|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
166.137.126.120
In Reply to: RE: IDS 25 posted by Pat D on June 25, 2015 at 06:19:39
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!
Follow Ups:
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 .....
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: