Audio Asylum Thread Printer

Get a view of an entire thread on one page

Critic's Corner

Back off Klaus...

207.200.116.66

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

Follow Ups:

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)
  ...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)
    How about this guy? :)
    
    Now that's a monitor!
    
    rw
    - Looks like Wilson MAXX's...(nt) - mkuller 14:24:17 01/29/08 (2)
      (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)
  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)
  "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)
    > 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)
      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 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)
    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)
      ...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)
    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)
      "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)
      (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)
      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)
  > 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.

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.