No Kal sait it was an enigma for him to match the results of B&W although his results were already showing an extremely flat response B&W's results show even better behaviour!
The reviewer who was actually incharge for listening couldn't find anything wrong with it and the sound was extremely coherent and preferred the 800Signature over the other speakers alhotuh HE OWNS those other ones.
I hope this seals the deal...I have the 800S and the frequency response is not what you thought it was and unfortunately I can't speak for the Diamond version as I don't own that.
I can guarantee you that the tonal balance of the 800Signature would make your mouth drop too!!! ahahahahahah!!!!
The reviewer who was actually incharge for listening couldn't find anything wrong with it and the sound was extremely coherent and preferred the 800Signature over the other speakers alhotuh HE OWNS those other ones.
I hope this seals the deal...I have the 800S and the frequency response is not what you thought it was and unfortunately I can't speak for the Diamond version as I don't own that.
I can guarantee you that the tonal balance of the 800Signature would make your mouth drop too!!! ahahahahahah!!!!
Look Stefanoo, it's comments like this that help to destroy what small amount of credibility you may have started to gain here. The FST driver in the 800 models, right from day 1 have all had the same flexible Kevlar cone, you know the bright yellow thing that takes your eyes out. They've all got one, your 800 signatures, the new 800D2 and the original 801 back in the day.
The review of the 800D in the Hifi news article mentions how the colourations of the FST driver have been subjectively improved by improving the quality of the treble in the new model. Ergo the versions without the diamond tweeter are subjectively worse when it comes to the mild colouration.
I prefer third party measurements as any company can alter measurement conditions so that they will show things slightly more in their favour.
Oh look at that, the same 5dB peak at around 3.5kHz and then the same uneveness in the top octave. Surprise surprise, because they all contain the same FST driver that is responsible for those issues.
I do not need to prove my experience to YOU. Others are far more aware of the various projects that I have completed and the assistance I have offered and given via PMs etc to others helping them with their loudspeaker designs. Am I saying that I can do better then B&W? For my ears? 100% YES. For yours, that depends on if you prefer that peak at 3.5kHz. Kal didn't appear to as it's this kind of thing that makes a loudspeaker more forward sounding and less warm.
Now your not only questioning my expertise but are questioning John Atkinson's expertise in being able to take accurate measurements. I can assure you, he knows what he's doing. And no, I do NOT need to listen to the speakers to know that I dislike a 5dB peak in the presence band.
John Atkinson doesn't use anechoic rooms to test his loudspeakers, he uses a standard gated measurement in a standard room which is what anyone competent does when designing loudspeakers without an anechoic chamber. These are highly accurate.
I criticised you before I knew you owned one of his amps, but regardless of that the amp you own is not the amp in question, so the comment is still valid. If I were about to drop $35,000 on a pair of monoblocks, I'd want to audition them too, regardless of if I've already got one product by the same manufacturer. Also people in the thread were criticising you for not wanting to take measurements that would indicate how much class A power you need, which you refused to do. You neglected to point out however that you currently own a Pass labs amp that shows you when you leave its region of class A bias, so you'd know quite easily that a 200 watt class A, or even a 50 watt class A amp would be enough.
also just read the conclusion:
It is by far the best home speaker he has ever listened to and it's transparency makes it suitable for Studio recording, Can you handle the truth?
This means that if you got a sucky source or amp or preamp or cable and you don't put a good recording then you will know for sure.
If you like a more forgiving speaker then it's your choice BUT you won't get to this level or realm and detail period!!!
It is by far the best home speaker he has ever listened to and it's transparency makes it suitable for Studio recording, Can you handle the truth?
This means that if you got a sucky source or amp or preamp or cable and you don't put a good recording then you will know for sure.
If you like a more forgiving speaker then it's your choice BUT you won't get to this level or realm and detail period!!!
The Revel Ultima Studio, however, is just that bit warmer, to match what mixing engineers probably expect we listen to at home. So while the S800 is undoubtedly "better," 1) I can't move them when I need to, 2) I need a few more feet of listening distance, and 3) the Ultima Studio ain't chopped liver.
I took this to mean that although the B&Ws are better at somethings in his home Kal prefers the Revels.
What deal?
See my previous post, it does exactly what I said it does.
Doesn't matter, they all have the same peak.
Funnily enough you word doesn't count for very much. Hahahahahahaha!!!!11!!
Look at your comment!! you are being pathetic and embarassing yourself!!!
Your help on little projects to newbie DOEN'T prove ANYTHING about you!!!
So give me a mega break!!!!
I would double check on the anechoic response!! READ CAREFULLY!!!!
The reason I was saying frequency response doesn't matter as much as you think it is because everybody is got a DIFFERENT room and this will impact MORE than 5dB on a region!! Do you GET this?
You read what you want to read, he clearly STATES that he would DEFINITELY buy the 800Signature!!!
Your comment on the peak measured by some 3d party doesn't absolutely mean anything and it's proven wrong by the CALIBRATED enviroment B&W has.
The person who making measurements is questing his plot as well since he says that the measurement shows NON-Coherent midrange BUT LISTENING proves it wrong!!!!
What does it tell you?!?! That you should STOP reading GRAPHS and start listening to more things out of your little world and open up your mind but especially your ears!!!
Last edited:
I go away for a few days, and someone pulls the control rods out of the
reactor.
To answer the original question, after 15 years of X and XA amplifiers the
IRFP240 and 9240 are the mainstay of PL amplifiers. In the past we have
used them in TO-3 packages (IRF244 for the N channel, as the IRF240 had
a nonstandard pin diameter), but currently TO3-P packages exclusively.
The "P' version of the X250 was simply a conversion to TO3-P from the
TO-3, as there was continued demand for the product even after the
introduction of the .5 version.
You can also find some TO-3's from Harris back when they made them, and
even some IRF250's on the early big XA amplifiers (not XA.5).
Smaller X series have also used the Fairchild FQA Mosfets (same as F5 parts)
but not in the higher power stuff because the temperature coefficients are
higher and the sonic differences were not preferred.
reactor.
To answer the original question, after 15 years of X and XA amplifiers the
IRFP240 and 9240 are the mainstay of PL amplifiers. In the past we have
used them in TO-3 packages (IRF244 for the N channel, as the IRF240 had
a nonstandard pin diameter), but currently TO3-P packages exclusively.
The "P' version of the X250 was simply a conversion to TO3-P from the
TO-3, as there was continued demand for the product even after the
introduction of the .5 version.
You can also find some TO-3's from Harris back when they made them, and
even some IRF250's on the early big XA amplifiers (not XA.5).
Smaller X series have also used the Fairchild FQA Mosfets (same as F5 parts)
but not in the higher power stuff because the temperature coefficients are
higher and the sonic differences were not preferred.
I am afraid it will not and both are in danger to be drowned in the waves.....
Nevertheless a brave fight!
I am afraid it will not and both are in danger to be drowned in the waves.....
Nevertheless a brave fight!
ahahahahahahahahah!!!! This was funny!!!!
I go away for a few days, and someone pulls the control rods out of the
reactor.
To answer the original question, after 15 years of X and XA amplifiers the
IRFP240 and 9240 are the mainstay of PL amplifiers. In the past we have
used them in TO-3 packages (IRF244 for the N channel, as the IRF240 had
a nonstandard pin diameter), but currently TO3-P packages exclusively.
The "P' version of the X250 was simply a conversion to TO3-P from the
TO-3, as there was continued demand for the product even after the
introduction of the .5 version.
You can also find some TO-3's from Harris back when they made them, and
even some IRF250's on the early big XA amplifiers (not XA.5).
Smaller X series have also used the Fairchild FQA Mosfets (same as F5 parts)
but not in the higher power stuff because the temperature coefficients are
higher and the sonic differences were not preferred.
Thank you very much for your clarification it totally makes sense.
It is Not obvious.
The XA200.5 leaves class A at 400W peak in 8 ohm.
The 400W continuous power output in 4 ohm is class AB.
Your own numbers illustrate that.
Dissipation of each output device is about 7W, similar to the XA100.5 (twice the dissipation, twice the output stage).
But you should know that already : http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/pass-labs/123977-aleph-xa100-5-specifications.html#post1523960
The Xs-300 does 1KW dissipation, takes two XA200.5 cases per channel.
Other option would be a single case, 3 feet deep.
Full class A power in 4 ohm AND high power is not smart, imo.
Early on at this forum, I did a KSA50 with a bias level set so high that the amp would always be in class A on my electrostats.
I found the constant 400W dissipation per channel a PITA.
But Hey, if you wish to spend the rest of your days sweating in Hell, please go for 1KW/ch.
Stefanoo you're the one being pathetic. You're automatically assuming that DIY projects are in anyway inferior to something out in the commercial sector. Often DIY projects are quite superior to those simply because you have the advantage of building what you want and also because you don't have any limitations impinged upon you due to profit margins and yes, the B&Ws even at their expensive price point will have compromises due to wanting to keep them far less expensive then a lot of the competition.
You are also directly insulting anyone and everyone that I've ever helped and directly insulting me, by automatically calling everything 'newbie' projects. Please stop with the personal attacks.
Please learn what a properly gated measurement in a normal room actually provides the user with. Then talk me to about anechoic responses.
But humour me, please give me a link to the anechoic response that you're talking about.
Yes of course I get this, but the room doesn't do anywhere near as much as you think it does at high frequencies. Most of the room uglies appear in the modal region which is usually from around 30-200Hz or so. Still it doesn't exactly matter, your reasoning is flawed. The measurement techniques used, effectively remove the rooms effect from the equation - you're looking at the raw response of the loudspeaker as it would appear if you measured it out in space somewhere, providing there was an atmosphere to carry the sound. By your logic though, it's as if you're saying, because of the room messing everything up, lets not bother optimising the loudspeaker design at all. The room's is gonna make it all go to pot anyway, lets just not use a crossover at all, save for the simplest network that's required to stop the drivers exploding. Because it doesn't matter, the room will either cure or destroy everything.
Obviously this is an incorrect way of going about things. Even if the room is going to have some impact on the sound quality, you still design the loudspeakers to be as perfect as possible before placing them in the room.
Yes, sure I do, but you're doing exactly the same thing. The point I was trying to make is that the B&W 800 signature isn't perfect, it has its flaws, just like everything else does.
Stafanoo, I don't know if you're aware of this, but manufactures usually alter or edit their data in such a way as to make it seem more appealing. This happens all the time with raw loudspeaker manufactures, they pick certain measurement conditions and settings that make their drivers appear better then they actually are. Third party measurements, if done correctly, usually give you a much better impression of what the driver, or loudspeakers performance is like. You say calibrated like it's some sort of a big deal, John Atkinson will most certainly be using a calibrated setup too.
No Stefanoo, this is typical of how stereophile do things. They don't like to say things in a negative way. They say things like that to appear impartial, instead of simply saying that something has an obvious flaw.
John Atkinson did say this however.
Which is exactly what I have been talking about all along. What I was talking about right from the start of this ridiculous charade. The fact that the Kevlar unit has a peak that B&W don't try and correct that causes the loudspeaker to drift away from being absolutely neutral. The measurements show it, B&W say it and John Atkinson says it too. What more do you need?
Ultimately though Stefanoo there is no point in having this discussion with you anymore because whenever any measurement or something scientific comes along, of any sort, that disagrees with you, you find some way to try and dismiss it. You've done this in the most condescending of ways too, by pretty much saying that the people who made the measurements or whatever are idiots and are incompetent.
Tell me Stefanoo, what makes you so qualified as to be able to dismiss every measurement that comes along and then pass judgement that they are all incorrect. Apart of course, from the ones that agree with you? How much experience do you have in measuring and designing loudspeakers?
for all the people who have B&W Nautilus 800 series I will say they are better DIY speakers which are way too superior than the B&W I have auditioned them. Its a 3 way Active Class A amplifiers for each driver for 3 way speakers no exotic crossover parts infact straight connection. They just sound ultimate... super transparent....very emotional aswell...
If anybody manufacturers speakers they have to build the amplifiers and active crossovers aswell...
If anybody manufacturers speakers they have to build the amplifiers and active crossovers aswell...
5th I don't know why you have to argue so much.
It looks for some reason that you reply without reading anything I say, it's like you know already what you are going to reply before even my reply.
I told you I have no experience on speakers as a matter of fact but I have listened to a ton of different very hi end speakers and also entry levels, medium levels...I have probably listened to more system than you can even think of.
In the other hand you don't seem to have listened to so many things to not say anything!
Dude, did you help people like Joachim?, like nelson? like Jacco? like Zen? like other people that work on the field like them to solve their problems?
I DON'T think SO!
Look, come talk to me when you have proven that your desings are cutting edge like you claim they are also because I don't know what stops you from commercializing something you have finished.
It is very easy just contact a magazine and see what the process for reviewing is, build a website an enclosure pick a name and you are done.
Ah and if you think you can make as a DIY something that is worth 20K for 1-2K you are WRONG!!!
Example take the XA200.5: do you think you can make it for that much? it costs about 24K roundly like my speaker.
Does it have compromise? Don't think so...
Maybe you can object it could use Texas resistors and higher grade electrolytics or WBT nex Gen connectors.
But now tell me how much it would cost YOU to build it like THAT PLUS those stuff???
A TOOONNNN OF MONEY!!! probably not 24K bu certainly around 10K including selected transformers selected 80 output devices!!! plus on top of the 10K a ton of work to assemble and test it....and this is just to COPY it.
Now think about the valuable time than Nelson spent of developing and you can easily get to that price point!
Your time is probably not valuable to you but on the normal world the time of a professional costs pretty high.
To end I will quote from the review by Stereophile and again I usually like to listen for my own on audio gear but you can also get a feeling for by reading this:
"At $20,000/pair, the issue is not whether the Signature 800 is a good speaker, but whether it's a great one—and if so, in what ways is it great, in what ways not? Some find fault with the Nautilus range's overall balance. But in contrast to many US designs, the S800 doesn't roll off the highest audible frequencies. Because there is no grain or lack of resolution in the S800's high end to conceal flaws in the signal fed to it, this can result in a perception of brightness with anything less than the best setup, associated hardware, and source material.
But with the best of everything, the S800 delivered clean, natural treble that was almost uncanny"
"When I compared the Signature 800 with the Revel Ultima Studio (something I couldn't do in a quick A/B, due to both speakers' bulk), I found them equally satisfying but different. The S800 was more immediate, with somewhat greater soundstage depth. The Studios' soundstage began at the plane of the speaker baffles and extended nearly as deeply as the B&Ws' into my room. For images between the speaker positions, the S800s' imaging seemed more detailed and stable than the Studios', but the Studios more easily portrayed a wide breadth of stage, beyond their own cabinets. Large dynamic contrasts were handled equally well, although the S800 probably had greater ultimate limits. Fine contrasts, too, seemed equally well-handled. Assuming I hadn't already bought the Revels, which might I have chosen? "
To comment on the non-neutral behaviour of the 800S
"I review and analyze audio equipment, so the Signature 800's surgically revealing transparency, huge dynamic range, and lack of tonal character throughout the audible range are probably "better" for me. The Revel Ultima Studio, however, is just that bit warmer, to match what mixing engineers probably expect we listen to at home. So while the S800 is undoubtedly "better," 1) I can't move them when I need to, 2) I need a few more feet of listening distance, and 3) the Ultima Studio ain't chopped liver."
Conclusion on the review:
"Conclusion
The B&W Signature 800 is a great speaker—perhaps the best I've ever heard at home—and was a continual delight to listen to. With the right supporting cast and under the right conditions, it has a potency, resolution, and transparency, from the lowest through the highest frequencies, that are unsurpassed for a speaker of domestically acceptable size.
Scuttlebutt on the 'Net suggests that the S800 is too bright, but I didn't find it so. What I did hear was an unremitting clarity that laid bare any shortcomings in source material or components. On the one hand, this meant that the S800 let me hear exactly how the engineers mixed and balanced every recording I played. On the other, it served as a constant reminder that most recordings are, intentionally or not, engineered to redress the flaws of less accurate speakers in less than optimal listening rooms. The Signature 800's ability to reveal this is one reason that it, like B&W's Nautilus 801 and 802, is suitable as a studio monitor—which may mean that it's too demanding for any but the most scrupulous home installations.
Can you handle the truth? "
So these are the words of a professional and I don't think he was trying to say nicely that the 800 was unbalanced or not so natural or glassy or pearcing....rather the opposite!
I can only confirm what he says based on my listening.
I am not saying that are necessary better than the Revel Studio but he basically says that the latter are NOT AS NEUTRAL although their frequency response apparenly looks flatter.
I DO NOT want to debate on this anymore as you don't posses in my opinion the skill nor the ability and most of all the experience to judge very high quality speakers or audio gears as to you a cambridge sounds extraordinry good and should sound as good as the Pass since the frequency response plot is exactly the same and the stuff inside looks pretty similar!!!!
So be it, I don't want to change your mind on anything, you can keep thinking whatever you whant but just please let's stop this useless debate which I am sick and tired of!!!
Thanks!
It looks for some reason that you reply without reading anything I say, it's like you know already what you are going to reply before even my reply.
I told you I have no experience on speakers as a matter of fact but I have listened to a ton of different very hi end speakers and also entry levels, medium levels...I have probably listened to more system than you can even think of.
In the other hand you don't seem to have listened to so many things to not say anything!
Dude, did you help people like Joachim?, like nelson? like Jacco? like Zen? like other people that work on the field like them to solve their problems?
I DON'T think SO!
Look, come talk to me when you have proven that your desings are cutting edge like you claim they are also because I don't know what stops you from commercializing something you have finished.
It is very easy just contact a magazine and see what the process for reviewing is, build a website an enclosure pick a name and you are done.
Ah and if you think you can make as a DIY something that is worth 20K for 1-2K you are WRONG!!!
Example take the XA200.5: do you think you can make it for that much? it costs about 24K roundly like my speaker.
Does it have compromise? Don't think so...
Maybe you can object it could use Texas resistors and higher grade electrolytics or WBT nex Gen connectors.
But now tell me how much it would cost YOU to build it like THAT PLUS those stuff???
A TOOONNNN OF MONEY!!! probably not 24K bu certainly around 10K including selected transformers selected 80 output devices!!! plus on top of the 10K a ton of work to assemble and test it....and this is just to COPY it.
Now think about the valuable time than Nelson spent of developing and you can easily get to that price point!
Your time is probably not valuable to you but on the normal world the time of a professional costs pretty high.
To end I will quote from the review by Stereophile and again I usually like to listen for my own on audio gear but you can also get a feeling for by reading this:
"At $20,000/pair, the issue is not whether the Signature 800 is a good speaker, but whether it's a great one—and if so, in what ways is it great, in what ways not? Some find fault with the Nautilus range's overall balance. But in contrast to many US designs, the S800 doesn't roll off the highest audible frequencies. Because there is no grain or lack of resolution in the S800's high end to conceal flaws in the signal fed to it, this can result in a perception of brightness with anything less than the best setup, associated hardware, and source material.
But with the best of everything, the S800 delivered clean, natural treble that was almost uncanny"
"When I compared the Signature 800 with the Revel Ultima Studio (something I couldn't do in a quick A/B, due to both speakers' bulk), I found them equally satisfying but different. The S800 was more immediate, with somewhat greater soundstage depth. The Studios' soundstage began at the plane of the speaker baffles and extended nearly as deeply as the B&Ws' into my room. For images between the speaker positions, the S800s' imaging seemed more detailed and stable than the Studios', but the Studios more easily portrayed a wide breadth of stage, beyond their own cabinets. Large dynamic contrasts were handled equally well, although the S800 probably had greater ultimate limits. Fine contrasts, too, seemed equally well-handled. Assuming I hadn't already bought the Revels, which might I have chosen? "
To comment on the non-neutral behaviour of the 800S
"I review and analyze audio equipment, so the Signature 800's surgically revealing transparency, huge dynamic range, and lack of tonal character throughout the audible range are probably "better" for me. The Revel Ultima Studio, however, is just that bit warmer, to match what mixing engineers probably expect we listen to at home. So while the S800 is undoubtedly "better," 1) I can't move them when I need to, 2) I need a few more feet of listening distance, and 3) the Ultima Studio ain't chopped liver."
Conclusion on the review:
"Conclusion
The B&W Signature 800 is a great speaker—perhaps the best I've ever heard at home—and was a continual delight to listen to. With the right supporting cast and under the right conditions, it has a potency, resolution, and transparency, from the lowest through the highest frequencies, that are unsurpassed for a speaker of domestically acceptable size.
Scuttlebutt on the 'Net suggests that the S800 is too bright, but I didn't find it so. What I did hear was an unremitting clarity that laid bare any shortcomings in source material or components. On the one hand, this meant that the S800 let me hear exactly how the engineers mixed and balanced every recording I played. On the other, it served as a constant reminder that most recordings are, intentionally or not, engineered to redress the flaws of less accurate speakers in less than optimal listening rooms. The Signature 800's ability to reveal this is one reason that it, like B&W's Nautilus 801 and 802, is suitable as a studio monitor—which may mean that it's too demanding for any but the most scrupulous home installations.
Can you handle the truth? "
So these are the words of a professional and I don't think he was trying to say nicely that the 800 was unbalanced or not so natural or glassy or pearcing....rather the opposite!
I can only confirm what he says based on my listening.
I am not saying that are necessary better than the Revel Studio but he basically says that the latter are NOT AS NEUTRAL although their frequency response apparenly looks flatter.
I DO NOT want to debate on this anymore as you don't posses in my opinion the skill nor the ability and most of all the experience to judge very high quality speakers or audio gears as to you a cambridge sounds extraordinry good and should sound as good as the Pass since the frequency response plot is exactly the same and the stuff inside looks pretty similar!!!!
So be it, I don't want to change your mind on anything, you can keep thinking whatever you whant but just please let's stop this useless debate which I am sick and tired of!!!
Thanks!
I am in part with you. I am sure there are better speakers and It would make more sense that speaker manufacturers would also develop the amplifier for it.
Is there any way I can audition what you auditioned? I would love to!
Do you have a link to the system you?
Last edited:
Stefanoo there's just no point as you clearly don't understand nor care. You're going round and round in circles with the same mindless drivel. Yes, I do read your posts, but I could say the same to you, do you read and actually acknowledge mine? I have posted several times restating the same thing in different ways but it doesn't seem to make any difference, so let me say this one last time so it might be understood.
1) This all started when you stated that the B&Ws are one of the most neutral loudspeakers you can buy.
2) I said this isn't so, due to the resonant peak that B&W don't filter out from the FST driver.
3) The resonant peak is there clear as day in every measurement I've ever seen, therefore you cannot dispute it in anyway without sounding like an idiot, for denying its existence is like living under ground and saying the sun doesn't exist.
4) I have posted subjective quotes that state this resonant peak clearly exists and it colours the sound slightly. I've posted quotes that B&W wrote themselves saying that these resonances exist and slightly colour the sound and I've posted objective measurements and comments that show the peak to exist and what kind of effect it has on the sound.
Why do you continue to deny its existence if all areas of importance are saying the same thing?
5) Even having said the above I don't really care about any subjective reviews, so posting quotes from various magazines isn't going to prove you right in any way.
The fact of the matter is that the peak exists, measurements show that it does and B&W say that it does. If you choose to stick your head in the sand and ignore this then that's up to you. I don't know how I can be much clearer on the matter. You say you're an EE, so in whatever line of work you are in you most surely have to make measurements of the systems you are constructing, do you choose to ignore those too when the results don't suit your tastes?
1) This all started when you stated that the B&Ws are one of the most neutral loudspeakers you can buy.
2) I said this isn't so, due to the resonant peak that B&W don't filter out from the FST driver.
3) The resonant peak is there clear as day in every measurement I've ever seen, therefore you cannot dispute it in anyway without sounding like an idiot, for denying its existence is like living under ground and saying the sun doesn't exist.
4) I have posted subjective quotes that state this resonant peak clearly exists and it colours the sound slightly. I've posted quotes that B&W wrote themselves saying that these resonances exist and slightly colour the sound and I've posted objective measurements and comments that show the peak to exist and what kind of effect it has on the sound.
Why do you continue to deny its existence if all areas of importance are saying the same thing?
5) Even having said the above I don't really care about any subjective reviews, so posting quotes from various magazines isn't going to prove you right in any way.
The fact of the matter is that the peak exists, measurements show that it does and B&W say that it does. If you choose to stick your head in the sand and ignore this then that's up to you. I don't know how I can be much clearer on the matter. You say you're an EE, so in whatever line of work you are in you most surely have to make measurements of the systems you are constructing, do you choose to ignore those too when the results don't suit your tastes?
I don't know why keep ignoring the factor "ear".
When I work at my job measurement is the basis for any kind of consideration.
I worked for avionic industry and you understand the there is not such a subjective connsideration to make when developing something.
So if you could possibly understand that I am good at that and that I do it almost everyday, you should wonder why I do differently here.
While control circuitry for airplanes or power generators for industrial application, or medical equipment (I am just listing some of the things I worked on in the pas 10 years) don't make music but purely respect mathermatical rules (although tweaking is always a must). A painting or a very refined dish or a beautiful musical partition...they all follow basic rules BUT you put art on this things that goes beyond logic but comes from experience and training senses as well as pure talent.
Audio ain't that different.
You can make 2 amplifier that measure 99% the same but sound COMPLETELY different.
Or you can make an amplifier that measures that much better but sounds WAY worse and SAME goes for SPEAKERS!!!
If you don't understand this simple concept then it is very hard to imagine you could be maling anything valuable in this field.
Music is about emotional involvment and not about a pure tone sinosoid!
However I am sure that one day perhaps all these differences that now don't find a real explanation will probably have one, but for now you have to trust your ears...it's like stradivari who made the violin only used his ears/experience and ability to make the best sounding violin man has ever seen!!
When I work at my job measurement is the basis for any kind of consideration.
I worked for avionic industry and you understand the there is not such a subjective connsideration to make when developing something.
So if you could possibly understand that I am good at that and that I do it almost everyday, you should wonder why I do differently here.
While control circuitry for airplanes or power generators for industrial application, or medical equipment (I am just listing some of the things I worked on in the pas 10 years) don't make music but purely respect mathermatical rules (although tweaking is always a must). A painting or a very refined dish or a beautiful musical partition...they all follow basic rules BUT you put art on this things that goes beyond logic but comes from experience and training senses as well as pure talent.
Audio ain't that different.
You can make 2 amplifier that measure 99% the same but sound COMPLETELY different.
Or you can make an amplifier that measures that much better but sounds WAY worse and SAME goes for SPEAKERS!!!
If you don't understand this simple concept then it is very hard to imagine you could be maling anything valuable in this field.
Music is about emotional involvment and not about a pure tone sinosoid!
However I am sure that one day perhaps all these differences that now don't find a real explanation will probably have one, but for now you have to trust your ears...it's like stradivari who made the violin only used his ears/experience and ability to make the best sounding violin man has ever seen!!
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.