[
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]
|
Home
/ FAQ
/ News Classifieds / Events |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer |
Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
83.84.178.82
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!!!
"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??
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
"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.
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
As long as you stop spreading misconceptions, Klaus, then I have achieved my goal with this debate.
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]