Are you aware of the world in your mind, or do you have a sensory perception of it (ear, smell, touch)?
To my ears (and to the ears of some others) these speakers sound closer to live music than any other speakers I (and some others) heard.
Now, any contradicting claim made without listening to those speakers is baseless and speculative. It's quite possible that you, or some others, may find these speakers less natural sounding than others, however, such a finding can be valid only after listening. Of course, not everyone prefers natural sounding speakers, some have different preferences. So, obviously, those speakers wouldn't be preferred by all.
I'm not here to promote any brand, I'm not getting any material gain from it. I just reported my experience – and that was in the context that it takes refined hearing to produce great sounding audio gear. It cannot be done by measurements alone. That's all there is to it.
For the reason I've stated:
Delusion = an erroneous perception of reality?
Illusion = an illusory mental image?
OK maybe on asystem but with a good system the second one fit the description much better.
On a good system I don't find the stereo effect to be an erroneous perception of reality, if done correctly, a performance can be recreated very realistically creating a very believable illusory mental image.
To me, perceiving a 3D soundstage from a stereo system say quite a lot about the quality of a system as well as the ability of our brain to put the (unnatural) pieces from both speakers together in such a way that it sound quite realistic. It is a learning process, not a fooling process.
To me, perceiving a 3D soundstage from a stereo system say quite a lot about the quality of a system as well as the ability of our brain to put the (unnatural) pieces from both speakers together in such a way that it sound quite realistic. It is a learning process, not a fooling process.
It's precisely a fooling process, and you couldn't find a better example to prove it.
Two wave (acoustic, electric, light, whatever) sources can't build a 3D image (unless you have a special definition of "3D", for the use of audio only). You need at least three sources for that, and the process is called "triangulation".
Or it's just an example on how poorly controlled is the language used by the audiofools to describe their systems or components.
Can you make a post that does not include some type of inflammatory language somewhere in it? Do you have the capacity to be fair or just like to make yourself look bad? Respect is something that is earned not a privilege.
Hi Joshua,
Measurements can give you a really good idea how the speaker sounds, or where a problem may lie. The speakers I own were designed mostly with measurements, in Canada's National Research Center, with Floyd Toole's assistance. From what I hear, they got it as "right" as it could be using a passive crossover. Part of a trade-off is deciding how much efficiency they can lose vs how many minor problems they can correct. No matter what you do in a passive crossover, you can only dissipate power. There is no way to add energy. That puts a hard limit on how much correction that can be made.
The talk on your speakers has really gone far beyond reasonable. So in closing, they are yours. You like them. That's cool, no one is fighting you n this.
-Chris
Yes, this point has been made so often the horse died of old age. We get it, move on. There is nothing to defend here.
All of this is pointless. You haven't heard enough speakers to be able to make any claims. This by your own definition. However, you like them and that is all that matters to you. I feel the same way about the speakers I have, and yet I know that all of these are not even close to being as good as a good actively crossed over system with amplifiers for each driver. I know because I have heard both types, and I am experienced at speaker design. There is no contest, and if I had the parameters needed for my PSB Stratus Gold speakers, I'd have the system converted in no time. For this statement, I have no need to hear your speakers. I have enough experience in this topic to know for sure. No question on this at all.
No, you are promoting that your choice in speaker is better than everyone else's. You like them, that's fine. Without hearing everyone's speaker in their homes, you have no basis for comparison. So all you can really say is that these speakers are the best you have heard so far. I have no problems with that, but you can go no further.
Measurements can give you a really good idea how the speaker sounds, or where a problem may lie. The speakers I own were designed mostly with measurements, in Canada's National Research Center, with Floyd Toole's assistance. From what I hear, they got it as "right" as it could be using a passive crossover. Part of a trade-off is deciding how much efficiency they can lose vs how many minor problems they can correct. No matter what you do in a passive crossover, you can only dissipate power. There is no way to add energy. That puts a hard limit on how much correction that can be made.
The talk on your speakers has really gone far beyond reasonable. So in closing, they are yours. You like them. That's cool, no one is fighting you n this.
-Chris
All I said is that these speakers sound to me more natural than any other speakers I heard. I didn't say that they sound more natural than all other speakers ever made. Neither did I say that they sound very natural to all people in the world.
Am I clear here?
Am I allowed, by your standards, to make this claim?
First, you are talking about good speakers while I'm talking about natural sounding speakers. I'm not sure whether to you good speakers equals natural sounding ones.
Second, any claim anyone will make about speakers one never heard is baseless and speculative. No one can possibly know how certain speakers sound to him, unless that one heard them. This applies to all, including the greatest speaker designers, the best engineers and the greatest musicians.
This is only in your imagination, because I never said such a thing.
I referred to my hearing and to those speakers I heard. I referred neither to all speakers ever made nor to the preferences of all people.
It seems to me that you are invested emotionally here and I'm not sure why.
This is indeed what I said, that these speakers are the best I've heard so far, to my preferences. I never said anything else, neither in this forum nor anywhere else.
Measurements can indicate where problems may lie, but measurements alone cannot tell how speakers will sound. This is why the better speaker manufacturers use listening tests, along with measurements. What, to your view, makes speakers different from amplifiers in the respect of the need for listening, alongside measurements?
Mostly by measurements, or only by measurements? These are two altogether different things.
I'm not sure what you are saying here.
Do you claim that no speakers with passive crossover can possibly sound natural?
Actually Quantum physics doesn't deal with philosophical questions at all. That's because its physics, not philosophy. I think you probably mean that Quantum physics attempts to be consistent with the experimentally documented fact [1] that the 'world' (perceptual reality) is a creation of our perceptual processes. Just as the stereo image is an illusion, so to a similar extent is the visual world and for similar reasons - we only seem to have two 2D retinas yet the world we perceive is 3D.
As for your last remark, yes plenty here with a 'scientific' viewpoint are more prepared to ridicule that which they don't understand than attempt to understand it. But hey, that's entertainment.
[1] for anyone curious enough, try Donald D. Hoffman
A few book titles that I have here:
'Physics and Philosophy' Werner Heisenberg
'The Meaning of it all' Richard Feynman
'The Tao of Physics' Fritjof Capra
'Theories of Everything' John Barrow
'The Lightness of Being' Frank Wilczek
'Perfectly Reasonable Deviation' Richard Feynman
'Schrodinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality' John Gibbin
Would anyone like the next batch? ;-)
'Physics and Philosophy' Werner Heisenberg
'The Meaning of it all' Richard Feynman
'The Tao of Physics' Fritjof Capra
'Theories of Everything' John Barrow
'The Lightness of Being' Frank Wilczek
'Perfectly Reasonable Deviation' Richard Feynman
'Schrodinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality' John Gibbin
Would anyone like the next batch? ;-)
Reading lists...
I can only suggest you broaden your horizons a little John. How about
'The tree of knowledge' Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela
'Visual intelligence' Donald Hoffman
'How brains make up their minds' Walter Freeman
'The postmodern brain' Gordon Globus
and last but not least, a tome with particular relevance for you:
'The games people play' Eric Berne.
I can only suggest you broaden your horizons a little John. How about
'The tree of knowledge' Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela
'Visual intelligence' Donald Hoffman
'How brains make up their minds' Walter Freeman
'The postmodern brain' Gordon Globus
and last but not least, a tome with particular relevance for you:
'The games people play' Eric Berne.
Hi Joshua,
Anything to keep it going eh?
no, you were going on about several claims in an attempt to prove (I guess) that your choice in loudspeakers was better than all others. You've gone down to the mat defending your speaker choice against imagined opposition.
Any comment made at all about your speakers would typically contain something like this in your response ....
Working at the NRC in Canada, Floyd Toole and his staff have been very successful in correlating what measurements predict and listening tests confirm. So really, the belief that you can not measure a loudspeaker and tell how is sounds in outdated. This is now a fact. Paul Barton and other commercial speaker designers have taken advantage of the NRC facilities in order to improve the products that they sell. Why else do you think Harmon International hired Floyd Toole away from the NRC?
What will drastically change the sound will be the room dimensions and materials used to build and furnish the structure that contains this room. So don't fret, there is still plenty of tweaks and art involved in setting up the room.
Let's make things simple for you then. Given your current speakers, if you were to hear a set as you currently have, then the same thing with no passive crossover, but rather an electronic crossover and equivalent power amplifiers to what you now own, you would choose the electronic crossover version. I have no doubt in this statement at all.
What would sound different?
The system would sound more dynamic than you thought possible.
The system would sound more integrated with much lower distortion. This is because you can now apply full amplifier damping to each driver. You can also control the phase and crossover slopes. You will lose far less energy in the form of heat as well.
Joshua, if you ever get a chance to hear a good system without a passive crossover, but rather an good electronic crossover and good amplifiers, do it. Once you have done this, you will understand. Sadly, a less expensive set of drivers, using lower quality amplifiers will still sound far better than it should in your estimation. There really is no contest here on this.
-Chris
Anything to keep it going eh?
Why no, why do you ask?
no, you were going on about several claims in an attempt to prove (I guess) that your choice in loudspeakers was better than all others. You've gone down to the mat defending your speaker choice against imagined opposition.
Any comment made at all about your speakers would typically contain something like this in your response ....
.... or other comments that suggest that no one may contradict you in any way without first hearing these particular speakers. Yet, even the add copy and your comments seem to suggest these speakers are musical instruments in their own right. This of course would suggest that they have a distinct sound that they impart to anything played through them (ie not accurate). This then fails the first criterion that I mentioned earlier in an attempt to define what an accurate speaker is.
I actually believed I was being clear and concise here.
In my world, these are one and the same. Good = fairly accurate = natural sounding. I'm recognizing that the state of the art is improving, yet we can not create perfection as yet. Can you agree this holds true for you as well?
I hate to tell you this, but the state of the art of measurements has advanced to a point where measurements on loudspeakers agrees closely with what listening panels will say, on average. There may always be individuals that are out of the norm. In data land, these are called "fliers" and are not considered unless they are in increased numbers.
Working at the NRC in Canada, Floyd Toole and his staff have been very successful in correlating what measurements predict and listening tests confirm. So really, the belief that you can not measure a loudspeaker and tell how is sounds in outdated. This is now a fact. Paul Barton and other commercial speaker designers have taken advantage of the NRC facilities in order to improve the products that they sell. Why else do you think Harmon International hired Floyd Toole away from the NRC?
Naw, this is pure myth now. I'm sorry it isn't romantic, but a "dude" voicing a speaker to be just right has a remote chance at best of succeeding at this goal.
What will drastically change the sound will be the room dimensions and materials used to build and furnish the structure that contains this room. So don't fret, there is still plenty of tweaks and art involved in setting up the room.
I'm pointing out your statements and defense of your loudspeaker choice. You have been pushing these at every opportunity tied also to the statement that without hearing these, no other comments about them are valid. Problem is, after many years in the audio industry, most people here are adept at reading ad copy and figuring out more of a reality from this. Most notably, I've accepted that these speakers are the best choice for you, and you continue to argue on the topic. I don't understand why.
I have zero invested emotionally with this.
As I stated above, this is no longer true. I wonder if the AES has anything on Mr. Toole's work. I may even "google" this.
Almost all loudspeaker system manufacturers include listening tests as a form of quality control. This doubles as another source of information and confirms or denies what the measurements are showing.
Mostly by measurements, confirmed with listening tests. I never once said that anything should be designed without using human ears. All I said was the proper measurements will correctly predict what will sound good to the average person. People trained to hear more closely will agree even closer with these measurements. End 'o story.
Well, here the trip wire is the fact that you used a term, "natural", which seems to be code for what you prefer as a taste in loudspeakers.
Let's make things simple for you then. Given your current speakers, if you were to hear a set as you currently have, then the same thing with no passive crossover, but rather an electronic crossover and equivalent power amplifiers to what you now own, you would choose the electronic crossover version. I have no doubt in this statement at all.
What would sound different?
The system would sound more dynamic than you thought possible.
The system would sound more integrated with much lower distortion. This is because you can now apply full amplifier damping to each driver. You can also control the phase and crossover slopes. You will lose far less energy in the form of heat as well.
Joshua, if you ever get a chance to hear a good system without a passive crossover, but rather an good electronic crossover and good amplifiers, do it. Once you have done this, you will understand. Sadly, a less expensive set of drivers, using lower quality amplifiers will still sound far better than it should in your estimation. There really is no contest here on this.
It's comments like these that show me you have a mind like a steel trap. Rusted and frozen shut. As you are fond of saying, use an open mind, listen to a system like this, then make up your mind. Please attempt to listen to a system similar to yours in quality to make the test fair. In fact, why not write the designer or manufacturer and ask if an electronic crossover and amplifiers type system is available. Also, ask if they have ever heard a system like that before.
-Chris
I was showing that PHYSICS and PHILOSOPHY are often tied together. Engineering may be separate, but physics is often not separated from philosophy.
In fact, many physicists became very disruptive in the 1940's when Feynman first introduced his version of 'Quantum Electrodynamics' at a conference. They did NOT like the direction he was leading to. This is science? Yes!
A few more:
'Surfing through Hyperspace' Clifford Pickover
'From Clocks to Chaos' Leon Glass
'Quantum Physics, Illusion or Reality?' Alastair Rae
'Physics and Beyond' Werner Heisenberg
'My View of the World' Erwin Schrodinger
'The Large, the Small and the Human Mind' Roger Penrose
'Matter and Mind' Stephen Endelglass
Is this enough to convince some people that physics and philosophy are intertwined?
In fact, many physicists became very disruptive in the 1940's when Feynman first introduced his version of 'Quantum Electrodynamics' at a conference. They did NOT like the direction he was leading to. This is science? Yes!
A few more:
'Surfing through Hyperspace' Clifford Pickover
'From Clocks to Chaos' Leon Glass
'Quantum Physics, Illusion or Reality?' Alastair Rae
'Physics and Beyond' Werner Heisenberg
'My View of the World' Erwin Schrodinger
'The Large, the Small and the Human Mind' Roger Penrose
'Matter and Mind' Stephen Endelglass
Is this enough to convince some people that physics and philosophy are intertwined?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.