[James Price[_5_]]

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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

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

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

[James Price[_5_]]

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

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

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

[geoff]

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

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

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



Yes.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

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

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

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

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

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

[James Price[_5_]]

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, I appreciate the input.

[geoff]

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

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

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

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

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


Or move your head a few inches.

geoff

[[email protected]]

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

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

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

Mark

[Neil[_9_]]

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

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

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

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

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

--
best regards,

Neil

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Neil wrote:


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


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


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


** Now that IS audiophool nonsense.



..... Phil

[[email protected]]

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

Careful.... Mssrs. geoff, Mike R., and others are
of the "use your ears!" crowd, despite being of
scientific capacity! lol "Measurements? We don't
need no steenkin' measurements!"

[Neil[_9_]]

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


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


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

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


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


** Now that IS audiophool nonsense.

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

--
best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

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

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

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

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Neil[_9_]]

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

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

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

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

--
best regards,

Neil

[Trevor]

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

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

[[email protected]]

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

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

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


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

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


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



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

[Mark Spilberg]

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

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

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


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

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


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



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

I agree with Scott's description, of Speaker room integration, response patterns of speakers, and how they effect the resulting perceived balance.

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

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


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



** Yawnnnnnnnnnn.....


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

FYI:

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

Usenet is completely ****ed.

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



...... Phil

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

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

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


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

[James Price[_5_]]

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

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

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

Thank you, I appreciate the input.

[Mark Spilberg]

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

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

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


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

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

[Trevor]

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

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

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

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


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