AudioNervosa
Systemic Development => Speakers => Topic started by: James Edward on April 30, 2022, 03:07:09 PM
-
I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I find these beautiful, and not outrageously priced. I love the two-tone baffle. A recipe for disaster. Talk me down…
https://www.dagogo.com/pureaudioproject-trio15-coax10-open-baffle-speakers-review/
I find Doug Schroeder to be the Stephen King of audio reviewing- as I read him I feel he’s too verbose, and when I’m done, it all seemed just right.
I love the idea of a large wide band driver nestled between two even bigger drivers. I’m already on board the open baffle train with the Spatials; the bass works better for me in my problematic, asymmetrical room. The PAP’s are quite fetching looking, the Spatials just ok. I’d love an A-B of the two.
-
Jim,
I agree with you. The two tone really looks good. I’ve had no experience with OB speakers, but they’d probably be a good fit for my listening room. But it would be tough to part with my Fritzies.
They do have a home audition program for either demo or new speakers. Choices, choices…. 🤷♂️
Nick
-
I just read Doug's review and agree they look like a very interesting option. I've owned M3TM's since 2016 but they get very little play these days. I priced out a pair of the Coaxial 10 version in Gloss Black and with shipping came out a $8180 so not bad.
-
Jim,
I agree with you. The two tone really looks good. I’ve had no experience with OB speakers, but they’d probably be a good fit for my listening room. But it would be tough to part with my Fritzies.
They do have a home audition program for either demo or new speakers. Choices, choices…. 🤷♂️
Nick
Yes, maybe demo/loaners so you can keep the Fritz.
Will power Nick, will power.
cheers
steve
-
Jim,
I agree with you. The two tone really looks good. I’ve had no experience with OB speakers, but they’d probably be a good fit for my listening room. But it would be tough to part with my Fritzies.
They do have a home audition program for either demo or new speakers. Choices, choices…. 🤷♂️
Nick
Yes, maybe demo/loaners so you can keep the Fritz.
Will power Nick, will power.
cheers
steve
Steve,
If I had the 💵💵, maybe a share of the money that Paul is going to win in the lotto someday, I’d likely get these :drool:
https://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2021/10/28/the-fleetwood-deville-speaker-review/
-
General consumption. Don't mean to offend anyone, but I suppose the author will be.
I read this statement, stopped reading, and started laughing.
"They are also not going for “neutral” or “correct”. Nope, what these Deville’s do is go for amazing musicality, body, soul and they have a way to make anything I play through it sound rather amazing. "
What he states is an oxymoron, that somehow natural instruments aren't musical, with body, and soul, that sounds live.
Listening live is neutral, correct, accurate, has soul, is live, by definition, since the music is not altered.
That is not good enough?
I guess I will have to change the descriptions of my components because that is exactly what my components do, musicality, body, soul, and lifelike, "where music comes alive tm". But that is because they are neutral and correct and accurate to the live music event, of course with excellent recordings.
With definitions being butchered, no wonder music lovers/audiophiles are confused. :?
cheers
steve
-
General consumption. Don't mean to offend anyone, but I suppose the author will be.
I read this statement, stopped reading, and started laughing.
"They are also not going for “neutral” or “correct”. Nope, what these Deville’s do is go for amazing musicality, body, soul and they have a way to make anything I play through it sound rather amazing. "
What he states is an oxymoron, that somehow natural instruments aren't musical, with body, and soul, that sounds live.
Listening live is neutral, correct, accurate, has soul, is live, by definition, since the music is not altered.
That is not good enough?
I guess I will have to change the descriptions of my components because that is exactly what my components do, musicality, body, soul, and lifelike, "where music comes alive tm". But that is because they are neutral and correct and accurate to the live music event, of course with excellent recordings.
With definitions being butchered, no wonder music lovers/audiophiles are confused. :?
cheers
steve
Steve,
I understand your point of view. I had heard of Steve Huff previously, but just started reading his reviews recently. I do have a hunch that the Fleetwood is quite an excellent speaker based on the other speakers that he has had in his system and the many years he’s devoted to audio. I think part of the issue here is simply that we all have different personalities and that leads into how we speak and express ourselves. Then there is the issue of understanding what audiophile terms mean and that everyone uses those terms with the same intent. That’s a pretty tall order in my opinion and involves education and consensus. The simplest test I guess is simply to listen to the equipment that was reviewed and to judge if you like it as much as the reviewer. Oftentimes, that is not easily doable, though, and isn’t possible for me with expensive products.
Over the years, I have come to trust certain reviewers much more than others and the same goes here on AN with certain members. I have come to trust their opinions because I was able to audition the gear that they had recommended and our opinions had coincided.
It’s a hobby/passion for me and I’m appreciative of how good things sound now. It’s been quite a long journey to get to this point.
Nick
-
"Accuracy" in audio is a constantly moving target that will NEVER be hit dead center.
There are too many issues. The beginning of the process usually involves a transducer, except for DI recordings. The transducer and input stages of a recording desk or recorder is inherently non-linear and they ALWAYS introduce distortion components. The end of the process is an inherently non-linear transducer(s). Add to this all of the intermediate processing and stages and the concept of neutrality is dead on arrival.
The better term is faithful. It implies that the end user (listener) "believes" the product to be a reproduction of the original event.
Take digital audio processes. Imagine this: you have a wagyu porterhouse. Grind it up. Now reassemble the grind into a wagyu porterhouse. Nope. You will have great ground beef, but it will never be the same as the original cut. Both are delectable, but in totally different ways.
Cartridges. Do I even need to go there?
I'll always opt for faithful. Hopefully it will have a modicum of neutrality, whatever the hell that is.
When I was engineering a session, I always tried to make the individual performances sound "better" than the original. In some instances that involved EQ that was in no way neutral to make the offender not step all over the other instruments or vocals. Having too many instruments loading up a particular frequency spectrum is the absolute recipe for end product disaster. Too many low frequency components like kick drum, concert drum, bass viols or guitars, synths, etc = mud. Same goes for cluttering the mids or creating screechy, glaring highs is a no-no...
There is no way to recreate a live performance that is accurate or neutral in modern day recordings. The physics are just not there. We do the best that we can.
Steve, I get exactly what you are saying and striving for. You are to be commended for your great products. Your "neutral" might be another's "musical", that's all I'm saying. Also, the reviewer may (does) have a different opinion or agenda.
Add to this ear canals, HRTF (head related transfer functions) and all of the other variables and we have the proverbial can-o-worms.
FWIW - many of the "neutral" systems I have listened to were sterile, lifeless amalgamations that sounded very good, for about 5-10 minutes.
-
General consumption. Don't mean to offend anyone, but I suppose the author will be.
I read this statement, stopped reading, and started laughing.
"They are also not going for “neutral” or “correct”. Nope, what these Deville’s do is go for amazing musicality, body, soul and they have a way to make anything I play through it sound rather amazing. "
What he states is an oxymoron, that somehow natural instruments aren't musical, with body, and soul, that sounds live.
Listening live is neutral, correct, accurate, has soul, is live, by definition, since the music is not altered.
That is not good enough?
I guess I will have to change the descriptions of my components because that is exactly what my components do, musicality, body, soul, and lifelike, "where music comes alive tm". But that is because they are neutral and correct and accurate to the live music event, of course with excellent recordings.
With definitions being butchered, no wonder music lovers/audiophiles are confused. :?
cheers
steve
Steve,
I understand your point of view. I had heard of Steve Huff previously, but just started reading his reviews recently. I do have a hunch that the Fleetwood is quite an excellent speaker based on the other speakers that he has had in his system and the many years he’s devoted to audio. I think part of the issue here is simply that we all have different personalities and that leads into how we speak and express ourselves. Then there is the issue of understanding what audiophile terms mean and that everyone uses those terms with the same intent. That’s a pretty tall order in my opinion and involves education and consensus. The simplest test I guess is simply to listen to the equipment that was reviewed and to judge if you like it as much as the reviewer. Oftentimes, that is not easily doable, though, and isn’t possible for me with expensive products.
Over the years, I have come to trust certain reviewers much more than others and the same goes here on AN with certain members. I have come to trust their opinions because I was able to audition the gear that they had recommended and our opinions had coincided.
It’s a hobby/passion for me and I’m appreciative of how good things sound now. It’s been quite a long journey to get to this point.
Nick
The issue of a standard definition is exactly what I was addressing. By definition a live performance is neutral and correct, Not sterile sounding. That standard definition has been around for many many many decades. Unfortunately, many wanna bees have crept into the field, causing confusion, chaos. Another term is dis-information because they refuse to learn the craft.
When one enters a field, whether education, as a newbie etc, one always learns the definitions and other standards of that field in order to excel.
The consensus has always been there for those interested to learning the craft. (RCA Radiotron Designers Handbook) The problem is that many don't wish to follow the definitions. Check this string as an example.
How many designers are there now, hundreds,,,, thousands who will not follow those definitions. And how much product are these guys selling by marketing an altered version of standard definitions. It is those who refuse to follow the standard definitions, some for a buck. Unfortunately, the paradigms are low now, concerning sound quality.
I have not found a single "professional" reviewer who understands how to review a product. Not One. Simply inserting a component into his/her "professional" system and writing a review is not the way to judge and write a review.
cheers and all the best.
steve
-
1. "Accuracy" in audio is a constantly moving target that will NEVER be hit dead center.
2. There are too many issues. The beginning of the process usually involves a transducer, except for DI recordings. The transducer and input stages of a recording desk or recorder is inherently non-linear and they ALWAYS introduce distortion components. The end of the process is an inherently non-linear transducer(s). Add to this all of the intermediate processing and stages and the concept of neutrality is dead on arrival.
3. The better term is faithful. It implies that the end user (listener) "believes" the product to be a reproduction of the original event.
4. Take digital audio processes. Imagine this: you have a wagyu porterhouse. Grind it up. Now reassemble the grind into a wagyu porterhouse. Nope. You will have great ground beef, but it will never be the same as the original cut. Both are delectable, but in totally different ways.
5. Cartridges. Do I even need to go there?
6. I'll always opt for faithful. Hopefully it will have a modicum of neutrality, whatever the hell that is.
7. When I was engineering a session, I always tried to make the individual performances sound "better" than the original. In some instances that involved EQ that was in no way neutral to make the offender not step all over the other instruments or vocals. Having too many instruments loading up a particular frequency spectrum is the absolute recipe for end product disaster. Too many low frequency components like kick drum, concert drum, bass viols or guitars, synths, etc = mud. Same goes for cluttering the mids or creating screechy, glaring highs is a no-no...
8. There is no way to recreate a live performance that is accurate or neutral in modern day recordings. The physics are just not there. We do the best that we can.
9. Steve, I get exactly what you are saying and striving for. You are to be commended for your great products. Your "neutral" might be another's "musical", that's all I'm saying. Also, the reviewer may (does) have a different opinion or agenda.
10. Add to this ear canals, HRTF (head related transfer functions) and all of the other variables and we have the proverbial can-o-worms.
11. FWIW - many of the "neutral" systems I have listened to were sterile, lifeless amalgamations that sounded very good, for about 5-10 minutes.
I numbered P.I.'s response so as viewers may correlate my responses to his comments.
Point 11 is in essence your most important and revealing point as it demonstrates a refusal to follow audio industry standards previously mentioned. By definition, a live instrument is "neutral", a reference. So you heard "sterile" sounding components after 5-10 minutes and labeled or accepted it "neutral". Was the live instrument also sounding sterile after 5-10 minutes. Evidently your label was not accurate.
1. Your definition is extremely vague. See point 2,3,4 etc.
2, 3, 4. There are some truly accurate recordings, meaning extremely natural and exciting/emotional, properly dimensional recordings that do not fatigue, and you are in the audience recordings. I do not mean to offend P.I. but
just because you cannot, well, others can.
4. It does take high rez for optimum sonics, but there are many many LPs that are pure junk as well. And no,
there is "no grind it up" "meat" analogy. Digital is sampling a portion of the audio signal waveform and reproducing it.
Now yes, the quality does vary; the more samples the higher the quality. There comes a point, however, where digital is simply amazing.
Many of the problems one encounters is the analog portion of the signal in the DAC itself.
The digital to analog chip includes analog as well as the separate 6db (gain of 2) analog chip or discrete transistors. Each has a power supply voltage with decoupling electrolytic capacitor. Those analog stages vary considerably in sonic quality. So once mp3, redbook, or hi rez enters the picture, the analog stages must be addressed, which almost no one does properly. Vacuum tube stages have the same problems.
5. I am not going to discuss, but some are very good.
6. Neutrality has already been discussed. Reread previous points.
7. The really good recordings use minimal components, or remain in digital mode for as long as possible.
(Most analog recording equipment is pure junk to begin with. Are recording "engineers" required to take any engineering courses at all? Just asking.)
8. You are going to claim physics now. True, a similar structure would give the spaciousness but otherwise,
a properly treated structure will provide good spatial qualities, accurate voices, instrument quality, dynamics etc. (Not 10 x 10 room though.) Believe it or not, almost all analog electronic components are just as problematic as the venue or speaker itself. The small deviation is over many octaves is just as important as the narrow peaks and narrow valleys. The poor quality parts are just as important.
9. A. An opinion is just that, but is Not the standard definition.
B. If he refers to a component as sterile, when in fact it is accurate and honest, he is
1. dicing a product unfairly due to another component's weakness in his system
2. He is unfairly inflating a component that is inferior in nature
3. He is unfairly costing one company money while unfairly inflating another company's revenue
4. Customers are unwisely wasting money and time due to an inaccurate review
5. He should be replacing the poor component that is causing the "sterile" condition, not
falsely labeling the accurate component "sterile". Its the wrong component. The individual
is Not competent to be reviewing if he does not understand how to perform proper listening tests.
Nick stated he spent a lot of time to arrive at his present system. (I would guess money as well.) I wish
he did not have to go through the years searching.
10. Not that much of a problem, as per my decades of testing with others present over time. If need be,
clean one's ears if it bothers one.
Back to pt 11. Point 11 is in essence your most important point as it demonstrates a refusal to follow audio industry standards. By definition, a live instrument is "neutral". So you heard "sterile" sounding components for 5-10 minutes and labeled or accepted it "neutral". I don't think a live instrument sounds sterile after 5-10 minutes. If it does,
then I guess you do need to artificially alter it.
Please follow audio standards and definitions as it reduces confusion. This is my last post on the subject.
cheers and all the best.
steve
-
General consumption. Don't mean to offend anyone, but I suppose the author will be.
I read this statement, stopped reading, and started laughing.
"They are also not going for “neutral” or “correct”. Nope, what these Deville’s do is go for amazing musicality, body, soul and they have a way to make anything I play through it sound rather amazing. "
What he states is an oxymoron, that somehow natural instruments aren't musical, with body, and soul, that sounds live.
Listening live is neutral, correct, accurate, has soul, is live, by definition, since the music is not altered.
That is not good enough?
I guess I will have to change the descriptions of my components because that is exactly what my components do, musicality, body, soul, and lifelike, "where music comes alive tm". But that is because they are neutral and correct and accurate to the live music event, of course with excellent recordings.
With definitions being butchered, no wonder music lovers/audiophiles are confused. :?
cheers
steve
Steve,
I understand your point of view. I had heard of Steve Huff previously, but just started reading his reviews recently. I do have a hunch that the Fleetwood is quite an excellent speaker based on the other speakers that he has had in his system and the many years he’s devoted to audio. I think part of the issue here is simply that we all have different personalities and that leads into how we speak and express ourselves. Then there is the issue of understanding what audiophile terms mean and that everyone uses those terms with the same intent. That’s a pretty tall order in my opinion and involves education and consensus. The simplest test I guess is simply to listen to the equipment that was reviewed and to judge if you like it as much as the reviewer. Oftentimes, that is not easily doable, though, and isn’t possible for me with expensive products.
Over the years, I have come to trust certain reviewers much more than others and the same goes here on AN with certain members. I have come to trust their opinions because I was able to audition the gear that they had recommended and our opinions had coincided.
It’s a hobby/passion for me and I’m appreciative of how good things sound now. It’s been quite a long journey to get to this point.
Nick
The issue of a standard definition is exactly what I was addressing. By definition a live performance is neutral and correct, Not sterile sounding. That standard definition has been around for many many many decades. Unfortunately, many wanna bees have crept into the field, causing confusion, chaos. Another term is dis-information because they refuse to learn the craft.
When one enters a field, whether education, as a newbie etc, one always learns the definitions and other standards of that field in order to excel.
The consensus has always been there for those interested to learning the craft. (RCA Radiotron Designers Handbook) The problem is that many don't wish to follow the definitions. Check this string as an example.
How many designers are there now, hundreds,,,, thousands who will not follow those definitions. And how much product are these guys selling by marketing an altered version of standard definitions. It is those who refuse to follow the standard definitions, some for a buck. Unfortunately, the paradigms are low now, concerning sound quality.
I have not found a single "professional" reviewer who understands how to review a product. Not One. Simply inserting a component into his/her "professional" system and writing a review is not the way to judge and write a review.
cheers and all the best.
steve
Ok, Steve. I respect you approaching this from a designer/manufacturer point of view. You entered the field and followed the standards and I applaud that. For the vast majority of others who are simply music lovers, salesmen etc. it’s either a way to engage in a wonderful hobby or a way to make a living or maybe both. That’s the reality of the situation. I think it’s the same for any other avocation that amateurs are involved in, be it tennis, golf, biking or whatever. I wish I had had the good fortune to have met a very learned audiophile a few decades ago who could have demonstrated and explained room acoustics, vibration control, equipment and speaker design basics, etc. but that didn’t happen and the average audiophile/music lover nowadays isn’t likely to fare that much better. There was no internet when I got into audio in the late 70s and 80s. That’s why so many of us go on forums and read reviews. To learn the best we can. It’s still just a hobby we love, albeit an expensive one. I wish I’d spent less money over the years, but it’s the price of admission for this hobby.
Nick
-
I am going to break my own rule here.
"Ok, Steve. I respect you approaching this from a designer/manufacturer point of view."
No, it is from a Scientific point of view. It is not an US vs THEM,
nor MANUFACTURER vs CONSUMER point of view etc. (I know there are some "objectivists" who
also claim MANUFACTURER vs CONSUMER .)
Here is the definition of the word "neutral" we all understand in common.
not engaged on either side specifically
not aligned with a political or ideological grouping a neutral nation
not decided or pronounced as to characteristics : indifferent
neither acid nor basic
not electrically charged
an impartial or unbiased country or person:
This is the music lover's point of view, what he understands "neutral" actually means, just like
the manufacturer/designer/engineer. There is no split view points. If the reviewer wants to be
honest, just state that these speakers make the music a little fuller than natural instruments sound.
Instead, the reviewer twists the definition into a negative when "neutral" is neither negative nor
positive. Perpetuate the "neutral" is sterile myth to hype a product. I don't see manipulating
definitions in other professional fields like Accounting, real science, but audio is another matter it seems.
Is it any wonder why I have heard more than once from young people; see the hyprocrisy and don't want
to be part of the hypocrisy. Neither do I.
The speakers may be comparatively good. That is all I have to say.
cheers
steve
-
1. "Accuracy" in audio is a constantly moving target that will NEVER be hit dead center.
2. There are too many issues. The beginning of the process usually involves a transducer, except for DI recordings. The transducer and input stages of a recording desk or recorder is inherently non-linear and they ALWAYS introduce distortion components. The end of the process is an inherently non-linear transducer(s). Add to this all of the intermediate processing and stages and the concept of neutrality is dead on arrival.
3. The better term is faithful. It implies that the end user (listener) "believes" the product to be a reproduction of the original event.
4. Take digital audio processes. Imagine this: you have a wagyu porterhouse. Grind it up. Now reassemble the grind into a wagyu porterhouse. Nope. You will have great ground beef, but it will never be the same as the original cut. Both are delectable, but in totally different ways.
5. Cartridges. Do I even need to go there?
6. I'll always opt for faithful. Hopefully it will have a modicum of neutrality, whatever the hell that is.
7. When I was engineering a session, I always tried to make the individual performances sound "better" than the original. In some instances that involved EQ that was in no way neutral to make the offender not step all over the other instruments or vocals. Having too many instruments loading up a particular frequency spectrum is the absolute recipe for end product disaster. Too many low frequency components like kick drum, concert drum, bass viols or guitars, synths, etc = mud. Same goes for cluttering the mids or creating screechy, glaring highs is a no-no...
8. There is no way to recreate a live performance that is accurate or neutral in modern day recordings. The physics are just not there. We do the best that we can.
9. Steve, I get exactly what you are saying and striving for. You are to be commended for your great products. Your "neutral" might be another's "musical", that's all I'm saying. Also, the reviewer may (does) have a different opinion or agenda.
10. Add to this ear canals, HRTF (head related transfer functions) and all of the other variables and we have the proverbial can-o-worms.
11. FWIW - many of the "neutral" systems I have listened to were sterile, lifeless amalgamations that sounded very good, for about 5-10 minutes.
I numbered P.I.'s response so as viewers may correlate my responses to his comments.
Point 11 is in essence your most important and revealing point as it demonstrates a refusal to follow audio industry standards previously mentioned. By definition, a live instrument is "neutral", a reference. So you heard "sterile" sounding components after 5-10 minutes and labeled or accepted it "neutral". Was the live instrument also sounding sterile after 5-10 minutes. Evidently your label was not accurate.
1. Your definition is extremely vague. See point 2,3,4 etc.
2, 3, 4. There are some truly accurate recordings, meaning extremely natural and exciting/emotional, properly dimensional recordings that do not fatigue, and you are in the audience recordings. I do not mean to offend P.I. but
just because you cannot, well, others can.
4. It does take high rez for optimum sonics, but there are many many LPs that are pure junk as well. And no,
there is "no grind it up" "meat" analogy. Digital is sampling a portion of the audio signal waveform and reproducing it.
Now yes, the quality does vary; the more samples the higher the quality. There comes a point, however, where digital is simply amazing.
Many of the problems one encounters is the analog portion of the signal in the DAC itself.
The digital to analog chip includes analog as well as the separate 6db (gain of 2) analog chip or discrete transistors. Each has a power supply voltage with decoupling electrolytic capacitor. Those analog stages vary considerably in sonic quality. So once mp3, redbook, or hi rez enters the picture, the analog stages must be addressed, which almost no one does properly. Vacuum tube stages have the same problems.
5. I am not going to discuss, but some are very good.
6. Neutrality has already been discussed. Reread previous points.
7. The really good recordings use minimal components, or remain in digital mode for as long as possible.
(Most analog recording equipment is pure junk to begin with. Are recording "engineers" required to take any engineering courses at all? Just asking.)
8. You are going to claim physics now. True, a similar structure would give the spaciousness but otherwise,
a properly treated structure will provide good spatial qualities, accurate voices, instrument quality, dynamics etc. (Not 10 x 10 room though.) Believe it or not, almost all analog electronic components are just as problematic as the venue or speaker itself. The small deviation is over many octaves is just as important as the narrow peaks and narrow valleys. The poor quality parts are just as important.
9. A. An opinion is just that, but is Not the standard definition.
B. If he refers to a component as sterile, when in fact it is accurate and honest, he is
1. dicing a product unfairly due to another component's weakness in his system
2. He is unfairly inflating a component that is inferior in nature
3. He is unfairly costing one company money while unfairly inflating another company's revenue
4. Customers are unwisely wasting money and time due to an inaccurate review
5. He should be replacing the poor component that is causing the "sterile" condition, not
falsely labeling the accurate component "sterile". Its the wrong component. The individual
is Not competent to be reviewing if he does not understand how to perform proper listening tests.
Nick stated he spent a lot of time to arrive at his present system. (I would guess money as well.) I wish
he did not have to go through the years searching.
10. Not that much of a problem, as per my decades of testing with others present over time. If need be,
clean one's ears if it bothers one.
Back to pt 11. Point 11 is in essence your most important point as it demonstrates a refusal to follow audio industry standards. By definition, a live instrument is "neutral". So you heard "sterile" sounding components for 5-10 minutes and labeled or accepted it "neutral". I don't think a live instrument sounds sterile after 5-10 minutes. If it does,
then I guess you do need to artificially alter it.
Please follow audio standards and definitions as it reduces confusion. This is my last post on the subject.
cheers and all the best.
steve
Well, well, well...
You missed my points in 1, 2, 3, 4. I was discussing the inherent limitations of an imperfect chain, not human capabilities.
Your implication is I could not nor cannot work around these limitations to create "extremely natural and exciting/emotional, properly dimensional recordings that do not fatigue, and you are in the audience recordings. I do not mean to offend P.I. but
just because you cannot, well, others can." You said you did not "mean to offend". Curious. You know absolutely nothing about me or my capabilities or recording product and yet you jump to that conclusion. You, sir, are speaking out of your ass and displaying an innate air of superiority.
Then you sign off with "cheers and all the best", like misconstruing almost everything I said about the PROCESS is bullshit. Your pedantic lecture was greatly misplaced.
Quite frankly, I expected more from you. We are done.
-
I know someone who measured one of their speakers. It wasn't good...
-
Also I didn't read the thread. :lol:
-
Also I didn't read the thread. :lol:
You we're better off not doing so... 8)
-
I know someone who measured one of their speakers. It wasn't good...
Same was about Tube Amps. Measurements are not everything. Saying that The fleetwood is colored design. The designer made a decision to color the sound. If one likes that sound all good. Me not a fan.
charles
-
Hmmm…..measurements, ASR etc :-k My Border Patrol SEi dac measures crappy, sounds very good to me. The longer I’m in this hobby, the more I like sound that’s a bit colored. My tastes have morphed a bit over time
-
Hmmm…..measurements, ASR etc :-k My Border Patrol SEi dac measures crappy, sounds very good to me. The longer I’m in this hobby, the more I like sound that’s a bit colored. My tastes have morphed a bit over time
Ahhh. Personal preference tempered by experience, age and ... face it: hearing losses.
-
I know someone who measured one of their speakers. It wasn't good...
Same was about Tube Amps. Measurements are not everything. Saying that The fleetwood is colored design. The designer made a decision to color the sound. If one likes that sound all good. Me not a fan.
charles
Tube amps measure fine.
Old speakers measure well.
These do not.
-
I know someone who measured one of their speakers. It wasn't good...
Did he listen to it as well? If so, what’d he think?
-
He said you could hear the massive holes where the frequencies did not exist.
-
He said you could hear the massive holes where the frequencies did not exist.
Ok, that’s a very interesting response. Good to know….
-
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_w5OVFV2Gsos/Su3bsCqxNkI/AAAAAAAAALo/DkDumFcTdM4/s1600/Circle+of+Confusion.png)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_w5OVFV2Gsos/Su3b8m6wHjI/AAAAAAAAALw/ltcrAglRR4g/s1600/Makivirta+and+Anet+2001.png)
-
I've come to the realization that no in home stereo will duplicate actual and thus am enjoying the stereo more. It really comes down to whatever floats your boat. If you like em than that's all that counts. You don't need others justification. It all comes down to you and you alone. Sure getting others opinions is fun but that's all it is "opinions" and you don't sit and listen to opinions, you listen to what you like. If you enjoy them than that is very cool that you can get off the merry-go-round, take a deep breath and relax. Feel sorry for the rest of us still searching.
Don
-
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_w5OVFV2Gsos/Su3bsCqxNkI/AAAAAAAAALo/DkDumFcTdM4/s1600/Circle+of+Confusion.png)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_w5OVFV2Gsos/Su3b8m6wHjI/AAAAAAAAALw/ltcrAglRR4g/s1600/Makivirta+and+Anet+2001.png)
When I designed Santa Fe Center Studios back in 1995 (oh, the good old daze) Doug Geist, the owner, and I listened to every available main monitor speaker available under $12K / pr. The KRK mains that were popular at the time were literally one of the worst loudspeakers either one of us had ever heard! Urei monitors were too old school with their Altec 604 Time Aligned drivers. Westlakes were awesome, but well beyond the budget. We settled on these: https://www.genelec.com/1238a They did no harm, BUT they were a tad veiled. I went into them, replaced all of the TL072 op amps and a bunch of capacitors. They were transformed in their ability to communicate the mix. Interesting thing is that when the frequency response captures were input into ProTools they were virtually identical. The noticeable differences were in low frequencies. The high frequency deviations were less than 0.05dB. Clarity, transparency, micro dynamics were at a new level. The ability to "communicate" the performances made all of our jobs MUCH easier.
Frequency responses are 2 dimensional representations of a multi dimensional reality.
Or, something like that... 😁
-
I've come to the realization that no in home stereo will duplicate actual and thus am enjoying the stereo more. It really comes down to whatever floats your boat. If you like em than that's all that counts. You don't need others justification. It all comes down to you and you alone. Sure getting others opinions is fun but that's all it is "opinions" and you don't sit and listen to opinions, you listen to what you like. If you enjoy them than that is very cool that you can get off the merry-go-round, take a deep breath and relax. Feel sorry for the rest of us still searching.
Don
Welcome home, grasshopper :thumb: The reality is that there is no reality in reproduction. Great illusions? Sometimes. Reality? Never. Enjoyment? In almost every occasion when the music is the destination. Your system is unique. Your ears are unique. Your musical tastes are unique. Your room is unique. Your preferred listening level is unique. You, my friend, are definitely unique! :shock:
Enjoy...
Cue Tom! :rofl:
-
I've come to the realization that no in home stereo will duplicate actual and thus am enjoying the stereo more. It really comes down to whatever floats your boat. If you like em than that's all that counts. You don't need others justification. It all comes down to you and you alone. Sure getting others opinions is fun but that's all it is "opinions" and you don't sit and listen to opinions, you listen to what you like. If you enjoy them than that is very cool that you can get off the merry-go-round, take a deep breath and relax. Feel sorry for the rest of us still searching.
Don
Welcome home, grasshopper :thumb: The reality is that there is no reality in reproduction. Great illusions? Sometimes. Reality? Never. Enjoyment? In almost every occasion when the music is the destination. Your system is unique. Your ears are unique. Your musical tastes are unique. Your room is unique. Your preferred listening level is unique. You, my friend, are definitely unique! :shock:
Enjoy...
Cue Tom! :rofl:
Hmmm, so I don’t need to look at graphs while I’m listening to a new speaker?? Just whether or not I like the SQ? Ok, works for me :X
-
I've come to the realization that no in home stereo will duplicate actual and thus am enjoying the stereo more. It really comes down to whatever floats your boat. If you like em than that's all that counts. You don't need others justification. It all comes down to you and you alone. Sure getting others opinions is fun but that's all it is "opinions" and you don't sit and listen to opinions, you listen to what you like. If you enjoy them than that is very cool that you can get off the merry-go-round, take a deep breath and relax. Feel sorry for the rest of us still searching.
Don
Welcome home, grasshopper :thumb: The reality is that there is no reality in reproduction. Great illusions? Sometimes. Reality? Never. Enjoyment? In almost every occasion when the music is the destination. Your system is unique. Your ears are unique. Your musical tastes are unique. Your room is unique. Your preferred listening level is unique. You, my friend, are definitely unique! :shock:
Enjoy...
Cue Tom! :rofl:
Hmmm, so I don’t need to look at graphs while I’m listening to a new speaker?? Just whether or not I like the SQ? Ok, works for me :X
I'm not saying that at all. Graphs and measurements is where we have to start. Reality( that word again) is that measurement gear, mics, probes, meters, etc, don't "listen" to music or even test tones. They generate voltages that help to create data.
One of my best friends in the industry used to say: "Man, it measures flat +/- 2dB from 20Hz to 20KHz". I would say " that's great, but how does it sound." It took him a while, but I convinced him that parts quality, topology and simplicity in execution were what really determines SQ. Simpler is almost always better. Every part is non-linear and introduces colorations.
-
I've come to the realization that no in home stereo will duplicate actual and thus am enjoying the stereo more. It really comes down to whatever floats your boat. If you like em than that's all that counts. You don't need others justification. It all comes down to you and you alone. Sure getting others opinions is fun but that's all it is "opinions" and you don't sit and listen to opinions, you listen to what you like. If you enjoy them than that is very cool that you can get off the merry-go-round, take a deep breath and relax. Feel sorry for the rest of us still searching.
Don
Welcome home, grasshopper :thumb: The reality is that there is no reality in reproduction. Great illusions? Sometimes. Reality? Never. Enjoyment? In almost every occasion when the music is the destination. Your system is unique. Your ears are unique. Your musical tastes are unique. Your room is unique. Your preferred listening level is unique. You, my friend, are definitely unique! :shock:
Enjoy...
Cue Tom! :rofl:
Hmmm, so I don’t need to look at graphs while I’m listening to a new speaker?? Just whether or not I like the SQ? Ok, works for me :X
I'm not saying that at all. Graphs and measurements is where we have to start. Reality( that word again) is that measurement gear, mics, probes, meters, etc, don't "listen" to music or even test tones. They generate voltages that help to create data.
One of my best friends in the industry used to say: "Man, it measures flat +/- 2dB from 20Hz to 20KHz". I would say " that's great, but how does it sound." It took him a while, but I convinced him that parts quality, topology and simplicity in execution were what really determines SQ. Simpler is almost always better. Every part is non-linear and introduces colorations.
I am responding only as a non-technical music enthusiast. I’ve never had a friend, dealer etc lend me gear and say “hear are the measurements for your review”. I knew my Border Patrol dac measured very poorly, but I had read so many positive comments about it that I decided to buy a used one nonetheless. I continue to be quite happy with it. Having seen the comments here about the Fleetwoods measurements and SQ, it’s a bit of a concern. But I don’t have 15K anyway.
I wouldn’t know of another way to evaluate equipment other that what does it sound like in my home.
-
I just watched a Youtube video from a reviewer who said he was at a conference and sat next to the president of some well known speaker manufacturer (name not mentioned) and asked what is the goal when manufacturing the next best speaker or upgraded version and his response was design, marketing and price. Never mentioned sound quality.
-
I just watched a Youtube video from a reviewer who said he was at a conference and sat next to the president of some well known speaker manufacturer (name not mentioned) and asked what is the goal when manufacturing the next best speaker or upgraded version and his response was design, marketing and price. Never mentioned sound quality.
Yeah. Bummer, huh?!
-
Evan, does this not surprise you?
We are in this hobby to make music.
Manufacturers are in the business to make money. (OK, most of them.) back in the early days of high end most manufacturers started out as high end enthusiasts and as such had a love of the hobby and prioritized sound first and foremost. But as the years went by most of those original owner that didn't close up shop have aged out of the business and sold out to new owners. and in most cases those new owners are most interested is how much profit can I make with relation to what I paid for the company. For them it is not a passion, it is an investment. If they can make money selling good sounding products that's great, but if they have to make a choice between better sound and higher profits on a new product 99% of the time the $s will take priority.
It's sad, but you see it happening in other industries as well. (Look at what happened to newspapers as the transitioned for family to corporate ownership.) It is just typical of the life cycle of a cottage or boutique industry, which is essentially what high end audio is.
-
I've come to the realization that no in home stereo will duplicate actual and thus am enjoying the stereo more. It really comes down to whatever floats your boat. If you like em than that's all that counts. You don't need others justification. It all comes down to you and you alone. Sure getting others opinions is fun but that's all it is "opinions" and you don't sit and listen to opinions, you listen to what you like. If you enjoy them than that is very cool that you can get off the merry-go-round, take a deep breath and relax. Feel sorry for the rest of us still searching.
Don
Don few quick stories right along those lines. We had a guy in our LI club who used to say "I gave up going to live concerts. They make my stereo sound bad."
I have a friend whose wife was a concert pianist (like played a Carnegie Hall concert pianist.) They had a full size Steinway Concert Grand piano in their living room. One day when I was over there she played some music for me that I happened to have a well regarded recording of. Being al full of myself I rushed home to listen to it on the "great" stereo that I have been building and upgrading over the course of many years. It didn't take more than 4 or 5 bars before I was ready to sit there and cry. The SQ coming out of my speakers did not even orbit the same sun as what I had heard in there living room. We can get somewhat close, but our stereos just never never the same as what it sounds like in person. We can enjoy the music through our systems, but we just can't perfectly replicate it. But isn't enjoyment what it's all about anyway?
And one other thing along those lines. When I hosted my first GTG with the LI guys I started out by describing the system and the equipment it contained at the time and ended they little talk by saying "This is my system. I really like and enjoy it. I hope you do too. But if you don't, there's the door, nobody is forcing you to stay." 8)
And that sums up my philosophy about this whole hobby. I don't need to impress anyone nor do I seek their validation of any of my decisions. I built my system to please no one but myself. I get a lot of enjoyment out of it and really don't give a rat's @ss what anyone else thinks about it.
PS - I have the same attitude about what music I choose to listen to.
-
I've come to the realization that no in home stereo will duplicate actual and thus am enjoying the stereo more. It really comes down to whatever floats your boat. If you like em than that's all that counts. You don't need others justification. It all comes down to you and you alone. Sure getting others opinions is fun but that's all it is "opinions" and you don't sit and listen to opinions, you listen to what you like. If you enjoy them than that is very cool that you can get off the merry-go-round, take a deep breath and relax. Feel sorry for the rest of us still searching.
Don
Welcome home, grasshopper :thumb: The reality is that there is no reality in reproduction. Great illusions? Sometimes. Reality? Never. Enjoyment? In almost every occasion when the music is the destination. Your system is unique. Your ears are unique. Your musical tastes are unique. Your room is unique. Your preferred listening level is unique. You, my friend, are definitely unique! :shock:
Enjoy...
Cue Tom! :rofl:
.....because it's all about the music
(Got you covered Dave. :D)
-
I just remembered Shadowlight has these speakers. I'm supposed to go in a few weeks for a listen.
-
"You, my friend, are definitely unique!"
Reminds me of an old joke I used to tell:
Growing up I thought I was special cause everyone kept telling me I was so unique until one day I realized they were actually saying I was so eunuch. Now I know why they looked at me so funny when I thanked them for the compliment.
Don
-
Frequency responses are 2 dimensional representations of a multi dimensional reality.
Or, something like that... 😁
Those (164!) single point FRs (averages) simply make the (what should be) obvious point there are huge variations in studios making the recordings. even when the exact same speaker is used. Further amplifying the circle of confusion above.
cheers
AJ
-
"You, my friend, are definitely unique!"
Reminds me of an old joke I used to tell:
Growing up I thought I was special cause everyone kept telling me I was so unique until one day I realized they were actually saying I was so eunuch. Now I know why they looked at me so funny when I thanked them for the compliment.
Don
Don, you kill me! :rofl:
-
Frequency responses are 2 dimensional representations of a multi dimensional reality.
Or, something like that... 😁
Those (164!) single point FRs (averages) simply make the (what should be) obvious point there are huge variations in studios making the recordings. even when the exact same speaker is used. Further amplifying the circle of confusion above.
cheers
AJ
AJ. That is exactly right. When we did recording desk (console) placement at SFCS, we did over 50 frequency shots in a o5' square location in the room. We used a stereo pair of omni mics mounted in a styrofoam head that had been coated with latex and a short hair wig (yes, seriously) to determine where the listening position would be located. That only took about 20 room shots. The rest were doneto verify room treatment positions. They were pretty much spot on. What we did identify were secondary reflection points generated by the 60 channel (track) console on the front control room window, on the front walls between the window and soffit mounted Genelec monitors.
An optimum listening zone must be served by room treatment. Comb filtering effects producing suck outs in the frequency response are absolute killers when it comes recorded by Phil Edwards and mastered by Stan Rickert to establish mix placement of not only side to side, but vertical and depth localizations. Yes, vertical placement can be accomplished by phase relationships in the mix. I have a recording: Bernie Krause - " Citadels of Mystery" that is a go to reference. I was fortunate to hear a second generation master at Stan Rickert's personal studio back in 1981. On his system, listening to the recording was a religious experience. He shared with me his "secrets-ish" of delay panning, EQ and frequency dependent compression that generated the vertical component.
It is impossible to get a faithful playback portrayal of any recording in a room with no, nada, zip, nyet, nein treatment unless you live in a cave with lots of stalactites and stalagmites to create a reflection free zone!
My too short time with Stan is one of my most cherished experiences in the recording art. Hell, he taught me the secret of how to make a coincident pair of inexpensive mics emulate the sound of a vintage Neumann M47 that now sells for ~ $30K. The new ones just don't get "that sound".
Sorry for chasing the rabbit down that trail and into the hole. 🤨
-
Evan, does this not surprise you?
We are in this hobby to make music.
Manufacturers are in the business to make money. (OK, most of them.) back in the early days of high end most manufacturers started out as high end enthusiasts and as such had a love of the hobby and prioritized sound first and foremost. But as the years went by most of those original owner that didn't close up shop have aged out of the business and sold out to new owners. and in most cases those new owners are most interested is how much profit can I make with relation to what I paid for the company. For them it is not a passion, it is an investment. If they can make money selling good sounding products that's great, but if they have to make a choice between better sound and higher profits on a new product 99% of the time the $s will take priority.
It's sad, but you see it happening in other industries as well. (Look at what happened to newspapers as the transitioned for family to corporate ownership.) It is just typical of the life cycle of a cottage or boutique industry, which is essentially what high end audio is.
Amen Tmazz. Audio is the most notorious field, where anyone can make any statement, claim, market whatever they want, so as to make a buck. Martin DeWulf, criminal defense attorney wrote an article "truth be told" about the audio
industry, reviewers, shills, and marketing tatics.
For general consumption.
There are thousands of similar circuits from those claiming to be designers, with virtually none being natural, true to the live instrument reference. The one common thread is that they are inept with the science. There are many many
different aspects that need addressing when designing, not just a few equations. Unfortunately, marketing tatics
always triumphs over science. However, there is no magic, or mystical applications.
Consumers, ever wonder why entities are constantly offering new models? If the designers understood all the science, they would not need to offer the new models. Maybe just a different look to appeal to customers. Another marketing technique, revolving door, go back to yesteryear to push huge buck items. How many electrolytic capacitors are in the
power supplies of each component, and how many decoupling capacitors are electrolytics.
Fortunately, there are some higher quality recording electronics (most are quite poor). Minimizing
the complex and poor designs in the recording studio has helped sonic quality immensely. Did you know that a typical musical signal can go through 100 or more transistors, whether in ics or discrete. That is besides all the other hundreds of very poor parts, cables etc used inside the ic or discrete transistors. Here are links showing typical studio consoles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qahZ-whM6o (check at 1-2 seconds)
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=photos+of+recording+studio&id=AD963D6387A8DA6DAB81F5DA3E7C1AA3991E7A6E&form=IQFRBA&first=1&disoverlay=1 (check any)
How is anyone to design any speaker of quality when the music is so manipulated by poor electronics etc.
The reason for "Sharing Top Notch Reference Music Links" in "Music Discussion" forum is to allow one to check their own system. And yes, there are absolutely incredible recordings for those in the know.
Although most links are YouTube Premium (a few from Tidal), one can still assess their systems quality to a pretty descent extent.
Thank you Tmazz for your excellent post and points.
cheers
steve
ps. One other point. When my brother and I (and one or two in our class) received our reel to reel tape deck, we would record ourselves using our mic, our upgraded amp/system. We would then playback what we sang (we were not very good). The recorded was so close to the live, we would say we could hardly tell the difference.
We were between 12 - 14 years old.