Audio Asylum Thread Printer

Get a view of an entire thread on one page

Critic's Corner

Messrs. Atkinson and Fremer are mad as hell and they aren’t going to take it anymore!

64.12.116.141

Yesterday, while at my favorite bookstore, I had occasion to peruse the current issue of Stereophile for the better part of an hour. I even took a few notes. I’ll preface my remarks by stating that I envy Atkinson and Fremer their passion for this hobby. I sense it is genuine and not merely a pose, as some cynics would contend.

Taking a page from Hillary’s book, JA&MF have resolved to combat what they view as a vast mainstream conspiracy that is preventing an ignorant public from discovering the joys of hi-end audio. The culprits in this conspiracy, according to JA&MF, are Anthony Tommasini and Terry Teachout. (Therein lies the flaw in their theory. More about that in a moment.)

An incredulous John Atkinson declares, “{I}t’s beyond me how anyone, let alone someone as musically literate as Anthony Tommasini, can feel that the sound quality of a low-bit-rate MP3 is ‘good enough.”’ Hmphh. I find JA’s absolutist position regarding this matter a bit puzzling for two reasons. Ever the relativist, why only now has he chosen to abandon his “live and let live” philosophy? Where is that wonderful liberal tolerance that’s usually on display? And since when does one’s musical literacy necessarily equate to an avid interest in audiophile gear?

JA’s major complaint, if I read him correctly, is that the MP3 “discards frequency information” and can “smear” other musical artifacts. It occurs to me that SETs do something very similar inasmuch as they fail to deliver the last word in musical information (especially at the frequency extremes), nor do they offer the ultimate in resolution. The late James Burnham was fond of saying, “He who says A must say B.” Yet I don’t see the big guns at Stereophile scolding SET devotees for the error of their ways.

JA goes on to state that the sonic difference between compressed files and CDs is “not subtle.” Then perhaps this is the ideal situation in which to introduce DBTs. If the difference is not subtle then one should have little trouble differentiating between the two sources, without the advantage of sighted listening.

Such an approach might prove beneficial insofar as convincing the masses that they are missing out on something quite important. Perhaps Stereophile and audiophile clubs throughout America can raise awareness with such demonstrations. Of course, if audiophiles are exaggerating said differences then one would understand their reluctance to enlist the aid of DBTs in this matter.

The major flaw in JA&MF’s thesis has to do with their insistence that the “mainstream press” is frustrating their best efforts to enlighten the general public as to the sonic superiority of audiophile -- relax, MF, I’m using the term in the best possible sense of the word – formats, compared to compressed files. JA complains it’s difficult to get his message out “with Teachout and Tommasini preaching the opposite, that’s hard to overcome.”

Hard to overcome? Why is that? For all their fevered rhetoric about the mainstream press torpedoing their best efforts, JA&MF can point to only two critics who are, as far as I can tell, merely stating their opinion that compressed files are “good enough” for them.

JA&MF will point to the fact that Tommasini and Teachout write for the NEW YORK TIMES and WSJ, respectively. Fair enough. But Mr. Fremer’s major quarrel with Teachout concerns an article Teachout published in COMMENTERY, hardly a mainstream publication, six years ago.

I suspect Stereophile’s target audience for this crusade is younger people. (Let’s face it, if the audiophile bug hasn’t bitten you by the time you’re 50, it probably never will.) But I suspect there are precious few teens subscribing to the WSJ, or faithfully reading the arts section of the N.Y. Times.

I spent 30 minutes googling “audiophile” slash TIME, NEWSWEEK, USA TODAY, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE L.A. TIMES, THE LONDON TIMES, ROLLING STONE, and others, and found no evidence of a concerted effort on behalf of the press to disparage audiophiles, by downplaying the sonic virtues of CD and vinyl. (I did find a USA TODAY article alerting readers that a pricey brand name speaker cable sounded better than zip cord and a similar article in a high profile financial publication.)

Mr. Fremer takes Teachout to task for insisting that the resurgence of turntables is an exercise in “nostalgia.” Fremer asks Teachout if he believes listening to the old music of Louis Armstrong is also an exercise in nostalgia? But his analogy is weak inasmuch as Teachout is referring to hardware and we all know that hardware can be fleeting. When was the last time Stereophile reviewed a cassette deck? But musicians, composers and literary authors are flesh and blood and quite capable of taking on a certain timeless appeal. Think Bach. Surely Mr. Fremer grasps the difference.

Fremer fumes that “The iPod is no more responsible for ‘thinning the ranks of audiophiles’ over the last decade than cheap fast food has depleted the ranks of gourmets…Consumers are demanding higher quality food and seeking out better wine. Why? Because gourmet wine and fine food continue to receive enthusiastic coverage in the mainstream press and people who appreciate them are respected, while quality sound gets ignored…audiophiles are looked upon as either ‘odd’ or deluded for paying the same attention to sound…I don’t mean to sound paranoid, but for some reason, and especially in America, music lovers who appreciate good music (aka audiophiles) are under constant attack.”

“Constant attack”? Again, where is the evidence that audiophiles are incurring a constant drumbeat of criticism from the mainstream press? Hi-end audio has always been on the periphery of society and that’s where it’s likely to remain. And, yes, people might be forgiven for viewing an individual who spends upwards of $50K on a pair of speakers and $90K on a turntable, sans cartridge, as being a bit odd. It’s perfectly understandable that the mainstream should harbor such a view.

I’m afraid Messrs. Atkinson and Fremer can’t win this one. When it comes to influencing the publics’ purchasing habits, a single Steve Jobs is superior to a thousand Charles Hansens. Moreover, it’s a given that a heck of a lot more people would rather eat and drink than listen to music. If you doubt my claim then I suggest you consider the number of obese people in the U.S., or consider annual wine and beer sales in this country. What’s more, people don’t have to be told that enjoying quality food is a pleasurable experience. They’ve known it since they were three.

But for the vast majority of people, the vast majority of time, less than the best cuisine is “good enough.” This attitude holds true for audio as well. Most consumers value convenience and portability over sonic quality, they aren’t overly concerned with coaxing the last scintilla of sonic purity from their tunes. They just want to hear some music when the mood strikes them.

And that’s why audiophiles will never succeed in attracting the masses, and why there need be no concerted effort on the part of the media to prevent such a thing from happening.

When venturing down the qualitative slippery slope things can become a bit dicey. Let’s grant the fact that iPod users will never experience the "hi-end." But neither will most audiophiles who have limited funds that only allow for modest systems. Sure, one might assemble a sonically pleasing “mid-fi” system costing upwards of $5K, but to experience the “hi-end” in all its glory one would have to spend something on the order of 10-15 times as much—judging from what I read in audio journals.

I wish JA&MF much luck in their crusade to convert the great unwashed, but I don’t foresee many “road to Damascus moments” in their future. Again, methinks convenience is bound to triumph over quality. Oh, sure, the Philistines will listen politely, compliment you on the “great” sound of your gear, and then go right back to listening to those user-friendly iPods. At the risk of stating the obvious, there’s nothing particularly pleasurable or sexy about cleaning a record each time one plays it.

If compressed files and cheap audio systems are “good enough” for many composers (I once read that Philip Glass listens to everything on a $300 Aiwa mini system), musicians and music critics, so be it. Presumably those people are deriving at least as much enjoyment from music as the rest of us. I suspect John Lee Hooker derived enormous satisfaction from his musical career, and yet his “system,” I’m told, consisted of an $80 boom box.

When questioning young people about their iPods one detects an enormous amount of exuberance and emotional satisfaction, it’s infectious. Compare their exuberance with the sardonic letters-to-the-editor that appear in Stereophile and it’s immediately apparent as to which group is having the most fun. And isn’t that what it’s all about, having fun?

Mr. Tommasini’s musical system is sonically pleasing to the only person who matters…himself. And who is to say that others can’t derive similar satisfaction groovin’ to compressed files?

Follow Ups:

An ipod is to a stereo system what a 13" tv set is to a movie screen - WW85 20:08:06 02/07/08 (0)
In other words, saying kids think an ipod is the best and only way to listen to music is naive and an insult to them. They can hear the difference, trust me. My teenager has blown out my speakers multiple times because she doesn't want to listen to crap computer speakers all the time.

It's all relative. Ipods revolutionized an industry and deliver music better than any portable device ever has. They sound great even with the stock earphones and far better with really good ones. But they are for music on the go. Using them as a player at home is just plain stupid imho. Not because they don't sound decent when hooked up to good speakers, but because they all break eventually and they are incredibly expensive to repair and replace.

If people would look at the glass half full scenario, ipods and pc based music has introduced a whole generation to high quality sound at a very young age. (think of the tinny radios, record players and boom boxes other generations grew up on)

This is a new generation of audiophiles and they know the difference between good sound and bad when they hear it. When my daughters friends hear lossless files coming through my pc audio system they are amazed, they will remember that in a few years when they are furnishing their first houses and apartments. Will they go vinyl? No, not in big numbers, even though it is the rage on college campuses right now. They won't need cd's either. But enough of them will know the difference between lo-res and hi-res to keep the audiophile world intact.

There will always be music lovers, the old fogey's just have to let it go if the next generation finds nirvana in a new format.
I took it. Thanks to your post, I actually went out and bought a newstand copy - Bruce from DC 13:17:10 01/29/08 (24)
at $6.00.

(I really have to renew my subscription.)

And your point is?

Surely you are not going to argue that MP3s are indistinguishable from RBCD in any half-decent playback system.

And perhaps you didn't see a recent article by a non-audiophile in an non-audiophile publication that mentioned that JA and, IIRC, WP distinguished between two cables in an SBT, even though many of the run-of-the-show people were less successful in doing so.

Having now read both pieces (Atkinson's and Fremer's), I think it's fair to say that their basic point is that people need to be reminded of what music really sounds like, and it's disappointing (to say the least) when people who listen to music seriously (like Teachout) promote the notion that playback quality doesn't matter (or doesn't matter very much).

The only gripe that I have is about Fremer's analogy between "old" music and old technology (like vinyl). Of course no one would seriously argue that "old" music is worse than "new" music; it's just different. But, in the world of technology "new" is often -- but not always -- better. So -- picking up on Fremer's analogy -- while it is ridiculous to say that 1950s jazz is inferior, that fact does not make it equally ridiculous to say that 1950s audio playback technology is inferior.

In fact, for those who've been around long enough to know, today's vinyl playback system is not "your father's" vinyl playback system of the 1950s. It is better. Vinyl is an old technology, but that doesn't mean that it's not susceptible to improvements. The reason that CD looked so good at first is that it does solve the identified problems with vinyl: pitch instability, low-frequency noise, harmonic distortion, dynamic range.

However, CD brings with it a whole new set of problems, unknown to vinyl. It's just that those problems are "invisible" to the metrics traditionally applied to vinyl playback.

Meanwhile, with a lot of diligence, the magnitude of vinyl's problems has certainly been reduced over the past 40 years.
- RE: I took it. Thanks to your post, I actually went out and bought a newstand copy - regmac 16:33:39 01/30/08 (12)
  Bruce: “Thanks to your post, I actually went out and bought a newstand copy.”
  
  Well, I’m flattered to learn that in my own small way I’m enhancing Stereophile’s bottom line.
  
  Bruce: “And your point is?”
  
  Bruce, my good man, you’re a successful attorney in D.C. And because of that fact your reading comprehension skills are, presumably, superior to many of those who frequent this thread. Admittedly, most here don’t agree with my position but they bloody well get it. So I’ll assume your question is rhetorical in nature. As for your other concerns:
  
  Bruce: “Surely you are not going to argue that MP3s are indistinguishable from RBCD in any half-decent playback system.”
  
  I argue no such thing and see no need for you to erect a straw man. I merely note that compressed files appear to be “good enough” for Teachout, Tommasini, and millions of consumers. Consumers, by the way, who readily grasp the fact that there are qualitative differences in audio components/formats, as with virtually all other products. (The concept of qualitative distinctions among products is hardly new or unique to audio.)
  
  As I stated earlier, iPod users seem to be having considerably more fun than their audiophile counterparts, judging by the sardonic letters-to-the-editor one reads in audio journals, and the acrimony one encounters at this venue. The MP3 generation is enjoying music instead of getting bogged down in eternal debates and internecine warfare. So, who really has the problem here?
  
  I readily admit that RBCD offers a qualitative improvement over compressed files, but do not think the difference is so great as some would have us believe. I deem it closer to a nuance than a night and day difference. And I doubt hoi polloi will be overly impressed by mere nuance.
  
  Bruce: “And perhaps you didn't see a recent article by a non-audiophile in an non-audiophile publication that mentioned that JA and, IIRC, WP distinguished between two cables in an SBT, even though many of the run-of-the-show people were less successful in doing so.”
  
  Now you’re off straw men and onto non sequiturs. What does this article have to do with my larger point i.e., that I see no evidence of media responsibility for the demise of hi-end audio? In my view the audio industry needs to take responsibility for its own problems, instead of looking for scapegoats. Mr. Fremer would disagree. Thus the title of his essay: “The Swift Boating of Audiophiles.”
  
  Perhaps you reference this article because of my DBT suggestion. In any event, here’s what I took away from the article:
  
  1) “One of the tests compared a high-quality MP3 file from an iPod with a CD on a $3,000 player. Three-quarters of the 24 people taking this test preferred the CD. That was no surprise. However, when I played .wav files on the iPod -- these are digital but uncompressed files; I was connecting the headphone jack to the amplifier -- 52% of the 21 who took this test preferred the iPod. That made me smile, not because snooty audiophiles got the ‘wrong’ answer, but because it suggests GREAT SOUND CAN COME FROM POPULAR, CHEAP GEAR.” {Emphasis mine}
  
  2) A rep. from Audience LLC couldn’t identify {blind} his own $2,800 power-line conditioner a third of the time. He doesn’t recognize his own product yet neophytes and skeptics are supposed to be impressed by its benefits? Cut me a break.
  
  3) JA insists the sonic difference between CD and compressed files is “not particularly subtle.” Which is another way of saying it’s fairly “obvious.” Obvious enough, presumably, that the masses would have little difficulty distinguishing between the two formats. Yet, 25 percent of the listeners, according to the article, preferred the compressed file or could not distinguish between the two. Citing this article is a curious way of making your case, counselor.
  
  4) “I was struck by how the best-informed people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable.”
  
  This flattering assessment of their skills contradicts Mr. Fremer’s notion that the mainstream press delights in ridiculing audiophiles.
  
  5) “In absolute terms, though, the differences weren't great. Mr. Atkinson guesstimated the expensive cables sounded roughly 5% better.”
  
  Again, we are back to mere nuance and I suspect that’s a deal breaker for most of the great unwashed.
  
  6) “Remember, by definition, an audiophile is one who will bear any burden, pay any price, to get even a tiny improvement in sound.”
  
  See my response to number five.
  
  7) “Attendance at the show was disappointing…”
  
  Bruce: “Having now read both pieces (Atkinson's and Fremer's), I think it's fair to say that their basic point is that people need to be reminded of what music really sounds like,”
  
  I’m sure it is, Bruce. But this is no different than Robert Parker insisting that people need to be reminded of what fine wine tastes like. But the vast majority of consumers have little interest in going to the time and expense of searching out First Growth Bordeaux; likewise hi-end audio gear. And I’m afraid the media aren’t going to be of much help insofar as changing those attitudes, at least anytime soon.
  
  Concerning the media: As best I can discover, there’s no “swift boating,” or “constant attack” to harm the hi-end audio industry or to disparage audiophiles. I’m open to being persuaded otherwise. But I don’t see much evidence to support such claims. Do you, counselor?
  
  Bruce: “and it's disappointing (to say the least) when people who listen to music seriously (like Teachout) promote the notion that playback quality doesn't matter (or doesn't matter very much).”
  
  Life is full of disappointments, Bruce. But if that’s Teachout’s opinion then so be it. Would audiophiles rather he lie in order to promote their industry? Besides, methinks JA&MF credit Teachout and Tommasini with wielding too much influence. If their point is that two aging music critics are responsible for holding back an entire industry then perhaps they should rethink their position or take steps to revamp their industry.
  
  Taking a confrontational approach with the media will only invite ridicule, which was my point when I wrote that I was afraid MF was on the verge of shooting himself in the foot. (I don’t think JA&MF would care to see their industry become fodder for SNL.)
  
  If the hi-end industry wants more respect then let it get to work and earn it. But don’t complain, like petulant children, that the big boys won’t let you in their game. It’s unseemly.
  
  If audiophiles wish to broaden their customer base then they need to prepare to meet with a healthy degree of skepticism. Therefore, it’s important to be logically consistent in one’s approach. Don’t, as Mr. Fremer does, insist the problem is that audiophiles are under “constant attack,” and then a short time later insist the problem is that audio “is not being covered.” One can’t have it both ways.
  
  I suggest the audiophile industry get its talking points straight before drawing further attention to itself. So, what’s the position vis-à-vis the media going to be? Is the problem that the industry is under attack by a hostile media, or that the media are ignoring the industry?
  - oh, let's have some more fun together, reg! - Bruce from DC 10:46:52 01/31/08 (11)
    I think I get it.
    
    There is a subtext in the Fremer piece (and in Art Dudley's lament in his column in the same issue, which is otherwise irrelevant to my post here) that you found off-putting, but didn't mention. The reason I know that, is that I found it off-putting, too; and your politics and mine aren't that far apart.
    
    The subtext is the political one -- the use of the term "swift-boating." And the reason that I found it off-putting was that, assuming, arguendo the truth of the Democrats' original gripe (that is that the "swift boat veterans for truth" was a completely baseless attack on Sen. Kerry's "war hero" status) the metaphor is inapt in the context in which Fremer uses it. These two guys are not "attacking" high-end audio (which is your point).
    
    They're just not supporting sound quality -- and they ought to be. Just as an oenophile would probably be horrified if a noted wine critic drank his vintage out of paper or styrofoam cups, Fremer finds that idea that classical music critics are saying lossy compressed digital audio is "good enough" to be reprehensibe. But the reason these music critics ought to be supporting better sound quality is not simply that they should support conoisseurship in a related field (a contestable proposition), but that the world's best music -- music that people have found worthy of their time and attention for generations -- suffers the most from crappy reproduction. There is a qualitative difference between hearing a symphony live in a good hall and hearing it reproduced on an MP3 in a "personal stereo" that does not exist between hearing a rock concert live and reproduced the same way. Sure, the live rock concert is deafeningly, viscerally loud; but it's not qualitatively different than the way it sounds on an MP3. A characteristic of orchestral classical music is its scale, which is part of its attractiveness. That the scale is diminished in any reproduction is a commonplace; but lossy compressed reproduction through the equivalent of a table radio removes all of the scale of the music.
    
    So, for these music critics -- who make their living off of "serious music" -- to overlook those differences is unfortunate because the first time most people these days encounter serious music is outside the concert hall, in playback of a recording. And what it would be nice for these critics to say is, "If you want to know what the excitement of serious music is; if you want to know why it merits your undivided attention, it helps to have it reasonably well reproduced." Then, a novice whose experience with serious music doesn't "grab him" may at least put it down to poor reproduction and be willing to try "the real thing" (attending a concert) nonetheless.
    
    Now, to my final point. In their own way, the boys at Stereophile are doing the hobby a disservice as well, with their implicit assumption -- reflected in the use of terms like "swift boating" -- that everyone with any sense of taste or potential to appreciate the subtleties of expensive audio is a liberal Democrat (and the converse of that statement, that anyone who isn't a Democrat is a functionally deaf, beer-swilling, boombox-toting philistine). Unless they've got concrete proof of this proposition (based on a population sample that doesn't believe that the country ends at the Hudson River until you reach San Francisco Bay), they're alienating some group of actual or potential supporters of high end audio.
    
    So, ironically, Fremer is as guilty of swift-boating (his term) high-end audio as the two people he writes about in his column; and he's not the only regular writer in S'phile who does so.
    - RE: oh, let's have some more fun together, reg! - morricab 05:39:08 02/01/08 (0)
      "music that people have found worthy of their time and attention for generations -- suffers the most from crappy reproduction."
      
      Absolutely and an astute observation.
    - I think it'smore about... - mkuller 16:53:28 01/31/08 (6)
      ...YOUR politics than theirs.
      From Wikipedia:
      "Swiftboating is American political jargon that is used (primarily) as a strong pejorative description of some kind of attack that the speaker considers unfair or untrue—for example, an ad hominem attack or a smear campaign."
      You took that one term and wrote a whole page justifying Regmac's silly rant.
      Sorry the term offends your delicate rightish political sensibilities, but it means the same thing to anyone with half a brain, regardless of their politics.
      Get real.
      In your favor, at least you paid for the magazine.
      
      Edits: 01/31/08
      - Since Bruce has ) half a brain, - Ozzie 08:35:02 02/08/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: I think it'smore about... posted by mkuller on January 31, 2008 at 16:53:28
        
        he first considered the source before stating his case.
        
        Do tell how many reviewers and manufacturers alike from the left coast, east coast (and Boulder for that matter), did not believe the Dan Rather report in that election? Hey, the documents may be forgeries, but we all know that the facts are true. Wink, wink. Until I ever read anything along the lines of "The Z3A speakers sucked big time, much like that of a White House intern" or "It is obvious that the amplifier manufacturer did not do enough spade work prior to releasing the X4Bs," I'll have to believe the intent of the comments were as Bruce outlined.
        
        P.S. Barack has my vote as he has pretty much promised me the world. Who'd you vote for in the primary on Tuesday.
      - before we stray too far off topic - Bruce from DC 08:44:01 02/01/08 (4)
        
        In Reply to: RE: I think it'smore about... posted by mkuller on January 31, 2008 at 16:53:28
        
        What odds would you give that the author of that wikipedia article is a Republican?
        
        Be careful how you answer, now. Remember that you think all Republicans are cretins!
        
        ;=)
        
        Hey, some of my best friends are Republicans...(nt) - mkuller 10:15:37 02/01/08 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE: before we stray too far off topic posted by Bruce from DC on February 01, 2008 at 08:44:01
        
        (nt)
        
        It's just that their kunckles scrape the ground when they walk! ;-) - Bruce from DC 11:31:45 02/01/08 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Hey, some of my best friends are Republicans...(nt) posted by mkuller on February 01, 2008 at 10:15:37
        
        and they have an inordinate fondness for bananas!
        
        You guys have something to look forward to... - mkuller 10:29:58 02/02/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: It's just that their kunckles scrape the ground when they walk! ;-) posted by Bruce from DC on February 01, 2008 at 11:31:45
        
        ...in the future.
        
        At least the ones of you who believe in evolution...
        
        Scrape the SIDEWALK - Dave Pogue 04:11:46 02/02/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: It's just that their kunckles scrape the ground when they walk! ;-) posted by Bruce from DC on February 01, 2008 at 11:31:45
        
        They'd never go off the straight and narrow, as they see it :-)
    - RE: oh, let's have some more fun together, reg! - regmac 13:15:59 01/31/08 (2)
      Dear Bruce:
      
      We ought to put our act on the road. Herewith a trial balloon. As I’ve said before, Mr. Dudley is a splendid writer, whose politics, while decidedly left of center, do not prevent me from enjoying his columns. (Nor is Stereophile bereft of conservatives.) But why this should matter to folks is beyond me. It’s a safe bet that no one reads Stereophile for its political content. What does Mr. Dudley say that you find so egregious?
      
      Concerning JA&MF: I suspect their fevered columns were an overreaction, born of frustration, that the hobby they’ve given their lives to is not being accorded the recognition and respect they think it deserves. Indifference can be the ultimate insult for passionate types who find themselves in such circumstances.
      
      Yes, there exists a highly insular group that thinks Manhattan and San Francisco represent an accurate U.S. demographic. Bernie Goldberg writes of an encounter he had with an exasperated native of Manhattan’s upper West Side. The poor fellow was lamenting another GOP presidential victory. Turning to Goldberg he asked, “How does this keep happening?! I don’t even know any conservatives!”
      
      Wishing you and yours all the very best.
      - RE: oh, let's have some more fun together, reg! - Bruce from DC 09:01:28 02/01/08 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: oh, let's have some more fun together, reg! posted by regmac on January 31, 2008 at 13:15:59
        
        Mr. Dudley describes his daughter's dress: "a curiously stylized thing made of brown satin, with ruffles down the front, in the manner of Prince's stage outfits or the undergarments worn by certain Congressmen. [italics mine].
        
        On second, thought, I slap myself upside the head for being bitchy. Perhaps because it is such a nice turn of phrase (until the Congressman part), the thing jumped out at me as jarring. I do read Art's column faithfully; and I agree with 99.1% of what he says in this particular column, although I'm not as pessimistic as he is. For example, if you have the jazz classic "Waltz for Debby" which was recorded live in some sort of a club, it's pretty obvious that not everyone there is sitting in respectful silence as the Bill Evans Trio gives what most people acknowledge is a landmark performance. I wonder if any of them subsequently realized that when the recording came out and felt stupid for having been "suave and sophisticated" with their date, their martini and their Chesterfield dripping gray ash as it passed from their lips to the ashtray instead of just focusing on the music. So "pearls before swine" when it comes to live performances is not just today's phenomenon.
        
        As far as not listening to music while doing something else, I don't listen to music in my car either, not that that's too possible, it being a soft-top roadster. Hell, at highway speeds, I can't even use a cellphone with an earpiece and that's with the top and the windows up!
        
        Mike Kuller is giving thumbs down on our act, so we might want to revise our profit projections before taking it on the road.
        
        RE: oh, let's have some more fun together, reg! - regmac 12:40:21 02/02/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: oh, let's have some more fun together, reg! posted by Bruce from DC on February 01, 2008 at 09:01:28
        
        “Mr. Dudley describes his daughter's dress: "a curiously stylized thing made of brown satin, with ruffles down the front, in the manner of Prince's stage outfits or the undergarments worn by certain Congressmen.”
        
        Yes, but how and the hell did Dudley gain access to Barney Frank's intimate apparel?! Now THAT is a surprise. Perhaps I will subscribe for the "entertainment value." “Brown Satin”? Odd that. Ol’ Barn strikes me as the sort who would be hot for lavender silk. Liberals will insist this serves me right for thinking in stereotypes.
        
        "As far as not listening to music while doing something else, I don't listen to music in my car either, not that that's too possible, it being a soft-top roadster. Hell, at highway speeds, I can't even use a cellphone with an earpiece and that's with the top and the windows up!"
        
        A sales rep. who used to call on me, once remarked that if not for classical music he would have been unable to endure the 40,000 monotonous miles of driving he put in each year. Music was his inoculation against boredom and in that regard it served a utilitarian purpose. I once asked him what sort of gear he listened to at home and was surprised to learn that he did not own a home stereo system. His listening habits were limited to the road.
        
        And there’s my 25-year-old nephew who has traveled thousands of miles attending a dozen or so Dave Matthew’s concerts. He’s also fond of listening to Matthews on his iPod and enjoys watching DVD concerts of the band. What he won’t do is waste (his word) an hour listening to the band while sitting in “the sweet spot.” An informal survey of his friends reveals similar attitudes.
        
        He once told me, with a twinkle in his eye, that upgrading his home “system” seemed more important to me than to him. Audiophiles would do well to remember that musical quality is not the summum bonum for 99.999999 percent of humanity.
        
        "Mike Kuller is giving thumbs down on our act, so we might want to revise our profit projections before taking it on the road."
        
        Aw, shucks, I betcha he’d change his mind if JA gave it a thumbs up.
- Here's the article you mentioned... - mkuller 14:08:09 01/29/08 (10)
  ...about MF and JA passing a SBT with cables.
  - WSJ Blind Testing (Open in New Window)
  - RE: Here's the article you mentioned... - Pat D 18:58:56 01/30/08 (9)
    Well, 61% of 39 (that would be 24) appears to be statistically significant. Pity there were no real controls so we don't really know what was happening.
    
    The blind test methodology didn't prevent them from getting a positive result.
    -
    "It pertains to all men to know themselves and to be temperate."
    ---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
    - So when your pals on... - mkuller 19:58:21 01/30/08 (8)
      ...PropHead say there's never been a positive blind test with cables, you can refer them here.
      - "I set up a room with two sound systems, identical except for one component." - Pat D 23:39:48 01/31/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: So when your pals on... posted by mkuller on January 30, 2008 at 19:58:21
        
        That's what Gomes says. So the most that can be said would seem to be that people could tell the difference between two different systems--granted, with the same models of equipment in each except the DUT. But as andy_c pointed out the obvious on rec.audio, the speaker placement couldn't have been the same. As well, what with manufacturing tolerances, the speakers may have been different enough to sound slightly different. So the test establishes absolutely nothing about the different cables.
        -
        "It pertains to all men to know themselves and to be temperate."
        ---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
      - Hardly. - Pat D 13:39:02 01/31/08 (5)
        
        In Reply to: RE: So when your pals on... posted by mkuller on January 30, 2008 at 19:58:21
        
        "So when your pals on......PropHead say there's never been a positive blind test with cables, you can refer them here."
        
        I'd refer them to some better run tests--these were speaker cables, you know. The trouble with Gomes' tests is that we don't really know what was happening.
        -
        "It pertains to all men to know themselves and to be temperate."
        ---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
        
        RE: Hardly. - andy_c 13:58:02 01/31/08 (4)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Hardly. posted by Pat D on January 31, 2008 at 13:39:02
        
        The trouble with Gomes' tests is that we don't really know what was happening.
        
        That was my impression as well. My thoughts on what little information Gomes provided are here
        
        Thanks. - Pat D 06:46:32 02/01/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Hardly. posted by andy_c on January 31, 2008 at 13:58:02
        
        I went back and read the article more closely. It's worse than I realized!
        -
        "It pertains to all men to know themselves and to be temperate."
        ---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
        
        Please spare us posts from that vile place... - mkuller 19:26:40 01/31/08 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Hardly. posted by andy_c on January 31, 2008 at 13:58:02
        
        ...it's the never-ending DBT debate from a bunch of idiots whose objectivist opinions are constantly stated as though they're facts.
        
        The content of the post is what is relevant, not where it was posted. (nt) - Pat D 23:43:16 01/31/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Please spare us posts from that vile place... posted by mkuller on January 31, 2008 at 19:26:40
        
        .
        -
        "It pertains to all men to know themselves and to be temperate."
        ---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
        
        RE: Please spare us posts from that vile place... - andy_c 20:19:38 01/31/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Please spare us posts from that vile place... posted by mkuller on January 31, 2008 at 19:26:40
        
        it's the never-ending DBT debate from a bunch of idiots whose objectivist opinions are constantly stated as though they're facts.
        
        The forum in question is rec.audio.opinion, which contains a wide variety of posts from all kinds of people. Certainly there are nutcases on both sides of the issue, and both nutcase sides are well represented there, as well as many positions in between. The original post in that thread, to which I replied, was from John Atkinson. Its subject was the very one you brought up yourself upstream in this thread, and John was the one who brought it up there.
        
        So if you didn't want this particular cable test discussed, you shouldn't have brought it up. It appears to me that it's not the subject itself you wish to avoid (since you brought it up yourself), but views that oppose your own. Not my problem.
        
        If anybody knows any details of the protocol of that test that were left out by Gomes, I'd be interested in hearing more about it - but probably in a separate thread, maybe in a different forum. I remain open-minded about it. As I mentioned in my usenet post, very little information is provided - not enough to reach a conclusion one way or the other.
      - It's easy to say there has never been a positive - Analog Scott 08:59:39 01/31/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: So when your pals on... posted by mkuller on January 30, 2008 at 19:58:21
        
        when you choose to ignore all tests that have positive results. Such is the MO of the objectivists. I have been told by one notorious objectivist that I literally lied about my personal blind tests because I got positive results. DENIAL incarnate.
OMG! Are You Really Serious? - thetubeguy1954 11:03:35 01/29/08 (0)
Regmac,

I have to call you to the carpet for a statement you made in your post. You stated: "JA’s major complaint, if I read him correctly, is that the MP3 “discards frequency information” and can “smear” other musical artifacts. It occurs to me that SETs do something very similar inasmuch as they fail to deliver the last word in musical information (especially at the frequency extremes), nor do they offer the ultimate in resolution."

To compare listening to music via an SET as something very similar to listening to music via an MP3 is absolutely ludicrous for many reasons.

1) While it's possible that ---some--- SETs fail to deliver the last word in musical information at the frequency extremes, nor do some offer the ultimate in resolution. This is very manufacturer dependant! It is NOT an innate fault of the circuit topology. KR Audio for example is one manufacturer that's hardly deficient in these areas, nor is my Mastersound Reference 845 with the right speakers! Whereas MP3's are deficient in these areas as a direct innate result of the lossy technology employed.

2) SET aficionados listen to SETs because to them, this technology represents the closest replication of the sound of live, unamplified music they can attain. MP3 aficionados listen to MP3s with little or no consideration as to the quality of reproduction.

3) SET aficionados often purchase more expensive "audiophile" grade recordings, because the sound quality of the recording is so important to them. Whereas MP3 purchase what's possibly the cheapest $.99 and lowest-Fi recordings available because obviously sound quality is not an issue to them.

4) SET aficionados would hardly call their systems "convenience systems" ---even amongst other home audio systems that term wouldn't apply--- whereas MP3 aficionados often cite convenience as one of it's major areas of appeal.

5) SET aficionados will spend hours and sometimes even days to squeeze out the last nth of performance out of their systems, whereas MP3 aficionados will spend hours and sometimes even days simply to get the more songs loaded into their players.

I have to admit I cannot grasp the concept of the need to have 1000 songs with me at all times. Last time I counted I had 673 CDs. The funny part is after counting them I realized there's only 12-20 that I listen to on a fairly regular basis! Even in my car I never bring more than 3-5 CDs. What's the purpose of bringing more? I suppose if I drove 8 hours a day I could up that number to 10 CDs so I could listen to a different CD all day in the car, but once I got home I could easily exchange those 10 for a different 10, no? So why carry more than 10, so someone can steal them?

Objectivists are always mocking subjectivists for purchasing "audiophile" amps for prestige and not sound quality ---I honestly cannot believe objectivists cannot hear the difference between a Krell and a QSC, when I can easily hear a difference between a Krell and a YBA or Classe amp--- However, when it comes to MP3s I believe that's exactly what MP3 aficionados are doing i.e.purchasing for prestige! Afterall I know MP3s are about as low-fi as you can get so the only real reason to purchase one MP3 player over another is prestige! My MP3 player has more memory and hold more songs than yours does....

Thetubeguy1954

A Rational Subjectivist
I'm impressed... - Jim Austin 14:44:03 01/27/08 (1)
...by your endurance. That post was longer than one of MF's columns (and far less interesting--though I admit I only made it through the first few paragraphs.

BTW, your endurance is the only thing I'm impressed by--oh, except that you also seem to be a pretty good typist.

- "The Other" JA
- RE: Nice one! - Charles Hansen 19:30:04 01/28/08 (0)
  Cheers,
  Charlie Hansen
RE: Messrs. Atkinson and Fremer are mad as hell and they aren’t going to take it anymore! - Awe-d-o-file 11:38:49 01/27/08 (0)
You can receive "benefit" from compressed files. You can sate your hunger at McDonalds. If Phillip Glass listens to music on a $300 Aiwa that's fine. His perogative. I know how much more I get from using a good system. As to comparing digital compression to SET, well that's just not right. I'm not a SET user but I can tell you that comparison doesn't work in any way. Also most large selling electronics seem to be hand held lately and less than $2K; phones, iPods, laptops. Only large screen TV doesn't follow the model except now in the price area. iPod owners should be encouraged to put the same songs in as MP-3 and lossless and listen to the differences for themselves. Nobody should proclain MP-3 is good enough or lossless is a waste of space. This idea you need hundreds of songs at hand doesn't wash. How many does one listen to in a day? When you go home at night you can easily change your library, even while you sleep.

ET
"Then perhaps this is the ideal situation in which to introduce DBTs" - bjh 10:03:38 01/27/08 (3)
that was a good place to stop reading, thanks a lot, could have wasted a lot more time had you saved that till later!

LOL

Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
- How did you make it past... - john.potis@comcast.net 14:42:54 01/27/08 (2)
  "It occurs to me that SETs do something very similar inasmuch as they fail to deliver the last word in musical information (especially at the frequency extremes), nor do they offer the ultimate in resolution."
  
  Which was written by someone who so obviously has never heard a good SET amplifier in an appropriate system. To mention SETs and MP3 in the same argument demonstrates profound ignorance.
  - I was trying to be tolerant! LOL nt - bjh 16:02:50 01/27/08 (1)
    .
    
    Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
    - Some people just have a higher tolerance, I guess. :-) nt - john.potis@comcast.net 16:58:10 01/27/08 (0)
      !
RE: Messrs. Atkinson and Fremer are mad as hell and they aren’t going to take it anymore! - sergiohm@yahoo.com 07:12:54 01/27/08 (1)
Tommasini can be literate and understand music (and be able to read music as well and maybe even perform) but his reviews on opera are pretty much off the mark. I'm not surprised MP3 is enough for him :-(

The press in general are totally ignorant of what good sound "sounds" like. The ipod is great for its portability but the fact is MP3 sounds like compressed sound, it is nothing like good sound. A few iPod"ers" have already discovered that MP3 is not what it should sound like. But I do not expect the masses to follow, the masses usually go for the lowest common denominator anyway, rap over classical music and so forth.

I think it is perfectly legitimate for JA and Fremer to expect more from Tommasini but they just picked the wrong guy because he is not a good critic anyway in what he does (i.m.h.o).
- RE: Messrs. Atkinson and Fremer are mad as hell and they aren’t going to take it anymore! - analogcorner 10:57:02 01/27/08 (0)
  Whatever Tomassini's critical abilities, he has an influential venue in The New York Times
All these thoughts perusing a free copy of Stereophile... - Bill the K 20:59:47 01/26/08 (0)
at B&N bookstore?! Please spend 10 bucks for a subscription.
Folks, don't even *think* of bothering to read this screed. nt - clarkjohnsen 17:23:43 01/26/08 (1)
d
- You're right... - john.potis@comcast.net 18:01:09 01/26/08 (0)
  ... people with that level of understanding should ask more questions and make fewer statements... and maybe subscribe to a magazine or two.
RE: Messrs. Atkinson and Fremer are mad as hell and they aren’t going to take it anymore! - SETdude 16:15:24 01/26/08 (0)
Paul Klipsch complained about the lack of quality recordings 50+ years ago. I guess that will never change. However, there are many people that
can truly enjoy music recorded for MP3. Maybe we are the ones that are crazy?
I have a question...... - Bruce Kendall 14:53:49 01/26/08 (2)
Why didn't you just buy the copy of Stereophile? It seems like you spent an awful lot of time reading and transcribing the magazine to your notebook or whatever. You could have done this in much more comfortable conditions. ;~)
- Probably while... listening to some music... - musetap 15:32:49 01/29/08 (1)
  Not that he didn't have earbuds in at the shop...
  
  "...You're all welcome to stay for the next set...we're going to play all the same tunes, but in different keys..." -Count Basie
  - Imagine all of the napkins he had to steal from the coffee counter - Bruce Kendall 10:56:21 01/30/08 (0)
    to write all of those notes. And then keeping them all in order on top of that.
Get a life... - mkuller 13:37:06 01/26/08 (57)
...the mission of a publication like Stereophile is to help educate consumers about the difference high end audio equipment can make in increasing musical enjoyment through greater resolution, detail and musical accuracy when heard through the equipment they cover.
Your long-winded critique of their position and efforts to influence naysayers publishing in the mainstream media shows either a lack of understanding on your part, or just too much time on your hands.
After all, you don't seem to care enough about these issues to subscribe to the magazine or even buy a single copy.
> JA’s major complaint, if I read him correctly, is that the MP3 “discards frequency information” and can “smear” other musical artifacts.>
MP3 is a "lossy" format - much of the subtler musical information has simply been removed or discarded.
Have YOU ever done a comparison?
> It occurs to me that SETs do something very similar inasmuch as they fail to deliver the last word in musical information (especially at the frequency extremes), nor do they offer the ultimate in resolution.>
That's your opinion and not even a close comparison or analogy; your logic is faulty.
SET users feel it actually brings them closer to the music.
> When questioning young people about their iPods one detects an enormous amount of exuberance and emotional satisfaction, it’s infectious.>
MP3 players are the equivalent of the 8-tracks, cassetes and Walkmans of the past. Anything that allows the masses easier access to music is a good thing, IMO, and those who are interested in greater musical realism will gravitate toward high end once they are exposed to it and can afford it - just like we did.
But they may not have the curiosity to seek out these higher resolution media and equipment if the mainstream press tells them over and over it doesn't matter.
Read Fred Kaplan's article in Slate on the same topic below:
- In Defense of Audiophiles (Open in New Window)
Edits: 01/26/08
- High end audio = musical accuracy, you must be kidding! - KlausR. 07:32:03 01/28/08 (56)
  If there is a term which should NOT be used when talking high end audio, it's accuracy. Show me the high end loudspeaker that is as accurate as a top notch studio monitor.
  
  > Have YOU ever done a comparison? <
  
  MP3 vs CD: has been done, some years ago, under blind conditions. One person scored 100% correct. This person had a serious hearing defect which allowed him to hear artefacts which are normally masked by the high frequency signals. The second best among the participants was an algorithm designer. The rest was around 50% correct score.
  
  Klaus
  - RE: High end audio = musical accuracy, you must be kidding! - morricab 02:45:13 01/30/08 (21)
    "On the other hand, a lot of things about the performance of cars is measureable, such as how fast it will go, how quickly it accelerates, how fast it stops, how efficient the engine is, the capacity of the air conditioning unit, and so on."
    
    Oh its you again with your self agrandizement of your purchase of active studio monitors!! You are the typical, "I bought this and I am smarter than everyone here so my choice must be the only "accurate" choice". What rubbish.
    
    Again, do you take engineering specs as "accurate" or do you take the listeners subjective opinion that it closer to what one would hear live (assuming an appropriate recording) as more accurate?? I choose the listener over the oscilloscope and THIS is the only logical choice for audio.
    
    Your "specs" are not well correlated with the listening experience and the Class D amps that are built in are audibly inferior to a top SET amp. Even inexperienced listeners can tell as long as they are interested!
    
    Your arrogance in this regard is astonishing! It is clear you think that measurements are the definition of audio accuracy because that is how you chose your gear...it must be right, right? Well, I am here to tell you that it is your opinion and not a fact that holds any water with experienced listeners.
    
    Now if you want to tell us that very flat frequency response with Class D amps in a relatively compact box speaker sounds gives a good facsimile of live, then you are entitled to think so but I am sure in hearing it I will find a dozen ways that it is not even close. Besides, very flat frequency response has been shown by B&K (the microphone profis) to not be what people perceive as natural. A gentle downslope of about 1db/octave starting in the bass is a more natural balance. Your flat anechoically speakers with wide, flat dispersion will likely give a very bright sound in-room. This is a fact I realized when I equalized my speakers to in-room flat. It was painfully bright...lesson learned. Who ever said that wide dispersion was necessarily the correct idea for an in-room speaker design anyway? Guys like Earl Geddes, Bill Duddleston and Brian Cheney now advocate a controlled restricted dispersion and my own experience with dipole speakers, which have a restricted dispersion as well...ask Sigfried Linkwitz, shows this to give excellent in-room results.
    
    Your pro monitors are probably fine for near-field monitoring but not far field and the recreation of soundstage and imaging for starters. Their frequency balance in the far-field is probably not so correct and tipped up in the highs.
    
    As to MP3 vs. cd, do you seriously expect us to believe that you cannot hear the difference?? If so then you really need a new hobby and fast! It is painfully obvious even to the completely uninterested listeners. They tell me, "Yes I know it sucks bad on my home stereo but through the (heavily dynamic and bandwidth limited earbuds) earbuds it sounds OK". All the blind tests prove is how insensitive it is as a test method. No one has successfully proven that DBTs are sensitive to a whole host of audible phenomena, it is just basically assumed that they should work.
    - RE: High end audio = musical accuracy, you must be kidding! - KlausR. 06:29:54 01/30/08 (20)
      > Your "specs" are not well correlated with the listening experience and the Class D amps that are built in are audibly inferior to a top SET amp. <
      First of all, Olive has shown that one is able to correlate anechoic measurements with subjective listener preference, and the correlation is extremely high. Second, what makes you think that my speakers use Class D amps? FYI, they don't!!!
      > Besides, very flat frequency response has been shown by B&K (the microphone profis) to not be what people perceive as natural. <
      Where has this been shown? Provide the bibliographc data and I'll get a copy of the paper. If you refer to their 1974 AES convention paper "Relevant hi-fi tests at home", then you should read it perhaps a bit more carefully.
      
      > Your flat anechoically speakers with wide, flat dispersion will likely give a very bright sound in-room. <
      Where do my speakers have wide dispersion? What allows you to say that they will sound very bright in-room? Have you heard them? Plus, are you aware of the fact that in-ear response is different between individuals so what may sound bright to you may sound not bright to me:
      Shaw, “Earcanal pressure generated by a free sound field”, J. of Acoust. Soc. of America 1965, vol. 39, no.3, p.465
      But then, I forgot, it's you who defines once and for all what frequency balance in the far-field is correct and what balance is not correct!
      > Who ever said that wide dispersion was necessarily the correct idea for an in-room speaker design anyway? <
      Where did I say such a thing? FYI, I didn't!!!
      
      > Your pro monitors are probably fine for near-field monitoring but not far field and the recreation of soundstage and imaging for starters. <
      Does this look like nearfield?
      
      As to MP3 vs CD, I frankly don't care. As to SET vs class D, I frankly don't care either. But then I forgot again, it's you who defines once and for all that SET amps are audibly superior to class D.
      As for the car analogy you brought up, if anything is rubbish, then it is this analogy. The technical goal of hifi is faithful (read accurate) reproduction of the recorded event. Very clear and only measurably accurate gear has the capability to achieve that goal. Now cars: what's the technical goal of a car? To get you from A to B. Any car with a working engine will do that, goal achieved, no need to measure anything. Now be more restrictive: to get from A to B as fast as possible, A and B being the end points of a 2 mile straight line on an airport runway. Now guess what measurements you need and which car will win?
      Klaus
      
      Edits: 01/30/08
      - RE: High end audio = musical accuracy, you must be kidding! - morricab 04:24:18 01/31/08 (13)
        
        In Reply to: RE: High end audio = musical accuracy, you must be kidding! posted by KlausR. on January 30, 2008 at 06:29:54
        
        "Second, what makes you think that my speakers use Class D amps? FYI, they don't!"
        
        They have at the very least switch mode power supplies. As to the description well they mention very low power dissipation, does that sound like Class A or even AB to you? Maybe Class B otherwise class D. It is not the power supply that dissipates energy it is the biasing of the active amplification circuits. A switch mode power supply just makes things smaller and cheaper. You can make a Class A amp using a switch mode supply. The specifically point out low dissipation of energy and coupled with their A/D DSP based equalization and it seems pretty clear the way they went. Unless you have documentation to the contrary?
        
        "Where did I say such a thing? FYI, I didn't!!!"
        
        Doesn't matter what you SAID its in your speaker's design, which is clear from the measurements provided. You are holding them up as the gold standard so therefore you implicitly agree that this is an important design criteria.
        
        As you can also see from the maximum SPL, the spec of 1% at 123db is misleading. The bass can't even get to this level with the power built in (max is about 105db at below 70hz). This is typical nonsensical specification making. In fact, the only place they hit over 120db (not that I care about how loud they get just showing the fallacy of specs that even there own measurements put to lie) is between 200 and 1Khz. As I said, rubbish specs. The distortion in the bass is quite high compared to say the Wilson X1 below 100Hz. Don't believe me? Look here:
        http://stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/909/index10.html
        
        As you can see even at 18Hz and 106db the Wilson X1 has lower distortion than your speaker at 60Hz and 100db. At the same frequency its a joke! The Wilson is -50db at 106db and your speaker is only an audible -20db!!
        
        The frequency response, in-room and NOT anechoic, is +- 2.5db from 20Hz to 13 or so Khz. That is pretty damn linear in-room. With DSP (like your speakers have) we can make that pretty much how we want.
        
        Your speakers measure very flat in FR, no surprise given DSP built-in, but tell me how that measurement was made? Anechoically? Then it bears little resemblance to the REAL FR in-room. Now I know with DSP you can make it better again (I use DSP myself remember?). So I don't even count FR as important anymore because it is so easily corrected.
        
        "Does this look like nearfield?"
        Yes it does. Are yours mounted on the wall like that too?? I am sure that is really good for soundstage...not! What about those monitors on the desktop?
        
        "As for the car analogy you brought up, if anything is rubbish, then it is this analogy. The technical goal of hifi is faithful (read accurate) reproduction of the recorded event. Very clear and only measurably accurate gear has the capability to achieve that goal. Now cars: what's the technical goal of a car? To get you from A to B. Any car with a working engine will do that, goal achieved, no need to measure anything. Now be more restrictive: to get from A to B as fast as possible, A and B being the end points of a 2 mile straight line on an airport runway. Now guess what measurements you need and which car will win?"
        
        Your whole line of reasoning is rubbish, Klaus! Nobody buys a car this way!! No one. Nobody should buy audio this way either.
        
        Your definition of the technical goals for audio are IMO thinking from a pure engineering perspective and not the end users perspective. The technical goal of audio is to reproduce the sound as accurately as possible...to the LISTENER. It is ASSUMED by the engineering community (at least the majority of them) that this can be achieved by making technical measurements as good as possible (they have also ASSUMED what makes a good measurement). This assumption has been shown over DECADES to be a false assumption and that it is much more complicated to make audio that SOUNDS good to listeners than the mere specs and measurements suggest. Otherwise, we would have achieved perfection a long time ago.
        
        For example, it was once assumed that perfect FR for speakers would make them sound all more or less the same. In fact its not the case. Then distortion makes its presence on the measurement scene, but most speakers have relatively benign low order harmonic distortion that honestly doesn't make much difference. If you want to look where speaker sound different look at the materials used, the dispersion, the cabinet, the crossover etc. All of these are 2nd or lower order effects but they define the overall character of a speaker.
        
        I have played around with DSP a lot and my friends and I have TACTed and Behringered plenty of speakers. Even if I make the FR curve the same, if I change the phase between the drivers it sounds different! The measurements of your K&H speakers tell me NOTHING about how they would sound in a real room except that they will throw sound consistently in a lot of directions and that they may well be bright sounding because the FR is flat to 20Khz and the dispersion is still around 30 degrees without dropping off.
        
        "Where do my speakers have wide dispersion? "
        
        Its right there in the measurements by K&H!! 30 degrees at high frequency is pretty wide actually.
        
        RE: High end audio = musical accuracy, you must be kidding! - KlausR. 07:38:59 01/31/08 (12)
        
        In Reply to: RE: High end audio = musical accuracy, you must be kidding! posted by morricab on January 31, 2008 at 04:24:18
        
        > They have at the very least switch mode power supplies <
        
        So from a mere description you are able to establish what type of amp they are using. Hats off! The German review speaks of cascaded (or is it stepped?) supply voltage, signal independent quiescent current, convection cooling. No mention o switch mode power supply. The transformer is a big 1200 VA.
        
        Maybe one day I ask the designer.
        
        > As you can also see from the maximum SPL, the spec of 1% at 123db is misleading. <
        
        This spec is averaged over the range 100 Hz - 6 kHz.
        
        > As you can see even at 18Hz and 106db the Wilson X1 has lower distortion than your speaker at 60Hz and 100db. At the same frequency its a joke! The Wilson is -50db at 106db and your speaker is only an audible -20db!! <
        
        1. The S'phile measurements don't indicate at which distance it was measured, so I presume it was at 1 m. The measurements for the O500C were done at 2.1 m.
        
        2. The figures in detail: given the fact that Wilson is measured at 96 dB/1m and mine at 100 dB/2.1m a meaningful comparison is not possible.
        
        3. Given the fact that the O500C do NOT deliver 20 Hz, let alone 18, no data are available for frequencies below 30 Hz.
        
        4. At 18 Hz and 106 dB/1m the Wilson produce -40 k2, mine at 60 Hz and 100 dB/2.1 m (which is roughly the same under anechoic conditions) produce - 48 k2.
        
        How much do the Wilson cost, $100K? Shouldn't they be better, at least in some disciplines, than speakers that cost about a 1/3? Further, how do these figure relate to thresholds of detection?
        
        > The frequency response, in-room and NOT anechoic, is +- 2.5db from 20Hz to 13 or so Khz <
        
        The graph on the linked page says, "anechoic response on tweeter axis at 45" (solid curve)" and the curve is flat ± 3.5 dB as compared to ± 1.5 dB for mine.
        
        > > Where do my speakers have wide dispersion? < <
        
        > Its right there in the measurements by K&H!! 30 degrees at high frequency is pretty wide actually. <
        
        I'm not teaching you how to read such graphs. The central question is NOT wide or narrow dispersion, but how even/smooth the off-axis curves are.
        
        Klaus
        
        RE: High end audio = musical accuracy, you must be kidding! - morricab 09:43:46 01/31/08 (11)
        
        In Reply to: RE: High end audio = musical accuracy, you must be kidding! posted by KlausR. on January 31, 2008 at 07:38:59
        
        "geschalteten Versorgungsspannung"
        Doesn't this mean Switched supply voltage?
        
        "geringen Verlustleistung"
        Doesn't this mean small energy dissipation? As in LOW bias??
        
        Sounds like a switched mode power supply with a low bias Class B stage or Class D to me.
        
        "This spec is averaged over the range 100 Hz - 6 kHz.
        "
        
        The spec is RUBBISH!! Look at the measurement, the speaker can only reach over 120db from 200Hz to 1Khz. Above 5Khz and below 100Hz it cannot even get to 110db.
        
        "The S'phile measurements don't indicate at which distance it was measured, so I presume it was at 1 m. The measurements for the O500C were done at 2.1 m"
        
        The point is the SPL level vs. distortion level. Its relative and distance is not really an issue so why bring it up? The change in level for both the distortion and the main signal will be the same with distance. Your speaker loses here big time.
        
        " The figures in detail: given the fact that Wilson is measured at 96 dB/1m and mine at 100 dB/2.1m a meaningful comparison is not possible"
        
        Look again Klaus, the numbers I gave you were for 106db! Yes they did 106db also in that review as I said read it again.
        
        "Given the fact that the O500C do NOT deliver 20 Hz, let alone 18, no data are available for frequencies below 30 Hz."
        
        Completely irrelevant! Given the high distortion at 30Hz or even 50Hz do you really think it will be better at 18Hz? For sure your speaker will try to reproduce 18Hz if you feed it 18Hz but it will probably ONLY make distortion. Probably you will get a LOT of 36Hz and 54Hz instead LOL!
        
        "At 18 Hz and 106 dB/1m the Wilson produce -40 k2, mine at 60 Hz and 100 dB/2.1 m (which is roughly the same under anechoic conditions) produce - 48 k2.
        "
        
        BIG difference, Klaus, huge in fact. First it is MUCH lower in frequency (and the X1 is about -70db at your frequencies) and it is 6 db higher in level, also a big difference. Also, the measurements on K&H website show about -28 db not -48 db, learn to read a graph Klaus. Notice also that below 30Hz the distortion shoots off the top of the graph!! Now that's distortion (and not unusual for a vented design).
        
        Clearly you should simply concede this point that your speaker is NOT at all lower in distortion than the X1 in bass or anywhere else for that matter.
        
        "How much do the Wilson cost, $100K?"
        
        It was about $85,000 not $100,000
        
        "Further, how do these figure relate to thresholds of detection?"
        
        Well clearly at 100db your speaker will be audibly distorting the bass and the X1 not. Simple as that.
        
        "The graph on the linked page says, "anechoic response on tweeter axis at 45" (solid curve)" and the curve is flat ± 3.5 dB as compared to ± 1.5 dB for mine.
        "
        
        Look at the bottom graphs, Klaus. The ones that say in-room response. See them? Now look closely at the y-axis and you will see it is +-2.5db over the range I am talking about IN-ROOM. No one cares about the anechoic response and only on-axis. Meaningless specsmanship.
        
        Even the quasi-anechoic measurements in Stereophile are averaged over a 30 degree window and so they too are not purely "on-axis" measurements but already somthing more useful. You should learn to read these things better Klaus.
        
        "I'm not teaching you how to read such graphs. The central question is NOT wide or narrow dispersion, but how even/smooth the off-axis curves are"
        
        No, I should be teaching you because of all the things you have either on purpose or on accident overlooked. Wide dispersion in a room IS an issue, mandating room treatment in most cases.
        
        I have shown you that your speaker is not significantly superior in frequency response and inferior to a top of the line High end speaker in distortion (also in dynamic capabilities I am sure). So stop with the BS that high end speakers are all inaccurate!
        
        This was the last post of yours I have read and replied to! - KlausR. 10:15:38 01/31/08 (10)
        
        In Reply to: RE: High end audio = musical accuracy, you must be kidding! posted by morricab on January 31, 2008 at 09:43:46
        
        Stay factual and we talk. Stay on your current level and I remain silent. Simple as that. Over and out.
        
        RE: This was the last post of yours I have read and replied to! - morricab 14:45:41 01/31/08 (8)
        
        In Reply to: RE: This was the last post of yours I have read and replied to! posted by KlausR. on January 31, 2008 at 10:15:38
        
        Klaus I have stayed very factual. Going back over I correct you point by point by point, addressing mistakes you have made like -48db distortion at 50hz and 100db when its really -28db and that the spec for 123db really only applies from 200-1000 Hz while the rest is around 110 db or less.
        
        I have also pointed out, correctly that the high end speaker I chose fits +- 2.5db in-room while you have only an on-axis anechoic measurement for comparison.
        
        What else? Oh yeah your claim that high end speakers are inaccurate has been shot down. I also gave you the phrases in German that show switching power supply and low bias. Now if you can't see these things in the graphs provided by K&H and in STereophile, I would be happy someday in the future to point them out to you in person.
        
        RE: Klaus I have stayed very factual - KlausR. 07:47:49 02/01/08 (7)
        
        In Reply to: RE: This was the last post of yours I have read and replied to! posted by morricab on January 31, 2008 at 14:45:41
        
        Rubbish, BS and similar terms is not what I would call factual! Such terms are not convincing arguments either!
        
        Some of your points:
        
        You said: "As you can see even at 18Hz and 106db the Wilson X1 has lower distortion than your speaker at 60Hz and 100db."
        
        Wilson: 18 Hz, 106 dB/1m, k2= -40 dB, k3= -47 dB
        O500C: 60 Hz, 100 dB/2.1 m: k2= -25 dB
        
        So yes, the Wilson is better than the O500C, but the O500C has one 12" woofer, the Wilson has one 12" + one 15" woofer. If we compared like with like we'd take the O900 subwoofer with its two 12" drivers (which is still smaller than the Wilson). However, no distortion data except from -46 dB THD at 30 Hz, 101 dB/1m.
        
        You say: "I have also pointed out, correctly that the high end speaker I chose fits +- 2.5db in-room "
        
        Yes, in Colloms' room, best placement. The other position in that room is more like ± 5 dB. And in Franassovici's room, the response is ± 3 dB.
        
        Obviously, the in-room response depends entirely on room size, reverberation time, where you place the speakers and where you measure. Therefore, in-room curves are simply meaningless for comparison purposes. The only curves you can reasonably compare are anechoic and here the Wilson do not win. Plus, the sound field in small rooms is direct sound + early reflections, so I'd like to see off-axis graphs for the Wilson.
        
        You said: "They have at the very least switch mode power supplies. I also gave you the phrases in German that show switching [mode] power supply..."
        
        FYI, switch mode power supply in German is "Schaltnetzteil". Does a switch mode power supply need a 1200 VA transformer?
        
        You said: "It's right there in the measurements by K&H!! 30 degrees at high frequency is pretty wide actually."
        
        If you compare the graph with the graph for the Summa, you see that at ±30° the Summa too is within the same 3-5 dB window up to 20 kHz. Such The ±30° listening window you will probably find with most studio monitors because the sound engineer needs some freedom of movement in the horizontal plane.
        
        Overall the Summa is a bit narrower, but that is a matter of design philosphy. Geddes favors narrow dispersion, Moulton favors wide dispersion, who's right, who's wrong? So far I haven't seen many published psychoacoustic research where dispersion patterns have been investigated. What counts is how the off-axis curves behave and for both speakers they behave very well.
        
        Klaus
        
        RE: Klaus I have stayed very factual - morricab 09:29:57 02/01/08 (6)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Klaus I have stayed very factual posted by KlausR. on February 01, 2008 at 07:47:49
        
        "Rubbish, BS and similar terms is not what I would call factual! Such terms are not convincing arguments either!"
        
        Oh but Klaus I go on to explain quite clearly why they are rubbish, BS and so on.
        
        "If we compared like with like we'd take the O900 subwoofer with its two 12" drivers (which is still smaller than the Wilson). However, no distortion data except from -46 dB THD at 30 Hz, 101 dB/1m"
        
        Yes so 5db lower in level and about the same distortion but a full octave higher. Not so convincing Klaus.
        
        Now let me ask you, how much does a system composed of the 0500C and the 0900 cost?? Are we getting close yet to the price of the Wilson? I bet we are. Are the cabinets anywhere nearly as well constructed as the Wilsons (which aren't even wood at all but high density resin/rock that cost probably 10 times as much as MDF)? Not likely.
        
        "Yes, in Colloms' room, best placement"
        
        Well what else would you knowingly use?? Honestly.
        
        "And in Franassovici's room, the response is ± 3 dB"
        
        Also very good in-room response with no DSP involved.
        
        All this banter is nice, Klaus but my point was to debunk your comment about high end speakers not being accurate. Consider it debunked. Geddes Summa also measures quite well FWIW.
        
        Rubbish etc. - KlausR. 10:51:09 02/01/08 (5)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Klaus I have stayed very factual posted by morricab on February 01, 2008 at 09:29:57
        
        The simple use of such terms does not mean that you are right and I am wrong. There is more to a convincing argument than just impolite terms.
        
        > Yes so 5db lower in level and about the same distortion but a full octave higher. Not so convincing Klaus. <
        
        Of course it's not convincing, you have THD ate 30 Hz on the one hand, k2 at 18 Hz the other hand. Apples and oranges.
        
        > Now let me ask you, how much does a system composed of the 0500C and the 0900 cost?? <
        
        Well, the 500 is about 9,600 Euros, the 900 about 2400. Makes about 13,000, hence 26,000 for a stereo set. Add two power amps (I think K+H's 2000 Watts amp was at about 2000 Euros), makes 30,000 Euros for the set. In todays dollars that is 44,000. You said the Wilson cost $85k? Well, that's almost twice the price and you still need preamp and power amps. And if you feel the need to apply EQ, you'd need another 2,500 or so for a Tact.
        
        > Are the cabinets anywhere nearly as well constructed as the Wilsons (which aren't even wood at all but high density resin/rock that cost probably 10 times as much as MDF)? Not likely. <
        
        There is more to cabinet design than just stiffness and rigidity:
        
        Bastyr, "On the Acoustic Radiation from a Loudspeaker's Cabinet", JAES 2003, p.234
        
        The O500C use waveguides, something you probably could not make from Wilson's X-stuff. The cabinet itself is MDF or similar, but then it's substantially smaller than the Wilson so radiating surfaces are smaller and structural modes are at higher frequencies, mayv=be even above the working range of the bass drivers.
        
        > Also very good in-room response with no DSP involved <
        
        You conveniently forget the ± 5 dB in Colloms' room. + you don't know, and neither do I, how the 500 would measure in these rooms.
        
        > All this banter is nice, Klaus but my point was to debunk your comment about high end speakers not being accurate. <
        
        When I look at anechoic data, the Wilson is the clear loser. So no, for me you did not debunk anything, your POV on this matter is simply a different one. I can assure you, had I found a hifi speaker in that price range that met my criteria, I possibly would not have started looking elsewhere. But I didn't.
        
        And yes, the Summa measures extremely well, in my eyes it's more accurate than the Wilson, I would prefer it to the Wilson anytime.
        
        Klaus
        
        > Well what else [speaker placement] would you knowingly use?? Honestly. <
        
        If youre married, ask your wife? She'll tell you!!!
        
        RE: Rubbish etc. - morricab 10:36:19 02/03/08 (4)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Rubbish etc. posted by KlausR. on February 01, 2008 at 10:51:09
        
        "Of course it's not convincing, you have THD ate 30 Hz on the one hand, k2 at 18 Hz the other hand. Apples and oranges.
        "
        
        No Klaus, it is not apples and oranges, we are talking about bass distortion in two different speakers. Apples to apples. It is clear from inspection that the bass distortion of the X1 is far superior.
        
        "The cabinet itself is MDF or similar, but then it's substantially smaller than the Wilson so radiating surfaces are smaller and structural modes are at higher frequencies,"
        
        Wrong again Klaus, the X1 has a separate mid/high module that is completely a separate entity from bass module. So, not only are the panels extremely rigid and dense and free from the kind of vibration transmission of Mdf and the like, the upper section will not be influenced by the bass.
        
        FWIW, the cost of cabinet materials in the X1 is many times the cost of the cabinet materials in the K&H speakers.
        
        "You conveniently forget the ± 5 dB in Colloms' room. + you don't know, and neither do I, how the 500 would measure in these rooms."
        
        No I did not and its +- 2.5db in his room over most of the FR. You are right I don't know how the K&H speaker would measure but I know that the Wilson's measurement is considered to be quite good from other measurements and my own experience measuring speakers in my own room.
        
        "When I look at anechoic data, the Wilson is the clear loser. So no, for me you did not debunk anything, your POV on this matter is simply a different one"
        
        Nonsense Klaus, the ONLY clear advantage your speaker has is on-axis FR. It is demonstrably lower in distortion and goes much deeper in the bass on top all the while staying much cleaner. Its in-room response indicates a suitably even off-axis response, which is a very good response. Anechoic data is NOT in-room response and less meaningful.
        
        "And yes, the Summa measures extremely well, in my eyes it's more accurate than the Wilson, I would prefer it to the Wilson anytime."
        
        So yet another home speaker that is "accurate". I find it laughable though that you would choose it over the Wilson without hearing either one first. You would pick it strictly from the measurements? I shudder to think how your system must sound.
        
        "If youre married, ask your wife? She'll tell you!!!"
        
        Does this mean you have them built into the walls like in a studio??
        
        It is apples and oranges! - KlausR. 02:29:11 02/05/08 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Rubbish etc. posted by morricab on February 03, 2008 at 10:36:19
        
        You are comparing THD to k2 and this at different frequencies!
        
        For the other distortion data, Wilson is measured at 85dB/1m, 96dB/1m and 106dB/1m, the O500C was measured at 95dB/2m (review) and 100dB/2.1m (website) so a meaningful comparison is possible. The O500C were measured under anechoic conditions, where SPL decreases like in free field, i.e. 6 dB when distance doubles. Where were the Wilson measured? Anechoic or in Colloms' room, where SPL decreases 2-3 dB when distance doubles. If it is in Colloms's room, again, you can't compare because for the same SPL the loudspeaker has to work less hard.
        
        If I look at the Wilson, the bass cabinet seems to be about half the total height, which would make a cabinet of 90x42x63 cm, whereas the O500C is 75x40x44 cm. The Wilson's side panel is about 1.7 times larger. Unless you measure the amount of acoustic radiation by the panels you can't know. The drivers in O500C are sealed at the rear, so bass frequencies have no effect.
        
        > Nonsense Klaus, the ONLY clear advantage your speaker has is on-axis FR <
        
        There are no off-axis measurements for the Wilson, so you don't know. Impulse response and waterfall are less good than for the O500C.
        
        > I shudder to think how your system must sound <
        
        You seem to be sure that a system selected on the basis of measurements alone must sound bad? Be assured, it sounds as it is supposed to sound, crystal clear, neutral, controlled.
        
        Klaus
        
        RE: It is apples and oranges! - morricab 04:41:46 02/05/08 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: It is apples and oranges! posted by KlausR. on February 05, 2008 at 02:29:11
        
        "You are comparing THD to k2 and this at different frequencies!"
        
        Klaus, you are really being silly here. They are showing the whole spectrum with K2 and K3 well below what your speaker achieves. The rest is negligible at below -70db. Also, the frequency of 18Hz is MUCH more difficult to do cleanly than 50Hz. MUCH. So if anything it makes your speaker come off even worse in the comparison as it is clear by 18Hz your speaker will have abotu 100% distortion and the only thing we would hear are K2 and K3 (ie. 36 and 54Hz).
        
        Besides they also show the data for higher frequencies.
        
        For example at 100Hz:
        
        "Over the 86dB-96dB range and up to the highest 106dB loudness, the X-1's third harmonic remained unchanged at around 0.1% (-60dB). Not unexpectedly, the second harmonic progressively lost ground as the spl increased, but this was to a still-state-of-the-art 0.2% (-54dB) at the highest test level (fig.3). "
        
        At 1Khz:
        "With a 1kHz tone at 96dB, there was a mild increase in third-harmonic distortion to -50dB, with the second still better than -65dB. Moving into the treble range, to 5kHz, the upper 96dB test level resulted in a truly negligible amount of second harmonic (-66dB, 0.05%), and everything else was down at -70dB or better—another great result (fig.4). "
        
        At 24Hz:
        "At 106dB, the X-1 was still kicking hard, the second harmonic of the 24Hz tone lying at -32dB, the third at -27dB. Many big speakers have low-frequency distortion more than 40dB higher at this point; in other words, the distortion power is greater than the fundamental—a phenomenon called "doubling." "
        
        That doubling is what your speakers would be doing at 24Hz, Klaus.
        
        At 18Hz:
        
        "By this time I was fully confident of the X-1's abilities, so drove it with an infrasonic 18Hz fundamental at a nominal 106dB sound-pressure level (fig.5), the latter referenced to the level at 24Hz. I found that genuine high-power output was possible into the ultra-low bass. Even with the punishing 18Hz signal, the second harmonic was quite inaudible at -40dB (1%), with the third very low at -47dB (0.4%)—a quite remarkable performance. Well, the experts always told us that for good bass you needed a big box and big cones; you certainly get them with the X-1!
        "
        
        Like I said, your speaker can't touch this.
        
        "Where were the Wilson measured? Anechoic or in Colloms' room, where SPL decreases 2-3 dB when distance doubles. If it is in Colloms's room, again, you can't compare because for the same SPL the loudspeaker has to work less hard.
        "
        
        Give me a break Klaus, you are splitting the hairs so fine as to be ridiculous. If you like then the 100db from K&H is quite close to the 106db from Wilson review and your speaker STILL loses by a mile (or kilometer if you prefer).
        
        "The Wilson's side panel is about 1.7 times larger"
        
        And probably 10 times as stiff.
        
        "This excellence extended to the vibration performance of the Grand SLAMM's enclosure. I probed several locations on the three upper-range modules and the bass enclosure with my low-mass B&K accelerometer, but it proved very hard to find anything of significance. The worst part of the largest panel of one of the midrange modules still had a desirably smooth output.
        
        Very little vibrational energy emanated from the bass enclosure over its nominal 20-500Hz working band (fig.16). There was some vibrational output above 900Hz, but this was merely a low-level signal derived from the point contact with the stack of upper modules.—
        "
        
        Cabinet vibration from the bass is between -35 to -42db down from the frequency sweep level. This is SOTA just look at the graph, Klaus or did you miss that one?
        
        "Unless you measure the amount of acoustic radiation by the panels you can't know. The drivers in O500C are sealed at the rear, so bass frequencies have no effect.
        "
        
        The measurements in the review, Klaus. I don't know what you mean by the statement of the woofers being sealed means. It is a vented speaker system is it not?
        
        "There are no off-axis measurements for the Wilson"
        
        Not true again, Klaus. An in-room measurement is the sum of the on-axis plus ALL the off-axis response. So it is included in that measurement.
        
        Plus: "Fig.8 Wilson X-1/Grand SLAMM, horizontal (top) and vertical (bottom) response families at 45", normalized to response on tweeter axis. Dotted curves are -7.5 degrees vertical and 15 degrees horizontal; dashed curves are ±15 degrees vertical and 30 degrees, 45 degrees, and 60 degrees horizontal. "
        
        What do you call this?
        
        "Impulse response and waterfall are less good than for the O500C"
        
        Well the impulse response is incomplete for the Wilson but what there is isn't bad at all. Yours achieves good impulse response strictly from DSP. THIS is apples to oranges Klaus!
        
        As to the spectral decay, the Wilson has decayed below -20db in about 1.3 ms. The K&H about the same. I see no decisive advantage for your speaker there.
        
        "You seem to be sure that a system selected on the basis of measurements alone must sound bad"
        
        Heard enough of them to know that it isn't all about measurements and if you bought without listening first then well...
        
        "Be assured, it sounds as it is supposed to sound, crystal clear, neutral, controlled"
        
        I have heard enough so called "crystal" so called "clear" so called "neutral" (yes I know the German audiophile idea of neutral and believe me its not) and so called "controlled" to know that most of the time it is unnatural, lacking harmonic content, flat soundstage, overdamped etc. etc. Maybe yours is not but my experience tells me otherwise.
        
        Nevermind though because the whole point of this part of this thread was to debunk your comment about high end loudspeakers not being accurate and I have now presented TWO speakers (the X1 and the Summa), which are measurably quite accurate. Whether or not they are MORE accurate than yours is academic because they both give excellent objective measurements even by your DSP "fixed" speakers standards. Thus your claim of inaccuracy has been debunked.
        
        RE:Thus your claim of inaccuracy has been debunked. - KlausR. 07:51:43 02/09/08 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: It is apples and oranges! posted by morricab on February 05, 2008 at 04:41:46
        
        Hip, hip, hooray, bravo, what an achievement!!! Only, I can’t find that passage in MY book!
        
        Meaningless comparisons are not my piece of cake, so I'm ending the discussion here and now.
        
        Klaus
        
        RE:Thus your claim of inaccuracy has been debunked. - morricab 00:39:14 02/10/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Thus your claim of inaccuracy has been debunked. posted by KlausR. on February 09, 2008 at 07:51:43
        
        As long as you stop spreading misconceptions, Klaus, then I have achieved my goal with this debate.
        
        That rabbit's dynamite!! Would it help to confuse it more if we ran away? - robert young 10:30:14 01/31/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: This was the last post of yours I have read and replied to! posted by KlausR. on January 31, 2008 at 10:15:38
        
        Oh shut up and go change your armour.
      - Klaus, you win... - mkuller 09:52:24 01/30/08 (5)
        
        In Reply to: RE: High end audio = musical accuracy, you must be kidding! posted by KlausR. on January 30, 2008 at 06:29:54
        
        ...we are not worthy!
        
        You are the smartest audiophile ever.
        
        And you're so clever to use those perfect little studio monitors with both DSP AND a 10-band parametric equilizer.
        
        And yes, that picture of them in the studio IS nearfield.
        
        Actually the 500s - E-Stat 10:35:59 01/30/08 (4)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Klaus, you win... posted by mkuller on January 30, 2008 at 09:52:24
        
        are the ones buried in the reflective wall with the tweeter above the listener's ear.
        
        rw
        
        Then what are those on the desk about 3 feet away? (nt) - mkuller 10:39:18 01/30/08 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Actually the 500s posted by E-Stat on January 30, 2008 at 10:35:59
        
        (nt)
        
        Toys? -nt - E-Stat 10:42:20 01/30/08 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Then what are those on the desk about 3 feet away? (nt) posted by mkuller on January 30, 2008 at 10:39:18
        
        rw
        
        RE: Toys? - KlausR. 01:43:06 01/31/08 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Toys? -nt posted by E-Stat on January 30, 2008 at 10:42:20
        
        These "toys" are better than most expensive high end speakers
        
        On such "toys" your favorite music is mixed and mastered.
        
        Klaus
        
        RE: Toys? - morricab 04:35:24 01/31/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Toys? posted by KlausR. on January 31, 2008 at 01:43:06
        
        Stop showing a meaningless spec, Klaus!!! That stupid FR is anechoic and at only one output level. It also tells nothing about colorations from cabinet, drivers, crossover or amps!
        
        FR is NOT the most important spec because any speaker with DSP can measure like this and they DON'T sound the same. I have played with DSP for about 3 years now and tried it with MANY loudspeakers. It doesn't make them sound the same so FR is far from the only important criteria.
        
        Those "toys" probably are not very linear in the bass at all in terms of distortion. Compared to a Wilson speaker your bigger monitors are a joke in this regard.
  - What criteria do you use - E-Stat 10:04:42 01/29/08 (5)
    when you speak of a speaker's "accuracy"?
    Also, do you consider any of the environments pictured here (using flush mounted speakers high above the listener) to provide the ideal way to convey a three dimensional reproduction of any demanding acoustical venue? Or even to resemble the home environment in which folks listen to music?
    Studios
    rw
    
    Edits: 01/29/08
    - Anechoic measurements, of course (nt) - KlausR. 09:23:20 01/30/08 (1)
      .
      - Now I'm on your wavelength - E-Stat 10:40:51 01/30/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Anechoic measurements, of course (nt) posted by KlausR. on January 30, 2008 at 09:23:20
        
        and the most "accurate" electronics are those with the lowest THD!
        
        rw
    - the same ones that Consumer Reports used ;-) - Bruce from DC 12:10:12 01/29/08 (2)
      remember when they gave speakers "accuracy scores" expressed as percentages? Of what, I'll never know, of course.
      
      I don't think they do that any more; in fact, I'm not sure they even review loudspeakers.
      - Hey, at least Consumer Reports has a sense of humor!... - Neil49 14:07:50 01/30/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: the same ones that Consumer Reports used ;-) posted by Bruce from DC on January 29, 2008 at 12:10:12
        
        In their current issue, they express disappointment in a certain brand of pound cake, whose packaging proclaims the product to be "Marble flavor".
        
        Discovering that in fact the flavor is simply that of chocolate and vanilla, CR says they "were looking forward to the taste of limestone".
      - It will date me counselor, but yes I do remember! -nt - E-Stat 14:04:23 01/29/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: the same ones that Consumer Reports used ;-) posted by Bruce from DC on January 29, 2008 at 12:10:12
        
        rw
  - Back off Klaus... - mkuller 09:29:53 01/28/08 (27)
    ...take your fingers off the keyboard and take a deep breath.
    > If there is a term which should NOT be used when talking high end audio, it's accuracy. Show me the high end loudspeaker that is as accurate as a top notch studio monitor.>
    I purposely said "musical accuracy" which means "sounding like real live music" in a non-studio environment in the farfield.
    That's opposed to "measured accuracy" which is what you are talking about, and which doesn't always correlate with sounding like real music.
    Don't get your panties in a bunch.
    > MP3 vs CD: has been done, some years ago, under blind conditions.>
    I asked HIM if HE'D ever done comparisons. They're done everyday.
    
    Edits: 01/28/08
    - RE: Back off Klaus... - anthonyh 08:19:34 01/29/08 (5)
      Posts by mkuller are always worth reading, but I have a question about this one. What is the difference between a studio monitor and an at-home high-end loudspeaker? In England, B&W speakers are often used for studio recording playback. Does B&W apply different specs. depending on where the speaker will be used?
      - B & W speakers... - mkuller 10:51:21 01/29/08 (4)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Back off Klaus... posted by anthonyh on January 29, 2008 at 08:19:34
        
        ...used as studio monitors are the exception, not the norm, IMO.
        
        See my response to Klaus below.
        
        Thanks for the kind words.
        
        There are some exceptional, um exceptions - E-Stat 14:19:04 01/29/08 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE: B & W speakers... posted by mkuller on January 29, 2008 at 10:51:21
        
        How about this guy? :)
        
        Now that's a monitor!
        
        rw
        
        Looks like Wilson MAXX's...(nt) - mkuller 14:24:17 01/29/08 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: There are some exceptional, um exceptions posted by E-Stat on January 29, 2008 at 14:19:04
        
        (nt)
        
        RE: Looks like Wilson MAXX's...(nt) - anthonyh 09:08:23 02/04/08 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Looks like Wilson MAXX's...(nt) posted by mkuller on January 29, 2008 at 14:24:17
        
        To mkuller. I think those are Wilson's Alexandrias in the picture. The Maxx is smaller. But I may be wrong. The golden age of TAS was in the early 90's and a reviewer by the name of Kuller contributed greatly to it. I assume we are talking about the same man?
        
        Wilson MAXX's... - mkuller 10:04:59 02/04/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Looks like Wilson MAXX's...(nt) posted by anthonyh on February 04, 2008 at 09:08:23
        
        ...thanks for the kind words.
        
        Here's a picture of the MAXXs.
        MAXX (Open in New Window)
    - Studio vs high end - KlausR. 02:25:30 01/29/08 (20)
      So what you are saying is that accurate studio monitors are actually not poviding a true image of real live music but inaccurate high end speakers do? What then are studio engineers doing all day long? Produce inaccurate recordings which the high end systems have to get back on track by compensating for all those errors made during production of the record?
      
      Many audiophiles have, or at least try to duplicate, the conditions found in studio control rooms, i.e. low reverb time, reflection free zone, room mode treatment. If you assume that the studio engineer does his best to produce a recording that comes close to the real thing, using his accurate monitors, the audiophile who uses high end speakers which most of the time are blatantly inaccurate is screwing things up with great success.
      
      And what is more, Floyd Toole has found during many years of investigation that listeners actually prefer accurate loudspeakers.
      
      Did YOU ever hear a top notch accurate studio speaker in a home (i.e. non-studio and far field) to say that they are not capable to deliver the real thing?
      
      Klaus
      - RE: Studio vs high end - morricab 02:56:16 01/30/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Studio vs high end posted by KlausR. on January 29, 2008 at 02:25:30
        
        Besides some examples of high end speakers being used as monitors there is one other of note. Philips Classical used to use Audiostatic full-range electrostats to master their classical recordings and they turned out superb. Within the speaker's limits it is quite accurate, low in distortion, linear FR, utterly coherent (as a single, flat full-range driver should be) and exceedingly transparent (one of the all-time greats in this respect).
      - RE: Studio vs high end - morricab 02:52:40 01/30/08 (6)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Studio vs high end posted by KlausR. on January 29, 2008 at 02:25:30
        
        "but inaccurate high end speakers do"
        
        You are creating a strawman here Klaus that high end speakers are inaccurate. This is not the case as I am sure a pair of Wilson X1s will measure MUCH lower in distortion and at higher levels than your studio monitors, for example.
        
        You knockdown this strawman by saying how could they be better than your "accurate" monitors because they are so inaccurate. Which ones, Klaus? And under what conditions are your monitors accurate? Near-field? Most of us listen under far-field conditions. Many of us also equalize our systems for better FR so this is not a major issue regarding the sound quality. My loudspeakers have very low distortion at normal levels, have a very linear FR over a wide range (+-1.5db or so from 200Hz to about 10Khz...in-room!), almost no coloration (ie. no boxes or cone breakup), and are time coherent. They are high end speakers to be used in the far-field but work very well at nearly any distance.
        
        "the audiophile who uses high end speakers which most of the time are blatantly inaccurate is screwing things up with great success.
        "
        Again with this misleading assumption! I can show you plenty of accurate loudspeakers. ARe you talking only about FR? If so this is so easily corrected as to be laughable as a defining criteria of accurate.
        
        "Did YOU ever hear a top notch accurate studio speaker in a home (i.e. non-studio and far field) to say that they are not capable to deliver the real thing"
        
        Yes many times and no they are not capable. It was not their design goal either. Near-field monitoring has a different purpose.
        
        RE: Studio vs high end - KlausR. 05:51:55 01/30/08 (5)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Studio vs high end posted by morricab on January 30, 2008 at 02:52:40
        
        > This is not the case as I am sure a pair of Wilson X1s will measure MUCH lower in distortion and at higher levels than your studio monitors, for example. <
        You are sure but you've never seen any measurements, did you? Ho loud do they play? Distortion: the figure indicated for mine is based on a weighting scheme along the lines proposed by Earl Geddes. What do amplitude responses on-axis/off-axis of the current Wilson look like? The FR on-axis of the 1994 version looked quite bad, frankly.
        
        Then, what do the Wilson cost? $100k? Mine cost about $28k at current exchange rate, and you get preamp with two inputs, the power amps and a 10-band parametric equalizer. You can place them against the wall, in the corner, in-wall and use the provided adjustment features.
        
        > You are creating a strawman here Klaus that high end speakers are inaccurate. <
        When I looked for speakers 8 years ago I looked at every mesaurement I could find, there was simply not one speaker which measured as well as mine do! If you know of a speaker which is flat 20-20 ± 1.5 dB and does not cost 2-5 times more than mine (that includes pre-and 2x2500 Watt power amp), let me know.
        
        > And under what conditions are your monitors accurate? <
        Anechoic, because that's the only environment which allows for comparable measurements.
        
        > I can show you plenty of accurate loudspeakers. <
        Yes, please, and I'd like to see the graphs, too.
        
        > Are you talking only about FR? If so this is so easily corrected as to be laughable as a defining criteria of accurate. <
        Of course, I'm talking FR on axis. FR on-axis is the first thing to look at and it's the first thing the designer has to get right. It is FR on-axis which is the major part of the response at listening position, and it triggers the precedence effect. I'm talking FR right out of the box, not after correction. A $100k speaker should not need correction. If it does, then the designer hasn't done his homework.
        As for the "easily corrected as to be laughable": read
        Schuck et al., “Perception of perceived sound in rooms: some results of the Athena project”, Audio Eng. Soc. 12th International Conference 1993
        then see if you still laugh!
        Here is another example of good engineering:
        
        > Yes many times and no they are not capable. It was not their design goal either. Near-field monitoring has a different purpose. <
        Why does everyone here assume that studio monitors are exclusively built for near-field monitoring? Main monitors like mine are built for far-field monitoring and every maker has comparable models in his range.
        Let me rephrase the question: did you ever hear big studio monitors in a home situation?
        Klaus
        
        Edits: 01/30/08
        
        RE: Studio vs high end - morricab 04:54:53 01/31/08 (4)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Studio vs high end posted by KlausR. on January 30, 2008 at 05:51:55
        
        Klaus see the stereophile measurments posted above. The X1 is +- 2.5 db from 20Hz to 13 or so Khz IN-ROOM!!! Not this bogus anechoic crap you are peddling, which is on-axis only.
        
        "The FR on-axis of the 1994 version looked quite bad, frankly"
        Who cares about on-axis measurements, look at the in-room repsonse, which is quite good, and you will see more what you would hear at the listening position, Klaus.
        
        "You are sure but you've never seen any measurements, did you?"
        
        Yep comparing them directly I see I was very right the X1 is MUCH better in bass distortion, by more than 30db! Even at 18Hz the X1 is better than your speaker at 60Hz! LOL.
        
        Besides if I want to make the X1 have as flat a FR as your speaker I would insert my favorite DSP unit and thus negate this unfair advantage of the K&H speaker. A TACT would do nicely I think.
        
        "I could find, there was simply not one speaker which measured as well as mine do"
        
        BS, Klaus. They only measure that well because of DSP. Anyone can get a flat FR with DSP, Klaus. The distortion in the bass for those speakers is 30db worse than an X1 where the X1 is playing 6 db louder (so nearly twice as loud).
        
        It appears that you bought this speaker strictly for its flat on-axis FR and probably because it had amps (still think they are Class D as they have low power consumption and switching power supplies) and digital conversion built-in thus simplifying the chain. Afterall you keep parading around that FR curve like it means something in a real room.
        
        "If you know of a speaker which is flat 20-20 ± 1.5 dB and does not cost 2-5 times more than mine (that includes pre-and 2x2500 Watt power amp), let me know.
        "
        
        See, again with the FR, which is only possible with your speaker because of DSP. Give me a cheap Paradigm speaker and a TACT and I will give you the same result. Besides it is only that good, Anechoically, do you have a real room measurement to show??
        
        "Anechoic, because that's the only environment which allows for comparable measurements"
        
        But its still not the real world, Klaus and tells you nothing about how it sounds.
        
        "Of course, I'm talking FR on axis. FR on-axis is the first thing to look at and it's the first thing the designer has to get right."
        
        With DSP it is TRIVIAL, Klaus. What you hear in a room is the combination of this with the dispersed sound. What does that measurement look like? It is fine your speaker does this right but it doesn't mean that it is superior overall.
        
        "I'm talking FR right out of the box, not after correction"
        
        Klaus, now you are being silly because your speaker has it built in so it is always using it. There is no "right out of the box". Besides, +-2.5db in-room is quite accepatable and other things will be more important, like cabinet and driver colorations, lack of integration etc...all of which a speaker like the X1 excels at.
        
        "Schuck et al., “Perception of perceived sound in rooms: some results of the Athena project”, Audio Eng. Soc. 12th International Conference 1993
        
        "
        
        1993 was a LONG time ago, Klaus. Just play with a TaCT or a DEQX for a while and you will see what I mean.
        
        Sean Olive - KlausR. 08:08:27 01/31/08 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Studio vs high end posted by morricab on January 31, 2008 at 04:54:53
        
        I'm not replying anymore to your unsubstantiated rants. The moment you 1. get the facts right and 2. remain factual and leave your comments in the drawer, I'll resume communication.
        
        Here's what Floyd Toole says in his 2006 AES paper about Olive's correlation between anechoic measurements and subjective ratings, if you want to discuss the matter you should address yourself to the author, not me. Sean Olive is participating in the diy-audio forums, or was it audioholics?
        7.1.1 Correlations between Subjective and Objective Domains
        For over 20 years the author and his colleagues have conducted comprehensive anechoic measurements on many loudspeakers, and have examined the results of double-blind listening tests performed on those products. The results have been gratifyingly similar: loudspeakers exhibiting certain generally recognizable measured characteristics consistently achieved high scores in subjective evaluations [58]. As subjectively interpreted, a smooth, flat, wide-band axial frequency response, combined with similarly well-behaved off-axis responses, up to and including sound power, appeared to be the desirable pattern. What was missing was a mathematical process by which the technical data could be converted into a figure of merit, an estimate of a subjective rating of sound quality. In 2004 Olive took up the challenge and, axing subjective and objective data from 70 loudspeakers, developed a model to perform the conversion [61], [62].
        Earlier attempts had been based on basic measurements such as sound power or room curves, usually with restricted (such as one-third octave) frequency resolution, Using more recent psychoacoustie knowledge, the new models examined much smaller details in the raw measurerments and, having access to more information, they could apply different weightings to the direct, early reflected, and late reflected sounds, When all of the now perspectives were included in the analysis, the result was a correlation of 0.86 between the calculated subjective rating and the real subjective rating. So it seems that we truly are measuring quantities that are important to our subjective tastes. It is not an accident.
        As impressive as this is, it should be noted that there was a significant source of variation in the subjective data. The 70 loudspeakers were evaluated in 19 different listening tests, conducted over a period of nine months. In each test, only three or four products were compared, so, inevitably, there was a certain amount of drift and elasticity in the subjective scales used by the listeners. In other words, depending on what other products it is being compared to, and how long it has been since it had previously been auditioned, the rating of any individual loudspeaker could move up or down the rating scale. The movement is usually not large, but it is a change that the statistical analysis regards as uncertainty about the rating, reducing the correlation.
        To overcome this, all loudspeakers must be evaluated in one continuous test, with each product being compared to every other product. When this was done with a group of 13 bookshelf loudspenkers, the correlation improved to 0,995—near perfection. The fact that the loudspeakers being compared were of similar physical configuration was an advantage, but that does not detract from the importance of the result. It is clear that there is a way to translate anechoic data from loudspeakers into very reasonable predictions of subjective ratings as they occur in a normal listening room.
        And there is more. The excellent correlations mentioned came from a model that had access to a complete library of anechoic data—70 individual high—resolution frequency response curves at different angles surrounding the loudspeaker. With less data the correlations were less good. High—resolution data (1/20 octave) were consistently better than one—third—octave data. No single curve, anechoic or in-room, alone was adequate, although the axial response figured prominently in all of the successful models, perhaps because it is the event that triggers perceptual processes like the precedence effect, and how one perceives later arrivals. Early in this paper it was noted that reverberation is not a dominant factor in what we hear in small rooms, and here it is no surprise to find that the sound power output from a loudspeaker is, alone, an imperfect predictor of sound quality, especially when, as is commonly done, it is one—third—octave filtered.
        
        Edits: 01/31/08
        
        What VMPS says about CD - morricab 02:16:33 02/01/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Sean Olive posted by KlausR. on January 31, 2008 at 08:08:27
        
        Why is Constant Directivity (CD) important? What effect does it have on listening quality?
        Both questions are equally important. Loudspeakers without horns radiate in a narrowing pattern as they transverse higher frequency ranges—this is a function of their effective radiating width. In most multiways, and planars in particular, each driver is much larger in diameter than the wavelength of the top frequency it must reproduce. As drivers approach this cutoff, response suffers from an undesirable phenomenon called “roughness” and their directivity narrows to the point that, once their width/diameter is larger than the wavelength of the upper frequencies, they more or less radiate in a straight forward beam, like a headlight. This reduces the “listening window” to on-axis and makes it difficult for listeners sitting away from the “sweet spot” to hear all of the music.
        
        The problem worsens in the crossover regions of a multiway where a large diameter driver and the smaller one above it differ in phase and dispersion causing frequency response protrusions and suckouts collectively known as “lobing”. While this effect can be reduced with increasingly higher-order crossover filter slopes, there are practical limits to implementing passive high-order networks due to poor transient response, group delay, and reduced dynamics caused by losses through the filter elements. Speakers like ours with first order filters (chosen for their optimum listening quality, not for smooth dispersion) suffer from the “lobing” phenomenon more than their steep-sloped cousins.
        
        What is needed for CD is for all drivers in a multiway to be the same width, and that width needs to be smaller than the wavelength of the frequency you want to hear with good or constant directivity. If you want to hear 20kHz well off axis, that means a speaker no more than 2/3” wide, down to as low in frequency as possible, where it can mate with larger diameter woofers which are already working into 2 pi (180 degree) space and are about to transition to omnidirectional or 4 pi space. In the past speakers have been made with long and narrow drivers. These tend to be tweeters, however, and virtually all exceed 1” in width, which means they will beam at around 13 kHz or lower.
        
        All our planar speakers use a 2.5” wide midrange panel working from about 280Hz up to 7 kHz, handing off to a 7/16” wide tweeter operating to above 20 kHz. While their horizontal dispersion is very good, there is lobing in the crossover region and some wave interference in the vertical plane (vertical dispersion of long ribbons is poor, usually not much beyond the length of the driver itself). If we want Constant Directivity type dispersion then whole speaker would have to be made drastically skinnier, impossible to do without sacrificing LF extension and sensitivity. For this reason older designs have not attempted to achieve CD coverage without horn loading.
        
        In a REAL room, Klaus your on-axis FR means very little.
        
        Here is what Geddes says: - morricab 02:11:01 02/01/08 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Sean Olive posted by KlausR. on January 31, 2008 at 08:08:27
        
        "CD (constant directivity) is a well known design criteria for large venue systems, but it is almost nonexistent in home high-fidelity loudspeaker systems. There are two reasons for this; pistons and size. Piston sources can never be CD and CD simply cannot be done in a small area. It takes space and area to control sound radiation and there is simply no way around this fact. Hence, for sound systems in small rooms, bigger really is better. Somehow it just seems obvious that the larger speakers of the past sounded better than the multitude of mini-cubes and tower speakers of today. Small speakers do have their place, but not as sources for critical listening in a well designed room. Virturally all small speakers are omni-directional. It's easy and inexpensive, but completely wrong for a small room."
        
        Your monitors would fall into this category I believe. So actually in a small room a large full range ribbon or electrostat (like a Soundlab) gives a more ideal radiation pattern (and CD over a very wide range) in a small room. Of course Geddes also says his horns are CD. He points out that omni-directional speakers (like nearly all smallish box speakers) have big problems in small rooms with early reflections and that damping them is not the solution. If you want to read his thoughts on this you can find the white paper on his website with the Summa loudspeaker. There is much more to speaker design, Klaus than on-axis FR.
        
        RE: gives a more ideal radiation pattern - KlausR. 09:51:26 02/01/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Here is what Geddes says: posted by morricab on February 01, 2008 at 02:11:01
        
        I think that to this day no one has actually determined what the ideal pattern is. The only statement in this context is from Toole says that FR on-axis should be flat (± 1.5 dB), FR off-axis smooth and well behaved. Geddes has his opinion Dave Moulton has the opposite opinion, there is not much research available, so it appears to be a matter of opinion at this stage.
        
        > He [Geddes] points out that omni-directional speakers (like nearly all smallish box speakers) have big problems in small rooms with early reflections and that damping them is not the solution. <
        
        In 2006 Floyd Toole has published a very interesting AES paper entitled "Loudspeakers and Rooms for Sound Reproduction—A Scientific Review" (where he reviews 75 technical/scientific papers). Also the issue of early reflections is addressed. Toole comes to the conclusion that early reflections are no problems.
        
        I've read most of the papers he cites and did some digging in relevant technical journals and yes, there is no evidence that early reflections are a problem. So I wonder on what evidence Geddes bases his statement.
        
        But that's an issue which is more at home in the Rives forum, where it actually is being discussed at the moment.
        
        Klaus
      - Studio monitors... - mkuller 10:48:55 01/29/08 (10)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Studio vs high end posted by KlausR. on January 29, 2008 at 02:25:30
        
        ...in my experience, are small without any low bass extension and are used for nearfield listening in a particularly designed acousticly-treated environment.
        Not exactly what audiophiles want for home use.
        If they're so "accurate" and musical why don't more audiophiles - besides you and perhaps a few others - use them?
        Can't say I've ever heard - or heard of - a studio monitor in a home environment in all my years as an audiophile and working with audio clubs.
        
        Edits: 01/29/08
        
        I'll have to disagree - E-Stat 06:09:24 01/30/08 (4)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Studio monitors... posted by mkuller on January 29, 2008 at 10:48:55
        
        Can't say I've ever heard - or heard of - a studio monitor in a home environment...
        
        I've known plenty of folks who used what was arguably the most widely used monitor from the 70s in their homes - the JBL 4310 (aka Century L100). Neutral reproducer? Not a chance!
        
        rw
        
        Back in the late '70's... - mkuller 09:47:18 01/30/08 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE: I'll have to disagree posted by E-Stat on January 30, 2008 at 06:09:24
        
        ...when I was shopping for loudspeakers, the JBL L100s were on my short list.
        
        IIRC, the 4310s were also available and had a little different design, other than their stark appearance.
        
        That's when I discovered the Dahlquist DQ-10s and entered the realm of high end.
        
        Through the 1980s my next door neighbor had L-100s with their colored foam grilles.
        
        No wonder a lot of recordings from that era sound so bad.
        
        Differences - E-Stat 10:56:35 01/30/08 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Back in the late '70's... posted by mkuller on January 30, 2008 at 09:47:18
        
        The 4310/4311 used the same drivers, but were inverted (tweeter on bottom) for the hang-it-high-above-the-window-to-the-studio mounting and had foam damping around the tweeter. They were essentially the same speaker.
        
        They sounded best with stuff like Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple where you wanted the peaky upper bass and elevated lower highs. I was always an "East Coast" sound kind of guy. As you indicated, the DQ-10 was an altogether superior musical reproducer.
        
        I spent some time on the Genelec site and read their positioning guidelines. From their perspective, it is a bad thing for the speaker to be more than a meter away from the back wall. Funny, that's exactly the opposite of what I find works best. That's not surprising since they like to bury them in the wall, much less let them breathe and minimize room effects.
        
        rw
        
        Minimizing room effects - KlausR. 01:48:46 01/31/08 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Differences posted by E-Stat on January 30, 2008 at 10:56:35
        
        > That's not surprising since they like to bury them in the wall, much less let them breathe and minimize room effects. <
        
        This sentence clearly shows that you don't have a clue. You'd better go and read some acoustics textbooks instead of those glossy audio magazines.
        
        Klaus
        
        Doesn't the link you provided above... - robert young 04:35:37 01/31/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Minimizing room effects posted by KlausR. on January 31, 2008 at 01:48:46
        
        show them mounted in the wall? Your own example, Klaus.
        
        You're slipping.
        
        So you'd call this small? - KlausR. 03:00:31 01/30/08 (4)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Studio monitors... posted by mkuller on January 29, 2008 at 10:48:55
        
        You MUST be kidding!!!
        
        Bass is flat to 17 Hz, max. SPL is 116 dB/1m. The upper fullrange unit, which I have, is flat to 30 Hz standard (127 dB/1m), 20 Hz on demand. Compared to high-end speakers with equivalent performance they are small, only 30" tall.
        
        Why do audiophiles not use studio monitors at home I don't know, given the obvious advantages of active loudspeakers, some of which (like mine) use digital signal processing. You get more bang for the buck, they play louder with less distortion, are easier to place because of in-built correction features, have protection circuits.
        
        Klaus
        
        RE: So you'd call this small? - morricab 05:04:42 01/31/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: So you'd call this small? posted by KlausR. on January 30, 2008 at 03:00:31
        
        "30 Hz standard (127 dB/1m)"
        BS!
        
        Klaus, go look at the 0 500C measurments again: At 100 Hz the max spl is 110db and at 50Hz 103db. This is far away from the 127db "spec". They only hit 127 db at 500Hz! Also, distortion in tha bass at 100db is quite high compared to, say a Wilson X1!
        
        For the bass box they give this spec:
        Schalldruckpegel im Halbraum
        bei 3 % THD in 1 m 116,4 db SPL
        
        Given how false the other maximum spl with 1% distortion spec is compared to the actual measurement I am inclined to believe that this one is also equally optimistic.
        
        "given the obvious advantages of active loudspeakers"
        
        What about the obvious disadvantage of the speaker maker putting in a crappy amp? Makes a big difference you know. Correction features can easily be added with inexpensive DSP, no need to build it in.
        
        "they play louder with less distortion"
        
        You have NO proof of this!! I have even shown you one audiohphile speaker that has much lower distortion.
        
        There are exceptions to every rule...(nt) - mkuller 09:56:42 01/30/08 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: So you'd call this small? posted by KlausR. on January 30, 2008 at 03:00:31
        
        (nt)
        
        These are not exceptions! - KlausR. 04:45:57 01/31/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: There are exceptions to every rule...(nt) posted by mkuller on January 30, 2008 at 09:56:42
        
        When I look at Klein+Hummel, they have 2 nearfield, 2 midfield/main monitors, Genelec have 5 nearfield, 6 main monitors, Dynaudio have 7 nearfield, 9 midfield/main monitors.
        
        You're not up to date!
        
        Klaus
        
        Why? - E-Stat 06:02:43 01/30/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: So you'd call this small? posted by KlausR. on January 30, 2008 at 03:00:31
        
        Why do audiophiles not use studio monitors at home I don't know...
        
        Easy. My 'stats reproduce the kind of music I listen to (acoustical) in a far more realistic way. They create a large sound field that mimics the live venue as I experience it. Nearfield monitors have their place, but not in my listening room.
        
        they play louder...
        
        Huh? What? I can't hear you!
        
        rw
      - RE: Studio vs high end - Analog Scott 09:27:07 01/29/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Studio vs high end posted by KlausR. on January 29, 2008 at 02:25:30
        
        > So what you are saying is that accurate studio monitors are actually not poviding a true image of real live music but inaccurate high end speakers do? What then are studio engineers doing all day long? Produce inaccurate recordings which the high end systems have to get back on track by compensating for all those errors made during production of the record?>
        
        You think most studio recordings are what we would call accurate? Do you think the engineers believe that their monitors sound exactly like what would be heard in the studio when they are doing live acoustic recordings? Do you really belive that studio monitors (other than the Wilson audio) are really more "accurate" than good high end speakers? Maybe you could cite some studio monitors that are more "accurate" than the top of the line Sound Labs in as much as they create a more convincing illusion of live music.
RE: Messrs. Atkinson and Fremer are mad as hell and they aren’t going to take it anymore! - jamnesta 13:35:32 01/26/08 (3)
As journalist/reviewers in the business and music lovers who appreciate high quality reproduction, perhaps they feel the need to man the buckets as the ship slowly sinks. After all look at the last 25 years of frequency and resolution limited redbook cd (perfect sound forever huh)! The new formats blu-ray and HD-DVD seem to be interested in only movies. While the vinyl resurgence is surely a good thing and reason for hope, I for one would hate to see my system sit idle because the majority no longer see the need for high quality reproduction. Of course this is apart from the egalitarian aspects of your argument which has credence of course, I love my ipod.... for what it does. I'm sure I may have missed part of the point your trying to make but I wouldn't want the fight for the best possible sound to be abandoned, and if not by those in the audiophile press then who?
- You need to post more often. - Bruce Kendall 14:49:56 01/26/08 (0)
  We need more posts that make sense. If posting more often would detract from your listening time, I understand. ;~)
- RE: Messrs. Atkinson and Fremer are mad as hell and they aren’t going to take it anymore! - analogcorner 13:38:21 01/26/08 (1)
  BRAVO and exactly on message. The engineering community is equally up in arms and trying to improve recorded sound quality, which has also deteriorated markedly over the past decade and further. We are living in the HDTV age. Everyone wants better pictures and no on derides them for wanting it. But somehow better sound is effete, snobby, illusory, etc. This has been the message for 20 plus years and it's time to turn it around.
  - What Part Of The Problem Really Is! - thetubeguy1954 11:25:31 01/29/08 (0)
    AC,
    
    You're absolutely correct! Thank GOD the engineering community is equally up in arms and trying to improve recorded sound quality.
    
    As you stated we are living in the HDTV age. Everyone wants better pictures and no on derides them for wanting it. But somehow better sound is effete, snobby, illusory, etc. A real source of this problem are those "supposedly" music loving audiophiles, who claim all "properly designed" amps have no sound of their own & 1M interconnects, 3M speaker wire and power cords have no sound of their own either! Anyone who hears a difference haa been fooled ---because the ear is so easily fooled--- or else if they believe they hear a differnce they're a lunatic who also sees ghosts, practices voodoo etc.
    
    Yet these same people who know the hand is quicker than the eye, who see illusionists do tricks such as cutting people in half, making people disappear or turn people into tigers ---while going ohhh and ahhh--- for some strange reason, believe it when someone says this picture is better than that picture! Can you imagine how foolish these same people would look is they claimed: all "properly designed" HDTVs have no picture of their own, therefore anyone who sees a difference in HDTVs has been fooled ---because the eye is so easily fooled--- or else if they believe they see a difference they're a lunatic who also sees ghosts, practices voodoo etc.
    
    Like you said this has been the message for 20 plus years ---since Julian Hirsch started it--- and it's time to turn it around. But what surprises me the most about all this is not one laughs or criticizes the person who wants a better surround system for their HDTV!
    
    Thetubeguy1954
    
    A Rational Subjectivist
RE: Messrs. Atkinson and Fremer are mad as hell and they aren’t going to take it anymore! - analogcorner 13:22:53 01/26/08 (9)
Well, this is very well argued but it's the wrong argument. But first this from regmac: "Yet I don’t see the big guns at Stereophile scolding SET devotees for the error of their ways." In fact, JA once described a Cary integrated SET amp as a giant "tone control" and for that he took a lot of crap.

Neither JA or I argued that Tommasini or Teachout are THE culprits. They are simply examples of the problem. Nor do we argue that there is a "conspiracy."

Last week the Times ran a story about a 20,000 coffee pot. It runs stories about lots of "high end" stuff in every field. The issue isn't that most people can't afford it or don't want it. The issue is it gets covered. All of this high end stuff gets covered and covered seriously except for high end audio.

Sorry but that's a fact. And when it gets covered its disparagingly.

I don't expect hi-end audio to necessarily appeal to "the masses" but some might like it and as long as the mainstream press exposes the masses to expensive bling that most people can't afford, whether its wine, or food, or cars, or watches or homes or vacations (etc.) why shouldn't our hobby also get covered.

IT IS NOT BEING COVERED. That is not our paranoia. It is a FACT. If more people knew about good audio, more people would become involved. Not the "masses," but some. I know plenty of audio fans who are not wealthy. Money isn't the issue.

People know good watches, cars, pens, clothing, wines etc. whether they want to own it or not. They don't KNOW about hi-end audio, and by that I don't mean necessarily expensive.

Actually, i don't even understand why you have taken issue with anything I or JA have written except that it fits into this odd pattern among audiophiles. In the wine world you don't have wine experts constantly trying to "prove" that all wines taste alike, but we sure do in audio. Those forces have spent the last 20 years doing that and it's further marginalized audio to the point where even recordings have turned to crap.

That's probably the bigger shame. Audio gear is crap, so the recordings might as well be crap. So now it's all crap! That's swell.

I want more people to know about the pleasures of listening to music on a good audio system...why take issue with that?????
- RE: Messrs. Atkinson and Fremer are mad as hell and they aren’t going to take it anymore! - WW85 21:02:45 02/07/08 (0)
  It should be noted that on 10/25/07 the NY Times did publish the article titled "Digital Music to Please Even the Snobs".
  
  So yeah, they were still calling audiophiles snobs, but one could imagine an article on $10 bottles of wine to please the snobs (as a matter of fact I've read many) so we shouldn't take too much offense.
  
  That article changed my life. It introduced me to names like Wavelength and Benchmark and started me on an upgrade path that has allowed me to enjoy music more than I had in years.
  
  I wasn't looking for audiophile nirvana in vinyl. I was looking to get those 5000 songs on my hard drive sounding as good as my cd player on the home stereo. I was looking for quality and convenience. That article laid out the possibilities.
  
  Of course, Stereophile had already covered much of that ground, but I was unaware. But the point is, the main stream press, for one article anyway, was not totally ignoring the audiophile hobby.
- RE: Messrs. Atkinson and Fremer are mad as hell and they aren’t going to take it anymore! - regmac 17:30:34 01/27/08 (0)
  Thank you for taking the time to reply. My original post was intended as honest and objective criticism regarding your position. I trust it was received in the spirit with which it was given. I had hoped to add more perspective but I was rushed inasmuch as I was leaving town to participate in a poker tournament. Herewith some quick responses to your responses:
  
  Mr. Fremer: “Well, this is very well argued but it's the wrong argument…JA once described a Cary integrated SET amp as a giant "tone control" and for that he took a lot of crap.”
  
  Only “once” in all this time? That prompts the question: Did the “crap he took” succeed in silencing him on this matter or has he changed his opinion vis-à-vis SETs? In fairness, I do seem to recall a couple of other occasions in which JA was less than enthusiastic regarding the measured performance of these things. Point taken.
  
  Mr. Fremer: “Nor do we argue that there is a "conspiracy."’
  
  Oh come on. Your article is entitled, “The Swift Boating of Audiophiles.” Anyone familiar with American politics will recall various journalists characterizing the Swiftboat episode as a "conspiracy" concocted by Republicans in order to torpedo Kerry's campaign. The term has come to connote a cunning plot on behalf of sinister forces seeking to do harm.
  
  You go on to say that audiophiles must “{E}ither fight back or accept being Swift-Boated.” (That’s not a perfect quote but close enough for the purposes of this exercise.) Moreover, you implore your readers to “take action” whenever they see audiophiles “attacked in the media…” Again with the “attack” jargon. Admittedly, my conspiracy remark was a bit tongue-in-cheek but I was merely following your lead.
  
  Mr. Fremer: “IT {hi-end audio} IS NOT BEING COVERED. That is not our paranoia. It is a FACT.”
  
  But now you’ve shifted the foundation of your position by suggesting that the mainstream press is merely neglecting audiophile interests. Whereas in this month’s Stereophile you state, “I don’t mean to sound paranoid, but for some reason, and especially in America, music lovers who appreciate good music (aka audiophiles) are under constant attack.”
  
  Which is it, Mr. Fremer, neglect on the medias’ part or “constant attack”? If the former, then is it benign neglect or is this neglect somehow conspiratorial in nature?
  
  I enjoy the views of others, Mr. Fremer, but in order for said views to be effective they must be logically consistent. One can't come off sounding like a politician with a terminal case of the flip-flops and expect to woo a new audience. Such waffling may work with Stereophile sycophants but it won't win you new adherents, which, presumably, is what your recent call to arms is all about.
  
  Mr. Fremer: “I don't expect hi-end audio to necessarily appeal to "the masses" but some might like it and as long as the mainstream press exposes the masses to expensive bling that most people can't afford, whether its wine, or food, or cars, or watches or homes or vacations (etc.) why shouldn't our hobby also get covered.”
  
  This is a variant on the chicken or the egg question. Perhaps you should run it by Donny Deutsch. (I’m serious.) Madison Avenue is ultra sensitive to such trends and I suspect that if the marketing boys detect a significant interest in this area (audiophile gear) you’ll get your wish and then some. But I’m far from convinced that even the whiz kids on Madison Avenue can *make* folks lust for a $30K preamp the way they make them salivate over a Rolex.
  
  “Actually, i don't even understand why you have taken issue with anything I or JA have written…”
  
  That’s an easy one to answer and I hope you’re sitting down. I’m interested because I want you to be successful, Mr. Fremer. You, along with JA, John Marks and others have always comported yourselves as gentlemen whenever I’ve written seeking information or offering criticism. (I’m still using the AR table that Mr. Tellig recommended to me 24! years ago.)
  
  Admittedly, some of you have been decidedly ungentlemanly toward others in the past. But I assume you had your reasons. I think Sterophile is “best of breed” when it comes to audio journals and I enjoy reading it from time to time. Each time I visit the bookstore there they are: yours, TAS, hifi+ and HiFI Choice, all lined up in a neat little row. You see, Mr. Fremer, I have no desire in seeing the hi-end die. I just happen to think that your approach in this regard is misguided and don't wish to see you shoot yourself in the foot. That’s why I’ve taken issue with some of your statements.
  
  Your protestations notwithstanding, the media are not your enemy and you won't have much luck enlisting their help (which, I suspect, you need in order to survive) by picking a fight. Lest you misunderstand, I’m open to being persuaded that the media are holding you back, but as of this writing I don’t see any evidence to support your claim.
  
  The sobering reality is that the media are more likely to embrace million dollar sports cars than $100,000 speakers because exotic sports cars enjoy a universal appeal that exotic speakers do not. The next time you’re at the mall ask any young man within earshot if he’s heard of Dave Wilson. Then ask him if he’s heard of Enzo Ferrari. I'm confident his responses will be "who?" and "yeah."
  
  With all due respect, I think, as you yourself suggest, that your tone does sound a bit paranoid concerning this matter. For I see no “constant attack” by the media. No “swiftboating.” No deliberate neglect. What I do see is *indifference* on the part of the American consumer when it comes to hi-end gear. And, yes, to your point: some ignorance. But that’s the fault of your industry, not the media. It’s no secret that the pages of Stereophile began thinning long before the public discovered that MP3s were good enough.
- "Well, this is very well argued but it's the wrong argument." - bogartg 09:17:54 01/27/08 (4)
  Michael, I am responding to your post, but hope that John will see it too. There are so many issues and subtexts to the thread, but I would like to address two -- sound quality (any format) and the relevance of audiophiles to the typical consumer who likes to listen to music.
  
  While I think it is fine for the hobby's press to want more mainstream coverage, the vast majority of people cannot relate to a hobby where people pay more for a power cord than a plasma TV. Most of us have more money in our system than 95% of Americans have in their cars or home furnishings. We think nothing of buying a new piece of wire for $1000 and claiming that our system is much more (insert word). Then we do it again with another piece of something and make the same claim. But we love to find really good deals on LPs and CDs. Much of our hobby appears to be driven by obsession, rampant comsumerism and narcissistic behavior to the outsider.
  
  Back to your comment about the wrong argument. I recently read an interview with one of the band members in Death Cab for Cutie. He is a proponent of bands doing away with the practice of compressing the sound of their music so that it will stand out because it is made to sound better in a car, where many people listen or first hear a new song. That article should be referenced on the cover of Stereophile and broadcast within the various articles. He ought to feel that he has huge support from the industry for the stand he is taking (I know he is not first, but he is mainstream and the article was first printed in the Chicago Tribune).
  
  I got away from sitting in the sweet-spot years ago as my life got busier and the music seemed less engaging. It wasn't until later that I realized it was the poor quality of most of my CDs that had a lot to do with it. I stopped buying LPs when my dealer insisted CDs were the future and talked me out of buying a new turntable. Today I have a bias toward analog, but have found that the number of really poorly recorded material on LP, CD and SACD is confounding. One of the worst recordings I have is a Marvin Gaye SACD. I don't bother to listen to at least 400 of the CDs I own due to the poor sound quality. I hate it that Santana, for example, sounds bad in my system (although I was shocked at the increase in quality of one of his CDs when I put it on a black CD-R). I know it is not my system, because the occassional high quality CD or SACD sounds beautiful, emotional and is quite involving (and more so with a well recorded LP, of course). I heard great examples of each at the past RMAF, CES and The Show. It is a disappointment to me that so much of the music I like is unavailable with excellent sonics. Its old news, but it is no accident that much of the same music was being played in the various rooms at each event.
  
  I would much rather see a concerted effort by the audio press to go after the musicians and studios to provide better quality recordings than to try to convince people that MP3 is unworthy for them to enjoy. It is so obvious that MP3 is the current generation's version of the compromise most of us bought into when CDs were introduced. Many of the remastered reissues from Blue Note are a wonderful improvement and I would love to see Cover Page photography acknowledging well recorded marterial when it is issued. The first place I go in Stereophile and TAS is to see the sonics rating in the music reviews (performance is a much more personal thing and I do not buy music based on someone else's taste).
  
  Regards,
  Nick
  - RE: "Well, this is very well argued but it's the wrong argument." - analogcorner 11:11:49 01/27/08 (3)
    This has to be a concerted effort on the part of the pro audio industry, the record business (what's left of it) and the audiophile world. Forget about crazy hobbyists (myself included). I think an investment of a few thousand dollars can yield a modest system that produces MUSIC...sufficiently compelling to keep the television OFF and that's really the goal of getting a mainstream audience involved---not as a hobby but as a "thing" to own. About ten years ago, Stereophile and WNYC in NY co-sponsored a "win a $3000 shopping spree with Stereophile writer Michael Fremer" with the winner invited to our show that year and getting to choose $3000 worth of stuff. We were sure the winner would go for a home theater, then "taking over" from two channel, but surprisingly, the winner chose a 2 channel system. I helped them get Creek electronics and Epos speakers and went over to their home and set it up for them. They also had lots of "old records" so I convinced them to add a turntable. Incredibly, though the contest was open to anyone in the NY metro area, the winner lived in Glen Rock NJ where I lived at the time! (yes Fremer is a crook,. It was FIXED!!!!! etc.)
    
    I would see this couple and their kids at the recycling center every few weeks and they would come up to me every time to thank me for helping them with this. The system literally changed their lives. it got the kids off of "junk TV" and into music. It made music a central focus for the kids and listening to and exploring music--all kinds--- became a family activity. So forget about the crazy hobbyists and their power cords....this is really about MUSIC and about making MUSIC a central focus in more people's lives. And that, I believe is an achievable goal that helps people, and both the music and audio industries.
    
    The food people did this a decade ago, with the food magazines, the high end appliance manufacturers and the fine food merchants, by putting expensive kitchen appliances on TV and in magazines. Now everyone wants Viking, Wolf (etc.) ---expensive pro kitchen stuff that women rejected previously and most everyone wants to eat well ...so it is possible to elevate people's tastes and desires, even those who can't afford the very best.
    
    It's "aspirational." and at one time having a good audio system was "aspirational." Today, it's not even known about! That's the first thing that must be changed....
    - Amen, brother!! - Charles Hansen 19:37:06 01/28/08 (0)
      < < I think an investment of a few thousand dollars can yield a modest system that produces MUSIC...sufficiently compelling to keep the television OFF and that's really the goal of getting a mainstream audience involved > >
      
      Thank you Michael! This is actually our secret plan -- and no, I'm not kidding. The main reason we build expensive stuff is so that Ayre becomes a sought-after product. (This part of the plan requires that the expensive stuff be worth it, by the way. You can't fake performance or true quality.)
      
      We also build (relatively) affordable stuff that ordinary people will want. I view it as a Trojan Horse. If someone buys our gear, they will spend more time listening to music. This will change their life, their priorities, and even their brain chemistry. Listening to music instead of watching TV will make the world a better place. Watch for some more low priced gear from Ayre in the next year or so....
      
      Cheers,
      Charlie Hansen
    - Exactly-can't be said any better--NT - lancelot 14:47:04 01/27/08 (0)
      NT
    - RE: "Well, this is very well argued but it's the wrong argument." - bogartg 12:12:18 01/27/08 (0)
      Mike, I think as long as we the publications appear to emphasize systems that cost more than $5000, it will be hard to make headway with getting people started. (I applaud the effort to feature lower priced, high quality gear and systems, but the people who need to read it don't read the audio pubs). Mark-ups on gear is another issue, and the natural inclination of dealers (and writers) to imply that people would have a much better system if they were willing to spend more. Your family in Jersey (a great story) probably had no idea that they would need to budget for racks, cables, vibration control, record washing machines, power issues and room treatments. But I go back to the original argument - the quality of the software. The family likely could have listened to MP3 quality with the system you set up and still would have felt that their lives were changed. That part is really all about the music and access to quality playback. Over time, though, they would migrate and demand higher quality if it were easily available and didn't require research to figure out who compresses their music and who doesn't.
      
      Another issue that is a problem for families like the above is that they do not read the audio press publications. I got (re)started about five years ago and was overwhelmed by all the information and conflicting opinions of writers and dealers. It is really hard for the beginner to find the info in TAS and Stereophile on beginner systems, and harder still to set it up properly. Prices for budget gear are an incredible shock to most people. I think the industry forgets that. Robert Harley's book was very helpful to me, but most of us don't realize we need that kind of information in the beginning. Consumers (like me) waste a lot of money trying to figure out how to build a system, and most don't want to be audiophiles, as you so correctly state. They just want to experience the joy of music. Its no wonder you and your peers are frustrated that your message doesn't seem to be heard. To most people, it seems like you are writing about high performance cars with 12 cylindar engines -- they just can't relate. I'm in the hobby, but still walked out of rooms that featured over $50,000 in equipment at the shows.
      
      I still think the publications could go a long way toward bringing pressure on the music industry to improve quality of their final products. We can't wait for a concerted effort -- it has to start someplace and not be subtle (kind of like Obama's message about change). I think the key is on the cover of the audio publications, to start.
      
      Sorry for the long free flow.
- Why indeed!!! - JMCIII 17:33:29 01/26/08 (1)
  "I want more people to know about the pleasures of listening to music on a good audio system...why take issue with that?????"
  
  Why indeed!
  
  Micheal is correct, the vast majority of the huddled masses will never embrace high-end audio. Not because of expense, because it just doesn't interest them enough. And that's fine. It's their choice.............. provided they have enough information to make a knowledgable choice.
  
  AND THAT'S THE FIGHT. GET PEOPLE THE FACTS. Then let them make up their own minds from knowledge not inuendo. I applaude MF and JA for speaking out. It's a shame they have only a pile of old newspaper in an abandoned lot from which to make their voices heard while Mess. Tommasini and Teachout have their soapboxes in the middle of main street USA (the difference between Stereophile and the WSJ and NYT). Would that more of us - in the press or not - stand up and let the facts be know. THEN let the chips fall where they may.
  John Crossett
  ___
  It sounds like English, but I can't understand a word you're saying.
  - RE: Why indeed!!! - lord addleford 15:20:45 02/01/08 (0)
    as long as those knowledgible about quality audio equipment - yes i did not use the 'A' word - maintain their splendid isolation preaching to the choir in their 'zines' (online and hard copy), only the choir will hear their sermon. what proponents of high quality equipment and sound must do is reach out to a far larger public - outside their usual demographic - who, at this juncture, are committed to hearing music.......via their ipod and who very well might be willing to make the jump (as long as it does not cost an arm and a leg) into 'quality' sound reproduction. there are some fine word-smiths laboring in the fields for the publications that we know so well. is there no way for these publications - publishers,editors and writers - to collaborate in a popular front for the greater good: the survival and expansion of the hobby to which they are committed?
    
    lacking a well orchestrated outreach effort to a larger public, what we will see (and hear) is an ever aging audiophile community indulging in the same internecine warfare that characterized the old stalinist and trotskyite arguments of the left wing in this country during 1930s. in this case, we find an ever shrinking group of people who are committed to listening to quality music indulging themselves in bitter, useless,time consuming dogmatic and vitriolic arguments'--- "...the sound and the fury, signifying nothing" -- to the detriment of enlarging its base.
    
    as for the manufacturers and purveyors of the high end equipment, one would imagine that enlightened self interest would dictate an approach in design and pricing that would engage a wider group of potential buyers. but, alas, the heavy lifting will have to come from within the ranks of the writers and enthusiasts, who have the skills, desire and opportunity to 'turn on' and convert the unaligned to the possibilities of hearing music in a way yet unheard: getting real and significant pleasure from the act of listening to music.

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.