- 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)
Post a Followup:
