![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.93.145.120
In Reply to: Plus I'm eager to hear how Dr. Geddes liked them :-) (nt) posted by Homme De Terre on May 2, 2005 at 14:25:02:
Dr. Geddes didn't like them at all, especially since he was there premiering his "Summa-Cum_laude' loudspeakers, and everyone seemd to like the Stonehenge V's/704's better than his new speaker.
![]()
Follow Ups:
Please don't put words into my mouth about what I liked and did not like. No one ever sasked me what I liked and I would not have answered anyways.I try and make accurate loudspeakers not "great sounding ones". You may not agree with this thats fine, buy what you like. But I will put my data up against anyones at any time. "Show me the data" and keep "my" subjective opinions out of this totally biased discussion.
Earl Geddes
![]()
What is the difference between 'accurate' sounding speakers and 'great' sounding speakers?Are these mutually exclusive characteristics?
How did you like the way these speakers made music?
> What is the difference between 'accurate' sounding speakers and 'great' sounding speakers? <To me accurate loudspeakers sound nuetral, almost flat without any added coloration which ofetn makes them sound "sweet" etc. On first listening a very accurate loudspreaker does not jump out at you, its only after a while that you come to appreciate it naturalness. When you read about all the "tweaks" that people use to make their loudspeakers sound "great" I prefer not to use that term. I don't tweak my speakers at all, I make them as measurably accurate as possible - no subjective modifications for "voicing".
> Are these mutually exclusive characteristics? <
No, not at all. To some they might be the same thing, to me they are not. I raise this difference to highlight the design intent. Almost without exception loudspeaker designer "voice" their systems. This means "tweaking" them to sound "great" - to them! Is this accurate, not necessarily. Accurate and great sounding are not mutually exclusive, but they are not synonymous either.
> How did you like the way these speakers made music?
I'll pass on that one since I don't know that we have a common understanding of the question. I will say this: I don't want my speakers to "make music" themselves, the music is already on the CD. I want them to "reproduce" the CD music exactly as it was recorded - unmodified in any way, good or bad.
Earl Geddes
![]()
I consider listening the most critical and valuable measurement of anything concerning audio. Because of this, I value the opinions of listeners, especially those who have a reasonably high degree of experience. I also find that those who have shared experience provide the best frame of reference from which to understand and judge the quality of audio products.I have also found that I can pretty much hear what something [an amp or speaker] sounds like in a few minutes...and I am not alone in this...but that requires a fair degree of experience and understanding.
I agree that the ultimate goal of audio is to marry accuracy with musicality, but wonder why I would need time to adjust to some product.
Do you or Duke plan to demo your speakers at RMAF?
Hi Dave,We expect to show the Summas at the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest. We don't plan to have a turntable in the room, so bring your favorite "ones and zeroes" and bring your ears.
If I might add a few comments to what Earl wrote...
Blind listening tests played a huge but indirect role in the development of the Summas. Earl and his audiologist wife Lidia have conducted extensive research in the field of psychoacoustics, and have a great deal of information of "what really matters and what doesn't" (get a taste at the link below). Some of their findings appear in print (see the list of publications on Earl's resume' page), but much of it does not.
On the other hand, Earl has found that non-blind evaluations are not reliable enough to use as the basis for a change. That's not to say they're worthless, but that a change would only be made after measuring and computer modelling (Earl often writing the program as he goes along), and any change would be consistent with acoustic and psychoacoustic principles established in controlled blind studies.
For example, non-blind listening indicated that the speakers sound different if a tube amp is used instead of a solid state amp. Measurements confirm a difference in the frequency response curve related to the amp's output impedance. Earl modified a computer program to model these effects, and we'll be able to offer the speakers with the crossover optimized either for a high output impedance (tube) amp or a low output impedance (solid state) amp.
Feel free to shoot me an e-mail, maybe with your phone number, and I can talk a bit more freely than would be appropriate here.
Duke
![]()
Duke and allThanks Duke, your right on the money here. You see the points of the argument that I miss or am just too lazy to write.
Two years ago you would not have written what you wrote above and surely would not have done things this way. I think it safe to say that you now find my approach much more reliable, scientific and revealing of truth than simple listening test can produce - no matter who does the listening.
I could claim 40+ years of listening, several listening test classes, several participations in listening test, and on and on. I am a trained listener and yet I do not trust myself in this regard. I have seen too much to know that our brains rule our ears in all situations. Only when the brain cannot form a bias - because it does not have the information to do so - can we trust what our ears perceive.
Earl Geddes
![]()
Earl,"Only when the brain cannot form a bias - because it does not have the information to do so - can we trust what our ears perceive."
Since few people are in the habit of unsighted listening at home, this statement would seem to suggest that equally valid methods of evaluating the quality of a speaker/audio system for home use might be:
a)it's eye candy
b)it's large
c)it's small
d)it's expensive
e)it's new
f)it's old
g)(insert favorite intellectual/visual attribute here)
If you are making a point, I don't see it.
Earl Geddes
![]()
"nuff said?
![]()
I am sorry, I don't understand this post. "Seems I did" what?It has been incorrectly stated that I said that I didn't like something when I said nothing of the kind. At no time during the show did I offer an opinion about sound quality on any product but my own.
It was also stated that I "trashed" some Altec speakers which is also not true. I was asked what I thought of the small Manta Ray horn on the 604's(?). My response was neither positive or negative but simply a statement of fact that "a small horn like that would have trouble controlling directivity down very low in frequency."
Dr. Geddes,I'm sorry, sir, but that's patently false - you walked into our demo room, while a group of people were listening to a relatively quiet passage of music - pointed at the horn on our Stonehenge V/704 system that was playing, and LOUDLY proclaimed, "That horn's too small!". You then proceeded to tell everyone in the room - again quite loudly - what was wrong with our speaker, specifically about the small Mantaray horn's inability to maintain directivity control in the lower regions of it's audio bandwidth.
My reply, as you will recall, was "Well, it's not going down very low - it crosses over around 1600 Hz."
Your reply was (loudly), "It's STILL TOO SMALL!"
My reply was, "Maybe so - but it sounds GREAT!" :-)
Everyone in the room smiled, chuckled, and you went off in a huff.
Yes sir, you DID make derogatory comments about someone else's products, and you did it publicly - with witnesses present - despite your claims to the contrary.
Personally, I like the sound of your speakers, and have stated so both publicly and privately. The ONLY critique I have made is about my ability to hear the apparent acoustic source location shift as the fundamental frequency(ies) being listened to drift up and down and up and down between the low and high frequency devices in your system. Certainly you know that EVERY loudspeaker system that utilizes multiple drivers that are not mounted coaxially has this problem - so it's not just YOUR speakers that I am talking about.
Of course, our 704 COMPOUND loudspeaker doesn't have that problem, as both the HF and LF devices are vertically AND horizontally aligned - there is never a question as to where the source of the sound is coming from... ;)
![]()
Well I guess we see things differently.Akilish ASKED me what I thought of the Manta Ray horn and I said what I claimed - "they were too small to control the directivity ...". Music was playing loudly at the time and I had to speak loudly for Akilish to hear me. The conversation was intended to be between the two of us and you butted in with your comments. I responded. I gave no subjective opinions at any time, as I stated, and I did not leave "in a huff".
Earl Geddes
![]()
Dr. Geddes,I do not believe that the music was not as loud as you claim. Perhaps it was, but I do not think so. "Loudly" is a rather subjective evaluation, so I'll set that aside, since we're not supposed to allow subjectivisim to cloud the issues we discuss regarding loudspeakers...
Either way, you WEREN'T just speaking to be heard by Akilish - he was standing right next to you - you spoke much more loudly than you would have had you only been talking to him. You barked out your comments AT ME as you pointed at our loudspeaker, and obviously expected a reply.
You weren't looking at Akilish when you spoke out, you were looking at ME, sir - I did NOT "butt in" with my comments. As I posted previously, I replied to your attack, you replied back, I replied again, and you left.
Perhaps you didn't leave in a huff - it is entirely possible that I misinterpreted your natural demeanor as though you were miffed as you turned on your heel and paced away quickly. If that is the case, then I apologize for my incorrect interpretation...
By the way - Mantaray is one word, not two, be it a living water creature or a high-frequency horn...
![]()
ToddI am sorry that you feel that I singled you out to complain about. That is not what I thought I was doing and certainly not characteristic of me.
I virtually never give personal subjective opinions of anything and if you ask arround you will find that this is true. So your claim that I said that "I didn't like ..." did not sound right to me from the begining.
In fact I am always very careful not to do what you claim I did. I will answer reasonable questions (Like "What do you think of the Mantaray horn?" with a technical answer, which I did, but never a subjective one. I gave a purely technical answer with no claim of good or bad either way.
My being loud and pointing to the speaker and declaring it anything is just not like me. If I was loud then it was because there was masking noise, and having a serious hearing loss I am more prone to masking noise than others. So my "loud" was nothing more than a normal state of occurance for me in that situation.
I left the room promptly to avoid just what you claim I did, i.e. being asked about my subjective opinion. I prefer not to give it, but it always sounds "high brow" to say that in a public setting when asked.
Your claims of what you think I did just does not ring true with me, and I doubt that they ring true with anyone else.
Again, I had no intention of maligning your speakers in any way and I am sorry if you perceived it that way.
Earl Geddes
![]()
Hi Todd,
I sent you an Email at Iconic asking for information about component cost and availability, did you get it?
Please Send info to nwwdlw@netzero.net
Thanks
Norris Wilson
![]()
Hi Norris,Yes, I pulled it down this morning.
I'm putting your answer together, and you should receive it this evening or in the morning.
Sorry for the delay - all of the sudden, we've got a lot more e-mail's to answer... ;)
![]()
nt
![]()
Dr. Geddes,Would you mind explaining this - are you saying that these "accurate" loudspeakers don't sound "great" and that "great sounding" speakers aren't "accurate"?
Dr. Geddes speaker was demonstrated at the Great Plains Audio Fest. Long one short I heard them and just flat out loved them. Voices sounded like voices, drums like drums, pianos like pianos, etc.There were many great sounding speakers at the show. Each of them had colorations (or flavors) that listeners either loved or didn't. There were several "great sounding" speakers that I'd love to have in my system and many of them were not particularly expensive.
But none of them made me believe there were musicians in front of me like Dr. Geddes speakers. Call it "accurate" or "great sounding" or whatever you want. Instruments and voices sounded "right".
BarryThanks for this. You are absolutely correct in assesing what I am trying to do and I am glad that you were able to appreciate the results.
If a loudspeaker makes a bad performance sound good, is it a good sounding loudspeaker?If a loudspeaker reveals recording flaws that make the recording sound bad is it a bad sounding loudspeaker?
Loudspeakers should not "sound" they should be completely nuetral.
If someone says "sounds great" after hearing a CD on some loudspeakers are they refering to the speakers or the CD? For most mucisians it is the latter.
The entire area of subjective assesment of loudspeakers is so screwed up that I prefer to avoid it altogether unless the tests are well controlled. In every case where I have performed well controlled tests they usually disagree with prevailing opinions, golden ears, etc. In subjective assesment the mind rules all.
On assesing a loudspeaker I do this:
First look at the measured response (on and off axis), if there is no measured response avaialable then the process ends here since I won't consider a speaker where 1) the designer did not measure it or 2) he did measure it but isn't going to show it to me.
Next if the measurements look good (a minimum requirement IMHO) and the listening environment is one which is not such that it will invalidate any perceptions, I will put on several cuts that I know as well as the back of my hand. Never will I make any assesments of the sound of an unfamiliar recording. After a couple of hours of this I might arrive at a conclusion, and then again I may not. If I do, I will wait until I hear a couple of other opinions to see if I missed something - thats happened before. It usualy takes me several trials like this before I am comfortable with my subjective opinion.
At the show no one passed the first test (except us, of course - the only thing that we did show was the measurements).
Earl Geddes
![]()
... not!Earl, I'm still waiting for an answer on how your speakers will image better than others when listening equidistant and on-axis. And I don't want to hear your subjective answer that you don't recommend setting them up that way. It is a simple straight-forward objective question...
eso
I don't recommend setting them up that way.
setup = toed-in a bit? :^)
Is this a question about my recommended setup? I can't tell.If so, then yes, the speakers are designed to be toed-in with the listener at about 22 degress off axis. It is no more reasonable to discuss how they work in other configurations than it is to discuss how they work on the moon.
Its the other rude and disrespectful poster that I am unwilling to respond to.
Earl Geddes
![]()
So it is rude and disrespectful to ask the learnded Doctor to actually answer an objective question.I would have to counter that all of your talk about wanting to deal only with objective data is rude and disrespectful, as well as a smoke-screen, since you yourself seem unwilling to deal with objective questions.
eso
You really must show respect to DOCTORS EsoYou know if it was not for DOCTORS we would not have Nuclear bombs,Saran gas,Apartheid,thalidomide and Freudian complexes.
Only thing non-DOCTORS ever created was Ford motorcars and Apple computers and Philip Marlowe and children and wine and onion soup .....and huge basshorns
![]()
> Only thing non-DOCTORS ever created was Ford motorcars etc)
Nooo!Talking about the model T and the social revolution that caused.Also wasn't half the American population at the time created in one of those? Whether that is good or bad in the view of an individual I suppose depend on which half he/she stems from.As for me-I know when to shut up.
![]()
... You claim to want to keep discussion in the objective realm... until it is inconvenient for your agenda... how scientific of you!eso
It brings a Duke Ellington quote to my mind though "If it sounds good, it is good." Don't you just like Ellington's essential maxims?
The most well-known one probably is "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing".
I've listened to speakers whose designers claimed they were the "most accurate speakers on earth" (Backes & Mueller) and I didn't like them so much. All a matter of taste I suppose, although I'm still convinced of "point sources" since they make, in my *humble* opinion, for excellent imaging.By the way, my intention was not flame baiting, I just wanted to know how you, Dr. Geddes, liked the Stonehenge/704 speakers as I'm aware of your worldwide reputation.
After all, this is an open forum, people are free to ask questions; of course people are also free to answer or not.
You wrote:It brings a Duke Ellington quote to my mind though "If it sounds good, it is good."
Ellington is the artist, if it sounded good to him, I want to hear exactly what he heard. Since I couldn't be there myself I have to rely on a reproduction, but I still want to hear it exactly the same way that he heard it - uncolored, undistorted and if the recording was lousy, I want to hear that too. Listen to the early Billie Holiday stuff if you want to hear some really bad recordings (recordings I said NOT performances) - I want to hear them that way thank you.
Earl Geddes
![]()
Since I couldn't be there myself I have to rely on a reproduction, but I still want to hear it exactly the same way that he heard it...
It seems to me that the only way to do that would be to listen to the recording through the same speakers used for monitoring when the recording was made.
...uncolored, undistorted...
That presupposes that the speakers used for monitoring the recording were free of any coloration or distortion which certainly wasn't the case, and particularly so with older recordings.
The decisions made in the recording process, from microphone selection and placement, to the use of equalization, etc. are made while listening through the "filter" of the recording and playback system, including, and perhaps most significantly, the loudspeakers.
So what ends up encoded on the actual recording is ultimately the inverse of the "filter" through which the recording was monitored. In which case listening to that recording using loudspeakers which have less coloration and distortion is to hear less "exactly what he heard."
So if one's goal is hearing "exactly what he heard," depending on the recording, speakers such as the Iconics may very wll get one closer to that goal than yours.
se
![]()
![]()
You've got a point here, maybe we agree on the statement "I want to listen to the recording the way the recording engineer listened to it."
Perhaps that's even a reason why I like the 604s so much. Most of the music I prefer was recorded more than 20 years ago, mainly jazz, rock and classical. Since the 604 was so popular back then, many of my fav recordings could have been monitored over those speakers. Just a thought...
I think that both of the further posts are good points, but an old argument.Altec's have not been used for recording in many many years, given this fact, one would be foolish to design to their sound today. But if all you EVER want to listen to are old recordings, then yes, buy OLD Altecs!
I listen to modern recordings because they are so much better quality (DDD, etc.). Today the monitoring loudspeakers are diverse, but they are all converging on one principle and that is low coloration and distortion, exactly the same things that I am after. Virtually all of the pro monitor guys are after the same things. In the end all high quality loudspeakers should (and probably will) sound the same as each other and as the monitors. We are not there yet, but I, for one, am ceratinly not going to go backwards.
I think that both of the further posts are good points, but an old argument.
Yeah. So? :)
Altec's have not been used for recording in many many years, given this fact, one would be foolish to design to their sound today.
Why? There is a huge body of recorded music out there which was recorded many many years ago and will be with us for many many years to come, and for many that music constitutes a good portion of the music they like most. So why would it be foolish to offer these people solutions which may give them the greatest amount of pleasure and enjoyment?
But if all you EVER want to listen to are old recordings, then yes, buy OLD Altecs!
Why must it be all or nothing?
I listen to modern recordings because they are so much better quality (DDD, etc.).
Great. If that's what does it for you, that's what you should go for. But for some people, their emphasis is on the music rather than the recording. And there's a huge body of recorded music out there that will never see the light of DDD.
Today the monitoring loudspeakers are diverse, but they are all converging on one principle and that is low coloration and distortion, exactly the same things that I am after. Virtually all of the pro monitor guys are after the same things. In the end all high quality loudspeakers should (and probably will) sound hte same as each other and as the monitors.
Then certainly you have cause to be happy.
We are not there yet, but I, for one, am ceratinly not going to go backwards.
Well, I guess whether one is going forward or backward depends on where they're standing. :)
se
![]()
![]()
You've got a point here, maybe we agree on the statement "I want to listen to the recording the way the recording engineer listened to it."
Perhaps that's even a reason why I like the 604s so much. Most of the music I prefer was recorded more than 20 years ago, mainly jazz, rock and classical. Since the 604 was so popular back then, many of my fav recordings could have been monitored over those speakers. Just a thought...
And a very good thought at that in my opinion.
In the context of the huge number of recordings made over the decades, the notion of objectively perfect reproduction of those recordings doesn't make as much sense as it would seem. Though being the quantitatively-oriented society that we are, it does make good marketing sense I suppose. :)
se
![]()
![]()
Hi Todd,I was at the Great Plains audio festival and had the privilage to listen to both speakers, the Iconic coaxial and GedLee Summa speakers.
I do not have an extended history of listening to many of the types of systems presented at the show. So, you can take my comments with a grain of salt, it is my opinion based on my level of experience.
As with any show inviroment, there were uncontrolable problems related to the smallish cubical shaped rooms.
First,I have to say that the Iconic speaker was the most dynamic and full spectrum speaker at the show.
I only heard them with two different cuts, one with female vocals and light acoustics, which I cannot remember who, and the thyme from the first Star Trek movie, where they were moving the new Enterprise from the dock bay for the first time.
The female vocals were clear and convencing, but there were a few areas where there was a small amount of metal horn shouting when turned up loud.
I feel that the room was truely to small for the speaker and compressed at high volume levels. But, that was true of all the systems that I heard at high volume levels.
When the Iconic speaker played the ochestral piece from Star Trek, they were a great match with plenty of control and dynamics, especially when the kettle bass drum kicked in, they moved some air. I really got that dynamic response going with the music and my emotion, it was fun, yeehaw. I could only imagine how good these speakers could sound in the right room playing heavy orchestral music at high volume levels.
The Gedlee Summa speakers were one of the most accurate and balanced of any of the speakers at the show. I feel that the wave guide is very effective in controlling the speaker frequency dispersion.
I only listened to a cut from the Linda Ronstant and Emmylou Harris album where they were singing a duet together. And another blue grass piece with a light acoustic background from another album, I do not remember who it was. I did not get to listen to any music that had alot of dynamic information such as heavy orchestral on the Summa spaekers.
Earl Geddes has developed a device in his wave guide that helped to blend a compression driver and mid bass driver better than I have ever heard before.
For a fairly large speaker, the close listening position that was afforded in such a small room was amazingly accurate, the image, depth and width of the sound field was superb. It would lead you to believe that you were listening to a smaller speaker more suited to the rooms dimensions.
The Pi corner three way speakers, the Seven Pi, were the most beautiful speaker at the show, the cabinets were impeccable.
They were very balanced across the frequency extremes, very smooth and they displayed no sign of shouting as some horn tend to do at certain frequencies. The three different drivers blended very seamlessly, undetectable, very good for a horn based system.
The Pi speakers were displayed with some great sounding equipment. Like the Audio Tropic 6V6 PP amp and line stage built by Poindexter who frequents on the AA DIY tube forum.
And a solid state amplifier by Stereotronics that was quick, dynamic and very musical, no solid state crunch to be heard.There were alot of nice sounding systems and speakers at the show, but they all had their strengths and weaknesses.
I could have not met a nicer bunch of people who were very personable, sincere and passionate about their profession.
The Great Plains audio festival was a down to earth and quality event. the atmosphere was rare, the type that usually does not exist in a large show format such as CES.
I want to thank Wayne Parham, the Great Plains audio group, and the Houston audio society for putting together a really nice show in such a short period of time, thanks everyone.
I am looking forwards to the next show in May of 2006.
It was a good time and I met some great people.
Thanks for the compliments, Norris.I, too, agree that the rooms were not condusive to good listening - they were just too small and had too many reverberant field problems.
As for the female vocal having a harshness at times - I think that is in the original recording, rather than something the 704's added to it. The reason i think this is because that recording does that on any speaker I listen to it on, not just the 704, and not just systems with horns.
Overall, I think the Geddes speaker is very nice, and I told him so. My only problem with it was having to listen to the apparent location of the sound source shift as it moved up and down and aup and down between the LF and HF sections...it got distracting after a while.
We're looking to see if the man who builds PI's cabinets can build them for us, too - beautiful!
![]()
Oops!
![]()
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: