|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
206.255.200.146
In Reply to: RE: Stereophile to review Magnepan!?.... posted by Pat D on June 21, 2015 at 13:02:21
Consumers find many practical constraints as to what they can audition. Local availability in one, and it depends on where one lives. So one is likely to be steered toward products a dealer prefers.
You really limit yourself that way? Sorry to hear that. I've traveled to both coasts of the US to audition gear and in between. I had a wonderful time when Brian Walsh hosted a meeting with the Chicago Audio Society and invited Dr. West of Soundlab. I enjoyed dinner and having many conversations with him. Along with helping out assembling the 945s for an auditioning. :)
So, the idea that one can select speakers just by listening to them ignores the whole process of how one gets around to listening to the speakers in the first place.
What on earth does this mean?
As for me, I've enjoyed auditioning a wide range of gear and meeting the principals of companies that I chose: Audio Research, VTL, Acoustat, and Sound Labs. You really need to get out more often. :)
Follow Ups:
Hello E-Stat!I agree with you 100% about the person really limiting himself that way! IMHO the statement So one is likely to be steered toward products a dealer prefers. is pure BS said by a lazy person who won't take the time travel at least 150+ miles or approx. 2 hours from his hoome to listen to audio components he cannot hear closer.
I live in Orlando, FL. and I was unable to find anything I presently own in my system from my integrated SET amp, tubed CDP, DAC to my speakers anywhere near my home! What I did was listen to what I could, did a lot of reading in forums and I took chances! For example: I heard Dr. Bob Hoekstra's Axiom Set amp ( see it at http://www.chimeralabs.com/chimera_labs_axiom_300B_single%20ended_set_tube%20amp_reviews.html ) at a Central Florida Audio Society annual, open to the public, get together! That amp amazed me, but didn't have enough power. So after a lot more reading I decided on purchasing a 40W/ch parallel SET amp, the Mastersound Reference 845 from a dealer in Canada and had it sent to Florida. Then before it was even available in the USA I read about the then BlueNote but now GoldNote Stibbert CDP. Everything I read praised this CDP. So I took another chance and purchased one directly from Italy.
Now it was time for speakers. There was a lot I liked about the Lowther driver in Hedlund horns that I heard with Dr. Bob Hoekstra's Axiom Set amp at the Central Florida Audio Society event I attended. Still I'm the type of guy who likes to try new and different things. So it was back to reading again and after a lot more reading I went to http://www.frugal-horn.com/ and paid Jeff Carder to build me a set of Sachiko double-back-loaded horns ---{ these are now the Kirishima cabinets }--- loaded with Fostex FE206e drivers. I later experimented with different Fostex, Lowther and different wide bandwidth drivers, until I settled on Dayton PS220-8 drivers with a $450 cone treatment applied! People now tell me the Sachiko/PS220-8/Fostex T900a super-tweeter combo easily competes with speakers from $10,000 to $20,000/pr!
My whole purpose in telling this story is to show only lazy people are forced to likely to be steered toward products a dealer prefers, as opposed to purchasing what they truly desire to. Yes, I took chances, but I ended up with the most musically satisfying audio system I've ever owned and ever heard, compared to 95% of what I've heard, anywhere else. In fact the ONLY audio system I've ever heard that I could immediately say I preferred was when I was invited over Arthur Salvatore's home and heard his double stacked Coincident Pure Reference Extreme speakers powered bi-amped by Coincident M300B Frankenstein for mids and highs and a pair of 211PP Dragons on the stacked bass cabinets. Of course Arthur used the Coincident Statement Line Stage as well as a Jean Nantais Lenco L-75 Idler-Drive "REFERENCE" TT and an APL NWO-Master, which is a highly modified version of the Esoteric UX-1Pi. CD/SACD! Truthfully Arthur's system sounded a lot like my system does when he played digital music, but his was a bit better at everything with even more transparency. However when he played Jean Nantais' Reference TT we moved to another planet. It was honestly that much better!
In the end we'll all end up with the system's we are willing to take the time, and yes, sometimes chances to put together. After 48 years in this hobby I've yet to have an audio sales personal anywhere take a gun and put it to my head. So, NO! no one can make you purchase any audio component you don't want to. Take the time read, read a lot, ask questions, ask a lot of questions and listen to everything you possibly can ---{ even system's that don't sound great can teach you what not to purchase }--- then when you're ready, assemble the system that sounds like live, unamplified, acoustic instruments & singers to you. If your audio system gets this part correct, it will get the rest correct by default!
I'm listening to: Positive Thinking by Acoustic Alchemy
Thetubeguy1954 (Tom Scata)
Central Florida Audio Society -- SETriodes Group -- Space Coast Audio Society
Full-range/Wide-range Drivers --- Front & Back-Loaded Horns --- High Sensitivity Speakers
Edits: 07/07/15 07/13/15
only lazy people are forced to likely to be steered toward products a dealer prefers,
A dealer. Indeed. Why limit yourself to a single dealer's products?
Hello my friend!
I cannot believe there are people who claim to be audiophiles/music lovers, but will only go listen to what can be purchased locally! One of my best tools for being able to confidentially purchase an audio component I haven't heard and cannot afford to travel to go hear ---{ the cannot "afford" can be a restraint of finances, health or time, which at that time prevents me from being able to go hear the audio device I'm interested in }--- is this:
I used to read virtually every TAS & Stereophile review printed from 1974 onto 1999. After reading an issue's reviews I made every effort to go listen to audio components that were reviewed. While listening I made notes about the components strengths & weaknesses. Then I'd go back home to see which reviewers review(s) came the closest to what I heard. In time I realized that Anthony Cordesman, HP and John Marks would usually come the closest to what my opinion of an audio component's sound was 90%+ of the time.
So if I was interested in an audio component and couldn't listen to it for myself, if one of these guys reviewed said component and gave it high marks sonically. Then the chances were quite good I'd like what I heard very much! So I'd take a chance and purchase unheard. I was never disappointed in any of such type purchases and was ecstatically happy a couple of times. I don't see why people couldn't still use that trick today!?!?! And if none of them reviewed it I would sometimes just take a chance and purchase the component anyway, but only if I found it used or on sale!
In any event heck with the audio naysayers. This is the only hobby I've ever been involved in that has so many negative people (objectivists), calling other, fellow hobbyists (subjectivists) liars and try to rob their audio joy. I'm going to enjoy the listening to the music until I either die or lose my hearing....
I'm listening to: Spirit Of The Wood by Glen Hegelson
Thetubeguy1954 (Tom Scata)
Central Florida Audio Society -- SETriodes Group -- Space Coast Audio Society
Full-range/Wide-range Drivers --- Front & Back-Loaded Horns --- High Sensitivity Speakers
Very well said. Kind of sad in a way.
I have never felt the need to have the gear I've owned validated by some review or measurement to make me feel better. I have bought and enjoyed gear that has been reviewed and measured, it was well liked, and I enjoyed it as well.
As for John Marks interest in the AT M50 headphones we can always go to the Innerfidelity website and check out the reviews of the old and improved models. I am still considering the investment, but I have owned and love my AKG K701s and just bought and broke in a pair of AKG K721mk2 (100 hours) that have not been reviewed and I love them, just a slight step below my 701 IMHO. I may still buy a pair of M50X's any way. The 721 are better than my 2 pair of Sony 7506s, but I know what those are when I bought them for $99 each.
I've gotten over buyers' remorse long ago because there might be something that sounds and measures better, because I know there always is. If people like the Maggies they should buy them for what the do, not because of what someone else thinks.
Jim Tavegia
Jim,
You and I seem to be in almost complete agreement. I've always recommended ---{ I recommend it because I do it }--- people purchase what sounds good to them ---{ which is not always the costliest }--- and not what friends or reviewers recommend they purchase. Hopefully these people will have taken the time to go and listen to as much live, unamplified, acoustic music as possible. This will allow them to know what saxes, pianos, acoustic guitars etc. sound like in as many different types of venues as possible. Thus enabling to be able to make educated choices when selecting different audio components. People who do this will usually be the happiest with their audio choices for longer periods of time.
I'm listening to: Melancholy Baby by Jaimee Paul
Thetubeguy1954 (Tom Scata)
Central Florida Audio Society -- SETriodes Group -- Space Coast Audio Society
Full-range/Wide-range Drivers --- Front & Back-Loaded Horns --- High Sensitivity Speakers
Thanks for the note and I will have to check out her music today.
I use to complain about the sound (recording quality) of some of the music I bought over time, not so much the performance but how it was captured and processed (mixed/mastered).
6 years ago I started doing some recording locally and bought some mics and a small Mackie 1202 and started recording at home and at local schools their fall, winter, and spring choral and band concerts to get a feel for how hard or easy it was go capture a performance. It really didn't matter to be how good the kids sang or played, just now well I could capture what was there.
Over time I have gotten pretty good at what I do within the confines of the gear that I own. My mic cabinet now consists of a pair of Rode NT1As and a pair of AKG C-3000 large mics 4 Behringer B5 pencil mics with uni and omni capsules, a pair of pencil Behringer C-5s for cymbals and the like, vocal mics including 2 Rode M-1s, 3 Sennheiser e835s and 1 945, and a omni Shure SM-63 vocal mic. I still have a Mackie 802VLZ and 2 Yamaha mixers my nicer MG16XU with 10 nice mic pres and built in Lexicon effects; and a smaller MG102C. The smaller ones I use at home for recording vocalist and acoustic players and I have a standalone Lexicon and Behringer reverbs for those as needed.
I have used direct micing on many performances and also use ORTF, spaced omnis ( which I like in a large venue with larger ensembles and quiet rooms, and the DECCA Tree arrangement with 3 large diaphragm mics. I need one more Rode NT-1A to really do that right. That will happen soon.
So after working on this I now have a better feel for why recordings sound like they do and how easy or hard it can be to do it right. I also know that there is way too much manipulation of performances that goes on in the mixing and mastering suites that CAN ruin a performance. I love the work of Sterling Sound as a mastering house. Most of the time doing less is the best thing to do. I get so many emails from software folks wanting to sell me plug-ins for mastering and it has become clear that there are too many ways to mess up a recording and performance.
I do some large ensemble recording for our local university with their Saxophone Ensemble that can be 25 to 50 players and have learned much about doing bigger work in a not so perfect venue. Most often it is noisy HVAC systems that can ruin a performance with a very high noise floor.
All of my work now is 2496 with redbook backups and I only record on 2 Tascam DR-2ds at 2496 and a Tascam DR-07 MK1 that is 16/44.1 . They are remarkable sounding SDHC card recorders for almost no money. I hope to buy a new Tascam 680 mk2 this year that can do up to 8 tracks of 2496 or 2 tracks of 24/192. The little recorders are great for doing needle drops of my lps very easily. I don't do many, though. I just play them.
My software is Sony Sound-Forge Audio Studio ($69) for mastering; Sony CD Architect ($59) for cd burning, and Cirlinca ($39) for burning DVD-Rs of wav files. I can burn all of my 2496 recordings using Cirlinca and play them back in any DVD player. That is very nice. Just about anyone with a current DVD player can enjoy high rez recordings in 2496 this way. All that software is affordable. Sound Forge will handle up to 24/192 pcm.
I have many folks who sing at church ( I do many solos during the year) come over and practice and take home their work so they can hear how they sound. That is the only way a vocalist or performer gets better by recording, hearing themselves and making adjustments.
Some of my recordings are on my SoundClound account under James Tavegia, even the school recordings. The Home Depot Drums is a middle school and high school band playing the large, orange paint buckets from Home Depot. Pretty neat. At 68, my singing is what it is.
So we do have much in common in that it is only how things sound that matter and there is so much affordable gear that sounds great that often it is the recording that holds our gear back, surprisingly.
I have been enjoying Mary Chapin Carpenter's Songs from The Movie CD as this is her music set with orchestrations which is very nice. But, the mastering often has the orchestra walking all over her vocals making it harder to understand the lyrics at times. One must agonize over choosing the right vocal mic for a singer. The wrong one can make the lyrics unintelligible and not make the singer sound their best. That is why I have so many and will buy a few more models. They all sound different on different voices. Wind screens are a must, generally.
I also downloaded the MCC Songs From The Movie 2496 version from HD Tracks and it sounds different and somewhat better at times, but I have no way of knowing what files they used as native files and who mastered it. But, still beautiful.
I will check out that girl singer.
Regards, Jim
Jim Tavegia
Good stuff ...... Would love to hear one of your big stuff recordings one day ..
Tom , thanks for that Jaimee Paul info , I had done a search to see if she was related to Billy Paul , apparently not, searched my CD library can't believe I don't have her on my list ...
Regards
Edits: 07/14/15 07/14/15
You can check out my soundcloud account or send me a PM with your address and I'll burn you a DVD-R of wav files.
I've been downloading a fair amount of Linn and eClassical stuff at 2496.
Jim Tavegia
This is true Tom ,I once helped a good friend who was a non audiophile but a serious music lover put together a system , he attends live shows only and constantly. After selecting what I thought was best for his budget I took him to have a listen , he was placed in the sweet spot and started listening to songs he was familiar with , well mostly from hearing them played live at different venues. I could see by the 3rd track he was kinda uncomfortable about something so I asked , what's up , his response it all sounded weird to him , where instruments and voices seem to be coming not from the speakers but floating from space around it , the imaging thing was kinda spooky to him , it just didn't sound right , nothing like when he listens live , so I moved him to the rear of the room , far from the speakers and way out of the sound field for good imaging, yep , nailed it ! He then turns to me and said , now it sounds like when he listens live , sounds like a band .
And so it goes .... :)
Regards
Edits: 07/14/15 07/14/15
It's all good, but for some of us, it helps to see the measurements while reading the subjective review, for eg...
Harbeth 40.1, abysmal measurements fluffed over and given a thumbsup on sound. Obvious both JA and the reviewer loved them , and many talk good about Harbeth, obvious to me from the measurement its a pretty colored sounding speaker, so it may not be for everyone who are sensitive to it's anomolies.
But they make Music to those who like them, just good to know the objective and subjective side of things ..
Regards...
as good an idea as your travels , dinners etc. is , it takes a healthy
disposable income to avail yourself of these opportunities. I'm not in
that category and I imagine that is not unique among members here.
Trying to audition and select components ( often nearly impossible )
is a real problem .
I was responding to Pat D's apparent lack of understanding how folks are able to hear what speakers are available. Let's review his comments:
So, the idea that one can select speakers just by listening to them ignores the whole process of how one gets around to listening to the speakers in the first place.
There is no magic to the formula. Do you share his opinion that the answer is reading graphs?
"There is no magic to the formula."
No, there isn't. There are methodologies, however, to coming up with a list of speaker one would want to audition. You have yours, I have mine.
"Do you share his opinion that the answer is reading graphs?"
Of course, I said nothing of the sort. Answer to what?
If you thought about it, you would realize that no one could find a good set of measurements for every speaker in the world, anymore than one could audition every speaker in the world.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Answer to what?
How to select loudspeakers. I listen. You interpret measurement graphs.
If you thought about it, you would realize that no one could find a good set of measurements for every speaker in the world, anymore than one could audition every speaker in the world.
You cannot find a good set of measurements (in the sense of providing enough relevant information) for any speaker in the world!
I'm with John Atkinson when he says (from the lecture linked to elsewhere in this thread):
"All measurements tell lies...The only reliable judge of quality in a speaker, of how good it is, is in the listener's ear." :)
Amen, John.
You still choose to misrepresent what I say.
"How to select loudspeakers." No, one of the things I have talked about is how to select loudspeakers to audition. To suppose that you do solely by listening unreal. You can only listen to a small proportion of the loudspeakers available and there are various ways to figure out which ones to actually audition. You rely on other people's impressions, and I do, too, to some extent. I also like to use measurements, which I use to screen out lots of speakers and which indicate to me that other speakers are worth listening to.
"You cannot find a good set of measurements (in the sense of providing enough relevant information) for any speaker in the world!"
Enough relevant information for what? They certainly can tell me that there are some speakers that I would not like, or would not like very well, or that the speaker would be difficult to place, and that there are some speakers that I most probably would like. It works for me. If it doesn't work for you, don't use measurements as screening tools. I have not suggested that one buy speakers without auditioning them, much though you try to imply otherwise.
I can only take these remarks by JA as metaphorical: "All measurements tell lies..."
You see, measurements are not the kind of things that can lie. Lying requires and intellectual being who intends to say something false or misleading. Measurements may not tell you what you want to know, or you may misinterpret them, but they do not lie.
"The only reliable judge of quality in a speaker, of how good it is, is in the listener's ear."
Of course, ears on not very reliable for that unless steps are taken to eliminate bias in the listening situation.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
> I can only take these remarks by JA as metaphorical: "All measurements
> tell lies..."Indeed.
> You see, measurements are not the kind of things that can lie. Lying
> requires and intellectual being who intends to say something false or
> misleading. Measurements may not tell you what you want to know, or you
> may misinterpret them, but they do not lie.The measurements do not lie as such. But the person performing a
measurement has to have an idea of what the outcome will be, before he
performs it, just as with a slide rule, which I instanced in my 2011
Richard Heyser lecture (scroll down at the page linked below).The example of this that sticks in my mind was back in late 1989, when
Stereophile had first purchased a MLSSA system for speaker measurement.
My assistant that that time had written a review, complete with
measurements made with MLSSA. As soon as I saw the graphs, I realized
that they were "lying," thus invalidating that section of the review.There had been a system set-up error that resulted in the MLSSA input
board measuring crosstalk from its output section rather than the signal
output by the speaker. The person performing the measurement had not
comprehended from the measurement that he had done something wrong,
that he had not measured what he thought he was measured. In other words,
he had not detected that his measurement was lying to him.He had to repeat the measurements before the speaker review could be
published.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 06/25/15 06/25/15
.
To suppose that you do solely by listening unreal.
Too funny! Sorry, I don't share your meter reader mentality. I listen to music for enjoyment. What do you do?
Enough relevant information for what?
Don't know about you, but I purchase speakers for listening to music. What is your goal?
Lying requires and intellectual being who intends to say something false or misleading.
You'll have to take up that lost cause with the individual who made that observation - John Atkinson.
This has been fun to read...I am a big image guy and I walk around "IN" my soundstage...never did that with poodle burial coffins...
"I don't share your meter reader mentality. I listen to music for enjoyment. What do you do?"
Boom...drop the mic...
I like my room dividers and really do not care how they measure...they constantly surprise me and show me the emotional spine of the music...
but hey, that's why they make Ford's and Chevy's...
Thanks
Mark
How do you decide whether to try out or audition specific speakers?
One of the tools I use is speaker performance measurements.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Hey Pat..
My speakers before the 3.7i's were 1.6's (were tweaked out with an outboard passive x-over) and I had those for 13 years. I had a pair of Infinity's for 6 years before that...
I am a guy that does not rotate allot of gear...all of those were auditioned at the dealers...any piece that I replace has to be a drastic improvement...also I am very cheap...
I have been to a few Audio shows, but don't have great expectations when I listen there. Just looking for potential then investigate more if something interests me....
I have never hidden that I am not too tech savvy on AA Forums...Hence why I like you tech guys...I have learned allot from the inmates here, which I thought this whole internet thing was about...
MY biggest test when auditioning is do my Audiophile ears lapse and I find myself being pulled into the Music....Listening verses enjoying...
I do understand where you are coming from and that works for you...which is great. But there are a million ways to get things done...hence the Ford's and Chevy's comment...
thanks
Mark
There are hundreds of speakers with pretensions to be high fidelity available in the world. E-state cannot listen to them all. Somehow, anyone who wants to audition speakers must find some manageable way of picking out the speakers he wants to audition. Some speakers are just eliminated due to circumstances beyond his control, some by conscious decisions. E-stat knows this but is just playing with me by picking a sentence out of context and applying it do a different context.
I don't change my equipment very often, either. I have tried to get equipment as good as needed. Going from memory, I got my preamp about 1993, my subwoofer in the late 90's, my speakers about 2005, and my CDP a few years ago and a receiver a few years ago to use as a tuner and spare amp, if needed.
My history with speakers is that I got Kef 104s in 1976, Quad ESL-63s in 1993, and Paradigm Signature S2s in 2005. While trying to choose main speakers, I got PSB Stratus Minis in 2004 with the intention of putting them in the family room, where they work wonderfully well for movies.
I use 12 gauge speaker cables I got in the 1980s, interconnects as needed, nothing expensive, as they should make no audible difference. When reviewers show they can hear differences with controlled DBTs, I will start to believe them.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
E-state cannot listen to them all.
First of all, I don't have to. No one is going to review nor measure every speaker available. Is this news to you?
You prefer reading graphs presenting limited information. I prefer listening to or having others listen to speakers. That is where we disagree.
E-Stat,
Here lies the ultimate problem with your approach. Full sets of measurements are facts. It's the subjective, poetic nonsense you keep spewing that is fiction, do you believe by asking the same questions over and over the facts will go away ?
What you like subjectively is yours , it's audio and eventually all choices will be subjective at decision time , what's ironically flying over your head is the ability to narrow down what works for you by using objective measurements . Morricab for example has determined amplifiers with low to no NFB hits his sweet spot , you have determined monkey coffins don't work for you and prefer panels , there are scientific reason why and that's what's In discussion ...
Regards
Full sets of measurements are facts.
Maybe but are those facts useful information and can you interpret them? If the answer is no to either one then objective facts might as well be Egyptian hieroglyphics to you. In fact that is what they are to 99% of even the people who generate those "facts" nevermind the average audiophile.
It is exactly the inability to understand those "facts" as you put it that steered us down the wrong road of hifi reproduction for so long.
Subjective can be made to have a strong degree of objectivity and reproducibility if done correctly. It is done in other fields where human senses are the detector of the quality of a thing.
Take wine, I can perform a full chemical analysis on a 5 buck bottle and also on a 100 buck bottle and present you with those "facts" and they will be true and objective. I can give you the concentrations of retinoids, tannin, sugars, acids etc. but will this give you any concept as to which one will taste better? Maybe if something is WAY out of balance you can guess it might be sour or bitter etc. but nothing in the way of texture, complexity, fruitiness most likely. Hifi measurements are like me giving you a chemical analysis of a wine and asking you to tell me how it will taste and which one will you like to drink the most based on my analytical report.
Now, you can be clever about it and measure the wine and then do taste testing to establish drinker preferences and then correlate that with what you found in your lab report...in fact this is what a lot of companies do to optimize the taste of their products to consumer demand. Hifi doesn't bother with this because the engineers who design the stuff are obsessed with what their meters read and think that people should like better what measures better. They look at this backwards. Humans are the detectors...finding out what they like best and then tailoring the gear to meet that demand is the right way. Correlation to human perception and then designed to meet those demands is the right way.
| Maybe if something is WAY out of balance you can guess it might be sour or bitter etc. but nothing in the way of texture, complexity, fruitiness most likely. Hifi measurements are like me giving you a chemical analysis of a wine and asking you to tell me how it will taste and which one will you like to drink the most based on my analytical report.
So sure are you padawan?
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/229011001_Wine_vinification_prediction_using_data_mining_tools
With a sufficiently large data set of reasonably calibrated measurements and human perceptual judgement, I bet that one could make a model which predicts judgments much better than chance averaged over judges, and when enhanced further with existing wines that a particular judge does and does not like (collaborative filtering) improve the prediction further.
(and there are hundreds of papers on predicting wine ratings and prices from various forms of inputs, chemical or agricultural or climatic)
It's pretty simple Cab, if I give you a fruity wine with an XYZ composition and you tell me it's the best , the objective measurement identifies what composition suits your subjective palete. it's the same for audio , the measurements don't tell me what you will subjectively like , it identifies it .....
Regards ...
to answer my question! You continue to prove me correct that you don't have the slightest idea as to speaker tests that show imaging or coherency abilities. Maybe you cannot sense either and don't understand the question.
Apparently, simplistic facts are all you require. Not me.
"First of all, I don't have to. No one is going to review nor measure every speaker available. Is this news to you?"
Of course it is not news to me. I maintained that for years, and it is nice to see you finally admit it. But it does show that no matter what some audiophiles say, they do not select speakers by listening alone. In fact, as you now admit, you have some method of deciding which speakers among the myriads available that you will actually audition, which means you have selected out, rejected, many other speakers without listening to them.
"You prefer reading graphs presenting limited information. I prefer listening to or having others listen to speakers. That is where we disagree."
No matter how you decide what speakers, out of the many available, you will actually listen to, you are going to decide based on limited information. Reports by others of their listening experience, s still provides limited information. I find such reports of some use in making an audition list and in some cases they indicate things I want to listen for, to see if what they say is true. So I by no means reject using recommendations by others as to what speakers are worth trying out, especially if more than one reviewer likes them.
However, in addition, I like wherever possible to see a good set of measured results. But checking out reviewers opinions is another use of measurements. If a reviewer often recommends speaker with measurements so bad that I know I will not like them, then I tend to ignore that reviewer. On the other hand, if I find a reviewer consistently recommends speakers I figure I will like, hen I would tend to try to listen to those speakers.
Measurements are also useful in assessing just how good a speaker is compared to others on the market which may be quite difficult for me to audition. I can be sure that my speakers are among the very best monitor speakers available.
Of course, there might be some other speakers which I would prefer if I ever did listen to them, which does not mean it is necessarily objectively better. But that is true no matter how you buy speakers. Someone just mght come up with a speaker you would like better. We cannot listen to everything.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
!
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
Yet another baseless comment. I've never said that every speaker available has been reviewed or tested. Are you on medication?
We already get the fact that you employ and trust simplistic tests for your evalution process. Do you forget what you have written (time and time again)?
The last time I did was in 1972 following a Hirsch-Houck test of the AR Integrated amp. Measures great. Unfortunately, it sounded poor. I learned my lesson then.
E-stat
"We already get the fact that you employ and trust simplistic tests for your evalution process. Do you forget what you have written (time and time again)?"
Really? Are you saying that listening to speakers at length with a variety of program materials chosen to show differences in speakers simplistic? Because that's how I audition speakers.
"Yet another baseless comment. I've never said that every speaker available has been reviewed or tested. Are you on medication?"
When someone says he/she selects speakers based on listening alone (the audiophile mantra), that implies he/she has checked out every speaker. This is obviously contrary to fact. Give up the audiophile mantra. You can only listen to a relatively small number of speakers out of a much larger number of speakers. How did you screen out the vast majority of speakers which you have never heard? Hint: it wasn't by listening to them.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Are you saying that listening to speakers at length with a variety of program materials chosen to show differences in speakers simplistic?You completely miss what I've said. No surprise there. Your devotion to numbers and graphs is the topic of all my observations.
When someone says he/she selects speakers based on listening alone (the audiophile mantra), that implies he/she has checked out every speaker.
So, Sherlock - when you base your trust on simplistic numbers and graphs, you must be guilty of the same thing! Too funny!
You can only listen to a relatively small number of speakers out of a much larger number of speakers.
You can only view the graphs for a relatively small number of speakers out of a much larger number of speakers.
The only difference in our culling the wheat from the chaff is trusting incomplete numbers vs listener reviews. That concept evidently continues to fly wayyyyy over your head.
You like to look at numbers. I like to hear what experienced listeners observe.
Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
Edits: 06/26/15
E-Stat
"So, Sherlock - when you base your trust on simplistic numbers and graphs, you must be guilty of the same thing! Too funny!"Not only false but utter nonsense. The results of speaker measurements are a tool I like to use when available. They are not the only tool for compiling an audition list.
"You can only view the graphs for a relatively small number of speakers out of a much larger number of speakers."
Of course. When have I ever said otherwise? Measurements results are one tool that I can use when available.
"The only difference in our culling the wheat from the chaff is trusting incomplete numbers vs listener reviews."
Actually, I use both listener reviews and measurements in compiling an audition list, a concept which you seem to refuse to understand. In any case, it is only possible to survey a small proportion of the speakers available.
When I have compiled my audition list, from that point on I rely on my own listening.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Edits: 06/26/15
yeah, i get them from my MMGs which i alternate with spendor S3/5s .....AND my 1975 Fried model RIIs that i just hooked up again after about 15 years setting in my other room. they sound just as good now as when they were new. with a sub, they are wonderful.
i never once relied on measurements for speaker selection. i guess thats why i have told myself that i can detect the differences in wire.
...regards...tr
No, I don't but I appreciate Stereophile's speaker measurements to the extent that it reveals the real sensitivity of a loudspeaker ( often very different to the manufacturers spec )and a very noticeable rising top end likely to be heard in any setup etc.
If you live outside a major urban area hearing high end components becomes a major road trip and the chances of hearing it in your own system slim.
So you read the audiophile press, try to interpret some measurements when possible and often learn the hard way which is exactly what those of more modest means don't need.
Like everything else in a consumers life ,those with higher incomes have more choices . Your story just illustrates that.
I doubt if Dr. West of Soundlab would be much interested in having dinner with me. You mention meeting with people from four (4) manufacturers. That still is quite a limited selection.
For example, did you ever spend time with Leo Lewis of Ethera and listen to his speakers? No? His Ethera Vitae is a very fine speaker, which measures superbly, BTW.
Local availability is a constraint. It can be overcome to some extent by traveling or ordering speakers in. But even if you travel to out of town dealers or manufacturers, they are still limited as to what they carry.
You can only listen to a selection of the speakers available. Willy nilly, many are selected out by many different circumstances. You may never have heard of quite a few. Others may be little more than names to you, so you lack any information that would lead you to spend the time and effort to audition them. Others may be difficult to obtain for audition. As for word of mouth, I tend to pay less attention to what some reviewer says than to what a good set of speaker measurements shows.
There are various things which might call your attention to a speaker, out of the many available. Maybe you like the brand. Maybe you hobnobbed with the manufacturer. Maybe you heard it in a show and liked it. Maybe one or more reviewers liked it. Maybe a dealer thinks it is a speaker you really should audition. As I said:
"So, the idea that one can select speakers just by listening to them ignores the whole process of how one gets around to listening to the speakers in the first place."
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
For example, did you ever spend time with Leo Lewis of Ethera and listen to his speakers?
Sorry, I'm not moved by little boxes.
Willy nilly, many are selected out by many different circumstances.
When all else fails, just make stuff up.
I carefully researched what is available, what trusted ears have said about them and explore for myself.
Enjoy returning to your graph interpretations!
On the other hand, I never had any particular desire to have dinner with Dr. West of Soundlab. Is he a gracious host? A man of wide culture? A scintillating conversationalist?
E-stat
"I carefully researched what is available, what trusted ears have said about them and explore for myself."
Yeah, so did I. But what is available? There's the rub. There are lots of speakers that you and your folks with trusted ears never heard, some never even heard of, so however you try to put it, a lot of speakers are screened out, selected out, by various circumstances over which you had no control.
Actually, a good set of speaker measurements from the NRC (Soundstage) or Stereophile can be a very useful tool, not the only one, in deciding which speaker to screen out and which speaker to audition
For example, your prejudices about little boxes would keep you from auditioning the superb Ethera Vitae. But if anyone is interested, I have linked to some NRC measurement results.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
On the other hand, I never had any particular desire to have dinner with Dr. West of Soundlab.
Forget the specific as that was an example. Wouldn't you like to have a long conversation with any designer of gear you have? Wouldn't you like to understand their philosophy and take on musical reproduction? Perhaps it would impress you more to say I met Keven Voecks at Sea Cliff years ago. Along with other designers I haven't mentioned.
I sure do. And have.
There are lots of speakers that you and your folks with trusted ears never heard,
Perhaps. Has anyone heard them? Does anyone find they are worthy?
Actually, a good set of speaker measurements from the NRC (Soundstage) or Stereophile can be a very useful tool,
Maybe for you, but not for me. They don't provide enough useful information about imaging in many different ways nor about coherency.
your prejudices about little boxes would keep you from auditioning the superb Ethera Vitae
I'll go out on a limb and say that a two way box with an 8" woofer could never provide a lifelike sized image to me. I found the same to be true with the Quad electrostat. I was always aware of listening down to them. BTW, Siggy Linkwitz finds the same to be true.
"Vertical height of the sound stage adds to its realism. I find small 2-way speakers very unsatisfactory in this respect, even when they are correctly positioned at ear level height."
Good for you, that's your preference. On the other hand, you mention some quite objective factors that you use to screen out speakers from your audition list.
When I look for speakers to audition, I prefer to have a good set of measurements, especially if I have to go to a considerable effort to find them. If I just have to go down the street to audition them, that's easy enough but the selection is pretty limited. Measurements are more reliable than other people's opinions on the sound of speakers.
I value neutrality more than a lot of image height, pace Siegfried Linkwitz. I heard some very tall McIntosh speakers which provided a very tall image, but the sound appeared to me to be somewhat colored.
As I have said before, my favorite speaker reviewers are currently John Atkinson, Andrew Marshall, and Doug Schneider. All three utilize measurements.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
that's your preference.
Yes, my preference is for the image to sound lifelike!
On the other hand, you mention some quite objective factors that you use to screen out speakers from your audition list.
Factors measurements do not answer.
Measurements are more reliable than other people's opinions on the sound of speakers.
Only if you find the most basic of information to provide sufficient useful information.
I don't. No more than looking at THD charts! :)
When I audition speakers, I don't need other people to tell me how they sound.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
just simplistic numbers and graphs to tell you how they sound. LOL!
BTW, I agree about McIntosh speakers. Did Roger Russell ever design anything that sounded good? The C-26 was horrible. Old Mac speakers are horrible. Business took me to Binghamton, NY several years back. I was given a very gracious tour of the manufacturing facilities followed by auditioning their top end gear in their listening room. Nice folks. Their best system was powerful and large, but not particularly dimensional. HP's many systems at Sea Cliff were far better.
On the other hand, I would like to hear his IDS-25 some day. Are you familiar with the concept? Full range, crossoverless floor to ceiling line array with EQ to help the extremes. In his retirement, he might actually have produced something interesting. And he used Cardas wiring to boot! Naturally to placate those who lack his superior senses. :)
What? There's a speaker you think might be interesting and you never heard it? Not worth the trouble to go find it, perhaps? Oh dear, so there's a principle of selection besides actually listening to it. I thought you listened to everything!
I heard a speaker very much like that. The young man showing it at a dealer said it was McIntosh but maybe he was just using a name he thought I might recognize. I didn't take the time to experiment with it as I wasn't really interested at the time. I just played my favorite orchestral test piece and quickly found it colored. But the speakers may have been too close for the best effect.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
If I were in the market for a speaker, I would locate a pair to evaluate which might require going to Florida where he lives. It appears RR has stopped taking them to shows. Their chief advantages for me would be two things you cannot determine via measurements: coherency and imaging. I guess that pretty much explains why you don't find a single graph on the IDS website.
What you do find is lots of philosophy, design goals and - listening impressions!
Two things you cannot determine via measurements: coherency and imaging- EStat
That's your opinion E-Stat , nothing to do with science ....
to provide some specific examples of each that correlate to what we hear? I confess that I've never seen such in any of the loudspeaker tests I've seen.
Perhaps you can enlighten all of us.
... considering what these people usually have for amps, front ends, cables etc. What good is speaker's ability to image, if POS amplifier has no such ability of its own?
Can't hear - no need to measure. Problem solved.
Pat is still waiting for "good evidence" to come in about a number of audio components. :)
Reminds me of the old PropHead days.
Somewhere along the way I guess I stopped caring about what other people believe. If they want to shortchange their listening pleasure because of a failure to experiment, it's just a "what they don't know won't hurt them" issue. No one gets hurt, and that's just fine with me.
But carry on! It's a fun read.
What I find most interesting is the reasoning process or experience behind someone's beliefs. I have changed my opinion on more than one occasion when a persuasive point is made.
"So, why do you find this to be true?"
When they cannot explain it or just throw in a graph or some terms they think sound technical, you know they really have no understanding.
I think john did already , theres a lot measurements tell us, designers have to used them , what measurements can't tell me , you or John is ones taste .
You may favor a certain distortion or coloration over another , hence we have more speaker types and brands than you can shake a stick at ..
Regards
At the expense of confusing the issue with facts, JA has stated previously (in an Ayre preamp review) there are no measurements for these characteristics.
Get back on topicE-Stat ,Magnapan has something to hide , no problem , the speaker measures poorly and John caved, gave into an informercial , I'm sure you will be happy on its release , unfortunately regardless of how much you like them , The reality is , there's no test to verifying its performance improvement , which is important to the rest of us..
Regards
Edits: 06/25/15 06/25/15
Especially when they are acknowledged by the tester to be "clearly wrong".
JA did not say the measurements are clearly wrong, he said "The usual assumption, that the measuring microphone is very much farther away than the largest dimension of the speaker being measured, is clearly wrong." To that he was referring to the far field assumption, which is an incorrect assumption for most multi-driver dynamic speakers. The assumption is especially wrong for big speakers with 3 or more drivers, line arrays, and panel speakers. Nevertheless, it does not invalidate the measurements, because at typical real world listening distances, you are still in the near field of such speakers. It's not like the measurement is near field but listening is far field. They are both near field.
Have you ever heard a Quad with a 10 db rise at 40 hz? I sure haven't.
Quad 2805 measurements
When listening to panels and other open baffle speakers in the near field, the bass balance is a variable of distance. With big panels, it's less so, because the smaller the panel, the greater the affected frequency range. I did hear Quad 988s once in a more nearfield setup at ~7 ft listening distance and there was a noticeable rise through the bass, probably not 10 dB but enough to make some tracks sound over-ripe in the bass.
All of Stereophile's loudspeaker measurements indicate bass output greater than what you will get in room, due to the near field measurement technique. JA explains this over and over again. Panels are more affected than other designs. As long as you are aware of what to expect from a given measurement technique, you can glean useful information from it.
Just from looking at the Quad 2805 measurements, you can guess that they should sound very neutral in the midrange and coherent, and have pinpoint imaging, but rolled off on top. And that correlates reasonably well with my other listening impressions. I recall a very clear and neutral midrange, tiny pinpoint images, and less sparkle, shimmer, and air on the top end than I'm used to.
As long as you are aware of what to expect from a given measurement technique, you can glean useful information from it.
I aver most folks are not and unless they read all the qualifications, would not understand. I don't know of anyone who would listen to large panels at a 4' distance which is how they are measured.
Especially when they are acknowledged by the tester to be "clearly wrong". -E Stat
Read between the lines , more than one testing facility have produced similar results , you should research more ..
Regards
yet another empty post devoid of any facts. And another comma splice.
Coherency and imaging. Coherency is a rather vague term, so it is hard to correlate it with anything. Imaging is much more intelligible.
You take a remark from a measurement of a preamp. Speakers are something else, and there are certainly some things which affect the imaging. See Fig. JA used to make a remark similar to this, but perhaps even dispersion is so common he doesn't bother anymore.
"Other than a slight lack of off-axis energy between 1 and 2kHz, presumably due to the slightly oversized woofer, the contour lines below 8kHz in this graph are both even and evenly spaced, correlating with the stable, well-defined stereo imaging I noted n speaker in my auditioning."
http://www.stereophile.com/content/paradigm-reference-signature-s2-loudspeaker-measurements
This is one case where I prefer the horizontal dispersion graph shown in Soundstage, since it gives the actual responses instead of the differences between the on axis response and off axis responses. The on axis measurements in the highs show anomalies which do not show in the off axis response, so the Stereophile article has to explain why it matters little with this Class A Limited LF Extension. See Chart 1. Notice the off axis response is at a slightly lower level.
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/paradigm_signature_s2/
JA thought the speaker was very slightly forward, and he also explains what he thinks correlates with it.
"Fig.8 shows the response of the Signature S2s in my listening room, averaged for each speaker in a vertical window centered on the position of my ears. The graph is impressively flat from 80Hz to 20kHz, though with slight excesses of upper-bass and mid-treble energy apparent. The former goes some way toward compensating for the S2's lack of mid- and low-bass output, while the latter is not unexpected, given my feelings about the speaker's slightly forward treble balance."
Now, I think the speaker is a bit laid back, and if you look at the NRC at the Listening Window graph, Chart 2, on the Soundstage site, you may see why, as it slopes just slightly down where it counts most.
I should mention that you can be sure that those who manufacture surround sound processors have a pretty good idea what affects imaging.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Coherency relates to the notion of hearing a single speaker rather than a chorus of separate drivers. I am especially sensitive to this characteristic. What measures this?
Correlation and causation are not always the same. One may assign correlation when in fact there may be other factors at work.
Tell us about image height measurements. Tell us about soundstage depth measurements.
Stereo Sound Processor manufacturers? That is hilarious. Have you ever heard one that sounded real? I'm not referring to phase gimmickry that may sound cool for a short time until you realize there is nothing natural sounding about the result. Let's return to quantifying how speakers may or may not reproduce certain characteristics of music.
Are you going to echo the same "I can't tell you what they are - but I just know they exist" line?
Well, I showed you somethings which can affect the stereo image, including forward or back presentation. One problem of the way you ask about this is that if you are measuring the performance of equipment, we are not measuring you perception of soundstage width, depth, and height. A stereo image is an illusion, and audio measurements do not directly measure your subjective experience.
I have not covered image height. There is absolutely no reason why I should explain what measured factors are relevant to stereo image, as it is not my field. Obviously, someone must know how to produce an illusory sound source extending above the speakers. I have a Chesky Test CD which using electronically generated signals can do exactly that with quality speakers placed in an environment without too many near reflections.
http://www.amazon.com/Chesky-Records-Sampler-Audiophile-Compact/dp/B000003GF3/ref=sr_1_2?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1435363098&sr=1-2&keywords=chesky+test+cd
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Well, I showed you somethings which can affect the stereo image, including forward or back presentation
Sorry, I'm not recalling that. So, exactly what measurements quantify what we hear as depth and width?
we are not measuring you perception of soundstage width, depth, and height.
This is what I'm saying. I couldn't have said it any better. There's a huge gap between measurements and the entirety of what we perceive.
I have not covered image height.
I have a Chesky Test CD...
Chesky does some nice stuff, but why limit the evaluation to a *test* disk? I evaluate image height with every recording. Especially those like the ASO Firebird where I participated in the recording - and heard takes from the master tape during the three day session.
You're not alone. No one covers image height with *measurements*.
"This is what I'm saying. I couldn't have said it any better. There's a huge gap between measurements and the entirety of what we perceive."
Actually, you don't get the point. I don't know how it be made clearer, but you manage to muck it up. When we measure the speaker, we are measuring the speaker, not you. You are subject to all sorts of internal influences which have nothing to do with the speakers.
"I evaluate image height with every recording. Especially those like the ASO Firebird where I participated in the recording - and heard takes from the master tape during the three day session."
I would rather enjoy the music or other program material on the recordings.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
So, exactly what measurements quantify what we hear as depth and width?
Choose whatever graphs and numbers you please. And, correlate the results.
Do enlighten all us!
... either sudden change of subject, or just dead silence.
Actually, you can see both right now - from both (non)respondents.
All those characteristics are brought into complete clarity and quantifiable means via:
Horizontal axis avg thru 40deg and step response
Not.
Horizontal axis avg thru 40deg and step response , if you could get rid of the frame buzz and stored energy you so enjoy.....
Edits: 06/25/15
At the risk of apples vs oranges , yes .....
This is what i propose, you can hear what is measured, the measurement does tell the tale, it does not tell what one will like /dislike, under such a premise, all speakers are equal, some more than others...
The End.....
you can hear what is measured, the measurement does tell the tale.
A part of the tale, yes. I'm with John Atkinson on his different take on the subject as found in this video.
"All measurements tell lies...The only reliable judge of quality in a speaker, of how good it is, is in the listener's ear." :)
My version is different,
"All listeners tell lies, or the truth as they see it ,that particular moment in time, The only reliable judge of the quality in a speaker, or of how good it is, is in the testing microphone's ear." :)
Regards...
Edits: 06/22/15
... the apotheosis of so-called "objectivist" nonsense.
Or stupidity. Not Peter Breuninger's, not mine - just your utter, unadulterated stupidity.
Peter said Chaff not "Shaft" , you can let go now .......
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: