if they were smart, they'd track
down any absent unacounted-for assets floating around.

Don't bother exhorting me to contact the trustee, 'cause I'm rooting
for you to fall through the cracks on this one.

[Howard Ferstler]

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:51:47 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:
>
> >So what? This has nothing to do with the need to match
> >levels with the speakers. You want to get both as close to
> >equally loud as possible, subjectively or objectively.

> Ummm Howard, most people would say that there is no "subjectively" to
> it. If you're going to have to match levels with speakers, you're
> going to have to measure in some fashion. Most people wouldn't have
> the ability to get close enough for a level mismatch to be prevented
> without first measuring.

Life is indeed tough. Any serious audio buff should be able
to afford an SPL meter and a test disc with random-noise
signals. That combo would do the trick with speakers.

Actually, I think the reason that most of you people do not
level match when comparing speakers is that you do not have
the second amp with level controls that would be required to
get the job done. Comparing amps would require a similar
degree of work and expenditure.

Rather than solve the problem, you come up with excuses for
why it is not important.

Howard Ferstler

[dave weil]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:57:23 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:51:47 -0400, Howard Ferstler
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >So what? This has nothing to do with the need to match
>> >levels with the speakers. You want to get both as close to
>> >equally loud as possible, subjectively or objectively.
>
>> Ummm Howard, most people would say that there is no "subjectively" to
>> it. If you're going to have to match levels with speakers, you're
>> going to have to measure in some fashion. Most people wouldn't have
>> the ability to get close enough for a level mismatch to be prevented
>> without first measuring.
>
>Life is indeed tough. Any serious audio buff should be able
>to afford an SPL meter and a test disc with random-noise
>signals. That combo would do the trick with speakers.

Yep, got both.

>Actually, I think the reason that most of you people do not
>level match when comparing speakers is that you do not have
>the second amp with level controls that would be required to
>get the job done. Comparing amps would require a similar
>degree of work and expenditure.

Not really. All you need is reference marks on the volume control and
someone to help you out.

>Rather than solve the problem, you come up with excuses for
>why it is not important.

I didn't say that it wasn't important. In fact, I happen to believe
that for speakers, level matching IS important. I happen to think that
even a small mismatch can give an advantage to one speaker system over
another.

>Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:57:23 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:

> >Life is indeed tough. Any serious audio buff should be able
> >to afford an SPL meter and a test disc with random-noise
> >signals. That combo would do the trick with speakers.

> Yep, got both.

I figured as much.

> >Actually, I think the reason that most of you people do not
> >level match when comparing speakers is that you do not have
> >the second amp with level controls that would be required to
> >get the job done. Comparing amps would require a similar
> >degree of work and expenditure.

> Not really. All you need is reference marks on the volume control and
> someone to help you out.

That is a preposterously silly way to match levels, even
when comparing speakers.

> >Rather than solve the problem, you come up with excuses for
> >why it is not important.

> I didn't say that it wasn't important. In fact, I happen to believe
> that for speakers, level matching IS important. I happen to think that
> even a small mismatch can give an advantage to one speaker system over
> another.

Good for you, Dave. There is hope for you yet.

Howard Ferstler

[dave weil]

On Mon, 02 May 2005 17:00:58 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:57:23 -0400, Howard Ferstler
>> > wrote:
>
>> >Life is indeed tough. Any serious audio buff should be able
>> >to afford an SPL meter and a test disc with random-noise
>> >signals. That combo would do the trick with speakers.
>
>> Yep, got both.
>
>I figured as much.
>
>> >Actually, I think the reason that most of you people do not
>> >level match when comparing speakers is that you do not have
>> >the second amp with level controls that would be required to
>> >get the job done. Comparing amps would require a similar
>> >degree of work and expenditure.
>
>> Not really. All you need is reference marks on the volume control and
>> someone to help you out.
>
>That is a preposterously silly way to match levels, even
>when comparing speakers.

Once you've established a baseline for each speaker system, why would
this be "silly"?

[Howard Ferstler]

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Mon, 02 May 2005 17:00:58 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:
>
> >dave weil wrote:

> >> Not really. All you need is reference marks on the volume control and
> >> someone to help you out.

> >That is a preposterously silly way to match levels, even
> >when comparing speakers.

> Once you've established a baseline for each speaker system, why would
> this be "silly"?

Because it cannot be done quickly enough and exactingly
enough to work well. The best way to compare is for the
participant to be able to easily switch from one source to
another. Your volume-control rotation trick is too awkward
for a participant to implement with any degree of ease.
Rather than listen for differences or superior sound, he
would be have to concentrate on getting the volume control
set to the proper mark each time. That takes his eye off of
the ball (or ear away from listening), so to speak.

Good try, though, and certainly preferable to not doing any
level matching at all. I should know, I have tried your
trick myself in the past. No good for really critical
evaluations. Separate amps, with pre-set levels is vastly
superior.

Dave, note that I am winding down my posts. Not much more to
say to you guys. Hell, you all know it all already, so what
point is there in me arguing with you experts?

Howard Ferstler

[ScottW]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> dave weil wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 02 May 2005 17:00:58 -0400, Howard Ferstler
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >dave weil wrote:
>
>> >> Not really. All you need is reference marks on the volume control and
>> >> someone to help you out.
>
>> >That is a preposterously silly way to match levels, even
>> >when comparing speakers.
>
>> Once you've established a baseline for each speaker system, why would
>> this be "silly"?
>
> Because it cannot be done quickly enough and exactingly
> enough to work well. The best way to compare is for the
> participant to be able to easily switch from one source to
> another. Your volume-control rotation trick is too awkward
> for a participant to implement with any degree of ease.
> Rather than listen for differences or superior sound, he
> would be have to concentrate on getting the volume control
> set to the proper mark each time. That takes his eye off of
> the ball (or ear away from listening), so to speak.
>
> Good try, though, and certainly preferable to not doing any
> level matching at all. I should know, I have tried your
> trick myself in the past. No good for really critical
> evaluations. Separate amps, with pre-set levels is vastly
> superior.
>
> Dave, note that I am winding down my posts. Not much more to
> say to you guys. Hell, you all know it all already, so what
> point is there in me arguing with you experts?

You're just ****ed that no one would accept your personal tweako freako
belief on Allison surrounds.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> dave weil wrote:
>>
..
>
> Dave, note that I am winding down my posts. Not much more to
> say to you guys. Hell, you all know it all already, so what
> point is there in me arguing with you experts?
>
> Howard Ferstler

Howard has found a better clown gig. His neighhborhood
has a lot of five year olds born in May.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Howard Ferstler]

ScottW wrote:

> You're just ****ed that no one would accept your personal tweako freako
> belief on Allison surrounds.

Allison never made specifically designed surround-channel
speakers. The very wide dispersing Allison systems I use in
my two main systems (Model Fours) for surround duty were
originally designed to be small-system main-channel systems.
I will point out that any good, wide-dispersion main-channel
speaker can serve well as a surround-channel speaker.

Howard Ferstler

[dave weil]

On Wed, 04 May 2005 21:10:46 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 02 May 2005 17:00:58 -0400, Howard Ferstler
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >dave weil wrote:
>
>> >> Not really. All you need is reference marks on the volume control and
>> >> someone to help you out.
>
>> >That is a preposterously silly way to match levels, even
>> >when comparing speakers.
>
>> Once you've established a baseline for each speaker system, why would
>> this be "silly"?
>
>Because it cannot be done quickly enough and exactingly
>enough to work well. The best way to compare is for the
>participant to be able to easily switch from one source to
>another. Your volume-control rotation trick is too awkward
>for a participant to implement with any degree of ease.
>Rather than listen for differences or superior sound, he
>would be have to concentrate on getting the volume control
>set to the proper mark each time. That takes his eye off of
>the ball (or ear away from listening), so to speak.

Not really. In the time that you switch from one speaker to the other,
you can reset the volume control. It's not like you're going to have
to rotate the knob very far. It's especially easy if you have someone
do it for you.

>Good try, though, and certainly preferable to not doing any
>level matching at all. I should know, I have tried your
>trick myself in the past. No good for really critical
>evaluations. Separate amps, with pre-set levels is vastly
>superior.

That's assuming that you either HAVE separate amps with volume
controls, or that you want to introduce more complexity. I simply
outlined a simple way for anyone to use an existing setup to compare
speakers easily. It is neither "preposterously silly" *nor* difficult
to pull off.

>Dave, note that I am winding down my posts. Not much more to
>say to you guys. Hell, you all know it all already, so what
>point is there in me arguing with you experts?

Not much of one, frankly.

[ScottW]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW wrote:
>
>> You're just ****ed that no one would accept your personal tweako freako
>> belief on Allison surrounds.
>
> Allison never made specifically designed surround-channel
> speakers.

I was referring to your tweako belief that the surrounds/ suspension of
your Allison tweeters create magical dispersion characteristics.

ScottW

[Howard Ferstler]

ScottW wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> ...
> > ScottW wrote:
> >
> >> You're just ****ed that no one would accept your personal tweako freako
> >> belief on Allison surrounds.
> >
> > Allison never made specifically designed surround-channel
> > speakers.
>
> I was referring to your tweako belief that the surrounds/ suspension of
> your Allison tweeters create magical dispersion characteristics.

Not magical. Just wide, and Allison showed that with his
driver-curve measurements. (He put those in his brochures
and I even published some in my first book, along with
curves run on conventional domes.) Even John Stone admitted
that the Allison tweeter disperses as widely as typical,
good 1/2-inch jobs. That is substantially wider than what we
have with the ubiquitous one inchers in major use today.

Allison's contention was (and is, and I agree) that for good
sounding home-music reproduction it is important to get as
much treble energy into the reverberant field as possible,
and do so as close to the speaker as possible. Actually,
Allison showed why this is important in a JAES paper way
back in the 1970s.

Note that Stone was speculating about the specific
performance of the Allison tweeter when it came to the
surface behavior of the central dome and the oversized
surround. He extrapolated data from diaphragm analyses done
on conventional dome designs and simply assumed that the
same rules would apply "exactly" to the Allison tweeter.
Since the tweeter is substantially different from
conventional domes, that extrapolation has to be flawed.

What he failed to realize is that the microscopic behavior
of the diaphragm is not what matters. There are lots of
other factors that are more important. What matters is how
the tweeter performs as a musical reproducer.

Howard Ferstler

[dave weil]

On Fri, 06 May 2005 11:48:25 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>What he failed to realize is that the microscopic behavior
>of the diaphragm is not what matters. There are lots of
>other factors that are more important. What matters is how
>the tweeter performs as a musical reproducer.

Hmmm, plug in the words Quad electrostats and you might inch toward a
clue.

[Howard Ferstler]

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Fri, 06 May 2005 11:48:25 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:
>
> >What he failed to realize is that the microscopic behavior
> >of the diaphragm is not what matters. There are lots of
> >other factors that are more important. What matters is how
> >the tweeter performs as a musical reproducer.

> Hmmm, plug in the words Quad electrostats and you might inch toward a
> clue.

Yeah, they may actually be pretty good. Still, that "11
miles of wire" in there still has me concerned.

Howard Ferstler

[ScottW]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> dave weil wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 06 May 2005 11:48:25 -0400, Howard Ferstler
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >What he failed to realize is that the microscopic behavior
>> >of the diaphragm is not what matters. There are lots of
>> >other factors that are more important. What matters is how
>> >the tweeter performs as a musical reproducer.
>
>> Hmmm, plug in the words Quad electrostats and you might inch toward a
>> clue.
>
> Yeah, they may actually be pretty good. Still, that "11
> miles of wire" in there still has me concerned.

Maybe a listen would alleviate your concern. It's kind of astonishing
that someone who actually write books and reviews would lack any experience
with speakers as readily available and renowned as Quad ESLs.

In any case... for someone who desires a wide sweet spot... I'd wonder about
comb filter effects from 2 tweeters.

ScottW

[John Stone]

>> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message

>
> Note that Stone was speculating about the specific
> performance of the Allison tweeter when it came to the
> surface behavior of the central dome and the oversized
> surround. He extrapolated data from diaphragm analyses done
> on conventional dome designs and simply assumed that the
> same rules would apply "exactly" to the Allison tweeter.
> Since the tweeter is substantially different from
> conventional domes, that extrapolation has to be flawed.
>
It still has to follow the laws of physics, no matter what you think. I'm
still waiting for your explanation of how high frequencies (10kHz and up)
being radiated off the large Allison surround "improve the dispersion" as
you claim.

You also really like to misrepresent other peoples' position on issues to
suit your version of reality. Like your statement that engineers like
Linkwitz, Hidley, Toole, Barton, etc. " are a whole lot more
interested in having the direct-field signal be flat and
coherent than they are in sound power." I know this is total bull****,
because I have discussed the issue at length with them.


> What he failed to realize is that the microscopic behavior
> of the diaphragm is not what matters.
All tweeter movement is microscopic. Can you see any movement in a tweeter
diaphragm even when it is playing extremely loud?

>There are lots of
> other factors that are more important.
Such as?


>What matters is how
> the tweeter performs as a musical reproducer.
How the tweeter performs as a musical reproducer is directly tied to those
important fundamental aspects of its performance, of which dispersion is
only one.

[ScottW]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW wrote:
>>
>> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > ScottW wrote:
>> >
>> >> You're just ****ed that no one would accept your personal tweako
>> >> freako
>> >> belief on Allison surrounds.
>> >
>> > Allison never made specifically designed surround-channel
>> > speakers.
>>
>> I was referring to your tweako belief that the surrounds/ suspension of
>> your Allison tweeters create magical dispersion characteristics.
>
> Not magical. Just wide, and Allison showed that with his
> driver-curve measurements. (He put those in his brochures
> and I even published some in my first book, along with
> curves run on conventional domes.) Even John Stone admitted
> that the Allison tweeter disperses as widely as typical,
> good 1/2-inch jobs. That is substantially wider than what we
> have with the ubiquitous one inchers in major use today.
>
> Allison's contention was (and is, and I agree) that for good
> sounding home-music reproduction it is important to get as
> much treble energy into the reverberant field as possible,
> and do so as close to the speaker as possible. Actually,
> Allison showed why this is important in a JAES paper way
> back in the 1970s.
>
> Note that Stone was speculating about the specific
> performance of the Allison tweeter when it came to the
> surface behavior of the central dome and the oversized
> surround. He extrapolated data from diaphragm analyses done
> on conventional dome designs and simply assumed that the
> same rules would apply "exactly" to the Allison tweeter.
> Since the tweeter is substantially different from
> conventional domes, that extrapolation has to be flawed.
>
> What he failed to realize is that the microscopic behavior
> of the diaphragm is not what matters. There are lots of
> other factors that are more important. What matters is how
> the tweeter performs as a musical reproducer.

You've just postulated that no science is required for good audio
reproduction. Trial and error will suffice. We have no need to ever know
why something works well... it is sufficient only to know that it does work
well.

Isn't this the kind of attitude that is pervasive in the high end that has
frustrated you so? Sounds like you're guilty of exactly what you despise.

ScottW

[dave weil]

On Fri, 06 May 2005 12:28:29 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 06 May 2005 11:48:25 -0400, Howard Ferstler
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >What he failed to realize is that the microscopic behavior
>> >of the diaphragm is not what matters. There are lots of
>> >other factors that are more important. What matters is how
>> >the tweeter performs as a musical reproducer.
>
>> Hmmm, plug in the words Quad electrostats and you might inch toward a
>> clue.
>
>Yeah, they may actually be pretty good. Still, that "11
>miles of wire" in there still has me concerned.

I'll bet that your Allisons have miles of "wire" as well. Just look in
the crossover.

Why be concerned about the wire? Wire is wire, right?

Here's my advice. Just listen to the darn things and see if the lack
of bass is something that someone should be concerned with. Oh yeah,
there's that "issue" of comb filtering.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Howard Ferstler > wrote:

> dave weil wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 06 May 2005 11:48:25 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >What he failed to realize is that the microscopic behavior
> > >of the diaphragm is not what matters. There are lots of
> > >other factors that are more important. What matters is how
> > >the tweeter performs as a musical reproducer.
>
> > Hmmm, plug in the words Quad electrostats and you might inch toward a
> > clue.
>
> Yeah, they may actually be pretty good. Still, that "11
> miles of wire" in there still has me concerned.

Another good point for Howard, who must be feeling sharp today. Quad may
have helped create the high end in two different ways: innovation (ESL,
"current dumping"); and using substandard electronic parts in otherwise
good designs, encouraging a cottage industry of home-brew modifications
and upgrades.

Stephen

[Howard Ferstler]

John Stone wrote:
>
> >> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>
> >
> > Note that Stone was speculating about the specific
> > performance of the Allison tweeter when it came to the
> > surface behavior of the central dome and the oversized
> > surround. He extrapolated data from diaphragm analyses done
> > on conventional dome designs and simply assumed that the
> > same rules would apply "exactly" to the Allison tweeter.
> > Since the tweeter is substantially different from
> > conventional domes, that extrapolation has to be flawed.

> It still has to follow the laws of physics, no matter what you think.

But you have no idea what those laws do to the behavior of
the Allison tweeter at any frequency.

> I'm
> still waiting for your explanation of how high frequencies (10kHz and up)
> being radiated off the large Allison surround "improve the dispersion" as
> you claim.

I am now reviewing a pair of speakers with Seas soft-dome
tweeters. After lightly touching that very flexible dome I
can see why you are concerned about diaphragm ripple.
Incidentally, that tweeter's room/power curve was not all
that great. Third rate, actually. Both the Allison tweeter
and the NHT tweeters I have recently messed with had flatter
room-curve results. (The NHT tweeter is the flattest
measuring tweeter I have ever encountered, even flatter into
the top octave than the Allison.) Heck, even a Polk tweeter
measured better, as did the Vifa tweeter in my Dunlavy
Cantatas.

In any case, that Allison tweeter surround is not all that
large. Remember, this is a one-inch driver we are talking
about. (You make it sound as if the overall diaphragm is a
large as a pie plate.) One does not need to be a rocket
scientist to realize that when a driver that size simulates
a pulsating hemisphere (not perfectly, but certainly better
than a typical one-inch dome) its outer area will be not be
moving back and forth at a 90-degree angle to the mounting
plate like a typical dome. That angular movement is why the
surround contributes to the high-frequency radiation at
wider angles. It is not pumping back and forth, parallel to
the central dome. One would have to be a lunkhead to not see
that a radially rating outer area of a driver of that kind
will contribute to the driver's radiation pattern at very
high frequencies, particularly when the driver is small in
diameter to begin with.

> You also really like to misrepresent other peoples' position on issues to
> suit your version of reality. Like your statement that engineers like
> Linkwitz, Hidley, Toole, Barton, etc. " are a whole lot more
> interested in having the direct-field signal be flat and
> coherent than they are in sound power." I know this is total bull****,
> because I have discussed the issue at length with them.

Must have been quite a meeting. I can almost imagine how it
looked: You lined them up and then said, "Howard Ferstler
says you guys say so and so." And then they reply to you,
"Why that asshole. Who does he think he is? Thanks for
telling us this, John. Well fix his ass." You must have had
a ball spilling the beans. Incidentally, I am not sure I
said anything at all about Barton's take on
reverberant-field response. I have no idea what his position
is.

However, I stand by my contention that a flat, coherent
first-arrival signal is very important to three of those
guys and that sound power is not all that big a deal for
them, at least compared to how Allison feels. They also are
much more concerned with the direct-field output over a
+/-15 degree angle than they are with sound power. Allison
is concerned with the direct-field output over a +/-90
degree angle, which obviously makes him into a
power-response kind of guy.

Incidentally, I admire these people quite a bit (your
feelings notwithstanding), and have corresponded with Mr.
Hidley on several occasions (Dr. Toole and Mr. Linkwitz,
too), and also have very favorably reviewed three different
speaker systems he designed. Actually, I profiled three of
those men (not Barton) in the latest edition of The
Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound.

If you are trying to turn them against me, I have to tell
you that it really does not matter. At this point in my
life, what you do to unfairly alienate industry bigwigs
against Howard Ferstler means little to Howard Ferstler.
Frankly, I think that all of those gentlemen have a lot more
to fear from the likes of assorted tweako-freako writers who
are in the process of turning high-end audio into a joke
than they have from me. You, too, John.

> > What he failed to realize is that the microscopic behavior
> > of the diaphragm is not what matters.

> All tweeter movement is microscopic. Can you see any movement in a tweeter
> diaphragm even when it is playing extremely loud?

Well, I suppose I should have just been more specific about
the diaphragm distorting at all frequencies, particularly
those higher up. In any case, I do not believe that
microscopic analysis of diaphragm breakup is a big deal,
provided the driver delivers the flat-power and uniform
radiation-pattern goods. For the most part, tweeter
distortion at very high frequencies is not all that
critical, simply because the harmonics will be above the
audible range. Even within the audible range the artifacts
will usually be masked by program content. Ironically, Bose
proved this in an experiment decades ago.

> >There are lots of
> > other factors that are more important.

> Such as?

Radiation pattern uniformity over the driver's full
operating range. Power-handling ability, too.

> >What matters is how
> > the tweeter performs as a musical reproducer.

> How the tweeter performs as a musical reproducer is directly tied to those
> important fundamental aspects of its performance, of which dispersion is
> only one.

But the most important one.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

ScottW wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> ...
> > dave weil wrote:

> >> Hmmm, plug in the words Quad electrostats and you might inch toward a
> >> clue.

> > Yeah, they may actually be pretty good. Still, that "11
> > miles of wire" in there still has me concerned.

> Maybe a listen would alleviate your concern. It's kind of astonishing
> that someone who actually write books and reviews would lack any experience
> with speakers as readily available and renowned as Quad ESLs.

For the most part, they are above the price range I prefer
to deal with. (The most expensive speaker pair I have
reviewed was a sub-sat package with a list price of $6800,
and I was iffy about doing that.) Actually, given my
prejudice I would not be the least surprised if any
manufacturer of high-end gear would balk in a big way with
sending me products to review. I am so cheap, you know.

I will say this: I have compared some expensive speakers to
some cheaper ones on many occasions, and for the most part I
believe that a good, but low-priced, sub/sat package can
often hold its own in practical terms with some very
expensive full-range systems. In a couple of cases, the
cheaper set up sounded a bit better. A lot of the hype we
read about exotic and expensive high-end gear is just that:
hype.

> In any case... for someone who desires a wide sweet spot... I'd wonder about
> comb filter effects from 2 tweeters.

This would indeed impact the direct-field response, and
would make the speakers less precise in terms of pinpoint
imaging, a characteristic that does not wildly concern me.
(Generally, the addition of a good, Dolby ProLogic II style
steered center channel to a stereo pair of speakers will
deliver more precise imaging than even the best stereo pair
operating by itself.) However, it would have no impact on
the overall power response and would not have much of a
negative impact on the overall radiation pattern, either.
Two tweeter drivers on 90-degree angled panels do not behave
as a line source the way two such drivers, similarly spaced,
would when located on a single flat panel.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

ScottW wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> ...

> > Not magical. Just wide, and Allison showed that with his
> > driver-curve measurements. (He put those in his brochures
> > and I even published some in my first book, along with
> > curves run on conventional domes.) Even John Stone admitted
> > that the Allison tweeter disperses as widely as typical,
> > good 1/2-inch jobs. That is substantially wider than what we
> > have with the ubiquitous one inchers in major use today.
> >
> > Allison's contention was (and is, and I agree) that for good
> > sounding home-music reproduction it is important to get as
> > much treble energy into the reverberant field as possible,
> > and do so as close to the speaker as possible. Actually,
> > Allison showed why this is important in a JAES paper way
> > back in the 1970s.
> >
> > Note that Stone was speculating about the specific
> > performance of the Allison tweeter when it came to the
> > surface behavior of the central dome and the oversized
> > surround. He extrapolated data from diaphragm analyses done
> > on conventional dome designs and simply assumed that the
> > same rules would apply "exactly" to the Allison tweeter.
> > Since the tweeter is substantially different from
> > conventional domes, that extrapolation has to be flawed.
> >
> > What he failed to realize is that the microscopic behavior
> > of the diaphragm is not what matters. There are lots of
> > other factors that are more important. What matters is how
> > the tweeter performs as a musical reproducer.

> You've just postulated that no science is required for good audio
> reproduction. Trial and error will suffice.

I hate to tell you this (just kidding; I love to tell you
this), but trial and error is part of science.

> We have no need to ever know
> why something works well... it is sufficient only to know that it does work
> well.

Are you saying that you actually have curiosity about
something like this, while at the same time you are not
curious enough about the DBT protocol to give it a try?

There are times when it is important to know why something
works as it does. However, there are also times when such
analysis, interesting though it may be, does not forward the
science of design.

> Isn't this the kind of attitude that is pervasive in the high end that has
> frustrated you so?

While analyzing diaphragm behavior at the microscopic level
would be a fun and interesting thing to do, I do not believe
it has a huge amount to do with the macro-level performance
of the driver. This is within reason, of course. If a driver
behaves poorly, it might pay to analyze just why this is
happening. And it also might pay to know why another version
works well. However, postulating diaphragm breakup as a big
deal is just that: postulating.

> Sounds like you're guilty of exactly what you despise.

Sometimes, trying to figure out how many angels can dance on
the head of a pin is counterproductive.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Fri, 06 May 2005 12:28:29 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:
>
> >dave weil wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 06 May 2005 11:48:25 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >What he failed to realize is that the microscopic behavior
> >> >of the diaphragm is not what matters. There are lots of
> >> >other factors that are more important. What matters is how
> >> >the tweeter performs as a musical reproducer.
> >
> >> Hmmm, plug in the words Quad electrostats and you might inch toward a
> >> clue.
> >
> >Yeah, they may actually be pretty good. Still, that "11
> >miles of wire" in there still has me concerned.
>
> I'll bet that your Allisons have miles of "wire" as well. Just look in
> the crossover.

I have. Dave, it is a rather straightforward, mixed first-
and second-order system. At best, there are a couple of
dozen yards of wire in the coils and that is about it,
discounting the short runs between the internal components.
Give me a break, Dave.

> Why be concerned about the wire? Wire is wire, right?

Log runs of skinny wire can impact soundstaging, imaging,
focus, depth, smoothness, etc. Just ask any speaker-wire
freak ;-).

> Here's my advice. Just listen to the darn things and see if the lack
> of bass is something that someone should be concerned with. Oh yeah,
> there's that "issue" of comb filtering.

I rarely worry about bass response with any of the speakers
I review, because of the option to add a subwoofer. Anyone
who has read my reviews will realize that my main stress is
on the bandwidth between 80 Hz and about 8 kHz
(notwithstanding the magic of those occasional triangle
tinglings higher up). That is where the musical meat
resides.

Howard Ferstler

[ScottW]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW wrote:
>>
>> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > dave weil wrote:
>
>> >> Hmmm, plug in the words Quad electrostats and you might inch toward a
>> >> clue.
>
>> > Yeah, they may actually be pretty good. Still, that "11
>> > miles of wire" in there still has me concerned.
>
>> Maybe a listen would alleviate your concern. It's kind of astonishing
>> that someone who actually write books and reviews would lack any
>> experience
>> with speakers as readily available and renowned as Quad ESLs.
>
> For the most part, they are above the price range I prefer
> to deal with. (The most expensive speaker pair I have
> reviewed was a sub-sat package with a list price of $6800,
> and I was iffy about doing that.) Actually, given my
> prejudice I would not be the least surprised if any
> manufacturer of high-end gear would balk in a big way with
> sending me products to review. I am so cheap, you know.
>
> I will say this: I have compared some expensive speakers to
> some cheaper ones on many occasions, and for the most part I
> believe that a good, but low-priced, sub/sat package can
> often hold its own in practical terms with some very
> expensive full-range systems. In a couple of cases, the
> cheaper set up sounded a bit better. A lot of the hype we
> read about exotic and expensive high-end gear is just that:
> hype.

I won't disagree that the most cost effective way to achieve good full range
performance is via a small monitor and a sub....but your comments regarding
exotic and expensive equipment is fundamentally based upon ignorance. You
have no personal knowledge regarding the state of the art, you haven't even
heard Quads let alone Sound Labs or MBL etc. You have no clue what the
state of the art in speaker performance is today. You're the equivalent of
a Consumer Reports auto writer claiming Performance Racing Industries has
nothing more to offer. You are not qualified to make the statements you
make.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW wrote:
>>
>> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>> >
>> > What he failed to realize is that the microscopic behavior
>> > of the diaphragm is not what matters. There are lots of
>> > other factors that are more important. What matters is how
>> > the tweeter performs as a musical reproducer.
>
>> You've just postulated that no science is required for good audio
>> reproduction. Trial and error will suffice.
>
> I hate to tell you this (just kidding; I love to tell you
> this), but trial and error is part of science.

Not really.... its too expensive and unproductive. In some fields,
potentially dangerous.

>
>> We have no need to ever know
>> why something works well... it is sufficient only to know that it does
>> work
>> well.
>
> Are you saying that you actually have curiosity about
> something like this, while at the same time you are not
> curious enough about the DBT protocol to give it a try?

Howard, do you really have insufficient mental capacity remaining to refrain
from incorrectly attributing comments and attitudes to me? I have not
argued against the validity of a DBT beyond my suspicions that some
acoustics aspect that can contribute to satisfaction are not readily
identifiable in a quick A vs B.
>
> There are times when it is important to know why something
> works as it does. However, there are also times when such
> analysis, interesting though it may be, does not forward the
> science of design.

Ridiculous, ludicrous statement. If one does not know why something
works...then one has little to no chance of improving upon it.

>
>> Isn't this the kind of attitude that is pervasive in the high end that
>> has
>> frustrated you so?
>
> While analyzing diaphragm behavior at the microscopic level
> would be a fun and interesting thing to do, I do not believe
> it has a huge amount to do with the macro-level performance
> of the driver.

HF sound is produced by micro levels of motion. Perhaps you're having
difficulty differentiating between micro and macro. Lets make it
simple...if you can't see the movement its micro...if you can see it....its
macro.

>This is within reason, of course. If a driver
> behaves poorly, it might pay to analyze just why this is
> happening. And it also might pay to know why another version
> works well.

Obviously.

> However, postulating diaphragm breakup as a big
> deal is just that: postulating.

The first step to understanding - postulating.
>
>> Sounds like you're guilty of exactly what you despise.
>
> Sometimes, trying to figure out how many angels can dance on
> the head of a pin is counterproductive.

Such would be the viewpoint of a snake oil salesman.

ScottW

[John Stone]

On 5/6/05 3:10 PM, in article , "Howard
Ferstler" > wrote:

> John Stone wrote:
>>
>>>> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>>
>>>
>>> Note that Stone was speculating about the specific
>>> performance of the Allison tweeter when it came to the
>>> surface behavior of the central dome and the oversized
>>> surround. He extrapolated data from diaphragm analyses done
>>> on conventional dome designs and simply assumed that the
>>> same rules would apply "exactly" to the Allison tweeter.
>>> Since the tweeter is substantially different from
>>> conventional domes, that extrapolation has to be flawed.
>
>> It still has to follow the laws of physics, no matter what you think.
>
> But you have no idea what those laws do to the behavior of
> the Allison tweeter at any frequency.

You have no idea of how a tweeter works, period. You are still just chasing
your tail.

>
> I am now reviewing a pair of speakers with Seas soft-dome
> tweeters. After lightly touching that very flexible dome I
> can see why you are concerned about diaphragm ripple.

What are you babbling about now? What is diaphragm ripple? Is that some new
Ferstler technical term? Please explain the "problem" with "ripple" in the
SEAS diaphragm, Mr. Engineer.

> Incidentally, that tweeter's room/power curve was not all
> that great. Third rate, actually. Both the Allison tweeter
> and the NHT tweeters I have recently messed with had flatter
> room-curve results.
Uh,huh. And you tested and compared those tweeters how? You pulled them out
of the cabinets, disconnected them from the crossover, mounted them on a DIN
baffle and analyzed them in your anechoic chamber?. Or you did your usual
microphone waving with a cheap uncalibrated 3rd octave analyzer on the whole
system? I'll bet heavily on the latter. So tell me, how did you ascertain
that the tweeter was "third rate" and that the response you supposedly
measured wasn't a function of the crossover or cabinet design rather than
the driver itself?
..

> (The NHT tweeter is the flattest
> measuring tweeter I have ever encountered, even flatter into
> the top octave than the Allison.)


Hate to break it to you Howard, but SEAS and NHT have a very close working
relationship, and we supply all the tweeters to their top products-including
their new digital based active system and their new pro monitors. We also
supply them with woofers. Since you love to name drop, why don't you ask
Jack Hidley what he thinks of our products, or me for that matter? Or is he
now off your favorite engineers list?

> Heck, even a Polk tweeter
> measured better, as did the Vifa tweeter in my Dunlavy
> Cantatas.

Do you honestly think I give a rat's ass about your opinion? You are in no
position to make a value judgment on any driver, much less one of ours. You
have the crudest of the crude measuring abilities, no understanding of
speaker or driver design, and no hearing above 12kHz. And, using a
disagreement with me to trash a product you are reviewing? Where the hell is
your journalistic integrity?
This is your typical "trash the other guy to make your miserable self feel
better" routine you love to play. How childish can you be?
As for SEAS tweeters, D'Appollito , Linkwitz, Barton, Hidley, to name just a
few all use them in their top product designs and consider the top line
Excel tweeters as references. Their opinion, not yours, is all that counts
for me.

>
> In any case, that Allison tweeter surround is not all that
> large. Remember, this is a one-inch driver we are talking
> about. (You make it sound as if the overall diaphragm is a
> large as a pie plate.)

It is a 1/2" driver with a 1" surround.

> One does not need to be a rocket
> scientist to realize that when a driver that size simulates
> a pulsating hemisphere (not perfectly, but certainly better
> than a typical one-inch dome) its outer area will be not be
> moving back and forth at a 90-degree angle to the mounting
> plate like a typical dome. That angular movement is why the
> surround contributes to the high-frequency radiation at
> wider angles. It is not pumping back and forth, parallel to
> the central dome. One would have to be a lunkhead to not see
> that a radially rating outer area of a driver of that kind
> will contribute to the driver's radiation pattern at very
> high frequencies, particularly when the driver is small in
> diameter to begin with.

You just pulled that one right out of your ass, didn't you. You are utterly
full of ****. Please cite one independent reference to back up this claim.

>
>> You also really like to misrepresent other peoples' position on issues to
>> suit your version of reality. Like your statement that engineers like
>> Linkwitz, Hidley, Toole, Barton, etc. " are a whole lot more
>> interested in having the direct-field signal be flat and
>> coherent than they are in sound power." I know this is total bull****,
>> because I have discussed the issue at length with them.
>
> Must have been quite a meeting. I can almost imagine how it
> looked: You lined them up and then said, "Howard Ferstler
> says you guys say so and so." And then they reply to you,
> "Why that asshole. Who does he think he is? Thanks for
> telling us this, John. Well fix his ass."

You are also incredibly paranoid. There was no "meeting" with all of them. I
had individual meetings at their facilities. Honestly, most of them didn't
even remember who you are. And those that did, well, never mind.

>You must have had
> a ball spilling the beans.
Really, Howard, you were little more than a short "aside" in our
discussions.


>Incidentally, I am not sure I
> said anything at all about Barton's take on
> reverberant-field response. I have no idea what his position
> is.

Same as everyone else I spoke with.

> However, I stand by my contention that a flat, coherent
> first-arrival signal is very important to three of those
> guys and that sound power is not all that big a deal for
> them, at least compared to how Allison feels.
Well, to Allison it is everything. To them it is but one part of the bigger
picture. So are they wrong and Allison right? Or is it just two different
approaches, both valid in their own way?

> Allison
> is concerned with the direct-field output over a +/-90
> degree angle, which obviously makes him into a
> power-response kind of guy.

To the extreme and to the point that the imaging capability is lost in his
designs. An unacceptable compromise to all the engineers with whom I have
spoken. And Allison's extreme approach doesn't negate that these other
designers also place emphasis on a smooth reverberant field within what any
sane person would consider a normal listening position.

Given that you yourself admit to having measured smooth, extended response
in these types of systems, it is clear that their approach is totally valid,
with the added advantage of good imaging.

> If you are trying to turn them against me, I have to tell
> you that it really does not matter. At this point in my
> life, what you do to unfairly alienate industry bigwigs
> against Howard Ferstler means little to Howard Ferstler.

"And you won't have Richard Nixon to kick around any more".


> Frankly, I think that all of those gentlemen have a lot more
> to fear from the likes of assorted tweako-freako writers who
> are in the process of turning high-end audio into a joke
> than they have from me. You, too, John.

Please clarify. I have a lot to fear, or I'm turning high end audio into a
joke?


>>> What he failed to realize is that the microscopic behavior
>>> of the diaphragm is not what matters.
>
>> All tweeter movement is microscopic. Can you see any movement in a tweeter
>> diaphragm even when it is playing extremely loud?
>
> Well, I suppose I should have just been more specific about
> the diaphragm distorting at all frequencies, particularly
> those higher up. In any case, I do not believe that
> microscopic analysis of diaphragm breakup is a big deal,
> provided the driver delivers the flat-power and uniform
> radiation-pattern goods. For the most part, tweeter
> distortion at very high frequencies is not all that
> critical, simply because the harmonics will be above the
> audible range. Even within the audible range the artifacts
> will usually be masked by program content.

Sure, Mr. Engineer. Whatever you say.


>Ironically, Bose
> proved this in an experiment decades ago.
Yeah, and they also "proved" that 9 heavily equalized 4-1/2" inch drivers
are the best way to design a speaker system. Lots of credibility there.
>
>>> There are lots of
>>> other factors that are more important.
>
>> Such as?
>
> Radiation pattern uniformity over the driver's full
> operating range.

>Power-handling ability, too.
Oops. Not so good news for the Allison tweeter.


>>> What matters is how
>>> the tweeter performs as a musical reproducer.
>
>> How the tweeter performs as a musical reproducer is directly tied to those
>> important fundamental aspects of its performance, of which dispersion is
>> only one.
>
> But the most important one.
So that means that all 3/4" tweeters are better than all 1" tweeters, and
all 1/2" tweeters are better than all 3/4" tweeters. Right?

Honestly, Howard, other than a couple of potential retorts to your snot, I'm
done with this discussion. You've proven to my satisfaction that you haven't
learned a damned thing since we last discussed speakers 4 years ago, and the
rest is just a bunch of "debating trade" bull****. Frankly, its getting
boring, and I've got much better things to do. I'm building a set of
Linkwitz Orions (SEAS Excel mid and tweeter,BTW) and heading off to Norway
in a few weeks. Nice really long days.

> Howard Ferstler
copyright 1972

[Clyde Slick]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
>
> For the most part, they are above the price range I prefer
> to deal with. (The most expensive speaker pair I have
> reviewed was a sub-sat package with a list price of $6800,
> and I was iffy about doing that.)

I see, you were afraid you might actually prefer them.
Why not bust some tweako chops by reviewing
some renowned high end speaker. Afraid you can't do that?
Your wrecking ball isn't meaty enough for the task?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[dave weil]

On Fri, 06 May 2005 17:10:40 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>> Here's my advice. Just listen to the darn things and see if the lack
>> of bass is something that someone should be concerned with. Oh yeah,
>> there's that "issue" of comb filtering.
>
>I rarely worry about bass response with any of the speakers
>I review, because of the option to add a subwoofer. Anyone
>who has read my reviews will realize that my main stress is
>on the bandwidth between 80 Hz and about 8 kHz
>(notwithstanding the magic of those occasional triangle
>tinglings higher up). That is where the musical meat
>resides.

Well yes. So, since the strength of the Quads is the almost
unparalleled midrange, you might be in for a revelation if you ever
get the guts to actually audition a pair.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> I see, you were afraid you might actually prefer them.
> Why not bust some tweako chops by reviewing
> some renowned high end speaker. Afraid you can't do that?
> Your wrecking ball isn't meaty enough for the task?

Harold's reputation precedes him. He's well known as a reviewer who ....
ah.... "misplaces" loaners. That's not really a problem when companies
lend him cheap stuff, or B-stock. But a pair of speakers worth $10,000?
Not very likely.

[Howard Ferstler]

John Stone wrote:

> Howard wrote:

> > Incidentally, that tweeter's room/power curve was not all
> > that great. Third rate, actually. Both the Allison tweeter
> > and the NHT tweeters I have recently messed with had flatter
> > room-curve results.

> Uh,huh. And you tested and compared those tweeters how? You pulled them out
> of the cabinets, disconnected them from the crossover, mounted them on a DIN
> baffle and analyzed them in your anechoic chamber?. Or you did your usual
> microphone waving with a cheap uncalibrated 3rd octave analyzer on the whole
> system? I'll bet heavily on the latter. So tell me, how did you ascertain
> that the tweeter was "third rate" and that the response you supposedly
> measured wasn't a function of the crossover or cabinet design rather than
> the driver itself?

Anything is possible. However, Seas tweeters in two
different systems I have reviewed had a saddle-shaped
response over their operating ranges between 2-3 kHz and
12-16 kHz, and yet in some other systems I have reviewed I
have seen no such artifacts. If the Seas tweeters were
correct, then those other systems had hump-shaped response
curves. But, hey, I have seen similar artifacts in a few
other, non Seas systems, too. Must be an epidemic.

As for my moving-microphone, timed-averaging measuring
technique, I think it does a pretty good job of measuring
the average input of a speaker to my listening room. A good
many fine systems that I have auditioned have measured very
good with the technique for me to think that it is
misleading.

> > (The NHT tweeter is the flattest
> > measuring tweeter I have ever encountered, even flatter into
> > the top octave than the Allison.)

> Hate to break it to you Howard, but SEAS and NHT have a very close working
> relationship, and we supply all the tweeters to their top products-including
> their new digital based active system and their new pro monitors.

As best I can tell, the tweeters in the NHT ST4 and M6
"Evolution" systems are made in China. Indeed, the entire M6
system is made in China. (Someday, everything will be made
in China, I think.) That tweeter is probably the flattest
responding I have yet to measure, even a bit flatter in
terms of room response well past 12.5 kHz (in all three of
my listening rooms) than even the Allison tweeter. It still
sounds less spacious, however, but I think that Hidley was
not looking for wide-dispersion spaciousness anyway, at
least not with the M6.

> We also
> supply them with woofers.

The one in the ST4 was OK, but no better than OK. Do you
make the one for the Evolution subwoofer? That was an OK
subwoofer for home theater, but is no match for any good
Velodyne, Hsu, or SVS sub. I continue to be amazed by how so
many companies that make fine satellite speakers fall flat
when designing subwoofers.

> Since you love to name drop, why don't you ask
> Jack Hidley what he thinks of our products, or me for that matter? Or is he
> now off your favorite engineers list?

Heck no. I think he has done wonderful work. And I think
that Seas makes nice stuff. So does (or did) Allison.

Interestingly, I think that you pretty much butted in to
this thread a while back and did an "attack-dog" move on
Allison's legacy. Quit bellyaching when I give you some of
your own medicine.

> > Heck, even a Polk tweeter
> > measured better, as did the Vifa tweeter in my Dunlavy
> > Cantatas.

> Do you honestly think I give a rat's ass about your opinion?

Heck no. Go take a pill, John.

> You are in no
> position to make a value judgment on any driver, much less one of ours.

Cool off. And I measure what I measure, and I have measured
any number of systems that had a flatter treble curve than
some of the Seas-configured systems I have also measured.
The Seas jobs were not junk, however, they just were not
quite as flat and smooth as some other brands. Sure, my
measurements may not conform to your preferences, but in any
case if those Seas tweeters were on the mark, a number of
other brands were having problems.

> You
> have the crudest of the crude measuring abilities, no understanding of
> speaker or driver design, and no hearing above 12kHz.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but your innuendo
causes me no pain. Once you are retired you will understand
this comment.

> And, using a
> disagreement with me to trash a product you are reviewing?

Look who's talking? As best I recall, you butted in a while
back and began lambasting some Allison products. Looks like
you can put forth punishment, John, but you cannot take it.

> Where the hell is
> your journalistic integrity?

Chill out. If you are looking to check out my journalistic
integrity read my published materials and not the claptrap
that ALL of us put forth here on RAO.

> This is your typical "trash the other guy to make your miserable self feel
> better" routine you love to play. How childish can you be?
> As for SEAS tweeters, D'Appollito , Linkwitz, Barton, Hidley, to name just a
> few all use them in their top product designs and consider the top line
> Excel tweeters as references. Their opinion, not yours, is all that counts
> for me.

Good for you, John.

> > In any case, that Allison tweeter surround is not all that
> > large. Remember, this is a one-inch driver we are talking
> > about. (You make it sound as if the overall diaphragm is a
> > large as a pie plate.)

> It is a 1/2" driver with a 1" surround.

To clarify this for concerned readers, the surround is
actually 1/4 inch wide, which makes the overall driver one
inch in diameter.

> > One does not need to be a rocket
> > scientist to realize that when a driver that size simulates
> > a pulsating hemisphere (not perfectly, but certainly better
> > than a typical one-inch dome) its outer area will be not be
> > moving back and forth at a 90-degree angle to the mounting
> > plate like a typical dome. That angular movement is why the
> > surround contributes to the high-frequency radiation at
> > wider angles. It is not pumping back and forth, parallel to
> > the central dome. One would have to be a lunkhead to not see
> > that a radially rating outer area of a driver of that kind
> > will contribute to the driver's radiation pattern at very
> > high frequencies, particularly when the driver is small in
> > diameter to begin with.

> You just pulled that one right out of your ass, didn't you.

My goodness, you are certainly profane for a speaker
salesman. Salesmen are supposed to be polite.

> You are utterly
> full of ****.

See my comment right above.

> Please cite one independent reference to back up this claim.

Hey, it is just my opinion, based upon what Allison has
said; just like your assorted opinions are mostly based upon
what Seas designers have said. I say "mostly," because some
of your opinions appear to be coming right out of the blue.

> >> You also really like to misrepresent other peoples' position on issues to
> >> suit your version of reality. Like your statement that engineers like
> >> Linkwitz, Hidley, Toole, Barton, etc. " are a whole lot more
> >> interested in having the direct-field signal be flat and
> >> coherent than they are in sound power." I know this is total bull****,
> >> because I have discussed the issue at length with them.

> > Must have been quite a meeting. I can almost imagine how it
> > looked: You lined them up and then said, "Howard Ferstler
> > says you guys say so and so." And then they reply to you,
> > "Why that asshole. Who does he think he is? Thanks for
> > telling us this, John. Well fix his ass."

> You are also incredibly paranoid.

Look who's talking.

> There was no "meeting" with all of them.

OK, now I am becoming disappointed in you. You need to learn
to organize.

> I
> had individual meetings at their facilities. Honestly, most of them didn't
> even remember who you are.

With the actual people you noted, or with their sales
flacks?

> And those that did, well, never mind.

Meaning that maybe they were not all that unfavorable in
their opinions of me.

> >You must have had
> > a ball spilling the beans.

> Really, Howard, you were little more than a short "aside" in our
> discussions.

But I at least rated an "aside." I am flattered, because
most other journalists would not even rate that much.

> > However, I stand by my contention that a flat, coherent
> > first-arrival signal is very important to three of those
> > guys and that sound power is not all that big a deal for
> > them, at least compared to how Allison feels.

> Well, to Allison it is everything.

Not quite. Like Mark Davis, he is very aware of the
importance of radiation pattern. Villchur was that way, too.
Actually, for Mark Davis radiation pattern is THE main
criteria. I tend to agree, provided that the speaker is also
able to generate flat power into the listening room. Note
that I said INTO the listening room and not into an anechoic
chamber. The listening room has a lot of impact on flat
power response in the middle bass, which Allison noted
decades ago. Mid-bass boundary cancellations often make flat
power at those frequencies problematical, whereas the same
system may be quite flat anechoically.

> To them it is but one part of the bigger
> picture.

Read some of my reviews and articles. I say the same thing.

> So are they wrong and Allison right? Or is it just two different
> approaches, both valid in their own way?

Actually, yes. I have directional speakers in one of my
systems and more omnidirectional ones in the other one. I
like both approaches, although I think that directional
speakers need assistance with the front "effects" channels
that Yamaha makes available with its upscale processors.
(One Sunfire processor I reviewed had a similar ability.)
Otherwise, they sound like good soundstaging hi-fi speakers
and not quite so much like live music. Well, they do work
very well with small-scale baroque material, at least with
some recordings.

> > Allison
> > is concerned with the direct-field output over a +/-90
> > degree angle, which obviously makes him into a
> > power-response kind of guy.

> To the extreme and to the point that the imaging capability is lost in his
> designs.

Not lost, but as you know I am not one who thinks that
precise imaging is all that big a deal. That is an audio
buff fixation, not something I care about.

> An unacceptable compromise to all the engineers with whom I have
> spoken.

Because many of them simply MUST have precise imaging if
they want a good hi-fi style sound from their installations.
Me, I do not think that matters all that much. If it did
matter, the use of a true center channel (or a good derived
and steered version with stereo material) will deliver more
than adequate imaging, while the left/right mains continue
to deliver the depth, air, and spaciousness we get with live
sound.

> And Allison's extreme approach doesn't negate that these other
> designers also place emphasis on a smooth reverberant field within what any
> sane person would consider a normal listening position.

I agree. Many of the systems they have designed were very
capable of delivering a flat room curve with my measurement
technique. Go look at issues 94 and 95 of The Sensible Sound
for my take on some of those often fine systems.

> Given that you yourself admit to having measured smooth, extended response
> in these types of systems, it is clear that their approach is totally valid,
> with the added advantage of good imaging.

Yep. However, I think that the very wide dispersion of the
Allison approach leads to a more realistic overall
soundstage with a lot of very well recorded material.

> > If you are trying to turn them against me, I have to tell
> > you that it really does not matter. At this point in my
> > life, what you do to unfairly alienate industry bigwigs
> > against Howard Ferstler means little to Howard Ferstler.

> "And you won't have Richard Nixon to kick around any more".

Him, too? You seem to pick on everybody, John.

> > Frankly, I think that all of those gentlemen have a lot more
> > to fear from the likes of assorted tweako-freako writers who
> > are in the process of turning high-end audio into a joke
> > than they have from me. You, too, John.

> Please clarify. I have a lot to fear, or I'm turning high end audio into a
> joke?

In many ways, you appear to be solidly into the tweako camp,
John. You certainly seem to have the correct personality.

> >>> What he failed to realize is that the microscopic behavior
> >>> of the diaphragm is not what matters.

> >> All tweeter movement is microscopic. Can you see any movement in a tweeter
> >> diaphragm even when it is playing extremely loud?

> > Well, I suppose I should have just been more specific about
> > the diaphragm distorting at all frequencies, particularly
> > those higher up. In any case, I do not believe that
> > microscopic analysis of diaphragm breakup is a big deal,
> > provided the driver delivers the flat-power and uniform
> > radiation-pattern goods. For the most part, tweeter
> > distortion at very high frequencies is not all that
> > critical, simply because the harmonics will be above the
> > audible range. Even within the audible range the artifacts
> > will usually be masked by program content.

> Sure, Mr. Engineer. Whatever you say.

Are you cynically implying that in addition to what we have
with my case ALL audio reviewers and journalists should be
engineers? If that could be guaranteed I would gladly step
aside and let those people take over the entire
audio-journalism enterprise. I think that would be a very
good thing, indeed.

> >Ironically, Bose
> > proved this in an experiment decades ago.

> Yeah, and they also "proved" that 9 heavily equalized 4-1/2" inch drivers
> are the best way to design a speaker system. Lots of credibility there.

Well, they proved that it was one interesting approach to
sound reproduction. My problem with that design is that the
package is still too directional, in spite of all of that
front-wall reflecting.

> >>> There are lots of
> >>> other factors that are more important.

> >> Such as?

> > Radiation pattern uniformity over the driver's full
> > operating range.

> >Power-handling ability, too.

> Oops. Not so good news for the Allison tweeter.

Only for the two-way models that have to get down to 2 kHz.
The three-way models only have to reach down to 4 kHz, which
is no big deal for them. Incidentally, in all of my
reviewing work I have yet to fry an Allison tweeter when
using his systems as references. I suppose that some rock
freaks would fry them on a regular basis, however. They are
that kind of people.

> >>> What matters is how
> >>> the tweeter performs as a musical reproducer.

> >> How the tweeter performs as a musical reproducer is directly tied to those
> >> important fundamental aspects of its performance, of which dispersion is
> >> only one.

> > But the most important one.

> So that means that all 3/4" tweeters are better than all 1" tweeters, and
> all 1/2" tweeters are better than all 3/4" tweeters. Right?

If we properly understand the importance of wide dispersion
over the full operating range of the system. If a system
beams, it should beam consistently over its full operating
range (at least above the bass range, which some directional
horn systems seem able to do), and if it has wide dispersion
at some frequencies it should have wide dispersion over all
the other frequencies, too.

> Honestly, Howard, other than a couple of potential retorts to your snot, I'm
> done with this discussion.

Well, I am getting a bit tired of you, too.

> You've proven to my satisfaction that you haven't
> learned a damned thing since we last discussed speakers 4 years ago,

Funny. I was thinking the same thing about you.

> and the
> rest is just a bunch of "debating trade" bull****. Frankly, its getting
> boring,

Not to mention tiring.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

ScottW wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> ...

> > I will say this: I have compared some expensive speakers to
> > some cheaper ones on many occasions, and for the most part I
> > believe that a good, but low-priced, sub/sat package can
> > often hold its own in practical terms with some very
> > expensive full-range systems. In a couple of cases, the
> > cheaper set up sounded a bit better. A lot of the hype we
> > read about exotic and expensive high-end gear is just that:
> > hype.

> I won't disagree that the most cost effective way to achieve good full range
> performance is via a small monitor and a sub....

Yep. However, using a sub/sat approach also allows the user
to locate the satellites for best soundstaging, while at the
same time locating the bass section for the best propagation
of the bass range. Sub/sat systems have the potential to
eliminate certain boundary-related artifacts that undercut
the middle-bass range performance.

> but your comments regarding
> exotic and expensive equipment is fundamentally based upon ignorance.

Well, I have not reviewed every super-duper system out
there, but I would say that you probably have not reviewed
every low-cost system out there, either. And I am pretty
sure that you have not used dual stereo amps to set up and
evaluate level-matched pairs of speakers being compared to
each other. I do this as a matter of policy with all of my
speaker reviews. I do so, while auditioning some really good
recordings, usually classical or baroque material that
reveal things that pop-music recordings generally make hash
out of with even the finest systems.

> You
> have no personal knowledge regarding the state of the art, you haven't even
> heard Quads let alone Sound Labs or MBL etc. You have no clue what the
> state of the art in speaker performance is today. You're the equivalent of
> a Consumer Reports auto writer claiming Performance Racing Industries has
> nothing more to offer. You are not qualified to make the statements you
> make.

Actually, I have reviewed some pretty upscale and often
expensive stuff from Waveform, NHT, Coincident Technology,
Triad, Eminent Technology, Snell, Polk, Tyler Acoustics, and
Axiom. I have also reviewed lower priced stuff from Atlantic
Technology, AR, NHT (again), Polk (again), and Tannoy. For
the most part, the upscale stuff had an edge, but not in all
cases. For example, an exotic $4800 package from EOSS was
decidedly inferior to virtually all of the lower-priced
stuff in just about any way I can think of.

While I will admit that electrostatic items from outfits
like ML are exotic and interesting, I am not sure that
systems with flat-panel radiators that large are all that
workable. (I also wonder about the heavy-duty circuitry
required to make the Quad point-source systems do what they
are supposed to do.) Certainly, some of the reviews I have
seen dealing with them have not been all that laudatory. (I
have seen published FR curves run on some ML models that
were among the choppiest I have ever viewed, and in my
opinion choppy is no good at all.)

As for other conventional systems (with standard magnet/coil
drivers, even upscale versions), I remain unconvinced that
mysterious and miraculous manipulations by their builders
(who often only build the cabinets and crossovers and not
the drivers) will result in miraculous performance.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Clyde Slick wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > For the most part, they are above the price range I prefer
> > to deal with. (The most expensive speaker pair I have
> > reviewed was a sub-sat package with a list price of $6800,
> > and I was iffy about doing that.)

> I see, you were afraid you might actually prefer them.
> Why not bust some tweako chops by reviewing
> some renowned high end speaker. Afraid you can't do that?
> Your wrecking ball isn't meaty enough for the task?

There is a good chance that they would not perform much
better than some really low-priced systems. Certainly not
enough better to justify a price that is several times as
high. What do I say then?

Yep, being a high-end reviewer is a potential hell. Sure,
there is a way out: just bull**** about the speakers and
tell everyone that they have mysterious qualities that
justify the price.

So goes high-end journalism.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

"George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > I see, you were afraid you might actually prefer them.
> > Why not bust some tweako chops by reviewing
> > some renowned high end speaker. Afraid you can't do that?
> > Your wrecking ball isn't meaty enough for the task?
>
> Harold's reputation precedes him. He's well known as a reviewer who ....
> ah.... "misplaces" loaners. That's not really a problem when companies
> lend him cheap stuff, or B-stock. But a pair of speakers worth $10,000?
> Not very likely.

Actually, I have had situations where I had to actually
pressure companies to take back their systems.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Fri, 06 May 2005 17:10:40 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:
>
> >> Here's my advice. Just listen to the darn things and see if the lack
> >> of bass is something that someone should be concerned with. Oh yeah,
> >> there's that "issue" of comb filtering.
> >
> >I rarely worry about bass response with any of the speakers
> >I review, because of the option to add a subwoofer. Anyone
> >who has read my reviews will realize that my main stress is
> >on the bandwidth between 80 Hz and about 8 kHz
> >(notwithstanding the magic of those occasional triangle
> >tinglings higher up). That is where the musical meat
> >resides.

> Well yes. So, since the strength of the Quads is the almost
> unparalleled midrange, you might be in for a revelation if you ever
> get the guts to actually audition a pair.

Dave, I do not take audio serious enough to require guts to
review a speaker. Only tweakos get all that upset about
exotic systems being panned. I will note that the response
curves I have seen on some electrostatic models (not Quads)
were among the choppiest I have ever viewed.

Choppy is NOT good, Dave. Note that said choppiness with
flat-panel systems of any kind had been predicted by
mathematician Stan Lip****z two decades ago.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

ScottW wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> ...

> > I hate to tell you this (just kidding; I love to tell you
> > this), but trial and error is part of science.

> Not really.... its too expensive and unproductive. In some fields,
> potentially dangerous.

Like with atom bombs.

> >> We have no need to ever know
> >> why something works well... it is sufficient only to know that it does
> >> work
> >> well.

> > Are you saying that you actually have curiosity about
> > something like this, while at the same time you are not
> > curious enough about the DBT protocol to give it a try?

> Howard, do you really have insufficient mental capacity remaining to refrain
> from incorrectly attributing comments and attitudes to me? I have not
> argued against the validity of a DBT beyond my suspicions that some
> acoustics aspect that can contribute to satisfaction are not readily
> identifiable in a quick A vs B.

In that case, do them slow.

> > There are times when it is important to know why something
> > works as it does. However, there are also times when such
> > analysis, interesting though it may be, does not forward the
> > science of design.

> Ridiculous, ludicrous statement. If one does not know why something
> works...then one has little to no chance of improving upon it.

But we have to look for reasons why the things behave as
they do and not look for solutions to problems that do not
exist. The diaphragm behavior issue is just that: a solution
looking for a problem to solve.

> >> Isn't this the kind of attitude that is pervasive in the high end that
> >> has
> >> frustrated you so?

> > While analyzing diaphragm behavior at the microscopic level
> > would be a fun and interesting thing to do, I do not believe
> > it has a huge amount to do with the macro-level performance
> > of the driver.

> HF sound is produced by micro levels of motion.

But what counts is the end result at the listening position
and not the end result in front of a microscope. Does the
tweeter propagate sound cleanly and widely? Tweeters of
conventional design have been doing that for years.

> Perhaps you're having
> difficulty differentiating between micro and macro. Lets make it
> simple...if you can't see the movement its micro...if you can see it....its
> macro.

We do not see sound. We hear sound. Well, some tweakos, when
doing comparisons, need to see what is playing in order to
make their judgment.

> > However, postulating diaphragm breakup as a big
> > deal is just that: postulating.

> The first step to understanding - postulating.

Yes. However, as best I can tell there is really no major
correlation between the microscopic performance of tweeter
diaphragms and the way said tweeters propagate sound in a
standard listening area. That is, tweeters with what appears
to be poor diaphragm breakup have not been shown to be
sonically inferior to those with diaphragms that behave in
ways that manufacturers (those who made that tweeter) claim
result in better sound. Indeed, working to build a tweeter
diaphragm with minimal breakup may result in degraded
performance in areas that are important.

While diaphragm breakup can be a way to evaluate certain
aspects of performance, no company who has produced
super-duper tweeters that supposedly have superior diaphragm
behavior has delivered a tweeter with notably (or even
slightly) better performance on the macro level than what we
have gotten for years with regular, old tweeters of good
quality.

Howard Ferstler

[ScottW]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW wrote:
>>
>> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>> > I will say this: I have compared some expensive speakers to
>> > some cheaper ones on many occasions, and for the most part I
>> > believe that a good, but low-priced, sub/sat package can
>> > often hold its own in practical terms with some very
>> > expensive full-range systems. In a couple of cases, the
>> > cheaper set up sounded a bit better. A lot of the hype we
>> > read about exotic and expensive high-end gear is just that:
>> > hype.
>
>> I won't disagree that the most cost effective way to achieve good full
>> range
>> performance is via a small monitor and a sub....
>
> Yep. However, using a sub/sat approach also allows the user
> to locate the satellites for best soundstaging, while at the
> same time locating the bass section for the best propagation
> of the bass range. Sub/sat systems have the potential to
> eliminate certain boundary-related artifacts that undercut
> the middle-bass range performance.
>
>> but your comments regarding
>> exotic and expensive equipment is fundamentally based upon ignorance.
>
> Well, I have not reviewed every super-duper system out
> there, but I would say that you probably have not reviewed
> every low-cost system out there, either.

Irrelevant, I am not the one making unsubstantiated claims.

> And I am pretty
> sure that you have not used dual stereo amps to set up and
> evaluate level-matched pairs of speakers being compared to
> each other.

Irrelevant and kind of silly unless you have figured out to get them to
occupy the same space at the same time. You probably eq'd them to get
matched levels anyway.

>I do this as a matter of policy with all of my
> speaker reviews. I do so, while auditioning some really good
> recordings, usually classical or baroque material that
> reveal things that pop-music recordings generally make hash
> out of with even the finest systems.
>
>> You
>> have no personal knowledge regarding the state of the art, you haven't
>> even
>> heard Quads let alone Sound Labs or MBL etc. You have no clue what the
>> state of the art in speaker performance is today. You're the equivalent
>> of
>> a Consumer Reports auto writer claiming Performance Racing Industries has
>> nothing more to offer. You are not qualified to make the statements you
>> make.
>
> Actually, I have reviewed some pretty upscale and often
> expensive stuff from Waveform, NHT, Coincident Technology,
> Triad, Eminent Technology, Snell, Polk, Tyler Acoustics, and
> Axiom. I have also reviewed lower priced stuff from Atlantic
> Technology, AR, NHT (again), Polk (again), and Tannoy. For
> the most part, the upscale stuff had an edge, but not in all
> cases. For example, an exotic $4800 package from EOSS was
> decidedly inferior to virtually all of the lower-priced
> stuff in just about any way I can think of.

Do you really think this stuff defines the state of the art?

>
> While I will admit that electrostatic items from outfits
> like ML are exotic and interesting, I am not sure that
> systems with flat-panel radiators that large are all that
> workable. (I also wonder about the heavy-duty circuitry
> required to make the Quad point-source systems do what they
> are supposed to do.) Certainly, some of the reviews I have
> seen dealing with them have not been all that laudatory. (I
> have seen published FR curves run on some ML models that
> were among the choppiest I have ever viewed, and in my
> opinion choppy is no good at all.)

All you have is unsubstantitated opinion and speculation.

>
> As for other conventional systems (with standard magnet/coil
> drivers, even upscale versions), I remain unconvinced that
> mysterious and miraculous manipulations by their builders
> (who often only build the cabinets and crossovers and not
> the drivers) will result in miraculous performance.

So much irrelevant obfuscation. What does this have to do with your lack
of experience with equipment and technology you have chosen to criticize?
You're no better than Trots dis'in the LT-30 cuz it was made in Japan.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW wrote:
>>
>> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>> > I hate to tell you this (just kidding; I love to tell you
>> > this), but trial and error is part of science.
>
>> Not really.... its too expensive and unproductive. In some fields,
>> potentially dangerous.
>
> Like with atom bombs.

and bio-weapons.

>
>> >> We have no need to ever know
>> >> why something works well... it is sufficient only to know that it does
>> >> work
>> >> well.
>
>> > Are you saying that you actually have curiosity about
>> > something like this, while at the same time you are not
>> > curious enough about the DBT protocol to give it a try?
>
>> Howard, do you really have insufficient mental capacity remaining to
>> refrain
>> from incorrectly attributing comments and attitudes to me? I have not
>> argued against the validity of a DBT beyond my suspicions that some
>> acoustics aspect that can contribute to satisfaction are not readily
>> identifiable in a quick A vs B.
>
> In that case, do them slow.
>
>> > There are times when it is important to know why something
>> > works as it does. However, there are also times when such
>> > analysis, interesting though it may be, does not forward the
>> > science of design.
>
>> Ridiculous, ludicrous statement. If one does not know why something
>> works...then one has little to no chance of improving upon it.
>
> But we have to look for reasons why the things behave as
> they do and not look for solutions to problems that do not
> exist. The diaphragm behavior issue is just that: a solution
> looking for a problem to solve.

Unless you feel that diaphragm behavior is perfect you're statement is
naive.

>
>> >> Isn't this the kind of attitude that is pervasive in the high end that
>> >> has
>> >> frustrated you so?
>
>> > While analyzing diaphragm behavior at the microscopic level
>> > would be a fun and interesting thing to do, I do not believe
>> > it has a huge amount to do with the macro-level performance
>> > of the driver.
>
>> HF sound is produced by micro levels of motion.
>
> But what counts is the end result at the listening position
> and not the end result in front of a microscope. Does the
> tweeter propagate sound cleanly and widely? Tweeters of
> conventional design have been doing that for years.

Perfectly? I guess audio advancement is over... Howard found the perfect
tweeter.

>
>> Perhaps you're having
>> difficulty differentiating between micro and macro. Lets make it
>> simple...if you can't see the movement its micro...if you can see
>> it....its
>> macro.
>
> We do not see sound. We hear sound. Well, some tweakos, when
> doing comparisons, need to see what is playing in order to
> make their judgment.
>
>> > However, postulating diaphragm breakup as a big
>> > deal is just that: postulating.
>
>> The first step to understanding - postulating.
>
> Yes. However, as best I can tell there is really no major
> correlation between the microscopic performance of tweeter
> diaphragms and the way said tweeters propagate sound in a
> standard listening area.

Logically absurd statement. Since the microscopic movement is what
originates the sound there must be correlation. Tell you what... since
there is no correlation lets just eliminate those unnecessary microscopic
movements and see what you get..... perfect silence.

>That is, tweeters with what appears
> to be poor diaphragm breakup have not been shown to be
> sonically inferior to those with diaphragms that behave in
> ways that manufacturers (those who made that tweeter) claim
> result in better sound. Indeed, working to build a tweeter
> diaphragm with minimal breakup may result in degraded
> performance in areas that are important.
>
> While diaphragm breakup can be a way to evaluate certain
> aspects of performance, no company who has produced
> super-duper tweeters that supposedly have superior diaphragm
> behavior has delivered a tweeter with notably (or even
> slightly) better performance on the macro level than what we
> have gotten for years with regular, old tweeters of good
> quality.

So what is it that makes some tweeters of good quality and others not so
good?

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > For the most part, they are above the price range I prefer
>> > to deal with. (The most expensive speaker pair I have
>> > reviewed was a sub-sat package with a list price of $6800,
>> > and I was iffy about doing that.)
>
>> I see, you were afraid you might actually prefer them.
>> Why not bust some tweako chops by reviewing
>> some renowned high end speaker. Afraid you can't do that?
>> Your wrecking ball isn't meaty enough for the task?
>
> There is a good chance that they would not perform much
> better than some really low-priced systems. Certainly not
> enough better to justify a price that is several times as
> high. What do I say then?
>

Thanks for the free loaner.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Howard Ferstler]

ScottW wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> ...

> > Well, I have not reviewed every super-duper system out
> > there, but I would say that you probably have not reviewed
> > every low-cost system out there, either.

> Irrelevant, I am not the one making unsubstantiated claims.

As are you.

> > And I am pretty
> > sure that you have not used dual stereo amps to set up and
> > evaluate level-matched pairs of speakers being compared to
> > each other.

> Irrelevant and kind of silly unless you have figured out to get them to
> occupy the same space at the same time.

Actually, you have a point. I set up the speakers AB/AB
style, so as to get the soundstage widths the same.
Unfortunately, doing this makes it impossible for the
listener to occupy the sweet spot with either pair
simultaneously. However, given that I am listening mainly
for spectral balance similarities or differences and the
ability of the systems to delineate soundstage space, this
is no big deal.

> You probably eq'd them to get
> matched levels anyway.

No standard equalization is applied during the comparisons.
I DO normally 1/3-octave equalize when listening for
pleasure (see issues 94 and 95 of The Sensible Sound for the
rationale), but when comparing speakers the systems operate
without any signal manipulations, other than
close-as-possible level matching. I certainly do not hope
you object to me getting their average output levels as
close as possible. Generally, I try to get things as close
as possible throughout the midrange and let the bass and
treble areas fall where they may.

> >> You
> >> have no personal knowledge regarding the state of the art, you haven't
> >> even
> >> heard Quads let alone Sound Labs or MBL etc. You have no clue what the
> >> state of the art in speaker performance is today. You're the equivalent
> >> of
> >> a Consumer Reports auto writer claiming Performance Racing Industries has
> >> nothing more to offer. You are not qualified to make the statements you
> >> make.

> > Actually, I have reviewed some pretty upscale and often
> > expensive stuff from Waveform, NHT, Coincident Technology,
> > Triad, Eminent Technology, Snell, Polk, Tyler Acoustics, and
> > Axiom. I have also reviewed lower priced stuff from Atlantic
> > Technology, AR, NHT (again), Polk (again), and Tannoy. For
> > the most part, the upscale stuff had an edge, but not in all
> > cases. For example, an exotic $4800 package from EOSS was
> > decidedly inferior to virtually all of the lower-priced
> > stuff in just about any way I can think of.

> Do you really think this stuff defines the state of the art?

Well, some people besides me do. I know that Telarc used
Waveform speakers for years as references, and Axiom uses
the Canadian NRC facility, and in my review of the systems
that advantage showed. Actually, I think that Waveform did
this, too. If you think that Snell is bush league you need
to get out more. The Polk models were their top LSi-25
models at that time, and they were OK, but not world
shaking, in spite of the ring-radiator tweeter. The Atlantic
Technology systems (mid-priced models) were designed by
Vance Dickason, who wrote the Loudspeaker Design Cookbook.
The NHT speakers (both the mid-priced ST4 systems and the M6
Evolution systems I reviewed) were designed by Jack Hidley.
Many high-end enthusiasts swear by the Coincident Technology
systems (I thought they were OK, but not world shaking), and
Dunlavy had been a highly regarded designer even by
Stereophile for years. Ditto Claude Fortier, who designed
the Waveform systems. The AR systems, by the way, were
designed by Cary Christie, who has long been regarded as a
top designer. (Cary was one of the originals with Infinity
long ago, and was at least partially responsible for the
Servo Static systems, and also designed the huge IRS
system.) I am certainly not the only reviewer out their who
has lauded some of the speaker companies I mentioned. To say
that the designers who built those systems were bush league
is infantile.

> > While I will admit that electrostatic items from outfits
> > like ML are exotic and interesting, I am not sure that
> > systems with flat-panel radiators that large are all that
> > workable. (I also wonder about the heavy-duty circuitry
> > required to make the Quad point-source systems do what they
> > are supposed to do.) Certainly, some of the reviews I have
> > seen dealing with them have not been all that laudatory. (I
> > have seen published FR curves run on some ML models that
> > were among the choppiest I have ever viewed, and in my
> > opinion choppy is no good at all.)

> All you have is unsubstantitated opinion and speculation.

Well, I would say that you have much the same thing.

> > As for other conventional systems (with standard magnet/coil
> > drivers, even upscale versions), I remain unconvinced that
> > mysterious and miraculous manipulations by their builders
> > (who often only build the cabinets and crossovers and not
> > the drivers) will result in miraculous performance.

> So much irrelevant obfuscation. What does this have to do with your lack
> of experience with equipment and technology you have chosen to criticize?

Well, there is always the possibility that some system will
come along that will cause the earth to move - referring to
its ability to deliver the mystical goods and not its bass
ability. So far, nothing I have reviewed has done that sort
of thing, although sometimes my own IC-20 systems seem to be
getting close.

> You're no better than Trots dis'in the LT-30 cuz it was made in Japan.

I rather like Japanese stuff, actually.

Howard Ferstler

[George M. Middius]

Brother Horace the Ungrateful lied:

> > Harold's reputation precedes him. He's well known as a reviewer who ....
> > ah.... "misplaces" loaners. That's not really a problem when companies
> > lend him cheap stuff, or B-stock. But a pair of speakers worth $10,000?
> > Not very likely.
>
> Actually, I have had situations where I had to actually
> pressure companies to take back their systems.

"Situations", Clerkie? What are you talking about?

[Howard Ferstler]

ScottW wrote:

> Perfectly? I guess audio advancement is over... Howard found the perfect
> tweeter.

Actually, I have compared systems with expensive tweeters to
those with more mundane designs and neither had an
sound-quality edge that I would consider significant. An
exception is the Allison tweeter, which sounds more spacious
than the others I have heard.

> >> The first step to understanding - postulating.

> > Yes. However, as best I can tell there is really no major
> > correlation between the microscopic performance of tweeter
> > diaphragms and the way said tweeters propagate sound in a
> > standard listening area.

> Logically absurd statement. Since the microscopic movement is what
> originates the sound there must be correlation.

It may look good, but in terms of real-world performance
that kind of esoteric nit picking just does not add up to
all that much. See my comments above concerning the
comparison of systems with expensive tweeters to those with
more low-cost versions.

> Tell you what... since
> there is no correlation lets just eliminate those unnecessary microscopic
> movements and see what you get..... perfect silence.

I never said that movements did not matter. I just indicated
that nit-picking analysis does not add up to any particular
performance advantage.

> > That is, tweeters with what appears
> > to be poor diaphragm breakup have not been shown to be
> > sonically inferior to those with diaphragms that behave in
> > ways that manufacturers (those who made that tweeter) claim
> > result in better sound. Indeed, working to build a tweeter
> > diaphragm with minimal breakup may result in degraded
> > performance in areas that are important.
> >
> > While diaphragm breakup can be a way to evaluate certain
> > aspects of performance, no company who has produced
> > super-duper tweeters that supposedly have superior diaphragm
> > behavior has delivered a tweeter with notably (or even
> > slightly) better performance on the macro level than what we
> > have gotten for years with regular, old tweeters of good
> > quality.

> So what is it that makes some tweeters of good quality and others not so
> good?

Good, wide-dispersion design. What else!

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Clyde Slick wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Clyde Slick wrote:
> >>
> >> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > For the most part, they are above the price range I prefer
> >> > to deal with. (The most expensive speaker pair I have
> >> > reviewed was a sub-sat package with a list price of $6800,
> >> > and I was iffy about doing that.)
> >
> >> I see, you were afraid you might actually prefer them.
> >> Why not bust some tweako chops by reviewing
> >> some renowned high end speaker. Afraid you can't do that?
> >> Your wrecking ball isn't meaty enough for the task?
> >
> > There is a good chance that they would not perform much
> > better than some really low-priced systems. Certainly not
> > enough better to justify a price that is several times as
> > high. What do I say then?
> >
>
> Thanks for the free loaner.

I have a pretty big house that has lots of storage space.
However, the space is not big enough to be bogged down with
a bunch of loaners. As it is, one closet is stuffed with
subwoofers that I use for comparison purposes when reviewing
affordable subs.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

"George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> Brother Horace the Ungrateful lied:
>
> > > Harold's reputation precedes him. He's well known as a reviewer who ....
> > > ah.... "misplaces" loaners. That's not really a problem when companies
> > > lend him cheap stuff, or B-stock. But a pair of speakers worth $10,000?
> > > Not very likely.
> >
> > Actually, I have had situations where I had to actually
> > pressure companies to take back their systems.
>
> "Situations", Clerkie? What are you talking about?

" Time to ship your speakers back to you, Mr.
Speaker-Company Guy. I have written my review and sent it
off to my editor. Send me a call tag."

"Ship them back? Are you sure you don't want to keep them on
hand for reference work?"

Etc.

Howard Ferstler

[George M. Middius]

Brother Horace the Evasive evaded:

> > > Actually, I have had situations where I had to actually
> > > pressure companies to take back their systems.
> >
> > "Situations", Clerkie? What are you talking about?
>
> " Time to ship your speakers back to you, Mr.
> Speaker-Company Guy. I have written my review and sent it
> off to my editor. Send me a call tag."

Which speaker company? Which model speaker? When was this?

> "Ship them back? Are you sure you don't want to keep them on
> hand for reference work?"

That's hard to believe. Why would anybody want you to keep their speakers?
I mean, it's well known you have no taste, right?

[Clyde Slick]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Clyde Slick wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > For the most part, they are above the price range I prefer
>> >> > to deal with. (The most expensive speaker pair I have
>> >> > reviewed was a sub-sat package with a list price of $6800,
>> >> > and I was iffy about doing that.)
>> >
>> >> I see, you were afraid you might actually prefer them.
>> >> Why not bust some tweako chops by reviewing
>> >> some renowned high end speaker. Afraid you can't do that?
>> >> Your wrecking ball isn't meaty enough for the task?
>> >
>> > There is a good chance that they would not perform much
>> > better than some really low-priced systems. Certainly not
>> > enough better to justify a price that is several times as
>> > high. What do I say then?
>> >
>>
>> Thanks for the free loaner.
>
> I have a pretty big house that has lots of storage space.
> However, the space is not big enough to be bogged down with
> a bunch of loaners. As it is, one closet is stuffed with
> subwoofers that I use for comparison purposes when reviewing
> affordable subs.
>

GOOD!
So we won't be bothered with any of your reviews of newly loaned equipment.
Unless you want to review it without hearing it.
Why not?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Michael Conzo]

In article Gmwhe.5630$It1.5354@lakeread02, "ScottW" >
wrote:

> So much irrelevant obfuscation. What does this have to do with your lack
> of experience with equipment and technology you have chosen to criticize?

I find Howard's views very rational. Criticism of him in this way marks you
as childish. He IS published, and apparently well-recognised in the
mainstream audio press. Methinks only jealousy stirs up this kind of
vitriol.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 14 May 2005 19:48:18 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 06 May 2005 17:10:40 -0400, Howard Ferstler
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> Here's my advice. Just listen to the darn things and see if the lack
>> >> of bass is something that someone should be concerned with. Oh yeah,
>> >> there's that "issue" of comb filtering.
>> >
>> >I rarely worry about bass response with any of the speakers
>> >I review, because of the option to add a subwoofer. Anyone
>> >who has read my reviews will realize that my main stress is
>> >on the bandwidth between 80 Hz and about 8 kHz
>> >(notwithstanding the magic of those occasional triangle
>> >tinglings higher up). That is where the musical meat
>> >resides.
>
>> Well yes. So, since the strength of the Quads is the almost
>> unparalleled midrange, you might be in for a revelation if you ever
>> get the guts to actually audition a pair.
>
>Dave, I do not take audio serious enough

Could have fooled me.

> to require guts to review a speaker. Only tweakos get all that upset about
>exotic systems being panned.

I'm only talking about listening for your own edification and
reference. It would be rather pointless for you to review Quads.

> I will note that the response
>curves I have seen on some electrostatic models (not Quads)
>were among the choppiest I have ever viewed.

I'm sure this helps you when you view a Gasparini overture.

>Choppy is NOT good, Dave. Note that said choppiness with
>flat-panel systems of any kind had been predicted by
>mathematician Stan Lip****z two decades ago.

And yet, didn't you give a very favorable review to an electrostatic
speaker recently? Didn't you find some very interesting qualities of
it? You know, statements like this are like extrapolating the sound of
cone speaker systems by viewing the response curves of a $200 Cerwin
Vega speaker.

I'm saying the same thing that you say to others - listen for
yourself. I think that you might be surprised, IF you can listen with
bias (and that's a BIG if).

[Sander deWaal]

Howard Ferstler > said:

>I have a pretty big house that has lots of storage space.
>However, the space is not big enough to be bogged down with
>a bunch of loaners. As it is, one closet is stuffed with
>subwoofers that I use for comparison purposes when reviewing
>affordable subs.


Bizarre.

BTW all affordable subs sound alike.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[Sander deWaal]

Howard Ferstler > said:

>> > Actually, I have had situations where I had to actually
>> > pressure companies to take back their systems.

>> "Situations", Clerkie? What are you talking about?

>" Time to ship your speakers back to you, Mr.
>Speaker-Company Guy. I have written my review and sent it
>off to my editor. Send me a call tag."

>"Ship them back? Are you sure you don't want to keep them on
>hand for reference work?"

>Etc.


That was Jupiter Audio, that doesn't count.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[George M. Middius]

Bwian bloviated:

> I find Howard's views very rational.

Let's take stock of your little band of merrymakers, shall we....


You, Bwian McNutjob, are widely known as a con artist and perpetrator of
investment fraud. You also have harassed people in real life, outside of
Usenet, simply because of things they say on Usenet. That's criminal
sociopathic behavior.

Howard Ferstler is a hack writer who steals other people's work and passes
it off as his own without giving credit. He also lies about so-called
"tests" in which he's participated by falsifying and concealing results he
doesn't like.

Richard Malesweski is a small-time crook who tried to rip off one (and
probably several) people by posing as a home theater designer. He still has
outstanding arrest warrants in Massachusetts and is now hiding out in his
parents' basement, hoping law enforcement won't come after him.

Arnii Krooger, known pedophile, has been investigated by the Michigan State
Police. He has admitted to possessing child pornography for a period of
years. He claims to make a good living "flogging computers" but has
consistently been unable to provide any credible evidence that his
"business" is a going concern. But he does seem to have a ready supply of
kiddie porn available at a moment's notice.


Quite a blue-chip group you folks are. It's a mystery why you congregate
around the subject of audio.

[[email protected]]

George M. Middius wrote:
> Bwian bloviated:
>
> > I find Howard's views very rational.
>
> Let's take stock of your little band of merrymakers, shall we....
>
>
> You, Bwian McNutjob, are widely known as a con artist and perpetrator
of
> investment fraud. You also have harassed people in real life, outside
of
> Usenet, simply because of things they say on Usenet. That's criminal
> sociopathic behavior.
>
> Howard Ferstler is a hack writer who steals other people's work and
passes
> it off as his own without giving credit. He also lies about so-called
> "tests" in which he's participated by falsifying and concealing
results he
> doesn't like.
>
> Richard Malesweski is a small-time crook who tried to rip off one
(and
> probably several) people by posing as a home theater designer. He
still has
> outstanding arrest warrants in Massachusetts and is now hiding out in
his
> parents' basement, hoping law enforcement won't come after him.
>
> Arnii Krooger, known pedophile, has been investigated by the Michigan
State
> Police. He has admitted to possessing child pornography for a period
of
> years. He claims to make a good living "flogging computers" but has
> consistently been unable to provide any credible evidence that his
> "business" is a going concern. But he does seem to have a ready
supply of
> kiddie porn available at a moment's notice.
>
>
> Quite a blue-chip group you folks are. It's a mystery why you
congregate
> around the subject of audio.
>
>
"George M. Middius is insane." - Lionel Chapuis May 13, 2005

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> George M. Middius wrote:
>> Bwian bloviated:
>>
>> > I find Howard's views very rational.
>>
>> Let's take stock of your little band of merrymakers, shall we....
>>
>>
>> You, Bwian McNutjob, are widely known as a con artist and perpetrator
> of
>> investment fraud. You also have harassed people in real life, outside
> of
>> Usenet, simply because of things they say on Usenet. That's criminal
>> sociopathic behavior.
>>
>> Howard Ferstler is a hack writer who steals other people's work and
> passes
>> it off as his own without giving credit. He also lies about so-called
>> "tests" in which he's participated by falsifying and concealing
> results he
>> doesn't like.
>>
>> Richard Malesweski is a small-time crook who tried to rip off one
> (and
>> probably several) people by posing as a home theater designer. He
> still has
>> outstanding arrest warrants in Massachusetts and is now hiding out in
> his
>> parents' basement, hoping law enforcement won't come after him.
>>
>> Arnii Krooger, known pedophile, has been investigated by the Michigan
> State
>> Police. He has admitted to possessing child pornography for a period
> of
>> years. He claims to make a good living "flogging computers" but has
>> consistently been unable to provide any credible evidence that his
>> "business" is a going concern. But he does seem to have a ready
> supply of
>> kiddie porn available at a moment's notice.
>>
>>
>> Quite a blue-chip group you folks are. It's a mystery why you
> congregate
>> around the subject of audio.
>>
>>
> "George M. Middius is insane." - Lionel Chapuis May 13, 2005
>

"Richard Malesweski is perfectly sane" - Daffy Duck, May 14, 2005



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> "Richard Malesweski is perfectly sane" - Daffy Duck, May 14, 2005

Lionella is at least a hair cleverer than the other members of the 'Borg
Gang -- so far, she's been able to conceal her criminal history from the
group. The others apparently feel the need to confess their crimes.

[ScottW]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW wrote:
>
>> So what is it that makes some tweeters of good quality and others not so
>> good?
>
> Good, wide-dispersion design. What else!

I don't find that a problem with my Quads. But if that is what you think
establishes the SOTA and you want to be considered an authority.. then I
suggest you find a way to listen to these.

http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/1004mbl/

If nothing else, this review is worth this quote from Fremer:

"I'm told that some dweebs on the Audio Asylum suggest I shouldn't be
reviewing equipment because my room is so "bad"-not that they've heard it. I
guess they prefer reviewers with problematic rooms who don't mention or
perhaps don't even recognize the problems.-Michael Fremer "

and my condolences to Ghindi for pumping water into his Forsell, I'm sure
the gold plated arm could be recovered but I have to think thats a disaster
for the platter bearing.

ScottW

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> ...
> > ScottW wrote:
> >
> >> So what is it that makes some tweeters of good quality and others
not so
> >> good?
> >
> > Good, wide-dispersion design. What else!
>
> I don't find that a problem with my Quads. But if that is what you
think
> establishes the SOTA and you want to be considered an authority..
then I
> suggest you find a way to listen to these.
>
> http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/1004mbl/
>
> If nothing else, this review is worth this quote from Fremer:
>
> "I'm told that some dweebs on the Audio Asylum suggest I shouldn't be

> reviewing equipment because my room is so "bad"-not that they've
heard it. I
> guess they prefer reviewers with problematic rooms who don't mention
or
> perhaps don't even recognize the problems.-Michael Fremer "
>
> and my condolences to Ghindi for pumping water into his Forsell, I'm
sure
> the gold plated arm could be recovered but I have to think thats a
disaster
> for the platter bearing.


Not that I would try it but I wouldn't expect it to damage anything on
the Forsell. Probably just would need a quick cleaning with a mild
solvent to clean up whatever deposites the water left.


Scott Wheeler

[ScottW]

> ScottW wrote:
>>
>> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>> > Well, I have not reviewed every super-duper system out
>> > there, but I would say that you probably have not reviewed
>> > every low-cost system out there, either.
>
>> Irrelevant, I am not the one making unsubstantiated claims.
>
> As are you.

??? Try to make sense, please.
>
>> > And I am pretty
>> > sure that you have not used dual stereo amps to set up and
>> > evaluate level-matched pairs of speakers being compared to
>> > each other.
>
>> Irrelevant and kind of silly unless you have figured out to get
them to
>> occupy the same space at the same time.
>
> Actually, you have a point. I set up the speakers AB/AB
> style, so as to get the soundstage widths the same.
> Unfortunately, doing this makes it impossible for the
> listener to occupy the sweet spot with either pair
> simultaneously. However, given that I am listening mainly
> for spectral balance similarities or differences and the
> ability of the systems to delineate soundstage space, this
> is no big deal.
>
>> You probably eq'd them to get
>> matched levels anyway.
>
> No standard equalization is applied during the comparisons.
> I DO normally 1/3-octave equalize when listening for
> pleasure (see issues 94 and 95 of The Sensible Sound for the
> rationale), but when comparing speakers the systems operate
> without any signal manipulations, other than
> close-as-possible level matching. I certainly do not hope
> you object to me getting their average output levels as
> close as possible. Generally, I try to get things as close
> as possible throughout the midrange and let the bass and
> treble areas fall where they may.

Actually, I don't have any problem with the manner in which you
subjective
compare speakers. That whole eq'ing for identical FR doesn't make any
sense
to me. Glad to see you don't *******ize the speakers response when
comparing.

>
>> >> You
>> >> have no personal knowledge regarding the state of the art, you
>> >> haven't
>> >> even
>> >> heard Quads let alone Sound Labs or MBL etc. You have no clue
what
>> >> the
>> >> state of the art in speaker performance is today. You're the
>> >> equivalent
>> >> of
>> >> a Consumer Reports auto writer claiming Performance Racing
Industries
>> >> has
>> >> nothing more to offer. You are not qualified to make the
statements
>> >> you
>> >> make.
>
>> > Actually, I have reviewed some pretty upscale and often
>> > expensive stuff from Waveform, NHT, Coincident Technology,
>> > Triad, Eminent Technology, Snell, Polk, Tyler Acoustics, and
>> > Axiom. I have also reviewed lower priced stuff from Atlantic
>> > Technology, AR, NHT (again), Polk (again), and Tannoy. For
>> > the most part, the upscale stuff had an edge, but not in all
>> > cases. For example, an exotic $4800 package from EOSS was
>> > decidedly inferior to virtually all of the lower-priced
>> > stuff in just about any way I can think of.
>
>> Do you really think this stuff defines the state of the art?
>
> Well, some people besides me do. I know that Telarc used
> Waveform speakers for years as references, and Axiom uses
> the Canadian NRC facility, and in my review of the systems
> that advantage showed. Actually, I think that Waveform did
> this, too. If you think that Snell is bush league you need
> to get out more. The Polk models were their top LSi-25
> models at that time, and they were OK, but not world
> shaking, in spite of the ring-radiator tweeter. The Atlantic
> Technology systems (mid-priced models) were designed by
> Vance Dickason, who wrote the Loudspeaker Design Cookbook.
> The NHT speakers (both the mid-priced ST4 systems and the M6
> Evolution systems I reviewed) were designed by Jack Hidley.
> Many high-end enthusiasts swear by the Coincident Technology
> systems (I thought they were OK, but not world shaking), and
> Dunlavy had been a highly regarded designer even by
> Stereophile for years. Ditto Claude Fortier, who designed
> the Waveform systems. The AR systems, by the way, were
> designed by Cary Christie, who has long been regarded as a
> top designer. (Cary was one of the originals with Infinity
> long ago, and was at least partially responsible for the
> Servo Static systems, and also designed the huge IRS
> system.) I am certainly not the only reviewer out their who
> has lauded some of the speaker companies I mentioned. To say
> that the designers who built those systems were bush league
> is infantile.

You are missing the point. You can't assume that this list, as fine as
it
is... sets the upper performance bounds for all speakers. Even within
comparable technology systems... you just can't make that claim. But
you
dismiss systems that employ fundamentally different technologies with
no
actual experience.... that is extraordinarily arrogant of you to assume
you
can judge a speaker without hearing it.
>
>> > While I will admit that electrostatic items from outfits
>> > like ML are exotic and interesting, I am not sure that
>> > systems with flat-panel radiators that large are all that
>> > workable. (I also wonder about the heavy-duty circuitry
>> > required to make the Quad point-source systems do what they
>> > are supposed to do.) Certainly, some of the reviews I have
>> > seen dealing with them have not been all that laudatory. (I
>> > have seen published FR curves run on some ML models that
>> > were among the choppiest I have ever viewed, and in my
>> > opinion choppy is no good at all.)
>
>> All you have is unsubstantitated opinion and speculation.
>
> Well, I would say that you have much the same thing.

IKYABWAI? Give me a break. My opinion here is very much substantiated
by
your own statements. You have rendered opinions on the performance of
speakers which employ fundamental technology that you have no actual
experience with. Am I wrong?

>
>> > As for other conventional systems (with standard magnet/coil
>> > drivers, even upscale versions), I remain unconvinced that
>> > mysterious and miraculous manipulations by their builders
>> > (who often only build the cabinets and crossovers and not
>> > the drivers) will result in miraculous performance.
>
>> So much irrelevant obfuscation. What does this have to do with
your
>> lack
>> of experience with equipment and technology you have chosen to
criticize?
>
> Well, there is always the possibility that some system will
> come along that will cause the earth to move - referring to
> its ability to deliver the mystical goods and not its bass
> ability.

I supplement my Quads with a sub. The package was less than $2500.
Are
they perfect? No, I find they lack dynamics in a limited punch your gut

ability. But those are qualities I've grown not to desire in my home
stereo. My surround system has plenty of that. The Legacy's can make
my
ears bleed and my stomach hurt like the Plant Page reunion tour show I
saw.
If that hi-fidelity? If so.. I've moved beyond that.
The Quads can disappear like no speaker I've had before and leave a
sax or
cello or flute hanging in space before me.

But the point is... this is a technology you remain ignorant of ...and
it
didn't just come along. It's been around quite awhile now and if you
want
to be considered some kind of authority and make informed statements on
the
state of audio reproduction... it is imperative you have some
familiarity
with Quads, electrostats and other technologies. Otherwise you need to
stay
within your domain of experience.


> So far, nothing I have reviewed has done that sort
> of thing, although sometimes my own IC-20 systems seem to be
> getting close.
>
>> You're no better than Trots dis'in the LT-30 cuz it was made in
Japan.
>
> I rather like Japanese stuff, actually.

Am I consistently going over your head?

ScottW

[ScottW]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > ScottW wrote:
>> >
>> >> So what is it that makes some tweeters of good quality and others
> not so
>> >> good?
>> >
>> > Good, wide-dispersion design. What else!
>>
>> I don't find that a problem with my Quads. But if that is what you
> think
>> establishes the SOTA and you want to be considered an authority..
> then I
>> suggest you find a way to listen to these.
>>
>> http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/1004mbl/
>>
>> If nothing else, this review is worth this quote from Fremer:
>>
>> "I'm told that some dweebs on the Audio Asylum suggest I shouldn't be
>
>> reviewing equipment because my room is so "bad"-not that they've
> heard it. I
>> guess they prefer reviewers with problematic rooms who don't mention
> or
>> perhaps don't even recognize the problems.-Michael Fremer "
>>
>> and my condolences to Ghindi for pumping water into his Forsell, I'm
> sure
>> the gold plated arm could be recovered but I have to think thats a
> disaster
>> for the platter bearing.
>
>
> Not that I would try it but I wouldn't expect it to damage anything on
> the Forsell. Probably just would need a quick cleaning with a mild
> solvent to clean up whatever deposites the water left.

This isn't just water.... this is distilled water, condensed from the air
and devoid of mineral content. It will attack and extract minerals from
almost anything. You should see what happens to the glass windows on our
test chambers from just 50K deionized water then distilled. They get etched
relatively quickly. If the bearing had smooth surfaces for sealing or
whatever... they aren't as smooth as they were and never will be again.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:0hNhe.6244$It1.896@lakeread02...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> ScottW wrote:
>>> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > ScottW wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> So what is it that makes some tweeters of good quality and others
>> not so
>>> >> good?
>>> >
>>> > Good, wide-dispersion design. What else!
>>>
>>> I don't find that a problem with my Quads. But if that is what you
>> think
>>> establishes the SOTA and you want to be considered an authority..
>> then I
>>> suggest you find a way to listen to these.
>>>
>>> http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/1004mbl/
>>>
>>> If nothing else, this review is worth this quote from Fremer:
>>>
>>> "I'm told that some dweebs on the Audio Asylum suggest I shouldn't be
>>
>>> reviewing equipment because my room is so "bad"-not that they've
>> heard it. I
>>> guess they prefer reviewers with problematic rooms who don't mention
>> or
>>> perhaps don't even recognize the problems.-Michael Fremer "
>>>
>>> and my condolences to Ghindi for pumping water into his Forsell, I'm
>> sure
>>> the gold plated arm could be recovered but I have to think thats a
>> disaster
>>> for the platter bearing.
>>
>>
>> Not that I would try it but I wouldn't expect it to damage anything on
>> the Forsell. Probably just would need a quick cleaning with a mild
>> solvent to clean up whatever deposites the water left.
>
> This isn't just water.... this is distilled water, condensed from the air
> and devoid of mineral content. It will attack and extract minerals from
> almost anything. You should see what happens to the glass windows on our
> test chambers from just 50K deionized water then distilled. They get
> etched relatively quickly. If the bearing had smooth surfaces for
> sealing or whatever... they aren't as smooth as they were and never will
> be again.

BTW, I see that early Forsell went for under $5K on audiogon. I almost wish
it went for more..... it starts getting me thinking :).

ScottW

[Lionel_Chapuis]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > "Richard Malesweski is perfectly sane" - Daffy Duck, May 14, 2005
>
> Lionella is at least a hair cleverer than the other members of the 'Borg
> Gang -- so far, she's been able to conceal her criminal history from the
> group. The others apparently feel the need to confess their crimes.

Tell me George you are rather vaginal or rather clitoridean ?

:-D




----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.com/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals

[Joseph Oberlander]

Howard Ferstler wrote:

> Anything is possible. However, Seas tweeters in two
> different systems I have reviewed had a saddle-shaped
> response over their operating ranges between 2-3 kHz and
> 12-16 kHz, and yet in some other systems I have reviewed I
> have seen no such artifacts. If the Seas tweeters were
> correct, then those other systems had hump-shaped response
> curves. But, hey, I have seen similar artifacts in a few
> other, non Seas systems, too. Must be an epidemic.

I noticed this, too, when I was looking for parts for a
design I am working on. Quality control for a lot of stuff
these days seems to be spotty. Matching two components
before putting them in a speaker can have dramatic changes
to the sound. Maybe one out of every third component tested
as expected - the rest had variances ranging from tiny but
acceptable to "might as well be a completely different model"

This, of course, was for their midrange and lower-level stuff.
I don't know, but this suggests outsourcing.

> The one in the ST4 was OK, but no better than OK. Do you
> make the one for the Evolution subwoofer? That was an OK
> subwoofer for home theater, but is no match for any good
> Velodyne, Hsu, or SVS sub. I continue to be amazed by how so
> many companies that make fine satellite speakers fall flat
> when designing subwoofers.

Subwoofers are trickier to design than most speakers
as there is little software to do the basic work for
you. (more trial and error) You also have to put an
amplifier in it, which is frankly, where most designs
fall apart.

Bass amplifiers are notorious for this. I've heard
stunning 4*10 combos and I've heard the same thing with
a different amp and it's dreadful. You just can't stick
any amp with any woofer and slap a box around it and make
a decent sounding sub.

Me? If I was designing one, I'd buy a HSU or Velodyne Servo
sub and tear it apart to do the basic design and research.
Where do they cut corners? Where do they design it properly?

What I see instead is a speaker in a box and who cares
approach, simmilar to car audio.
r

[John Stone]

On 5/15/05 9:26 PM, in article
t, "Joseph Oberlander"
> wrote:

>
>
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
> But, hey, I have seen similar artifacts in a few
>> other, non Seas systems, too. Must be an epidemic.
>
> I noticed this, too, when I was looking for parts for a
> design I am working on. Quality control for a lot of stuff
> these days seems to be spotty. Matching two components
> before putting them in a speaker can have dramatic changes
> to the sound. Maybe one out of every third component tested
> as expected - the rest had variances ranging from tiny but
> acceptable to "might as well be a completely different model"

Gee Joe, couldn't you be a little more vague?. Why don't you tell me which
driver models you are talking about (my product line has a couple hundred
active SKU's), what kind of measurements you used to come to these
conclusions, and what degree of variation you found. Given your blanket
statement about QC, I'd also like to know how many samples you had and what
your expectations for tolerances are.

> > This, of course, was for their midrange and lower-level stuff.
I'm assuming you are not talking about midrange and bass drivers but mid and
lower level products. We don't make mid and low level products. We don't
even make a driver with a stamped steel or plastic frame. On a relative
scale, our products start off expensive and go up from there. Again, how
about some specifics, Joe?


> I don't know, but this suggests outsourcing.
>
You were right the first time. You don't know. We don't outsource any
drivers.

>
> Subwoofers are trickier to design than most speakers
> as there is little software to do the basic work for
> you. (more trial and error)

Really? You're telling me you can't use Leap, FineBox or a whole host of
other software to design a subwoofer? Sorry but I beg to differ. In fact,
this is one of the easier tasks for any good box design software. There is
nothing mysterious at all about simulating the acoustic response of a
subwoofer, right down to the required transfer function of the amplifier. If
you have to design a sub based mostly on trial and error, then you need a
lot more education in loudspeaker design.

>You also have to put an
> amplifier in it, which is frankly, where most designs
> fall apart.
>
> Bass amplifiers are notorious for this. I've heard
> stunning 4*10 combos and I've heard the same thing with
> a different amp and it's dreadful. You just can't stick
> any amp with any woofer and slap a box around it and make
> a decent sounding sub.
Well, duh. Whoever said you could? Its a little thing called system
integration. It is common for subs to be designed with driver/enclosure
combinations that, by themselves, are over damped and have a relatively high
resonance frequency. Hook up an amp with flat response, and you'll have
little bass. This is why virtually all good subs have the amps built in and
apply the appropriate compensation to the driver to gain a flat acoustic
response.

> Me? If I was designing one, I'd buy a HSU or Velodyne Servo
> sub and tear it apart to do the basic design and research.
> Where do they cut corners? Where do they design it properly?

You call that designing? I call it copying. And when you're done, do you
return the subwoofer to the store in pieces asking for a refund?

>
> What I see instead is a speaker in a box and who cares
> approach, simmilar to car audio.

When was the last time you had your vision checked?

[Howard Ferstler]

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Sat, 14 May 2005 19:48:18 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:

> >Choppy is NOT good, Dave. Note that said choppiness with
> >flat-panel systems of any kind had been predicted by
> >mathematician Stan Lip****z two decades ago.

> And yet, didn't you give a very favorable review to an electrostatic
> speaker recently?

Nope. I never have reviewed an electrostatic model. The one
you are probably thinking of was a planar-magnetic job
produced by Eminent Technology. I thought it was a very
interesting and competently built system. Sounded good, too.
I also recently reviewed a pair of BG (used to be
Bohlender-Graebener) speakers that made use of small
planar-magnetic tweeters. That review will be showing up in
a future edition of The Audiophile Voice.

> Didn't you find some very interesting qualities of
> it?

Yep. Interestingly, the room-power curve I ran was very,
very similar to the one the manufacturer supplied to me that
he had run. Given that we use different measuring techniques
(room curve for me; direct-field for him), the results were
notable. One reason probably involved the controlled and
somewhat narrow-dispersion directional characteristics of
the system. Both he and I showed that the system was flat as
hell out to 8 kHz, with a substantial rolloff above that
frequency. This tended to make the systems a bit reticent
sounding with certain musical source materials, but they
were superb for classical music.

The curve I plotted (in a special article on my measuring
technique and the results obtained with several speakers)
can be found in issue 94 of The Sensible Sound, along with
quite a few other curves from additional systems. The actual
review of the LFT8 system also appeared in a separate
article in that issue. Additional curves of still more
systems that I had reviewed previously appeared in issue 95.

Since that two-part article I have published my room curves
with each new speaker review. Prior to that, I did not print
curves, because without references to compare them to they
might be misleading. (My excuse parallels one that Julian
Hirsch used for years.) The double article in issues 94 and
95 basically illustrated curves that ran the gamut from not
so good to superb.

> You know, statements like this are like extrapolating the sound of
> cone speaker systems by viewing the response curves of a $200 Cerwin
> Vega speaker.

Certainly possible. Lip****z basically did his work by
mathematical models only. The result was a comb-filtering
artifact that also turned into a steep rolloff above the
midrange. He only worked with large, single-diaphragm models
and not the multi-driver versions that have since been
produced. The Eminent Technology system I reviewed had a
conventional woofer, a moderately sized line-source midrange
and a much smaller line-source tweeter. It did not precisely
simulate what Lip****z calculated for obvious reasons.

> I'm saying the same thing that you say to others - listen for
> yourself. I think that you might be surprised, IF you can listen with
> bias (and that's a BIG if).

I certainly would like to give it a try. However, we do have
to remember that any large-diaphragm driver that is handling
short-wavelength frequencies is going to exhibit
interference effects similar to what we get with multiple
smaller drivers in a system handling the same frequencies.
An example of the latter would involve a tweeter and
midrange or midrange and woofer at and near the system
crossover points. Those "points" are often considered
problem areas in speaker design, and yet with large-panel
line-source systems that kind of interference artifact may
be happening over a much broader frequency range than what
we have at and near a couple of crossover points.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Clyde Slick wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> ...

> > I have a pretty big house that has lots of storage space.
> > However, the space is not big enough to be bogged down with
> > a bunch of loaners. As it is, one closet is stuffed with
> > subwoofers that I use for comparison purposes when reviewing
> > affordable subs.

> GOOD!
> So we won't be bothered with any of your reviews of newly loaned equipment.

You misunderstand. I certainly will be reviewing newly
loaned equipment. Indeed, I have moderately priced and
somewhat higher priced gear from one very fine speaker
company on hand right at this minute. Today, I set them up
and did AB comparisons for several hours. Tomorrow, I will
do more. Remember, I do have some good Dunlavy and NHT
speakers on hand for comparison work. Those are regular
systems in my two smaller installations.

No, I do not do comparison work with my super-wide
dispersing Allison IC-20 systems any more. Why? Well, for
one thing, it is difficult to set up a conventional speaker
next to an IC-20 (with its triangular-shaped cabinet)
without compromising the sound of the Allison systems.
Second, when I did manage to compare carefully in the old
days the IC-20s pretty mopped up the floor with the system
being reviewed when it comes to characteristics I consider
really important.

However, most audio buffs want imaging that is precise and
prefer speakers with a kind of "hi-fi-detail" sound, and so
I use the other systems on hand as references. They really
do sound good in many very important respects, and the
Allison-style spatial presentation is not appropriate for
all kinds of music, anyway - unless you include a discrete
or well-steered center channel as I do in that main system
of mine. But I cannot incorporate that configuration into my
standard, stereo-speaker comparison work.

Virtually all of my speaker-review articles pretty carefully
detail just how I do my level-matched comparing work, and I
also mention which very fine recordings were used, and even
include their manufacturer stock numbers.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Sander deWaal wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler > said:
>
> >I have a pretty big house that has lots of storage space.
> >However, the space is not big enough to be bogged down with
> >a bunch of loaners. As it is, one closet is stuffed with
> >subwoofers that I use for comparison purposes when reviewing
> >affordable subs.
>
> Bizarre.
>
> BTW all affordable subs sound alike.

Not really. I continue to be amazed at how so many companies
that manage to produce really good satellite speakers seem
unable to produce subwoofers (even fairly expensive
subwoofers) that compare in terms of bass performance to
rather low-priced units produced by outfits like Hsu and
SVS. (Not to mention the higher priced Hsu and SVS models,
and top servo models by Paradigm and Velodyne.) Down to
maybe 30-35 Hz what you say is sometimes correct. But it is
not correct if you go below that range and in some cases
subs that I have reviewed exhibited a surprising amount of
distortion even as high up as 50 Hz, and even at moderate
levels.

With music that does not go really deep, these negative
artifacts are not always easy to hear, but with test tones
the differences really jump out at you and they also show up
strongly with good organ music.

Howard Ferstler

[dave weil]

On Thu, 19 May 2005 16:52:15 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 14 May 2005 19:48:18 -0400, Howard Ferstler
>> > wrote:
>
>> >Choppy is NOT good, Dave. Note that said choppiness with
>> >flat-panel systems of any kind had been predicted by
>> >mathematician Stan Lip****z two decades ago.
>
>> And yet, didn't you give a very favorable review to an electrostatic
>> speaker recently?
>
>Nope. I never have reviewed an electrostatic model. The one
>you are probably thinking of was a planar-magnetic job
>produced by Eminent Technology.

Yes, that's right.

> I thought it was a very
>interesting and competently built system.

Guess the inevitable comb-filtering wasn't onerous.

>Sounded good, too.
>I also recently reviewed a pair of BG (used to be
>Bohlender-Graebener) speakers that made use of small
>planar-magnetic tweeters. That review will be showing up in
>a future edition of The Audiophile Voice.

Glad that you're branching out.

>> Didn't you find some very interesting qualities of
>> it?
>
>Yep. Interestingly, the room-power curve I ran was very,
>very similar to the one the manufacturer supplied to me that
>he had run. Given that we use different measuring techniques
>(room curve for me; direct-field for him), the results were
>notable. One reason probably involved the controlled and
>somewhat narrow-dispersion directional characteristics of
>the system. Both he and I showed that the system was flat as
>hell out to 8 kHz, with a substantial rolloff above that
>frequency. This tended to make the systems a bit reticent
>sounding with certain musical source materials, but they
>were superb for classical music.

You know, they say that Quads are wonderful for classical music and
not so much for heavy metal and other loud musicks.

>The curve I plotted (in a special article on my measuring
>technique and the results obtained with several speakers)
>can be found in issue 94 of The Sensible Sound, along with
>quite a few other curves from additional systems. The actual
>review of the LFT8 system also appeared in a separate
>article in that issue. Additional curves of still more
>systems that I had reviewed previously appeared in issue 95.
>
>Since that two-part article I have published my room curves
>with each new speaker review. Prior to that, I did not print
>curves, because without references to compare them to they
>might be misleading. (My excuse parallels one that Julian
>Hirsch used for years.) The double article in issues 94 and
>95 basically illustrated curves that ran the gamut from not
>so good to superb.
>
>> You know, statements like this are like extrapolating the sound of
>> cone speaker systems by viewing the response curves of a $200 Cerwin
>> Vega speaker.
>
>Certainly possible. Lip****z basically did his work by
>mathematical models only. The result was a comb-filtering
>artifact that also turned into a steep rolloff above the
>midrange. He only worked with large, single-diaphragm models
>and not the multi-driver versions that have since been
>produced. The Eminent Technology system I reviewed had a
>conventional woofer, a moderately sized line-source midrange
>and a much smaller line-source tweeter. It did not precisely
>simulate what Lip****z calculated for obvious reasons.

Still, it's comb-filtering, Howard.

>> I'm saying the same thing that you say to others - listen for
>> yourself. I think that you might be surprised, IF you can listen with
>> bias (and that's a BIG if).
>
>I certainly would like to give it a try. However, we do have
>to remember that any large-diaphragm driver that is handling
>short-wavelength frequencies is going to exhibit
>interference effects similar to what we get with multiple
>smaller drivers in a system handling the same frequencies.

No, you just don't get it. With dbts and other blind listening
techniques, we're not supposed to know ANY of that, remember? We're
not supposed to review speakers with our biases in place if we can
help it, right?

>An example of the latter would involve a tweeter and
>midrange or midrange and woofer at and near the system
>crossover points. Those "points" are often considered
>problem areas in speaker design, and yet with large-panel
>line-source systems that kind of interference artifact may
>be happening over a much broader frequency range than what
>we have at and near a couple of crossover points.

And yet the question is - would Howard be able to identify a
comb-filtering problem in a blind test? Nobody knows, since you
haven't performed one.

[jclause]

>would Howard be able to identify a comb-filtering problem in a
>blind test?



'Ol Howie is a writer of note,
He compares components by rote
He picks the best
With an AB test...
'Cause that's what floats his boat.

Hammingaway

[Howard Ferstler]

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 May 2005 16:52:15 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:
>
> >dave weil wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 14 May 2005 19:48:18 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> >> > wrote:
> >
> >> >Choppy is NOT good, Dave. Note that said choppiness with
> >> >flat-panel systems of any kind had been predicted by
> >> >mathematician Stan Lip****z two decades ago.
> >
> >> And yet, didn't you give a very favorable review to an electrostatic
> >> speaker recently?
> >
> >Nope. I never have reviewed an electrostatic model. The one
> >you are probably thinking of was a planar-magnetic job
> >produced by Eminent Technology.
>
> Yes, that's right.
>
> > I thought it was a very
> >interesting and competently built system.
>
> Guess the inevitable comb-filtering wasn't onerous.

Remember, the Lip****z paper involved a single, large-panel
line-source configuration. The ET speaker had separate line
sources for the midrange and treble, with the tweeter line
being shorter and narrower than the midrange line. Remember,
too, that my IC-20 systems also have dual lines, with the
midrange line (the above and below drivers flanking the pair
of vertically mounted tweeters) being much longer than the
tweeter line. (Even spaced drivers will form a line if the
frequency is low enough; above a certain frequency the line
will degenerate into discrete points.) This "controlled"
line concept can work well, provided the lengths of the
lines in relation to the wavelengths involved are not too
long.

> >Sounded good, too.
> >I also recently reviewed a pair of BG (used to be
> >Bohlender-Graebener) speakers that made use of small
> >planar-magnetic tweeters. That review will be showing up in
> >a future edition of The Audiophile Voice.

> Glad that you're branching out.

Not really. I do only incidental work for TAV. They also do
not want speaker reviews as technically outlined as what I
try to do for TSS. (The editor has been clear to me about
this.) A different kind of reading group, I think. In any
case, the more reviewing I do the less interesting it has
become. There is a sameness even to speaker sound that kind
of makes critical reviewing a drag. And we already know how
dull I think amp, wire, and CD player reviewing can be.

Ironically, the more speakers I review, the more I discover
that many low-priced speakers sound as good as many of the
upscale versions. Well, the latter are usually better
finished in terms of cabinetry.

> >> Didn't you find some very interesting qualities of
> >> it?

> >Yep. Interestingly, the room-power curve I ran was very,
> >very similar to the one the manufacturer supplied to me that
> >he had run. Given that we use different measuring techniques
> >(room curve for me; direct-field for him), the results were
> >notable. One reason probably involved the controlled and
> >somewhat narrow-dispersion directional characteristics of
> >the system. Both he and I showed that the system was flat as
> >hell out to 8 kHz, with a substantial rolloff above that
> >frequency. This tended to make the systems a bit reticent
> >sounding with certain musical source materials, but they
> >were superb for classical music.

> You know, they say that Quads are wonderful for classical music and
> not so much for heavy metal and other loud musicks.

So I hear. I would imagine that any panel-type speaker that
has excursion limitations would have problems with pop
stuff, or with home theater, too, for that matter. The
inability to deal with home theater might be a death
sentence for a speaker these days.

Of course, a dynamic woofer (what the ET systems have) or an
outboard subwoofer can help to overcome some of those
problems.

> >> You know, statements like this are like extrapolating the sound of
> >> cone speaker systems by viewing the response curves of a $200 Cerwin
> >> Vega speaker.

> >Certainly possible. Lip****z basically did his work by
> >mathematical models only. The result was a comb-filtering
> >artifact that also turned into a steep rolloff above the
> >midrange. He only worked with large, single-diaphragm models
> >and not the multi-driver versions that have since been
> >produced. The Eminent Technology system I reviewed had a
> >conventional woofer, a moderately sized line-source midrange
> >and a much smaller line-source tweeter. It did not precisely
> >simulate what Lip****z calculated for obvious reasons.

> Still, it's comb-filtering, Howard.

Dave, remember that come filtering will only take place when
the driver length (or diameter with a round unit) becomes
large in relation to the wavelengths being reproduced. If
the line is not long then comb filtering will not take
place. The thing about long and narrow lines is that they
are small in one dimension and large in another. That throws
in a wild card that may screw up the calculations. However,
some panel systems have diaphragms that are quite large in
the vertical dimension and even fairly large in the
horizontal dimension. That is what Lip****z was dealing
with.

> >> I'm saying the same thing that you say to others - listen for
> >> yourself. I think that you might be surprised, IF you can listen with
> >> bias (and that's a BIG if).

> >I certainly would like to give it a try. However, we do have
> >to remember that any large-diaphragm driver that is handling
> >short-wavelength frequencies is going to exhibit
> >interference effects similar to what we get with multiple
> >smaller drivers in a system handling the same frequencies.

> No, you just don't get it.

I do get it. While I am dealing with speaker design and the
limitations of certain approaches to driver configurations,
you are mainly interested in probing my supposed bias when
reviewing speakers. You have long been more interested in
motivations than in audio, per se.

> With dbts and other blind listening
> techniques, we're not supposed to know ANY of that, remember?

Pretty hard for a reviewer to not know that, Dave, because
doing a workable DBT with speakers that are in fixed
positions is just about impossible. I suppose I could set up
a curtain system in my listing room, of course, but I am not
into the hobby enough to do that sort of thing when
comparing speakers.

Also, unlike amps or wires or CD players, speakers will
certainly sound different when they are compared. This
allows the listener to actually hear differences and he can
then digest what those differences tell him and write about
what he hears. When people do this when reviewing amps,
wires, and CD players, they are not validly comparing at
all. They are fantasizing.

> We're
> not supposed to review speakers with our biases in place if we can
> help it, right?

Sure. What has this got to do with the artifacts generated
by a system that uses a large driver to reproduce short
wavelengths? All reviewers have biases when it comes to what
they think a speaker should do. Heck, I know people who are
brass-tacks oriented and intelligent as hell when it comes
to amp, wire, and CD player performance, and yet they and I
may disagree considerably when it comes to what we think
speakers should sound like. Some of those guys want speakers
to behave like huge headphones. Others want them to engage
the listening room and bloat the sound all over the place.
Why are things this way? Because speakers are the only
components that work into a three-dimensional acoustic
space. Amps, wires, and CD players do not do this.
Consequently, I believe that taste can play a big part in
reviewing speakers. Heck, anyone who has read a number of my
TSS speaker reviews will see that I cut speaker
manufacturers a huge amount of slack.

> >An example of the latter would involve a tweeter and
> >midrange or midrange and woofer at and near the system
> >crossover points. Those "points" are often considered
> >problem areas in speaker design, and yet with large-panel
> >line-source systems that kind of interference artifact may
> >be happening over a much broader frequency range than what
> >we have at and near a couple of crossover points.

> And yet the question is - would Howard be able to identify a
> comb-filtering problem in a blind test? Nobody knows, since you
> haven't performed one.

Yes, that is an interesting question. It is likely that some
comb-filtering spikes would be narrower than 1/3 octave.
Some people (like Floyd Toole) believe that spikes that
sharp would still be easily audible. Others (like me, at
least to a degree) are not so sure. In any case, what
Lip****z came up with involved not only those comb-filtering
spikes but also a loss in radiation power over the range
where the spikes occurred. In other words, the average
output would roll off as well as get spiky. Now that rolloff
would easily be audible, even if the spikes might not be
measurable with a 1/3-octave analyzer. Interestingly, the
Eminent Technology tweeter did indeed roll off precipitously
above 8 kHz, and even the designer's curves sent to me
illustrated that artifact. And, the speaker did indeed not
sound as bright as more conventional designs.

Howard Ferstler

[dave weil]

On Sun, 22 May 2005 15:21:41 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>
>> Still, it's comb-filtering, Howard.
>
>Dave, remember that come filtering will only take place when
>the driver length (or diameter with a round unit) becomes
>large in relation to the wavelengths being reproduced. If
>the line is not long then comb filtering will not take
>place. The thing about long and narrow lines is that they
>are small in one dimension and large in another. That throws
>in a wild card that may screw up the calculations. However,
>some panel systems have diaphragms that are quite large in
>the vertical dimension and even fairly large in the
>horizontal dimension.

Have you ever even SEEN a Quad speaker, Howard?

[dave weil]

On Sun, 22 May 2005 15:21:41 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>> With dbts and other blind listening
>> techniques, we're not supposed to know ANY of that, remember?
>
>Pretty hard for a reviewer to not know that, Dave, because
>doing a workable DBT with speakers that are in fixed
>positions is just about impossible. I suppose I could set up
>a curtain system in my listing room, of course, but I am not
>into the hobby enough to do that sort of thing when
>comparing speakers.
>
>Also, unlike amps or wires or CD players, speakers will
>certainly sound different when they are compared. This
>allows the listener to actually hear differences and he can
>then digest what those differences tell him and write about
>what he hears.

The thing is, you're supposed to actually LISTEN to the speaker before
you judge it.

[Howard Ferstler]

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Sun, 22 May 2005 15:21:41 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >> Still, it's comb-filtering, Howard.

> >Dave, remember that come filtering will only take place when
> >the driver length (or diameter with a round unit) becomes
> >large in relation to the wavelengths being reproduced. If
> >the line is not long then comb filtering will not take
> >place. The thing about long and narrow lines is that they
> >are small in one dimension and large in another. That throws
> >in a wild card that may screw up the calculations. However,
> >some panel systems have diaphragms that are quite large in
> >the vertical dimension and even fairly large in the
> >horizontal dimension.

> Have you ever even SEEN a Quad speaker, Howard?

Years ago. Note that any large driver will exhibit
comb-filtering artifacts when the wavelengths get short
enough, and that includes squarish-shaped systems like those
early Quad models.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Sun, 22 May 2005 15:21:41 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:
>
> >> With dbts and other blind listening
> >> techniques, we're not supposed to know ANY of that, remember?
> >
> >Pretty hard for a reviewer to not know that, Dave, because
> >doing a workable DBT with speakers that are in fixed
> >positions is just about impossible. I suppose I could set up
> >a curtain system in my listing room, of course, but I am not
> >into the hobby enough to do that sort of thing when
> >comparing speakers.
> >
> >Also, unlike amps or wires or CD players, speakers will
> >certainly sound different when they are compared. This
> >allows the listener to actually hear differences and he can
> >then digest what those differences tell him and write about
> >what he hears.
>
> The thing is, you're supposed to actually LISTEN to the speaker before
> you judge it.

I have not judged it. As best I can recall, when Lip****z
did his calculations all he did was use mathematics to prove
a point. Whether or not he had listened to any flat-panel
systems or not is not known to me, but he certainly did not
have much use for them in mathematical terms.

Remember, he was dealing with large-area panels and his
calculations did not include dipolar radiation issues.

Howard Ferstler

[dave weil]

On Fri, 27 May 2005 15:58:11 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 22 May 2005 15:21:41 -0400, Howard Ferstler
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> Still, it's comb-filtering, Howard.
>
>> >Dave, remember that come filtering will only take place when
>> >the driver length (or diameter with a round unit) becomes
>> >large in relation to the wavelengths being reproduced. If
>> >the line is not long then comb filtering will not take
>> >place. The thing about long and narrow lines is that they
>> >are small in one dimension and large in another. That throws
>> >in a wild card that may screw up the calculations. However,
>> >some panel systems have diaphragms that are quite large in
>> >the vertical dimension and even fairly large in the
>> >horizontal dimension.
>
>> Have you ever even SEEN a Quad speaker, Howard?
>
>Years ago. Note that any large driver will exhibit
>comb-filtering artifacts when the wavelengths get short
>enough, and that includes squarish-shaped systems like those
>early Quad models.

You need to look a little closer at the various Quad speakers, Howard.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 27 May 2005 15:59:58 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>> The thing is, you're supposed to actually LISTEN to the speaker before
>> you judge it.
>
>I have not judged it.

Sure you have.

>As best I can recall, when Lip****z
>did his calculations all he did was use mathematics to prove
>a point. Whether or not he had listened to any flat-panel
>systems or not is not known to me, but he certainly did not
>have much use for them in mathematical terms.

Yes, because we always listen to speakers using maths, not ears and
brains.

[Howard Ferstler]

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 May 2005 15:58:11 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:
>
> >dave weil wrote:

> >> Have you ever even SEEN a Quad speaker, Howard?

> >Years ago. Note that any large driver will exhibit
> >comb-filtering artifacts when the wavelengths get short
> >enough, and that includes squarish-shaped systems like those
> >early Quad models.

> You need to look a little closer at the various Quad speakers, Howard.

I know enough about speaker sound now to realize that there
is nothing mysterious about what speakers are called upon to
do. And what the Quad does that is special is not going to
add up to all that much. I also know (and Villchur knew
this, too) that gilding the lily does not mean perfection.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 May 2005 15:59:58 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:
>
> >> The thing is, you're supposed to actually LISTEN to the speaker before
> >> you judge it.
> >
> >I have not judged it.
>
> Sure you have.
>
> >As best I can recall, when Lip****z
> >did his calculations all he did was use mathematics to prove
> >a point. Whether or not he had listened to any flat-panel
> >systems or not is not known to me, but he certainly did not
> >have much use for them in mathematical terms.
>
> Yes, because we always listen to speakers using maths, not ears and
> brains.

Your anti-intellectual bias is showing, Dave. Lip****z
proved mathematically that a large-diaphragm driver will
have a skewed response curve at higher frequencies.
Ironically, that skewing effect may be one reason why the
early Quad speakers were so lionized. People liked the
artifact.

By the way, one reason that bass-shy speakers seem to have
such clear sound in the midrange has to do with the way the
brain handles flat-response signals that cover the full
bandwidth down into the low bass. Take away the low bass and
the midrange appears to be clearer sounding. Put the bass
back in and make no changes to the midrange and the midrange
still seems to lose some clarity and detail.

Howard Ferstler

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Howard Ferstler > wrote:

> dave weil wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 27 May 2005 15:58:11 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >dave weil wrote:
>
> > >> Have you ever even SEEN a Quad speaker, Howard?
>
> > >Years ago. Note that any large driver will exhibit
> > >comb-filtering artifacts when the wavelengths get short
> > >enough, and that includes squarish-shaped systems like those
> > >early Quad models.
>
> > You need to look a little closer at the various Quad speakers, Howard.
>
> I know enough about speaker sound now to realize that there
> is nothing mysterious about what speakers are called upon to
> do. And what the Quad does that is special is not going to
> add up to all that much. I also know (and Villchur knew
> this, too) that gilding the lily does not mean perfection.

Maybe that's what happened to his market share: increasingly crappy
imperfect non-gilded speakers.

You seem to know a lot about Quads despite not knowing what they look
like or sound like.

Stephen

[jclause]

In article >, says...


>I also know (and Villchur knew this, too) that gilding the lily
>does not mean perfection.


Now "gilding the lily" can be good
When Allison had done all he could
Peter Walker's ol' quad
Does away with the facade
And allows the music to be understood.

Hammingaway

[Sander deWaal]

(jclause) said:

>In article >, says...

>>I also know (and Villchur knew this, too) that gilding the lily
>>does not mean perfection.


>Now "gilding the lily" can be good
>When Allison had done all he could
>Peter Walker's ol' quad
>Does away with the facade
>And allows the music to be understood.

>Hammingaway

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[Lionel]

In >, Sander deWaal wrote :

> (jclause) said:
>
>>In article >, says...
>
>>>I also know (and Villchur knew this, too) that gilding the lily
>>>does not mean perfection.
>
>
>>Now "gilding the lily" can be good
>>When Allison had done all he could
>>Peter Walker's ol' quad
>>Does away with the facade
>>And allows the music to be understood.
>
>>Hammingaway

Agreed...
Don't know why but it remembers me a recent thread about "high-end audio"
and "wine"...

[John Atkinson]

Howard Ferstler wrote:
> Lip****z proved mathematically that a large-diaphragm driver
> will have a skewed response curve at higher frequencies.
> Ironically, that skewing effect may be one reason why the
> early Quad speakers were so lionized. People liked the
> artifact.

Yet Stanley Lip****z, Mr. Ferstler, with whom I am acquainted,is
a fan of the Quad ESL-63 loudspeaker. Isn't _that_ peculiar.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Howard Ferstler > wrote:

> dave weil wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 27 May 2005 15:59:58 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >> The thing is, you're supposed to actually LISTEN to the speaker before
> > >> you judge it.
> > >
> > >I have not judged it.
> >
> > Sure you have.
> >
> > >As best I can recall, when Lip****z
> > >did his calculations all he did was use mathematics to prove
> > >a point. Whether or not he had listened to any flat-panel
> > >systems or not is not known to me, but he certainly did not
> > >have much use for them in mathematical terms.
> >
> > Yes, because we always listen to speakers using maths, not ears and
> > brains.
>
> Your anti-intellectual bias is showing, Dave. Lip****z
> proved mathematically that a large-diaphragm driver will
> have a skewed response curve at higher frequencies.
> Ironically, that skewing effect may be one reason why the
> early Quad speakers were so lionized. People liked the
> artifact.

Midrange, midrange, midrange.

> By the way, one reason that bass-shy speakers seem to have
> such clear sound in the midrange has to do with the way the
> brain handles flat-response signals that cover the full
> bandwidth down into the low bass. Take away the low bass and
> the midrange appears to be clearer sounding. Put the bass
> back in and make no changes to the midrange and the midrange
> still seems to lose some clarity and detail.

That's why Gradient subs were made: to reduce Quad midrange clarity.

Stephen

[jclause]

In article om>,
says...


>Yet Stanley Lip****z, Mr. Ferstler, with whom I am
>acquainted,is a fan of the Quad ESL-63 loudspeaker.


Now Howie, he ain't into the quad
As we know, Mr. Allison's his "God"
He likes the nine-o-one
An' he thinks it's fun..
While to others sound that splatters seems odd.

Hammingaway

[dave weil]

On Fri, 27 May 2005 16:58:45 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 27 May 2005 15:58:11 -0400, Howard Ferstler
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >dave weil wrote:
>
>> >> Have you ever even SEEN a Quad speaker, Howard?
>
>> >Years ago. Note that any large driver will exhibit
>> >comb-filtering artifacts when the wavelengths get short
>> >enough, and that includes squarish-shaped systems like those
>> >early Quad models.
>
>> You need to look a little closer at the various Quad speakers, Howard.
>
>I know enough about speaker sound now to realize that there
>is nothing mysterious about what speakers are called upon to
>do. And what the Quad does that is special is not going to
>add up to all that much. I also know (and Villchur knew
>this, too) that gilding the lily does not mean perfection.

Why don't you get rid of your Allisons and stick with AR3s then?

You STILL need to look at the dimensions of the speaker, 'cause I
think you're confusing them with huge panel speakers.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 27 May 2005 17:02:05 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 27 May 2005 15:59:58 -0400, Howard Ferstler
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> The thing is, you're supposed to actually LISTEN to the speaker before
>> >> you judge it.
>> >
>> >I have not judged it.
>>
>> Sure you have.
>>
>> >As best I can recall, when Lip****z
>> >did his calculations all he did was use mathematics to prove
>> >a point. Whether or not he had listened to any flat-panel
>> >systems or not is not known to me, but he certainly did not
>> >have much use for them in mathematical terms.
>>
>> Yes, because we always listen to speakers using maths, not ears and
>> brains.
>
>Your anti-intellectual bias is showing, Dave. Lip****z
>proved mathematically that a large-diaphragm driver will
>have a skewed response curve at higher frequencies.
>Ironically, that skewing effect may be one reason why the
>early Quad speakers were so lionized. People liked the
>artifact.

Hmmmm, Howard...you're starting to get it, even if you don't even know
it.

>By the way, one reason that bass-shy speakers seem to have
>such clear sound in the midrange has to do with the way the
>brain handles flat-response signals that cover the full
>bandwidth down into the low bass. Take away the low bass and
>the midrange appears to be clearer sounding. Put the bass
>back in and make no changes to the midrange and the midrange
>still seems to lose some clarity and detail.

So says the guy who's never heard a subwoofer'd Quad system.

Does that mean that your Allisons are lacking in clarity and detail?

[Arny Krueger]

John Atkinson wrote:
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
>> Lip****z proved mathematically that a large-diaphragm
driver
>> will have a skewed response curve at higher frequencies.
>> Ironically, that skewing effect may be one reason why the
>> early Quad speakers were so lionized. People liked the
>> artifact.
>
> Yet Stanley Lip****z, Mr. Ferstler, with whom I am
acquainted,is
> a fan of the Quad ESL-63 loudspeaker. Isn't _that_
peculiar.

Just goes to show that even the editor of Stereophile
doesn't understand that the well-known fact that the Quad
ESL-63 is a made out of a collection of smaller diaphragms,
each small diaphragm independently driven by a tapped delay
line.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 07:03:55 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>John Atkinson wrote:
>> Howard Ferstler wrote:
>>> Lip****z proved mathematically that a large-diaphragm
>driver
>>> will have a skewed response curve at higher frequencies.
>>> Ironically, that skewing effect may be one reason why the
>>> early Quad speakers were so lionized. People liked the
>>> artifact.
>>
>> Yet Stanley Lip****z, Mr. Ferstler, with whom I am
>acquainted,is
>> a fan of the Quad ESL-63 loudspeaker. Isn't _that_
>peculiar.
>
>Just goes to show that even the editor of Stereophile
>doesn't understand that the well-known fact that the Quad
>ESL-63 is a made out of a collection of smaller diaphragms,
>each small diaphragm independently driven by a tapped delay
>line.

Actually, it's HOWARD that doesn't seem to know that.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> John Atkinson wrote:
> > Howard Ferstler wrote:
> >> Lip****z proved mathematically that a large-diaphragm
> driver
> >> will have a skewed response curve at higher frequencies.
> >> Ironically, that skewing effect may be one reason why the
> >> early Quad speakers were so lionized. People liked the
> >> artifact.
> >
> > Yet Stanley Lip****z, Mr. Ferstler, with whom I am
> acquainted,is
> > a fan of the Quad ESL-63 loudspeaker. Isn't _that_
> peculiar.
>
> Just goes to show that even the editor of Stereophile
> doesn't understand that the well-known fact that the Quad
> ESL-63 is a made out of a collection of smaller diaphragms,
> each small diaphragm independently driven by a tapped delay
> line.

Maybe he was led to believe otherwise by Larry Greenhill:

http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/416/index6.html

"The second innovation was the speaker's unique radiating element, which
used driver plates that employed a printed circuit board of annular
rings, like the ripples formed when a stone is dropped into a lake.
These rings were fed by delay lines (employing some 11 miles of wire!)
which allowed the flat diaphragm to radiate the sound first at the
center and last at the periphery, as if it were a radiating sphere‹the
ideal shape for approximating sound emanating from a point source with
an apparent location 12" behind the panels. The single element in the
new Quad also meant the elimination of a venetian-blind, treble-beaming
effect found in speakers with multiple panels."

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

MINe 109 wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>> Howard Ferstler wrote:
>>>> Lip****z proved mathematically that a large-diaphragm
>> driver
>>>> will have a skewed response curve at higher
frequencies.
>>>> Ironically, that skewing effect may be one reason why
the
>>>> early Quad speakers were so lionized. People liked the
>>>> artifact.
>>>
>>> Yet Stanley Lip****z, Mr. Ferstler, with whom I am
>> acquainted,is
>>> a fan of the Quad ESL-63 loudspeaker. Isn't _that_
>> peculiar.
>>
>> Just goes to show that even the editor of Stereophile
>> doesn't understand that the well-known fact that the Quad
>> ESL-63 is a made out of a collection of smaller
diaphragms,
>> each small diaphragm independently driven by a tapped
delay
>> line.

> Maybe he was led to believe otherwise by Larry Greenhill:

>
http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/416/index6.html
>
> "The second innovation was the speaker's unique radiating
element,
> which
> used driver plates that employed a printed circuit board
of annular
> rings, like the ripples formed when a stone is dropped
into a lake.
> These rings were fed by delay lines (employing some 11
miles of wire!)
> which allowed the flat diaphragm to radiate the sound
first at the
> center and last at the periphery, as if it were a
radiating sphere >
> ideal shape for approximating sound emanating from a point
source
> with an apparent location 12" behind the panels. The
single element
> in the
> new Quad also meant the elimination of a venetian-blind,
> treble-beaming
> effect found in speakers with multiple panels."

I don't know how that text would lead one to believe that
the ESL-63 was composed of just one large diaphragm.

What does "annular rings... ...fed by delay lines" mean to
you, Stephen?

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> John Atkinson wrote:
> >>> Howard Ferstler wrote:
> >>>> Lip****z proved mathematically that a large-diaphragm
> >> driver
> >>>> will have a skewed response curve at higher
> frequencies.
> >>>> Ironically, that skewing effect may be one reason why
> the
> >>>> early Quad speakers were so lionized. People liked the
> >>>> artifact.
> >>>
> >>> Yet Stanley Lip****z, Mr. Ferstler, with whom I am
> >> acquainted,is
> >>> a fan of the Quad ESL-63 loudspeaker. Isn't _that_
> >> peculiar.
> >>
> >> Just goes to show that even the editor of Stereophile
> >> doesn't understand that the well-known fact that the Quad
> >> ESL-63 is a made out of a collection of smaller
> diaphragms,
> >> each small diaphragm independently driven by a tapped
> delay
> >> line.
>
> > Maybe he was led to believe otherwise by Larry Greenhill:
>
> >
> http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/416/index6.html
> >
> > "The second innovation was the speaker's unique radiating
> > element... The single element in the
> > new Quad also meant the elimination of a venetian-blind,
> > treble-beaming effect found in speakers with multiple panels."
>
> I don't know how that text would lead one to believe that
> the ESL-63 was composed of just one large diaphragm.
>
> What does "annular rings... ...fed by delay lines" mean to
> you, Stephen?

http://www.quadesl.org/Hard_Core/Patents/ESL_63_Patents/walpd.jpg

What does "single element" mean to you?

Stephen

[dave weil]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 08:55:01 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> "The second innovation was the speaker's unique radiating
>element,
>> which
>> used driver plates that employed a printed circuit board
>of annular
>> rings, like the ripples formed when a stone is dropped
>into a lake.
>> These rings were fed by delay lines (employing some 11
>miles of wire!)
>> which allowed the flat diaphragm to radiate the sound
>first at the
>> center and last at the periphery, as if it were a
>radiating sphere >
>> ideal shape for approximating sound emanating from a point
>source
>> with an apparent location 12" behind the panels. The
>single element
>> in the
>> new Quad also meant the elimination of a venetian-blind,
>> treble-beaming
>> effect found in speakers with multiple panels."
>
>I don't know how that text would lead one to believe that
>the ESL-63 was composed of just one large diaphragm.
>
>What does "annular rings... ...fed by delay lines" mean to
>you, Stephen?

What do "unique radiating element", "flat diaphragm", "it" in relation
to the phrase "flat diaphragm", and "single element" mean to you?

Of course, I tried to make the point that Howard was mistaken about
the Quad's design when it came to being worried about bad comb
filtering, so that horse left the barn a long time ago.

[Arny Krueger]

MINe 109 wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> MINe 109 wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>>>> Howard Ferstler wrote:
>>>>>> Lip****z proved mathematically that a large-diaphragm
driver
>>>>>> will have a skewed response curve at higher
>> frequencies.
>>>>>> Ironically, that skewing effect may be one reason why
>> the
>>>>>> early Quad speakers were so lionized. People liked
the
>>>>>> artifact.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet Stanley Lip****z, Mr. Ferstler, with whom I am
acquainted,is
>>>>> a fan of the Quad ESL-63 loudspeaker. Isn't _that_
peculiar.
>>>>
>>>> Just goes to show that even the editor of Stereophile
>>>> doesn't understand that the well-known fact that the
Quad
>>>> ESL-63 is a made out of a collection of smaller
>> diaphragms,
>>>> each small diaphragm independently driven by a tapped
>> delay
>>>> line.
>>
>>> Maybe he was led to believe otherwise by Larry
Greenhill:
>>
>>>
>>
http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/416/index6.html
>>>
>>> "The second innovation was the speaker's unique
radiating
>>> element... The single element in the
>>> new Quad also meant the elimination of a venetian-blind,
>>> treble-beaming effect found in speakers with multiple
panels."
>>
>> I don't know how that text would lead one to believe that
>> the ESL-63 was composed of just one large diaphragm.
>>
>> What does "annular rings... ...fed by delay lines" mean
to
>> you, Stephen?
>
>
http://www.quadesl.org/Hard_Core/Patents/ESL_63_Patents/walpd.jpg

At the moment, a broken link. Google suggests that it was
once OK, but facts say its not OK right now.

> What does "single element" mean to you?

Yet another example of you misinterpreting facts that should
be pretty obvious, Stephen?

The fact that you had to change references suggests that
you're in trouble, Stephen and you should know it.

[John Atkinson]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> the editor of Stereophile doesn't understand...the
> well-known fact that the Quad ESL-63 is...made out
> of a collection of smaller diaphragms, each small
> diaphragm independently driven by a tapped delay
> line.

This is incorrect. It uses a single diaphragm
that is driven by annular electrostatic elements,
each successively delayed in time.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

John Atkinson wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> the editor of Stereophile doesn't understand...the
>> well-known fact that the Quad ESL-63 is...made out
>> of a collection of smaller diaphragms, each small
>> diaphragm independently driven by a tapped delay
>> line.
>
> This is incorrect. It uses a single diaphragm
> that is driven by annular electrostatic elements,
> each successively delayed in time.

If there is effectively a single diaphragm, then it moves as
a single unit and the multiple annular elements are futile.

If the various annular elements cause different portions of
the diaphragm to move differently, then effectively there
are multiple diaphragms.

[Howard Ferstler]

John Atkinson wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
> > Lip****z proved mathematically that a large-diaphragm driver
> > will have a skewed response curve at higher frequencies.
> > Ironically, that skewing effect may be one reason why the
> > early Quad speakers were so lionized. People liked the
> > artifact.

> Yet Stanley Lip****z, Mr. Ferstler, with whom I am acquainted,is
> a fan of the Quad ESL-63 loudspeaker. Isn't _that_ peculiar.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

From everything I have gathered, when it comes to speaker
performance the ESL-63 provided a solution to a problem that
simply does not exist to any important degree with good,
other-technology speakers.

Lip****z also feels (or at least felt a number of years ago)
that a coincident-microphone recording technique is (or at
least when he wrote an article dealing with the topic, was
at that time) superior to other techniques, such as the
spaced array. I have listened to enough recordings by now to
believe that he was only half right, with a host of other
factors being equally as important or even more important.

Perhaps he is also only half right about the ESL-63.

As for you being acquainted with Dr. Lip****z, one could say
that Churchill was acquainted with Joe Stalin, too. I wonder
what Dr. Lip****z really thinks about your magazine.

Howard Ferstler

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> the editor of Stereophile doesn't understand...the
> >> well-known fact that the Quad ESL-63 is...made out
> >> of a collection of smaller diaphragms, each small
> >> diaphragm independently driven by a tapped delay
> >> line.
> >
> > This is incorrect. It uses a single diaphragm
> > that is driven by annular electrostatic elements,
> > each successively delayed in time.
>
> If there is effectively a single diaphragm, then it moves as
> a single unit and the multiple annular elements are futile.


No



>
> If the various annular elements cause different portions of
> the diaphragm to move differently, then effectively there
> are multiple diaphragms.



No. I see the concept is over your head.





Scott Wheeler

[Howard Ferstler]

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 07:03:55 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:

> >Just goes to show that even the editor of Stereophile
> >doesn't understand that the well-known fact that the Quad
> >ESL-63 is a made out of a collection of smaller diaphragms,
> >each small diaphragm independently driven by a tapped delay
> >line.

> Actually, it's HOWARD that doesn't seem to know that.

I am fully aware of the point (pun intended) behind the
design of the ESL-63. I never said it made use of a
monolithic diaphragm.

My take on the speaker, with its concentric-ring driving
surface, and ever-shrinking radiating surface as the
frequency climbs, is that it is a solution looking for a
problem to solve. A problem that most conventional speakers
do not have to an audibly meaningful degree.

On the other hand, its "solution" notwithstanding, the
speaker should still suffer from various other nettling
little, electrostatic-design-related problems that those
other, more conventional speakers will rarely encounter to a
significant extent.

Yeah, Dave, I have not heard the system, but as best I can
tell it is an overkill, Rube Goldberg approach to speaker
building. A way to make a design that has inherent problems
overcome those problems while still adhering to belief that
some have in electrostatic speaker technology.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

MINe 109 wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Howard Ferstler > wrote:

> > Your anti-intellectual bias is showing, Dave. Lip****z
> > proved mathematically that a large-diaphragm driver will
> > have a skewed response curve at higher frequencies.
> > Ironically, that skewing effect may be one reason why the
> > early Quad speakers were so lionized. People liked the
> > artifact.

> Midrange, midrange, midrange.

In the Lip****z paper, the mathematically calculated
response began to get choppy and roll off as low as the
upper midrange. Exactly where this would occur would depend
upon the size of the diaphragm, needless to say. And with a
large enough diaphragm you would get severe beaming even
considerably below the range where the response falls off
and gets choppy.

I would imagine that more than one technically ignorant
audio buff has liked a speaker because of a choppy midrange.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 May 2005 17:02:05 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:

> >By the way, one reason that bass-shy speakers seem to have
> >such clear sound in the midrange has to do with the way the
> >brain handles flat-response signals that cover the full
> >bandwidth down into the low bass. Take away the low bass and
> >the midrange appears to be clearer sounding. Put the bass
> >back in and make no changes to the midrange and the midrange
> >still seems to lose some clarity and detail.

> So says the guy who's never heard a subwoofer'd Quad system.

This artifact would hold with any system or combination of
systems.

> Does that mean that your Allisons are lacking in clarity and detail?

Note that this apparent loss in clarity does not have
anything to do with the quality of the speakers. It involves
the way the ear response to wide-bandwidth sound in
comparison to bandwidth limited (in the bass) performance.
Filter out the bass from any wide-bandwidth signal source
and there will be an apparent improvement in overall
clarity.

What you tweakos do not know about psychoacoustics would
fill a book.

Howard Ferstler

[dave weil]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 11:22:01 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

>http://www.quadesl.org/Hard_Core/Patents/ESL_63_Patents/walpd.jpg
>
>At the moment, a broken link. Google suggests that it was
>once OK, but facts say its not OK right now.

It worked earlier this morning. You should probably try it again. It's
simply the patent page which clearly shows the rings.

>> What does "single element" mean to you?
>
>Yet another example of you misinterpreting facts that should
>be pretty obvious, Stephen?

Yeah - it's pretty obvious all right, unlike YOUR rather vague
interpretation.

>The fact that you had to change references suggests that
>you're in trouble, Stephen and you should know it.

Amazing how you can spin this.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 12:18:10 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>John Atkinson wrote:
>>
>> Howard Ferstler wrote:
>> > Lip****z proved mathematically that a large-diaphragm driver
>> > will have a skewed response curve at higher frequencies.
>> > Ironically, that skewing effect may be one reason why the
>> > early Quad speakers were so lionized. People liked the
>> > artifact.
>
>> Yet Stanley Lip****z, Mr. Ferstler, with whom I am acquainted,is
>> a fan of the Quad ESL-63 loudspeaker. Isn't _that_ peculiar.
>>
>> John Atkinson
>> Editor, Stereophile
>
>From everything I have gathered, when it comes to speaker
>performance the ESL-63 provided a solution to a problem that
>simply does not exist to any important degree with good,
>other-technology speakers.
>
>Lip****z also feels (or at least felt a number of years ago)
>that a coincident-microphone recording technique is (or at
>least when he wrote an article dealing with the topic, was
>at that time) superior to other techniques, such as the
>spaced array. I have listened to enough recordings by now to
>believe that he was only half right, with a host of other
>factors being equally as important or even more important.

>Perhaps he is also only half right about the ESL-63.

Maybe he was only half right about response curves of large-diaphragm
drivers.

>As for you being acquainted with Dr. Lip****z, one could say
>that Churchill was acquainted with Joe Stalin, too. I wonder
>what Dr. Lip****z really thinks about your magazine.

I guess we should use this analogy when discussing your relationship
with Mr. Allison. I also wonder if his opinion of you is clouded by
the fact that you are one of his biggest promoters.

BTW, I DID speak to Roy once, on the telephone, for about a minute. He
had the flu and couldn't meet with me at the factory. I wished him a
speedy recovery and then went to see the immigrant ladies paint doping
material on woofers with house paint brushes. It was charming.

[John Atkinson]

Howard Ferstler wrote:
> As for you being acquainted with Dr. Lip****z, one
> could say that Churchill was acquainted with Joe
> Stalin, too. I wonder what Dr. Lip****z really thinks
> about your magazine.

Stanley does indeed have some issue with my opinions
on audio. However, when I was having a spot of bother
with the INS some years ago, he very kindly wrote a
testimonial on my behalf, for which I will always be
in his debt.

Regarding your opinions on the sound of the Quad
ESL-63, I do feel that those opinions would be
better informed had you ever auditioned the
loudspeaker.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Howard Ferstler]

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 12:18:10 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:

> >As for you being acquainted with Dr. Lip****z, one could say
> >that Churchill was acquainted with Joe Stalin, too. I wonder
> >what Dr. Lip****z really thinks about your magazine.

> I guess we should use this analogy when discussing your relationship
> with Mr. Allison. I also wonder if his opinion of you is clouded by
> the fact that you are one of his biggest promoters.

Actually, Roy and I get along in a championship way, but
mainly via email. (For one thing, we swap internet jokes.)
You do need to remember that he proofed all of the audio
sections of my 1991 book, High Fidelity Audio-Video Systems,
and proofed several sections in my 1994 book, The Home
Theater Companion. If we did not get along and agree on most
topics, that kind of collaboration would not have happened.

Roy is anything but boisterous the way I am, and so he
probably would be a bit unsettled by my performance on RAO
and my often arm-waving enthusiasm for what he has
accomplished. In any case, it is pointless for me to
formally "promote" him these days, since he is retired. I do
like to point out his legacy, however.

Howard Ferstler

[ScottW]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> the editor of Stereophile doesn't understand...the
> >> well-known fact that the Quad ESL-63 is...made out
> >> of a collection of smaller diaphragms, each small
> >> diaphragm independently driven by a tapped delay
> >> line.
> >
> > This is incorrect. It uses a single diaphragm
> > that is driven by annular electrostatic elements,
> > each successively delayed in time.
>
> If there is effectively a single diaphragm, then it moves as
> a single unit and the multiple annular elements are futile.

I doubt if even berrylium diaphragms move as a "single unit".
>
> If the various annular elements cause different portions of
> the diaphragm to move differently, then effectively there
> are multiple diaphragms.

In this case we have multiple concentric diaphragms driven in time
coordinated manner to simulate the response of a point source. Somehow
I don't think the math Howard is referring to takes any of this into
consideration.

ScottW

[Howard Ferstler]

John Atkinson wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
> > As for you being acquainted with Dr. Lip****z, one
> > could say that Churchill was acquainted with Joe
> > Stalin, too. I wonder what Dr. Lip****z really thinks
> > about your magazine.

> Stanley does indeed have some issue with my opinions
> on audio.

Having read some of his work, I am not surprised.

> However, when I was having a spot of bother
> with the INS some years ago, he very kindly wrote a
> testimonial on my behalf, for which I will always be
> in his debt.

John, regarding you as a recording engineer I would be glad
to give positive testimony concerning your competence. Not
your editorial work, however, although your speaker
reviewing seems to be pretty good, even though I have not
read many of your reviews. I know of one competent engineer
who has no use at all for your magazine's philosophy, but
who thinks your speaker reviews are first rate.

> Regarding your opinions on the sound of the Quad
> ESL-63, I do feel that those opinions would be
> better informed had you ever auditioned the
> loudspeaker.

No doubt. Unlikely to happen, however.

Howard Ferstler

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Howard Ferstler > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> >
> > In article >,
> > Howard Ferstler > wrote:
>
> > > Your anti-intellectual bias is showing, Dave. Lip****z
> > > proved mathematically that a large-diaphragm driver will
> > > have a skewed response curve at higher frequencies.
> > > Ironically, that skewing effect may be one reason why the
> > > early Quad speakers were so lionized. People liked the
> > > artifact.
>
> > Midrange, midrange, midrange.
>
> In the Lip****z paper, the mathematically calculated
> response began to get choppy and roll off as low as the
> upper midrange. Exactly where this would occur would depend
> upon the size of the diaphragm, needless to say. And with a
> large enough diaphragm you would get severe beaming even
> considerably below the range where the response falls off
> and gets choppy.

Unless there were some kind of design compensation, of course.

> I would imagine that more than one technically ignorant
> audio buff has liked a speaker because of a choppy midrange.

Yes, I just read a reviewer who praised the 63 because he had "become
tired of speakers that recess the midrange to cater to the fashionable
craving for more 'depth.'"

Stephen

PS The review (of the 989) mentions an upgrade of the delay line wire to
OFC.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Howard Ferstler > wrote:

> As for you being acquainted with Dr. Lip****z, one could say
> that Churchill was acquainted with Joe Stalin, too.

You're over the line, Howard.

Stephen

[Howard Ferstler]

ScottW wrote:

> In this case we have multiple concentric diaphragms driven in time
> coordinated manner to simulate the response of a point source. Somehow
> I don't think the math Howard is referring to takes any of this into
> consideration.

This is correct. Lip****z was dealing with a fixed-diaphragm
model.

Howard Ferstler

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> MINe 109 wrote:
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> John Atkinson wrote:
> >>>>> Howard Ferstler wrote:
> >>>>>> Lip****z proved mathematically that a large-diaphragm
> driver
> >>>>>> will have a skewed response curve at higher
> >> frequencies.
> >>>>>> Ironically, that skewing effect may be one reason why
> >> the
> >>>>>> early Quad speakers were so lionized. People liked
> the
> >>>>>> artifact.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yet Stanley Lip****z, Mr. Ferstler, with whom I am
> acquainted,is
> >>>>> a fan of the Quad ESL-63 loudspeaker. Isn't _that_
> peculiar.
> >>>>
> >>>> Just goes to show that even the editor of Stereophile
> >>>> doesn't understand that the well-known fact that the
> Quad
> >>>> ESL-63 is a made out of a collection of smaller
> >> diaphragms,
> >>>> each small diaphragm independently driven by a tapped
> >> delay
> >>>> line.
> >>
> >>> Maybe he was led to believe otherwise by Larry
> Greenhill:
> >>
> >>>
> >>
> http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/416/index6.html
> >>>
> >>> "The second innovation was the speaker's unique
> radiating
> >>> element... The single element in the
> >>> new Quad also meant the elimination of a venetian-blind,
> >>> treble-beaming effect found in speakers with multiple
> panels."
> >>
> >> I don't know how that text would lead one to believe that
> >> the ESL-63 was composed of just one large diaphragm.
> >>
> >> What does "annular rings... ...fed by delay lines" mean
> to
> >> you, Stephen?
> >
> >
> http://www.quadesl.org/Hard_Core/Patents/ESL_63_Patents/walpd.jpg
>
> At the moment, a broken link. Google suggests that it was
> once OK, but facts say its not OK right now.

That's odd; I checked it just before I posted. It's working now.

> > What does "single element" mean to you?
>
> Yet another example of you misinterpreting facts that should
> be pretty obvious, Stephen?
>
> The fact that you had to change references suggests that
> you're in trouble, Stephen and you should know it.

Hint: a diaphragm is not a voice coil.

Stephen

[Howard Ferstler]

MINe 109 wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Howard Ferstler > wrote:
>
> > MINe 109 wrote:
> > >
> > > In article >,
> > > Howard Ferstler > wrote:
> >
> > > > Your anti-intellectual bias is showing, Dave. Lip****z
> > > > proved mathematically that a large-diaphragm driver will
> > > > have a skewed response curve at higher frequencies.
> > > > Ironically, that skewing effect may be one reason why the
> > > > early Quad speakers were so lionized. People liked the
> > > > artifact.
> >
> > > Midrange, midrange, midrange.
> >
> > In the Lip****z paper, the mathematically calculated
> > response began to get choppy and roll off as low as the
> > upper midrange. Exactly where this would occur would depend
> > upon the size of the diaphragm, needless to say. And with a
> > large enough diaphragm you would get severe beaming even
> > considerably below the range where the response falls off
> > and gets choppy.
>
> Unless there were some kind of design compensation, of course.
>
> > I would imagine that more than one technically ignorant
> > audio buff has liked a speaker because of a choppy midrange.
>
> Yes, I just read a reviewer who praised the 63 because he had "become
> tired of speakers that recess the midrange to cater to the fashionable
> craving for more 'depth.'"

Yep, that recessed-midrange depth artifact can indeed exist,
particularly in smaller listening rooms. The result may be a
flat, clean first-arrival signal but with a weak
reverberant-field supporting signal. It can actually sound
quite good under some conditions.

Many two-way systems pretty much automatically have this
kind of suppressed midrange, due to the requirements of
their combination woofer/midrange drivers. Generally, the
result is a reverberant-field sag beginning at 800 to 1000
Hz, bottoming out at maybe 2 to 2.5 kHz, and then not coming
back up to average levels below 800 Hz until as high up as 4
kHz. The dip can bottom out at anywhere from 3 to 6 dB,
depending upon the diameter of the woofer/midrange driver
and the crossover design. I have discussed this artifact in
several The Sensible Sound commentary articles, as well as
in numerous reviews.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

MINe 109 wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Howard Ferstler > wrote:
>
> > As for you being acquainted with Dr. Lip****z, one could say
> > that Churchill was acquainted with Joe Stalin, too.
>
> You're over the line, Howard.
>
> Stephen

But they did not like each other.

Howard Ferstler

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Howard Ferstler > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> >
> > In article >,
> > Howard Ferstler > wrote:
> >
> > > As for you being acquainted with Dr. Lip****z, one could say
> > > that Churchill was acquainted with Joe Stalin, too.
> >
> > You're over the line, Howard.

> But they did not like each other.

Okay, you're over the line and inapposite.

Stephen