it is my experience, auditioning many cone designs that cone designs do not as good a job creating natural timbre as ribbons, electrostats and planar/magnetic drivers Everything you prefer has a distinctly different radiation pattern from a cone. However there are many cones and many ribbons/electrostats and planar/magnetic drivers that all have their own sound/timbre. To me you are clearly associating the driver radiation pattern, sound field and room reverberation with "timbre", which is wrong. |
if you compareh a three way cone design to a pair of martin logan cls 2 z speakers , you will hear many differences. let's say your source is a harpsichord.
the timbre of the harpsichord, in my opinion will sound more realistic played through the martin logan than through some 3 way cone design.
whether it is or is not a matter of dispersion, the drivers are different.
since i am looking to purchase a pair of speakers, reproduction of timbre is my primary criterion.
i consider electrostatic and planar/magnetic speakers more likely to produce a natural recreation of the sound of an instrument than cone designs.
if there is a speaker that is a worthy competitor of electrostatics and planar/magnetics/ribbons, with respect to reproduction of timbre, using "conventional" drivers, i would want to audition it, unless i have already heard it. |
if there is a speaker that is a worthy competitor of electrostatics and planar/magnetics/ribbons, with respect to reproduction of timbre, using "conventional" drivers, i would want to audition it, unless i have already heard it. Ok - but it isn't an issue of timbre. Gordon Holt used the big Soundlabs for many years - he now uses ATC SCM 50 actives - I suggest you start there. I expect the radiation pattern and room interaction will still be quite different from the big Soundlabs, however, the "TIMBRE" of both is of very high quality. I suspect you may not be able to get past the differences from room interaction / reverberation and sound field from a short listening session (you have preconceived expectations). However, if you were to acclimatize and give it a few hundred hours then you might think differently. Leading classical audio engineers certainly do not have a problem with the timbre of these cone speakers, however, I would add there are many other good cone designs too....if you took the time to acclimatize I think you would find there is not such a "great divide" as you insist. Are all tubes bad? Are all SS amps bad? Is all CD redbook sound bad? Is all vinyl inherently bad? Is all 5.1 HT sound bad? Is all two channel music bad? Are all horns bad? IMHO - NO.... all of the above can sound excellent... given the right choices and room setup. |
MRT, why don't you tell us what 'new loudspeaker' of the planar/magnetic/electrostatic variety has caught your fancy instead? |
let's be careful of how you interpret the word "new".
if by "new", you mean, production date during the last three months, i must admit, that what i have in mind is somewhat older than that. the only speaker which could be considered "new", would be the electrostatic panel portion of roger sanders hybrid electrostatic speaker. unfortunately, his design includes a bass driver, which causes his product to lose coherency. it sounds like two speakers. if he had introduced a fulll range, flat panel electrostatic, i'm confident it would be a serious contender for purchase.
the speakers i am considering are analysis audio omega and quads unlimited stacked quad 57s.
one more point regarding cone designs.
i have auditioned over 1000 of them, at shows and at the homes of friends and acquaintances. i assert that i can observe colorations which are intrinsic to these designs.
i find that at times i may be attracted to some of them, initially. however, it is my opinion that over time, these colorations will lead to an unsatisfactory listening experience. while panel speakers have different colorations, i find that ultimately, panels come closer to my experience of listening to live unamplified instruments. |
To Mrtennis here is a loudspeaker with 22nd century technology please do research this one and read the review
I heard this for 30 minutes and was more than just impressed this speaker was unequaled at this modest $25k
price point for what it offered even the Quad will have to acknowledge this, http://www.polymeraudio.com/
and your thoughts and please do at some point give these
a listen . |
hi techmachine:
it may be a great speaker. i visited the web site, read a review and briefly studied some of the technical details.
the speaker might be too revealing. until i hear it (i can't lift it at 295 pds), it represents an if.
for $7200, i can purchase stacked quads unlimited quads.
i would love to compare the two speakers, each having a different driver type to determine the merits of the polymer.
i doubt it would be possible to do that. where did you hear them and who carries them ? |
i find that ultimately, panels come closer to my experience of listening to live unamplified instruments. When you continually state that all cones have fundamentally wrong timbre is where I tend to get cross-threaded. I have, however, absolutely no problem with the above statement - panels, setup correctly - well out into a room, can sound absolutely awesome! I tried to explain how the larger radiating surface of a panel will excite the sound field and room reveberation in a fundamentally different way (especially a panel that radiates forwards AND backwards)... this will make a sound field that is much more like listening at the back of a hall - higher proportion of reverberant energy will reach your ears than from a conventional cone speaker setup. However you continue to insist that it is a fundamental "coloration" or timbre problem with all cones - as if it were some scientific principle, like Force= Mass times Acceleration. I simply do not believe that coloration or wrong timbre can be behind someone disliking 1000 audiophile quality cone speakers (wow that is a lot of auditions - there must have been a few extremely good ones in that mix - and yet they ALL had wrong or inferior timbre?). Lets face it - I believe you prefer the way panels radiate and excite the room - that is what I believe is at the heart of your issue with "point source" speakers or cones. Otherwise I can't see how anyone could be so categorical about the inferiority of 1000 cone speakers versus practically ANY panel/electrostat/ribbon. |
Back to the topic at hand, the D3 Sonata. Has anyone else heard these? |
the speaker might be too revealing. Can a speaker or any other piece of equipment be 'too revealing'?? This is not something I've ever heard of before. Is it possible that you prefer equipment that is chosen with a preference for a lack of detail (perhaps to cover up deficiencies in recordings or other equipment)? I've also noticed that you've not responded to any of my prior posts in this thread. Did I hit a nerve? If so that was not my intention; the point of my other posts was not to make you wrong, but to get an actual answer. |
hi ralph:
there is no best anything. however, at a point in time, one can say that given say 5 speakers, one of them is least inaccurate timbrally. that doesn't make it the best, but does establish performance in that regard.
timbre is one of several components of music. it is most important to me.
regarding "revealing" speakers, if a spekaer reveals both musical and non musical information in a manner whcih is not realistic, then it is too revealing.
i will provide an example in the visual realm. i was watching a commercial in which a part of brick building appeared on my lcd screen. i observed that the level of resolution exceeded what i would experience if i were viewing the building from a distance of 20 feet.
sometimes one listens to a stereo sytem which cone might say is overly articulated. when in attendance at a concert, i would never use the word "detail" as part of my description of the music i heard. if the same term is used when describing the music heard through a pair of speakers, it is possible that one is listening to music "under a microscope".
back to the topic. martin logan will be introducing its clx, a full range electrostatic speaker at the denver cedia show, later in the ear. priced between $8000 and $9000, it has the potential for being a fine product. i received information today from a representative of the company. it is too bad it is not in production yet, as i would order a pair with out an audition. |
timbre is one of several components of music. it is most important to me MrT, timbre is old french for a "drum" or close to "timbanon" in greek... Do you seriously consider the Quad 57 or a stack of them or any electrostatic/planar/ribbon the last word on reproducing tympani or a full drum set? Please confirm that, in your opinion, the timbre of a drum set is also "least inaccurate timbrally" when played back with any electrostatic/planar/ribbon - better than any of 1000 audiophile quality cone speakers that you have auditioned? ....just curious how far you are willing to go in your extreme viewpoint on "timbre"? However, I fear I am already on the ignore list - just like Ralph ;-) |
yes i will assert that any electrostatic, within its frequency response bandwidth, will create the sound of an instrument, in a manner more realistic than any cone design.
we both realize that such an assertion requires evidence.
as i have stated in the past, an experiment would be needed to compare a live performance to a recording feeding a pair of speakers, or one could use a microphone feed without making a recording.
since this experiement has not occurred you and i are engaging in probabilistic statements.
such a test is not definitive, because it is possible that two listeners may differ in the outcome of such a comparison. do you have any ideas ? |
if a spekaer reveals both musical and non musical information in a manner whcih is not realistic, then it is too revealing. (sic) Seems what you are describing here is something other than 'too revealing'; if it were me, I might describe that as a coloration. It seems that there is a concession here that you have made in that you acknowledge that there is no best- only best for you. Yet in the post where you responded to me above, you said: but does establish performance in that regard. So I have a question. **IF** we establish performance 'in that regard' are you saying that that established performance is then a known entity that can be used as a yard stick? If yes, then can a series of 'established performance' qualities then add up to something? Finally, why would you buy a Martin-Logan sound un-heard when you know that your CJ won't be able to drive it?? That would mean that you would be on the hunt for an amplifier (probably transistor, as ML is traditionally a very difficult load for all tube amps). Pardon my saying so, but it seems out of character for you. Am I missing something or did you not know about that quality of ML speakers? |
yes i will assert that any electrostatic, WITHIN ITS FREQUENCY RESPONSE BANDWIDTH, will create the sound of an instrument, in a manner more realistic than any cone design. (in the above quote the capitals were added for emphasis) Hang on ....you are now adding a huge caveat to your previous categorical statement that almost any electrostat/ribbon/planel speaker will sound better timbrally than any of 1000 audiophile quality cone based speaker designs. I don't think that any test would prove anything except you prefer by far the sound field from a large transducer surface over "point source" designs. To me this is a perfectly reasonable position to adopt....they inevitably sound different and excite the reverberant field in a fundamentally different way. since this experiement has not occurred you and i are engaging in probabilistic statements. such a test is not definitive, because it is possible that two listeners may differ in the outcome of such a comparison. do you have any ideas ? By calling your own arguments "probabilistic" and by adding a big caveat, you are actually undermining your own previously categorical position....but I don't really care about that....you are welcome to worship electrostats/panels/ribbons and I wish you well in this area and many years of listening pleasure, I don't doubt they sound much better to your ears/preferences and it would be ridiculous for me to insist you are wrong to like what you like. I am simply trying to get you to recognize that the major difference between ALL cones and ALL Electrostats/ribbons/panels is the different sound field they create and the different room reverberant field that they excite; therefore what you are describing as "less inaccurate timbre" from any of your prefered designs is incorrect. To me there are good bad and terrible timbre speakers in all of these camps and a particularly lousy electrostat will certainly not sound "less timbrally inaccurate" then some of the best cone speakers (even though the sound field and reverberant field is bound to be different). IMHO, if we wanted to explore the most accurate timbre then the discussion would inevitably involve headphones rather than speakers => this allows you to get rid of the effect of the room and work with very light weight transducers working in an extremely linear operating range that far exceeds what can be done with any speaker today. Unfortunately this means the sound appears to be in between one's ears and is therefore very far from a realistic presentation even if it can be the most accurate. |
gentlemen:
let me try to clarify my positions.
there is no best anything. there is no best for me, either.
there is perception and preference. i make no assertion about quality or relative difference, except to say that i perceive the sound of an instrument when listening to it on a recording played through certain panel speakers as coming closer to the real thing. such an assertion does not imply that such panel speakers are better than cone designed speakers. it is important not to interpret my statements. just take them literally. as far as amplifiers and martin logan speakers it is presumptuous for you to say i can not adequately drive the martin logan speaker with a tube amp.
if i remember the laws of physics, if a speaker is rated say, 86 db, 1 watt, 1 meter, i should be able to drive it listening at a sound pressure of 80 db with a modestly powered tube amp provided my room is not to large and provided the amp can deal with a 2 ohm load at frequencies exceeding 10khz. i would not want to drive a martin logan with a ss amp or class d amp. i am confident that i can survive at lower listening levels with a 50 watt tube amp.
i have used a 4 watt tube amp on my 1.6s as well as a 30 watt amp, achieving spl of 85 db with the latter.
there are no standards and no criteria. a performance is at a point in time. there is no yardstick.
one listens and hears at a point in time, based upon a bunch of variables. i will not generalize , but rather report factually, my experiences. nothing less, nothing more. do not take them out of context. any criteria are personal and not universal.
it seems intuitive that drivers composed of different materials will sound different, e.g., silk vs titanium dome tweeters. i find it hard to believe that dispersion is the only variable accounting for differences in a speaker composed of cones as compared to a another speaker which has none of them. can you suggest a way of demonstrating this ? obviously when listening to two types of speakers there are at least two variables, namely, dispersion and drivers materials. there are others as well. for you to focus on one of them without adquate proof is entirely hypothetical. |
i find it hard to believe that dispersion is the only variable accounting for differences in a speaker composed of cones as compared to a another speaker which has none of them. can you suggest a way of demonstrating this ? It may be hard to believe but in the grand scheme of things when comparing 1000's of cones to all the panel/electrostats/ribbons out there then the radiation pattern is really what sticks out like a "sore thumb" as the one big difference overall. Sure there are other differences and surely different transducer materials will make different spesakers sound different...but we are talking 1000's of speakers - so in general it is the raditaion pattern that is what remains markedly different. I expect that Mirage or other omnidirectional or dipole speakers might be closest to the panel sound...although a large surface causes beaming in the forward direction (something cone speaker manufaturers try to avoid by using multiple sized cones for each frequency band) so perhaps horns (which can have a controlled directional sound) might be closer. Perhaps Duke can suggest a speaker that you should try that will be closer to what you hear from panels - not that you may like it more ...but just to demonstrate that cones can be made to sound much more like large surface panels if configured in a certain way... |
MrT, most Martin Logans are about 0.5ohms at high frequencies, usually starting out in the lows at 4 ohms. There are literally no tube amps made that drive loads like that without difficulty. Its not a presumption on my part- its just the way it is. ML wants their speakers to work with transistor amps so they set the impedance very low. Unfortunately Quad has been following in their footsteps as has Innersound. Sound Lab used to do the same thing but seems to have realized in recent years that they need to moderate their impedances. A point to consider:- what we are really talking about is neutral reproduction. If a speaker driver is truly neutral, its not going to matter if its made of cloth, paper, mylar or beryllium. It is simply going to be neutral. I don't see how you can say you have no best in the face of some of your earlier comments in which a yardstick is created: there is no best anything. however, at a point in time, one can say that given say 5 speakers, one of them is least inaccurate timbrally. that doesn't make it the best, but does establish performance in that regard. This statement seems to have a contradiction. What am I missing? |
hi ralph:
you are confusing facts, perceptions and value judgments.
if i say speaker a is less inaccurate than speaker b, the statement is a reflection of a perception. in order to say that speaker a is better than speaker b, there must be a criterion or postulate that says accuracy is better than inaccuracy. i never established such a postulate and i would never say less coloration is better than more coloration.
you continue to misinterpret what i say, perhaps, because you believe that accuracy is better than inaccuracy. such a statement is a value judgment. value judgments apply to better and best, best upon criteria or held beliefs about sound quality.
i believe that sound quality is personal and based upon preference. thus there is no better or best because what i prefer is neither good nor bad, it is just what i like. i do not attach any value to what i like. it is purely an opinion.
i have not an am notb contradicted myself. i have a fine command of the english language. years of college and graduate school and writing have refined my ability to communicate.
if you have any more questions, why don't we discuss this on the phone, or next time we meet at an audio show.
one more thing, i believe a martin logan speaker can be driven with a tube amp. i personally have heard a sequel driven by an early quicksilver amp which used 8417 tubes.
i do not believe that martin logan speakers necessaily dip to .5 ohms. can this be verified ? |
Ouch. . . I seem to be hearing some smidgin of stridency emanating from the black backgroun. . . Is it mayhaps that darn Supraphon box with the Panocha Quartet again? Alas no. . . seems it's coming from a badly overdriven Sackbut struttin' its stuff in full cuivre! . . . I better engage that -3db treble filter on those Mahlers. . . This glare is driving me batty! |
"since this experiement has not occurred you and i are engaging in probabilistic statements."
MRT, did you mean: "thought experiment"?
"i have not an am notb contradicted myself. i have a fine command of the english language. years of college and graduate school and writing have refined my ability to communicate."
Sic. |
MrT, you might contact ML about that impedance. Its been that way with them for a long time, since the CLS 2 FWIW. I remember some of the Sequels were a little easier, and the old CLS 1 was the easiest of all...
With regards to the communication: I see in your comments that you do not regard a measurable and audible performance increase as good, for you there is only preference, such as your preference for the Quad, or perhaps the ML that you have not heard. Yet you acknowledge that the performance increase is real. I take it you don't see contradiction in that? |
hi ralph:
is perception reality ?
there is no contradiction in saying i perceive a to be less inaccurate than b. note, i perceive is the key. i can't say what is real and what is not.
what is a measurable increase in performance ? as soon as you say "increase in performance", you are making a value judgment. i report perceptions. what does a perception have to do with performance. that word is value laden.
why not accept a statement that a is less inaccurate than b in its literal sense. even if there were a measurable change in frequency response, such a state would neither be bad or good.
the issue between us is whether i consider a reduction in inaccuracy an increase in performance. i do not. it is a change that is based either upon perception or measurement.
such a change is not better or worse. it is a change.
there is no contradiction between preference and perception. my preferences are based upon my perceptions.
i guess the word performance has one connotation for you, another for you. even if i accept your connotation of an "a performance increase", such an increase is not better than no increase. it depends upon what you prefer. |
"even if there were a measurable change in frequency response, such a state would neither be bad or good."
"the issue between us is whether i consider a reduction in inaccuracy an increase in performance. i do not."
Somehow I can't see Peter Walker or Gayle Sanders not caring about frequency response or accuracy.
Duke |
MrT, that which is real exists in time and space, and has the property of being measurable. Obviously specifications are measurable and therefore real, but so is love- it too exists in time and space, and the one experiencing it can definitely measure it. I have included the latter example because it is easy to think of something like that as being **perceptual** only.
So how much do you love your music and stereo? Enough to spend money on it and take a stand for the equipment that brings you that music?? You can't tell me that you have no idea!
Those things that rely on perception only are subject to interpretation, however in the cases I mentioned, I was careful to include those that were both audible **and** measurable.
There may be no contradiction in your preference and perception, but so far I see that there has indeed been contradiction in your communication. There also appears to be a sort of double standard that you have exercised over the years; where you hold amplifiers on an entirely different ground from that of speakers. I can go dig up the references if you like, but the most telling one is from any earlier part of this thread:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?cspkr&1201458336&openflup&21&4#21
You have maintained that there is no 'best amplifier' but you clearly are stating in 2 different ways in the above link that there is some sort of best when it comes to speakers. You can't have it both ways- there must be an amplifier for which no other will be better, period. Right? |
i have not contradicted myself.
regarding speakers. i said that never will a cone speaker be the best. as well , never will any speaker be the best.
i have reported my perceptions and preferences. i don't recall saying the quad 57 was the best or is the best speaker, because there is no best speaker.
if it can be measured that speaker a is closer to 100 percent accurate than speaker b it doesn't mean that speaker a is better than speaker b.
noew, let's talk amplifiers. there is no best amplifier.
my preferences have nothing to do with "best". best is only meaningful in the context of a criterion. if there are two different criteria then there are two different "best" , whatever is being judged.
i think there is no doubt now, that better and best are somewhat arbitrary and not useful terms, as far as i am concerned.
its all about taste and preference.
there is no inconsistency and no contradiction. there may have been misunderstanding and misinterpretation.
now all is clear. i like what i like, and you like what you like. stereo systems and components are different. they sound different, some of their parts are different and some design principles are different.
listen and decide what you like. one man's trash is another man's treasure.
the only standrads and norms are thos suggested and imposed and based upon those standards one may conclude that something is better than something else.
since i do not accept such standards as a means of determining quality, i am not bound by them and hence i do not accept the the hypothesis that a is better than b, in life. rather i would say it is in my interest to own a or it is in my interest to do a. i won't admit that my choices are based upon my own conecpts of quality because i don't have any.
i can apply this philosophy to all areas of life. |
Hi Duke, you said, "Somehow I can't see Peter Walker or Gayle Sanders not caring about frequency response or accuracy."
I dont know why, but when I say that in my posts... I get lambasted.
Bob |
hi ralph:
thank you for all of the intellectual jousting. you are contributing to the health of a 66 year old brain. |
I must admit MrT, I thought you meant best too - especially given this statement the quads unlimited quad 57 are closer to real than anything out there, period. "anything out there, period" In my simple mindedness I equated your "criteria" of being "closest to real" as the Quad 57 being defacto "the best", period. (Throw a heavy dash of perception into the criteria if you like...no problem) Furthermore MrT, you implied to me, and probably others, that given this "closer to real" metric: ANY electrostat/ribbon/panel will BEST any of 1000 audiophile quality cone speakers that you have auditioned. In essence MrT, you ARE saying there is a "best" for this particular perceived criteria (by your ears), which is "the real thing" or a live performance. Surely this is the single most important criteria in sound reproduction for the majority of audiophiles? Yet now you are back peddling and saying NO - you didn't mean best at all - and to each man his own! If I were a psychiatrist, I would probably conclude that MrT has the preconcieved notion about Quad 57's sounding the most like the real thing...better than any of 1000 audiophile quality cone speakers. This notion also applies in general to any Electrostat/Panel/Ribbon speaker viz a viz a cone. Therefore, even a new ML speaker will be perceived as sounding better than ANY cone speaker regardless of whether MrT has actually heard it or not! Therefore, I propose that you don't need to audition anymore speakers MrT => you already KNOW what will sound "most like the real thing" or "least inaccurate timbrally". This Panglossian attitude towards all Electrostats/Ribbons/Panels is actually quite charming and I think that these and your other statements are keeping you well amused. No harm in that. And I do agree that, properly implemented and installed, these speakers can and do sound awesome. Peace and I wish you many more years of happiness - perhaps with advances in science (my domain) you may reach another 66....it certainly won't come from Panglossian thinking alone - although Doctors do say that an optimistic attitude really helps! |
Shadorne, I think you are better at saying all that than me! |
once more: there is no best of anything. my perception of naturalness of timbre leads me to prefer the quad 57 in comparison to most speakers. my preference does not mean that i think the quad 57 is the best speaker, or the best at reproducing timbre. i haven't auditioned evry speaker, thus it is not possible to use the term "best".
the word best does not enter my vocabulary. it is a word i try not to use.
i have perception and preferences. that is the extent of my comments. one cannot conclude "best" based upon perception and preference. favorite might be a better word.
hopefully, i am now understood. |
>if there is a speaker that is a worthy competitor of electrostatics and planar/magnetics/ribbons, with respect to reproduction of timbre, using "conventional" drivers, i would want to audition it, unless i have already heard it.
The Linkwitz Orion (open baffle dynamic dipole) midrange is more similar than different (I prefer it). The sweet spot is much wider and placement less critical. The (dipole) bass goes louder and deeper than a full-range planar (like the CLS) and is much more natural than the (box) bass of a hybrid like other Martin-Logans.
The Emerald Physics CS2, Jamo 909k, Nomad Ronin, and Gilmore model 2 and 3 are also current production dynamic-driver dipoles with different design compromises and price tags.
Other commercially produced examples exist along with a pile of DIY designs (You can build Orions, NaOs, or the Adire DDR from plans).
|
Does ones hearing not get a little Impaired the older one becomes? Clouding ones judgment compared with the rapscallion younger set? |
thank you drew. i should have been more specific.
what i meant to say is that i might be interested in auditioning a non-panel speaker that would fool me into thinking that i was listening to a panel.
i'm not sure that the speakers you mentioned could completely emulate a pair of stacked quad 57 or apogee suettta signature.
i heard the emerald physics speaker at the show. i was not impressed |
>what i meant to say is that i might be interested in auditioning a non-panel speaker that would fool me into thinking that i was listening to a panel.
Try the Orions (I own a pair) - they have a very similar midrange but don't suffer from panel limitations.
I'm extrapolating more towards the rest of the dynamic driver dipoles.
|
Try the Orions (I own a pair) - they have a very similar midrange but don't suffer from panel limitations. I have not heard them - but I agree that this design will definitely sound closer to MrTennis's prized Quad's than most conventional box speakers. Of course, I have been shouting to the rooftops about radiation patterns, for some time already!. It is the way the lower half of the midrange behaves that is so distinctive about the sound of these designs compared to conventional boxes. Without going into technical details MrTennis should hear a very spacious sound (correctly placed) with the odd note of an instrument jumping out at you - just as it does in a concert hall due to the dimensional/room effects. |
hi shadorne:
i have never noticed a note jumping out at me. perhaps, it is because my favorite location is the last row orchestra.
cone speakers, with some exception tend to sound like i am listening in the first row, or at best mid hall. |
MrT, I've done a lot of recordings in halls and watched major labels at it too. They all put the mics up towards the front, so as to give you the perspective of the 'best seat in the house'. IOW if your equipment gives you a different perspective, then something isn't right! So what I get from your post is that you hear cone speakers having a more accurate soundstage presentation, but not one you **prefer** as you like to sit in the back?
Could you comment on that? |
If the sound Is better at the back of the hall, then why is the conductor at the front of the stage and in the middle??
Perhaps he doesn't need to use his ears when he conducts just his arms.
Next time I am at a concert I am going to tell the baton waver to go prop up the bar at the back of the hall and have a few bevvies also! |
i have never noticed a note jumping out at me. perhaps, it is because my favorite location is the last row orchestra. The reason certain notes jump out at you when listening to more of reverberant field compared to a direct sound field is because reverberations all arrive at your ears with multiple delays...this causes cancellation and reinforcement of one note viz a viz another. It is similar to the trick that can be used to make sound appear all around you from a stereo speaker by feeding it out of polarity signals. Reverberations can occasionally change the way a particular note on an instrument sounds in some cases it can lead to accents on the notes that the musician does not intend - increasing their audibility noticeably. The audio spectrum will look like a comb...with "suckouts" whereever there is reverberant cancellation. Our ears can compensate for this quite well being placed 6 inches apart as long as they receive different amounts of cancellation. In general a comb filter is well known to make the sound seem spacious and encompassing... like a flanger on the guitar (electronic comb filtering by adding delay). It is also well known that a delay or a strong primary reflection produces a comb filter. The key to understand about a delay comb type filter is that is affects harmonics too - we can and do hear it even with instruments and all their harmonics - unlike a single notch filter or the odd uncorrelated reflection it will affect timbre! In general this happens with all bass from ALL speakers (except soffit mounted ones) because the bass is omnidirectional anyway and therefore first reflections off the wall behind the speaker will interfere with the forward radiating direct bass signal heard by the listener. Speakers that radiate BOTH forwards and backwards in the midrange (like dipoles or panels) will have this comb filtering strongest in the direction of the listener as reflection from the wall behind the speaker and forward radition of the panels combines. Next time you listen to a highly reverberant sound in a room - say from panels with midrange frequencies reflecting off the back wall - try and listen for these effects - it is quite pleasing with an impression of spaciousness - the odd note will usually stick out because your two ears are at the same distance from the speakers AND the wall behind the speakers....in this case the difference between the sounds received by the two ears cannot be used to compensate because there is NO difference as reflected and primary sounds arrive precisely at the same time at each ear. So although the ear/brain is extremely clever, in these rare cases we are unable to separate timbre from reflection effects; this is also the case with ALL bass notes, which have long wavelengths and where 6 inches (between ears)is simply not enough to hear a different sound and compensate. Ok - so may be this is all too complicated. Here is the EASY way to think of it. Just imagine that you have FOUR speakers and not TWO in your room playing your stereo music. One speaker set is real. The other is the "virtual speakers" that you would see if the wall behind the speakers was a MIRROR. Now before you laugh...this is ACTUALLY what happens acoustically with ALL speakers in the bass and even more so with those that radiate forwards and backwards equally in the midrange - the wall IS AN ACOUSTIC MIRROR unless it is treated. So you are actually listening to FOUR speakers not TWO - no wonder this throws a deep soundstage... Here is a very simple explanation Cancellations from reflectionsThis long winded discussion proves nothing as to what sounds better or what people like most! Education and enlightenment in our hobby is more important that "my Dad is bigger than your Dad" purile discussions. It does explain why Audio Engineers do NOT use dipoles/panels! These engineers are trying to create effects, such as spaciousness, through judicious reverb and delay and mixing tricks...the last thing they want is a dipole speaker doing the very same things in an uncontrolled fashion in the room. So not surprsingly they often listen in near-field with cone speakers. Notice I did not say what is better sounding...just trying to explain fundamental differences as to why things sound so different to your ears, MrT - that is all. |
the placement of microphones is different from the location of audience members. it is gnereally above the stage and sometimes over rows 1 to 5.
placing the microphones in that position gives an orchestra a sound which does not represnt where i prefer to sit.
since when is a seat in rows one to five, the best seat in the house. there is no best seat in the house, just as there is no best amp, preamp, speaker, cable, wife, car, book, movie, candidate running for office, etc. .
i wish they would remove the word "best" from the english language, as it engeneders arguments.
you are entitled to your opinions on a variety of subjects.
an opinion is probably true and probably false.
as to your implication tha an accurate stereo system is "better" than an inaccurate one, that too is your opinion.
your reference to a stereo system which changes the perspective of a recording as being wrong, is also an opinion. obviously you and i don't agree on alot of things.
i hope one day we can meet at a ces show and continue to discuss our differences. as i said before, it keep me mentally sharp to joust with you.
hopefully, they print this post, otherwise you will think i am avoiding you. |
For all the Buzz I have been hearing on the NSR D-3 loudspeaker.While Out west I spoke with a few dealers and they thought the final samples sounded superb. I have a tenative appointment in March after speaking with the
guys at Hifidelityaudio the spec sheet he sent me looked
pretty impressive ,I will tell you my thoughts after the listen these are the final specs.
http://www.hifidelityaudio.com/NSR_specifications.htm
|
Though I have not had the opportunity to hear them the Audio Machina's Pure System interest me intensely. Anyone heard it yet? |
Henryhk, they were right next to us at T.H.E. Show. He wanted to hear our amps and I had a backup set of M-60s available- The speaker is easy to drive (bass is handled by an internal amplifier) and every easy to listen to- spacious, detailed, wide bandwidth and very neutral.
MrT, you may not like the way that the record labels make their recordings but the fact is that they make their recordings the way they make their recordings. If you want the perspective to be the way you like it, you will have to go out and make a recording that way yourself. Whether best or not, any system that distorts the perspective of soundstage is in fact distorting the perspective of soundstage. An obvious distortion or inability like that is clearly not 'best', in fact it might be worst (the opposite of best), at least in the arena of soundstage depth.
Soundstage depth is one of many aspects heard by audiophiles. Audiophiles hear these things because they all have ears that use the same rules for sound location, intensity, bandwidth and so on. In fact these rules operate independently of taste.
I once met a guy who hated his teeth and wanted dentures. Loosing my teeth is one of my worst nightmares. Taste is the sort of thing that is so unaccountable that one person can hate their own teeth (even though they are healthy), or hate accurate reproduction of soundstage.
I submit to you that taste has nothing to do with 'best'. The best-sounding amplifier/speaker will be that thing due to the fact that it can reproduce an audio signal more closely according to the rules of human hearing than any other amplifier/speaker. You can still hate it though, for its attention to accuracy, detail, musical nature, relaxed and spacious presentation, bandwidth and impact: you can hate it for the very fact that it is the 'best'. You don't have to hate it consciously- and so to justify the taste issue it is also possible to say there is no 'best', but such would never be the case. It would be a simple denial of what is so. |
i wish they would remove the word "best" from the english language, as it engeneders arguments. Exactly...becuase to yourself you see everything as an argument....instead myself and others are trying to concentrate efforts on furthering knowledge and understanding in this hobby by trying to explain things, as best we can, and not without some errors and prejudices no doubt...but nevertheless in the interests of moving forward - we try our best. The way I see it - you have a been offered a fine choice. Either 1) Chose to learn about the acoustical, electrical & physics science and psychoacoustic science of hearing in enough measure to to gain a moderate understanding of this hobby and the issues that you comment so passionately about {clearly like many of us you love this hobby, you have vast practical experience however I suggest that a deeper understanding could increase enjoyment enormously!) 2) Stick with your "mantra" ..."there is no best", "there is no best"..."nothing can be compared meaningfully or even discussed because to each his own"..."Om Mani Padme Hum!" It is up to you now. I do not see this as a "joust" at all...there is NOTHING to be won....except perhaps on one hand, enlightenment for everyone concerned or, on the other hand, continued propagation of misleading concepts or just plain useless uninformative mantras or platitudes....statements with little or no explanation. FWIW the answer to life the universe and everything has already been solved a while ago and the answer is 42. |
hi ralph:
aha, now i see your point. you have defined a criterion as to what best is, and you are applying that criterion to the evaluation of components and stereo systems.
i understand your perspective, but it is an arbitrary one. you use the word "best" and "worst", as it follows from your premise of accuracy, and "the rules of hearing".
your premise is arbitrary, although sensible.
i still say that there is no "best" or worst", in the absolute sense. i will accept your conclusions based upon your premise, but at the same time, i reject it because, i consider this hobby to be subjective and the basis for judging stereo systems to be a simple, "i like it" or "i don't like it". "best" or "worst", which follows logically from your premise is irrelevant. don't confuse facts with value. you are making a virtue of necessity.
by the way, i sent you an e mail. did you receive it ?
i see no point in debating with you. this is a philosophical argument. one could have a similar discussion with respect to food, literature, art and movies.
as i said in the e mail, it would be easier to discuss this in person with you. perhaps we may meet at ces. |
"one could have a similar discussion with respect to food, literature, art and movies."
In my opinion this comment would be applicable if we were discussing music, which we are not. We are discussing the replication of music. That replication is either faithful in the areas that matter, or not.
Now as to which areas matter and how much - well, that would be a topic rich with diversity of opinion.
Duke |
hi duke:
you can discuss accurate vs inaccurate replication of recordings. one can measure and state facts.
the problem occurs when a judgment is rendered.
here is an example:
stereo system a is accurate--fact
stereo system b is inaccurate--fact
so far, there would be no disagreement if the facts were established properly.
to say stereo system a is better than stereo system b is illogical and only an opinion. |
stereo system a is accurate--fact
stereo system b is inaccurate--fact
so far, there would be no disagreement if the facts were established properly.
to say stereo system a is better than stereo system b is illogical and only an opinion. Mrt, I did not get your email. BTW your conclusion above is not logical. System A in the example above is logically the better. This is because 'accurate' is deemed by the world at large (through agreement) to be better than 'inaccurate'. Many things exist out of agreement. Money is a good example- the material of a $100 bill are worth marginally more than a piece of paper the same size; we give it the value out of agreement. Stop signs have their value out of agreement as well. So logic dictates: if accurate is better than inaccurate, and system A is accurate and system B is not, then A is better than B. You may attach whatever personal meaning and value you wish to the contrary, but usually its best not to make those feelings public. |
That replication is either faithful in the areas that matter, or not. Now as to which areas matter and how much - well, that would be a topic rich with diversity of opinion. Agreed - this type discussion might be worthwhile but it requires a certain minimum of understanding. Clearly, different aspects are more important to some people than others. For this very reason audio engineers can prefer cone speakers whilst audiophiles can prefer Quad 57's. Neither is wrong in their views when they both say "my speaker sounds better to me"...they value differently what is important. For some, accurate dynamics, realistic loudness levels and minimizing the affects of room interaction are much less important than the room acoustic ambience and reverberant low intensity sound field with a broad, deep soundstage. The Sonic Circle is an attempt to address this problem intelligently rather than purile arguments. However, I suspect the Sonic Circle is incomplete as I struggle to see where Panels/Ribbons/Electrostats fit in...anyone have some ideas....to me they have that rare quality in that they blend features from several dimensions of the Sonic Circle, they are certainly precise in some aspects of the sound but they have an emotional flare too in terms of ambience...? |
