- RE: High end audio = musical accuracy, you must be kidding! - morricab 02:45:13 01/30/08
(21)
- In Reply to: RE: High end audio = musical accuracy, you must be kidding! posted by KlausR. on January 28, 2008 at 07:32:03
"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)
- In Reply to: RE: High end audio = musical accuracy, you must be kidding! posted by morricab on January 30, 2008 at 02:45:13
> 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.
- RE:Thus your claim of inaccuracy has been debunked. - morricab 00:39:14 02/10/08
(0)
- RE:Thus your claim of inaccuracy has been debunked. - KlausR. 07:51:43 02/09/08
(1)
- RE: It is apples and oranges! - morricab 04:41:46 02/05/08
(2)
- It is apples and oranges! - KlausR. 02:29:11 02/05/08
(3)
- RE: Rubbish etc. - morricab 10:36:19 02/03/08
(4)
- Rubbish etc. - KlausR. 10:51:09 02/01/08
(5)
- RE: Klaus I have stayed very factual - morricab 09:29:57 02/01/08
(6)
- RE: Klaus I have stayed very factual - KlausR. 07:47:49 02/01/08
(7)
- 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.
- RE: This was the last post of yours I have read and replied to! - morricab 14:45:41 01/31/08
(8)
- This was the last post of yours I have read and replied to! - KlausR. 10:15:38 01/31/08
(10)
- RE: High end audio = musical accuracy, you must be kidding! - morricab 09:43:46 01/31/08
(11)
- RE: High end audio = musical accuracy, you must be kidding! - KlausR. 07:38:59 01/31/08
(12)
- 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.
- RE: Toys? - morricab 04:35:24 01/31/08
(0)
- RE: Toys? - KlausR. 01:43:06 01/31/08
(1)
- Toys? -nt - E-Stat 10:42:20 01/30/08
(2)
- Then what are those on the desk about 3 feet away? (nt) - mkuller 10:39:18 01/30/08
(3)
- Actually the 500s - E-Stat 10:35:59 01/30/08
(4)
- RE: High end audio = musical accuracy, you must be kidding! - morricab 04:24:18 01/31/08
(13)
- RE: High end audio = musical accuracy, you must be kidding! - KlausR. 06:29:54 01/30/08
(20)
- What criteria do you use - E-Stat 10:04:42 01/29/08
(5)
- In Reply to: RE: High end audio = musical accuracy, you must be kidding! posted by KlausR. on January 28, 2008 at 07:32:03
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?
rw
Edits: 01/29/08- Anechoic measurements, of course (nt) - KlausR. 09:23:20 01/30/08
(1)
- In Reply to: RE: What criteria do you use posted by E-Stat on January 29, 2008 at 10:04:42
.
- 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
- Now I'm on your wavelength - E-Stat 10:40:51 01/30/08
(0)
- the same ones that Consumer Reports used ;-) - Bruce from DC 12:10:12 01/29/08
(2)
- In Reply to: RE: What criteria do you use posted by E-Stat on January 29, 2008 at 10:04:42
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
- Hey, at least Consumer Reports has a sense of humor!... - Neil49 14:07:50 01/30/08
(0)
- Anechoic measurements, of course (nt) - KlausR. 09:23:20 01/30/08
(1)
- Back off Klaus... - mkuller 09:29:53 01/28/08
(27)
- In Reply to: RE: High end audio = musical accuracy, you must be kidding! posted by KlausR. on January 28, 2008 at 07:32:03
...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)
- In Reply to: RE: Back off Klaus... posted by mkuller on January 28, 2008 at 09:29:53
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.
- Wilson MAXX's... - mkuller 10:04:59 02/04/08
(0)
- RE: Looks like Wilson MAXX's...(nt) - anthonyh 09:08:23 02/04/08
(1)
- Looks like Wilson MAXX's...(nt) - mkuller 14:24:17 01/29/08
(2)
- There are some exceptional, um exceptions - E-Stat 14:19:04 01/29/08
(3)
- B & W speakers... - mkuller 10:51:21 01/29/08
(4)
- Studio vs high end - KlausR. 02:25:30 01/29/08
(20)
- In Reply to: RE: Back off Klaus... posted by mkuller on January 28, 2008 at 09:29:53
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
- RE: gives a more ideal radiation pattern - KlausR. 09:51:26 02/01/08
(0)
- What VMPS says about CD - morricab 02:16:33 02/01/08
(0)
- Sean Olive - KlausR. 08:08:27 01/31/08
(3)
- RE: Studio vs high end - morricab 04:54:53 01/31/08
(4)
- RE: Studio vs high end - KlausR. 05:51:55 01/30/08
(5)
- 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.
- Doesn't the link you provided above... - robert young 04:35:37 01/31/08
(0)
- Minimizing room effects - KlausR. 01:48:46 01/31/08
(1)
- Differences - E-Stat 10:56:35 01/30/08
(2)
- Back in the late '70's... - mkuller 09:47:18 01/30/08
(3)
- 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
- These are not exceptions! - KlausR. 04:45:57 01/31/08
(0)
- 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: So you'd call this small? - morricab 05:04:42 01/31/08
(0)
- I'll have to disagree - E-Stat 06:09:24 01/30/08
(4)
- 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: Studio vs high end - morricab 02:56:16 01/30/08
(0)
- RE: Back off Klaus... - anthonyh 08:19:34 01/29/08
(5)
Post a Followup:
