 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.209.33.106
In Reply to: RE: For the record, Art did do--or at least facilitate... posted by Jim Austin on May 15, 2012 at 13:55:19
I mean it just don't get more preposterous, heck the stuff you listed (quote below) seem almost tame compared to the Belt "Photos in Fridge" tweak. LOL
"Subjectivists, meanwhile, sometimes seem to intentionally hold themselves up for ridicule. A few audio writers, especially for the online 'zines, seem eager to prostitute themselves for the latest preposterous product—the Intelligent Chip, the Shakti Hallograph Soundfield Optimizer, the Machina Dynamica Brilliant Pebbles, the Marigo Audio Lab Dots, the Tice Clock. Meanwhile, some prominent industry folks have consistently failed, in my opinion, to maintain a sufficiently skeptical posture toward such products. It doesn't help that in audio there has been a long tradition—a dogma, even—of "trusting your ears," despite abundant evidence from neuroscience and cognitive psychology that our ears and other senses, though supremely acute, are supremely unreliable."
Short’s the best position they is. Bullet in the Brain
Follow Ups:
... come at audio from different directions, obviously. But as far as I'm concerned, he's the best writer about audio there is.
Jim
I don't like the look of JA's measurements of Art's system: too rolled off in the highs, and too pronounced in the bass, like a Vandersteen speaker driven by CJ tubes. Of course, many love that sound, but, IMO, it's NOT really high end.
> > too rolled off in the highs
Not enough "tizz" for you from the upward trending treble?
When they discover the center of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it. ~ Bernard Bailey
Just look at JA's measurements of Art's "high end" system: it's simply HORRIBLE: down 10 dB at 10,000, and with a huge bass peak. I suspect that the problem is the VASTLY over-priced Shindo gear (and, perhaps the modestly over-priced AN speakers).
At the time of this measurement (2006) Art did not own any Shindo gear:Here are the amps used for the Harbeths and Audio Notes as noted under equipment:
Preamplification: Linn Linto phono preamplifier; Audio Note M3 Phono, Naim NAC 32.5
Power Amplifiers: Lamm ML2.1 monoblocks; Fi 2A3 Stereo, Yamamoto A-08, Naim NAP 110.Since the Fi and Yamamoto can't drive the Harbeths, the Lamm or Naim must have been used for the measurements.
Not sure where your impressions and ideas on Shindo come from...
If I were not a physicist, I would probably be a musician. I often think in music.
- Albert Einstein
Edits: 05/25/12
I don't own Shindo amps and likely never will, but several of our audio club members do, there are loved and admired by all that hear them.
Let's see the curve. (Third time you've been asked in this thread.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Go to Stereophile's web site (excellent). Look at Art's review of the Audio Note AN-E/SPe HE. Read JA's measurement section. JA mentions several major resonances: at 484 Hz, at 230Hz, and 270 Hz. "These last two modes were also present on the front baffle and the rear panel,while another strong mode was present at 550 Hz lower down on the sidewall. JA claims that these resonances will introduce audible coloration (left-hand register of piano too prominent). The anechoic response is a ver poor +_ 5.5 db from 30 to 13,000 Hz. At 1,000 Hz, there is a distinct step down in the output, something that JA thought would add some nasality to the tonal balance. JA's measurements in Art's room are much worse than the anechoic ones: 60 Hz up 12 dB, compared to 10,000 Hz and 23 dB up compared to 15,000. JA's in-room (yes, JA's room, with JA's SUPERIOR amp) measurements of the Dunlavy SCIV showed the speakers down a little over 2 dB at 10,000, compared to 60 Hz, and down 8 dB at 15,000. I know Art has a cult following, but his system is certainly NOT high end.
Is this the article?
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Yes. Art's system is just a mess. I suspect it's a combination of the speakers and the Shindo amp. IMO, the Shindo gear is a rip-off. Just another audio cult based on hype, not on sonics.
Correction on your post:
At the time of this measurement (2006) Art did not own any Shindo gear. The amps used were either Lamm ML2.1 monoblocks or Naim NAP 110 rendering your biased comments on Shindo mood.
See other correction elsewhere...
If I were not a physicist, I would probably be a musician. I often think in music.
- Albert Einstein
Art's Audio Notes measure just as bad in the issue where he reviewed the Wilson Sophia 3s, and he WAS using the horribly expensive Shindo gear then. It would appear that JA has never done any measurements of Art's Shindo gear. Here is some of a 6- moon review of the Shindo Cortese: "One of the things ...that the Cortese doesn't give you quite the sense of tempo that it should. everything seems a little more relaxed and easygoing. It never gets to the point of being bland or boring, but it could be a little harder knocking on the door of tempo at times...the Cortese's balance has a sweet and colorful midrange, laid-back highs, and bass that is a little tipped up." And, yet, the review was positive! there is clearly a cult of "Art". First he loved everything from Linn, and many followed. Then he fell in love with Audio Note and Shindo gear (Shindo's tts are the opposite approach from Linn's) I have no problem with changing your mind, but I DO have a problem with those who blindly followed Art's direction.
I have heard those who claim that the Audio Note speakers and the Quad ESL 57 sound similar. IMO, they sound NOTHING like each other!!! NOTHING! The Audio Notes sound mellow, with tipped up bass and recessed highs. The 57s are highly detailed, clear as a bell, with great presence.
I looked at the curves. The anechoic measurements certainly confirm that the speakers are grossly overpriced. I'm not so sure about the in-room curve. It doesn't look so great, but I suspect that the same could be said about most audiophile's systems unless they have been very carefully set up. It is very hard to get smooth response in the bass in most listening rooms. My own in-room response is much smoother now, but that wasn't the case when I first started to set up my Focals.
The highs in Art's system are clearly rolled off way too much. Flat response is not a good idea as most recordings are closely miked and will sound excessively bright, but 10 dB at 10 kHz is too much roll off. My system has about 4 dB of roll-off dialed in. With the default tweeter settings it was unlistenably bright on some recordings, e.g. the Mercury Living Presence series. The setting was a compromise, as the Mercuries sounded better with another dB of roll off, but then other recordings became too dull.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
My Dunlavy's are down about 5 dB at 15,000. Yes, there are many records that are too bright, but the combination of a bass hump and a huge dip in the high end makes Art's system much less than high end. Ditto for the BBC LS3/5a speakers that JA uses as a reference (with his all digital sourses). Yes, that is also NOT high end!
High End is a term that makes little sense. The fact are pretty simple. A review magazine gets in 10 speakers and they MEASURE and review 10 speakers. 3 speakers win the "measurements are king" camp and the rest fair less well.
The AN E and AN J have been measured by several outfits over the years. Hi-Fi Choice measured both loudspeakers and they go further - they pitted both speakers in Blind Level matched sessions. Both speakers won their blind level matched shooutouts with a panel of listeners (a panel of reviewers and competing manufacturers).
The goal is to create the belief that music being created sounds like the real thing with all the tricks the manufacturer can come up with to trick the ears into beliving it. Making a flat on axis measuring speaker any half-wit with a computer program and the phone number to Seas, dynaudio, scanspeak and ribbons R Us can create. And usually create speakers that measure great and sound dreadful.
SET amplifiers are the worst measuring amps there are - in no way should anyone purchase one over a Bryston. Bryston got me interested in "High End or Hi-Fi" but so many people I know have dumped those amps or amps exactly like those and went to SET not because they measure better but because music sound more natural and like real music and not some digitized hyperglossy version of it.
You try and have it both ways. You want people to buy Analog - LP or Tape but digital CD and SACD measure FAR FAR better than the best vinyl played on the best vinyl players in the history of vinyl. Cheap CD players measure better - it is a FAR FAR better source from a measurements standpoint.
You can't pick and choose which measurement you want to follow. One pop or click on an LP is a GROSS distortion of the signal (a loud BANG) during a music passage is pretty big distortion (Surface noise) that NEVER happens on CD or SACD. Yet you choose to listen to and greatly prefer the realism that vinyl possesses over CD (and so do I) even though you have no technical leg to stand on (and neither do I).
We prefer the sound of vinyl because it sounds FAR FAR more NATURAL than CD sounds - I 100% agree with you - but that's because of a voodoo factor and "variable" factor that is being missed in the measurements somewhere along the way.
And this very same factor is present in SET amplifiers. Oh sure there are some aspects in the measurements of SET and vinyl that people tend to make the case may be the "why's" as to why these sound better - no global feedback, lack of crossover distortion, linearity of SET, for LP a lack of noise shaping and digital processing (after the fact error correction is anbalogous to high negative feedback in amps).
So why is it a stretch then to say - gee if vinyl and SET sound so very much better despite the measured response (invented and changed by the CD and SS manufacturers wanting to package cheap as superior) then why not also take a hard look at the mega corporations selling cheap speakers at higher prices.
Audio Note E speakers are designed to resonate like a cello - the entire design goal is to resonate (control the resonance frequencies and remove them as quickly as possible). So of course JA's waterfall plots are going to show up HUGE massive resonances - they're SUPPOSED to resonate. They tell you this right on the website. They are designed to release energy not damp it inside the cabinet to linger around forever which is why a Paradigm sounds like a dead box and the AN E sounds like music. There is no comparison when playing piano - and AN E sounds like a Piano is in the room - a Paradigm makes it sound like a speaker reproducing a disc and a series of pings and pedals.
Unlike the American press that salivates over such speakers the Brits have a clue - see link of the Paradigm Studio 60 below.
SET/Vinyl and 60 year old cabinet designs made by one of the world's best acousticians and opera house designers (LL Beranek) had a clue.
There is a reason why so many of the best companies are in the business of restoring Western Electric tube amps - I recently heard Line Magnetic's offerings and the sound is a huge cut above most any SS regardless of price that I have heard. Silbatone big horn systems and tubes destroy the yahoos blathering on about "Hi-Fi" and "High End" speakers from B&W and YG Acoustics. That stuff may be lab geek's dream but it's completely a-musical based on my auditions (granted only twice at shows).
High End or whatever word is popular should be changed to what is generate the gut response to make me want to listen to the music and involve me in the experience. What a speaker does at 3khz or 10khz or 28hz is all fine and dandy - who the F cares? It's the wrong question or focus.
If I am reading about an audiophile I start with questions like gee the guy owned PMC, ATC, Bryston, Quad, B&W, Paradigm, Revel, Krell, Mark Levinson, Chord and he he bought some goofball SET and AN E speakers - I don't start with why did he buy graphs and old time technology I start with what does it sound like? Why does it sound better? I see these technical issues in the graph but how does it translate in person?
And the reason I give the speakers that measure weird the benefit of the doubt is because of vinyl and SET.
If musically "Right" and "Correct" and "Enjoyable" is not considered "High End or Hi-Fi" then "High End and Hi-fi" is marketing rubbish.
I love Hi-Fi Choice's blind tests, but they usually don't test components that I am interested in. What speakers did the Audio Note speakers beat in a blind test? BTW, the Audio Note's that I heard at the 2010 CAS were the only ones that made CDs sound pleasant (yes, using an Audio Note cd player). The Audio Note AN-Es also properly load a room, and here only a handful of speakers can match the Es in this regard (my Dunlavy's image great, but don't match the room-filling sound of the Es). My Fulton Js are fully competitive with the Es in loading a room. The Acapella High Violoncello II ($80,000) were the only speaker at the first two CAS shows that could load a room. I suspect that TTT's Dunlavy's SC Vs with sub-woofer could do this, but very few speakers can do this on their own. I have not found any measurements that tell how well a given speaker loads a room. You just have to listen.
As far as measurements go, digital is NOT always superior to analogue. As JA himself admitted in the May Stereophile, " the LP's RIAA equalization results in the LP having better resolution than CD where it is most important--in the presence region, where the ear is most sensitive--but not as good where it doesn't matter, in the top or bottom octaves". Plus, as audio is analogue, digital systems must convert the original analogue sound to digital bits, and, then, after manipulating those bits in billions of ways, must reconvert the digital sound back to analogue so that human beings can listen to the music. IMO, whenever possible, the simple route is nearly always superior to the more complex (at least in audio). Until I heard some recent high res digital, all digital sounded brittle and constricted in the highs.
I have loved many of Audio Research's tube units; they sacrifice very little to ss in the reproduction of the initial attack of notes, and very little to most tube amps in proper decay. They can power almost any speaker. SET amps are another story. Three of my four favorite rooms at the 2010 and 2011 CASs were driven by SET amps. Done properly, they would seem to be a more simple and direct route to amplifying sound. To my ears, they simply sound purer than push-pull tubes or ss amps. Why I am not sure (no negative feedback?). However, you need a highly efficient speaker, with an easy load. Very few efficient speakers are truly full-range. Look at the Voxativ Ampeggio speaker: despite Stereophile's claim that they have "deep, well-controlled bass", JA's own measurements show them to be down about 20 dB at 60 Hz, and that's surely NOT deep bass!!!
Unfortunately very few dealers carry SET amps here in the SF bay area, so it's extremely hard to compare SET amps to other tube types.
After removing three room modes with a parametric equalizer, I get +-4 dB from 30 Hz to 12 kHz, -5 dB at 15 kHz, measured 1/24 octave, at my listening position 1 meter from my Focal nearfield monitors. Before EQ it was +- 7.5 dB. I expect to get it another dB smoother. It may be possible to extend down to 25 Hz as well with a few dB of boost as I have gobs of headroom to spare, but I have to do some listening tests first.
Don't know if this is "high end". :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
As far as frequency response goes, your system looks excellent. Some object to equalization, but I don't if it is done right. Ditto for sub woofers. I am NOT in the camp that claims that audio measurements define excellence in audio equipment. HOWEVER, if a system has a poor frequency response, it will fail to maintain my interest over the long run. Mellow systems are pleasant, but they color the sound too much IMO. Of course, systems that err in the opposite direction (strident highs and poor bass) are much worse.
> the combination of a bass hump and a huge dip in the high end makes Art's
> system much less than high end. Ditto for the BBC LS3/5a speakers that JA
> uses as a reference (with his all digital sourses). Yes, that is also NOT
> high end!
With all due respect for your opinions on what is and what is not high-end,
you are not grasping what the target should be for an in-room response
measurement. Because a dome tweeter becomes increasingly directional as the
frequency rises, the speaker's power response, which contributes to the
in-room response, slopes down at high frequencies. The room furnishings
also become more absorptive in the top octaves.
So with a speaker that is flat on-axis that sounds neutrally balanced
in-room, the measured room response actually _should_ slope down. What is
important is that the in-room response be smooth, without peaks or dips.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I want my audio system to sound as close to live music (the absolute sound) as possible. That means, among other things, that my system is capable of reproducing the sound of, say, a trumpet aimed at a mike. Ditto for the sound of cymbals heard live. A system down 12 dB at 10,000, compared to 60 Hz will sound WAY too mellow. JA, your gear (and room and furnishings) produces a much more accurate sound than ART's system (in his room, and with his beloved SETs or mellow tube gear). Clearly, Art is not bothered by an amp or speaker or system that has a tipped up bass and laid-back highs (compared to live music). Art loves a sound that is mellow and easy to listen to, even on average or poor recordings. Art is clearly in the "it sounds good to me" camp (as opposed to the absolute sound camp). What systems like Art's lack, IMO, is PRAT. Listen to a guitar: not only do the notes have decay, they also have stunning attack! One record I use to test for PRAT is my vinyl (of course) record "Masters of the Guitar" LSC-2717. When I play this record via most tube gear (including SET and Shindo tubes) and speakers like the Audio Note, the stunning, and exciting, attack is missing. Of course, this means that PRAT is always lacking on such a system. The sound is often pleasant, mellow, rich, and easy-to-listen to. What it is not is high-end!
Of course, we all have different "reality triggers" when it comes to audio. Art clearly values timbre, tone and easy-to listen to gear. I also want timbre, and tone, but realize that poor recordings will NOT be easy-to-listen to. One reason why I have always favored hybred Audio research gear, is that they sacrifice very little when to comes to PRAT (compared to the best ss), combined with the fact that AR hybred gear sacrifices very little to SET or mellow tube amps when it comes to the decay of notes. I also favor speakers (like the Dunlavy SCIV) that are flat in frequency response (look at the measurements, both anechoic and in-room), compared to speakers like the Audio Note (or the BBC LS 3/5a). As a bonus, the Dunlavys have near perfect imaging. I am interested in speakers like the Golden Ear Technology Triton Two that are accurate. JA, I hope you review these speakers yourself, including in-room measurements.
I measured the Shindo preamp and it is perfectly flat into a 10KOhm load to well within 0.5dB from 20Hz to 20KHz.
Can you please point to the exact JA measurement you are referring to?
Bass peaks almost always come from room and are common to almost all rooms. Even well treated overdamped Rives rooms show room resonances, just much wider and shallower ones than most untreated rooms.
You should do a measurement of your own room and see how it looks.
If I were not a physicist, I would probably be a musician. I often think in music.
- Albert Einstein
Tube amps, especially those with low or no feedback, often produce lumpy, prominent bass. Such would appear to be the case with Art's Shindo amp driving real world loads (either the Audio Note or Harbeth speakers).
"I don't like the look of JA's measurements of Art's system:"
Where would one find these?
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
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:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
