I will even go so far as to say that most professional audio reviews are honest, and not directly effected by anything but what works better than something else. Of course, people can criticize that there are not enough NEGATIVE REVIEWS to make reviewing 'balanced' but there is little or no incentive to publish a negative review, the reviews just ignore the product. It is better this way, because even marginal audio designs are made with some investment in time and money, and people resent being ridiculed.
This happened to me, big time, about 35 years ago, when the SOTA head amp was first introduced. I looked at it as a modern version of the original Levinson JC-1, that was discontinued by that time. It was reviewed by IAR in a way that really p'd off my employer, who started raving about 'getting even' and I was put in a very difficult situation, because I knew the reviewer, so I was forced to convey our feelings about the review. He basically said that it belonged in the trash, and this was a criticism too far. Reviewers wisely learned not to 'trash' audio products publically any more than they might 'savage' someone's kid. It is bad form.
This happened to me, big time, about 35 years ago, when the SOTA head amp was first introduced. I looked at it as a modern version of the original Levinson JC-1, that was discontinued by that time. It was reviewed by IAR in a way that really p'd off my employer, who started raving about 'getting even' and I was put in a very difficult situation, because I knew the reviewer, so I was forced to convey our feelings about the review. He basically said that it belonged in the trash, and this was a criticism too far. Reviewers wisely learned not to 'trash' audio products publically any more than they might 'savage' someone's kid. It is bad form.
I happened to look at a few threads where people were talking about high efficiency speakers, and I find these amusing to run through. Blokes go weak at the knees, talking about getting intense, satisfying sound from them - and the attitude is that massive, horn loaded edifices are the only way to get there. However, conventional speakers with decent - and that's a key word, decent! - amplification will also do it - once heard, an audio myth is revealed for what it is. It's all about loud, and clean - these qualities are not mutually exclusive ...
Hi. Sorry to bust in like this but it is related to sound quality vs measurement.
I had the light bulb above the head recently. I believe the sound measurements truly convey the fidelity to the original event. The original event being the sampling by the microphones. The lower the distortion the more accurate it is. I've often sat on the bench reading long debates arguing one way or the other.
I think why super low distortion is not preferred in some cases is that the original signal often kind of sucks. The original signal being a sampling of an instrument from a perspective or combination of samples from different perspectives.
I started to gather this concept when I found I prefer electronic music for which I have no other frame of reference than recordings. I find myself judging recordings of acoustic music from my impressions of listening to the actual instruments. It rarely ever compares favorably. It can be nice but certainly not accurate. I settle with nice.
If I were asked to record and/or mix audio I would ask for the flattest response and lowest distortion possible so I would expect the least surprises in the final mix. Then I would listen on several screwy systems to hear what happens and then finally the stock minivan sound system doing 60 on an interstate as an acid test. Then I'd make adjustments and repeat as necessary.
I'm likening this to painting a picture in the light it is to be viewed under and then seeing how it looks in different lighting and possibly striking a compromise.
I think in terms of preference to an entertainment oriented audio reproduction system it is what one forgives after a certain level of quality is achieved. What I tend to forgive is something I've built with the least amount of money possible using salvage. The least amount spent for the best sound quality the more I love it.
But for some it's the most money spent or the most accurate or the most beautiful or maybe it's completely built from scratch. Maybe someone has a system that conveys very closely the impression of listening to live music. It would be interesting to hear and to know what the distortion figures are.
I'm thinking any lack of impression of the live performance should the distortion figures of the reproduction system be low would be attributable to the recording itself.
Just a few thoughts and hopefully my meaning. Sorry if this has been covered a million times. I haven't read the whole thread. Thanks.
I had the light bulb above the head recently. I believe the sound measurements truly convey the fidelity to the original event. The original event being the sampling by the microphones. The lower the distortion the more accurate it is. I've often sat on the bench reading long debates arguing one way or the other.
I think why super low distortion is not preferred in some cases is that the original signal often kind of sucks. The original signal being a sampling of an instrument from a perspective or combination of samples from different perspectives.
I started to gather this concept when I found I prefer electronic music for which I have no other frame of reference than recordings. I find myself judging recordings of acoustic music from my impressions of listening to the actual instruments. It rarely ever compares favorably. It can be nice but certainly not accurate. I settle with nice.
If I were asked to record and/or mix audio I would ask for the flattest response and lowest distortion possible so I would expect the least surprises in the final mix. Then I would listen on several screwy systems to hear what happens and then finally the stock minivan sound system doing 60 on an interstate as an acid test. Then I'd make adjustments and repeat as necessary.
I'm likening this to painting a picture in the light it is to be viewed under and then seeing how it looks in different lighting and possibly striking a compromise.
I think in terms of preference to an entertainment oriented audio reproduction system it is what one forgives after a certain level of quality is achieved. What I tend to forgive is something I've built with the least amount of money possible using salvage. The least amount spent for the best sound quality the more I love it.
But for some it's the most money spent or the most accurate or the most beautiful or maybe it's completely built from scratch. Maybe someone has a system that conveys very closely the impression of listening to live music. It would be interesting to hear and to know what the distortion figures are.
I'm thinking any lack of impression of the live performance should the distortion figures of the reproduction system be low would be attributable to the recording itself.
Just a few thoughts and hopefully my meaning. Sorry if this has been covered a million times. I haven't read the whole thread. Thanks.
Here we go again ... which distortion figures? The trivially easy to measure - or something that more closely concerns itself with how humans hear sound, that places greater weight on artifacts that most disturb people when listening. The amusing ritual that takes place here, and many other places: " ... of course the amplifier is fault free, it measures beautifully! - in what way does it measure well - well, it has excellent THD figures! - so the THD tells the full story, is that it? - no, of course not, every competent engineer knows there's more to it than that! - so, what else should we test to get the full story? - that's something that has yet to be determined ... "
And so it goes ...
And so it goes ...
Last edited:
I believe Lowther used silver voice coils on some versions of their driver. Usually you do not want the extra mass. Even copper may be heavy enough to limit the performance in some way. Copper coated aluminum is a preferred voice coil material being lighter so there is less inertia to overcome. The copper coating is to make it solderable, although its impact from skin effect may alter things slightly. The difference in conductivity won't make a big difference in the performance.
I have had similar experiences sending pre-release electronics to reviewers in different parts of the world who have no contact with each other and not even knowledge that the other parties have the product. Somehow they came up with similar descriptions of the "sound". At the time I liked what they said and of course believed they were clearly hearing my superlative work. In retrospect it may just have been the color of the anodize on the faceplate.
I do think this is an area ripe for some real research since its not that difficult to design an experiment to test perception from independent observers. The trick would be convincing FedEx or UPS to fund it.
I very much appreciate your input. I'm considering what you've written. If you're frustrated by what I've written I apologize.
Don't mind me! Sorry 
, I was just getting something off my chest, which is that there seems to be little inclination or enthusiasm to progress the correlation between measuring techniques, and what people hear.
To quote from a book which was just recently mentioned:
Have we progressed at all ... ?
, I was just getting something off my chest, which is that there seems to be little inclination or enthusiasm to progress the correlation between measuring techniques, and what people hear.To quote from a book which was just recently mentioned:
Have we progressed at all ... ?
Yes, Frank. I have no idea why it is the THD as the only always mentioned parameter. Anyway, it is difficult to argue with amateurs, it goes in never ending circles, with no solid basis for discussion.
Thank you so much. I'm a bit insecure with the technical stuff so I was being too sensitive.
It would be interesting to do the 1 kHz test mentioned in the book on a tube amp with a solid amp in series with it and padded, perhaps, so the loading was not detrimental to it's performance. Then do the test with the tube amp alone and see the difference if any.
It would be interesting to do the 1 kHz test mentioned in the book on a tube amp with a solid amp in series with it and padded, perhaps, so the loading was not detrimental to it's performance. Then do the test with the tube amp alone and see the difference if any.
That would be nice, but the circuit you showed doesn't look particularly linear. What was your point?
PHY of France makes wideband loudspeakers in 15 and 31 cm sizes, each with the option of copper or silver voice coils. The silver voice coil version costs €200 more than the copper and is rated for less power. The moving mass is also lower for the silver version. The 8" has a very low moving mass of 4 gm and the 12 is also good at 9.5 gm. The 12' model is rated at 97 dB/WM and the 8" version 98 dB, surprisingly. They have alnico magnets and bronze baskets and look like throwbacks to an earlier era. Bernard Salabert, designer and owner of the factory died too young in May of 2011.
Here's a "factory" visit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh9n9v4bNhY
and their webpage:
index
Sounds good, Dejan. My one comment, where I disagree, is the proviso, "if the source material is good" - in a fully sorted out setup that conditional is no longer applicable, all material comes from "invisible" speakers - really, really "crappy" blues recordings,
Frank, no matter how you spin it, it's still a fact that not all LPs and CDs are created the same. Some simply contain more information than others, no matter what you play them with.
As a drastic example, The Blue Man group CD (the first one) has a piece where from a very soft passage all four kick in on drmus at full blast. In another piece, a guy hits not a kickdrum, but a 12 foot mega drum, which literally takes your liver for a walk around the room, if reproduced by a speaker capable of doing sub-40 Hz cleanly and an amp capable of delivering the power peak.
You don't find this kind of music content on every CD, much less that well recorded. So I'm sorry, but my claim stands - if the music material is well done.
Don't be silly, Frank, of course you can ask, that's the whole point, to compare our views and habits.
I am not much of a believer in cables, but I have heard a few samples to actually sound different than most others. On the other hand, silver seems to convey the ultra fine detail better than most copper (mind you, "most", not "all) cables of whatever structure. At least, that's my opinion.
AFAIK, only platinum is better than copper, by perhaps a small margin in performance, but at a huge price difference. Plus they are hard to find.
I use pure silver wire from Neotech, a Taiwan based company which manufactures only bales, and you'd be surprised to learn how many famous name brands are in fact OEMed by Neotech, at a price difference of 4...7:1 compared with the original Neotech wire, sans the famous brand name.
They do have an OFC cable which costs one half of the silver cable, and are damn difficult to tell apart from the pure silver, but for that project, I simply wanted the best I can find and/or afford. Hence, silver. And I did it again when refreshing my old AR94 speakers, resulting in better details becoming audible. However, this simply means that the silver wiring was better than what AR used, that's all.
In all cases, these were multistrand wires.
As for the inductors, no, they were not with silver wiring, but with OFC.
I see no particular problems in making a driver with silver wiring, I expect it would do better, but I hate to think what it's price would like.
Of course they're not ... the dynamics are only one aspect - again, I'm talking about putting on "dodgy" material, a recording that for whatever reason has the odds against it, that on normal audio playback will have listeners yelling out to turn it off!! I have plenty of those recordings, and I cringe at the terrible job most systems have in coping with them - which is exactly why I use them as test material.
My criteria is that I'm drawn into the musical performance, in spite of "defects" in the recording that I can choose to focus on - that I have no desire to switch it off, because it's just not worth listening to ...
Not quite finished about Bernard Salabert.
He had this to say about speaker design, which I think addresses at least tangentially the topic of this thread:
"About good drive units in general, it's really very simple. Physics tell us that we must have very light moving mass since mass operates as the square of the inertial position (in fact square + 1) so you can never compensate by magnetic field strength or amplifier power. This becomes even more important when you listen to music. Music, on average, is a mix of 30% sinusoid and 70% very steep short signals (impulses, transients and such). If a sinusoidal wave is easily reproduced, transient spikes are far more difficult to render properly. For that the mobile equipment (cone + spider + leads + voice coil) should have an infinite slew rate i.e. zero mass. That's impossible of course but you must come as close as possible to 0. You need a very light cone that is rigid enough and features progressive fracturization in an hyperbolic-exponential profile. Only paper with long and short fibers can accomplish that, plush a small-diameter voice coil where one layer is inside and one outside of the former to transmit the movements of the coil with the fewest possible losses (I use impregnated vellum). It is simply in respect to basic PHYsical laws that I made these choices, not to return to the roots per se. But surely it is not a random coincidence that people from the 30s to 70s made drivers like this. They were not stupid as it seems a lot of people today like to believe. These physical laws haven't changed. Obeying them once again not only makes for better drive units, it is also a very nice way to keep alive the knowledge about these technical matters."
This was from an article by Srajan Ebaen covering a visit by him to PHY in October 2007:
6moons industryfeatures: Bernard Salabert of PHY-HP
He had this to say about speaker design, which I think addresses at least tangentially the topic of this thread:
"About good drive units in general, it's really very simple. Physics tell us that we must have very light moving mass since mass operates as the square of the inertial position (in fact square + 1) so you can never compensate by magnetic field strength or amplifier power. This becomes even more important when you listen to music. Music, on average, is a mix of 30% sinusoid and 70% very steep short signals (impulses, transients and such). If a sinusoidal wave is easily reproduced, transient spikes are far more difficult to render properly. For that the mobile equipment (cone + spider + leads + voice coil) should have an infinite slew rate i.e. zero mass. That's impossible of course but you must come as close as possible to 0. You need a very light cone that is rigid enough and features progressive fracturization in an hyperbolic-exponential profile. Only paper with long and short fibers can accomplish that, plush a small-diameter voice coil where one layer is inside and one outside of the former to transmit the movements of the coil with the fewest possible losses (I use impregnated vellum). It is simply in respect to basic PHYsical laws that I made these choices, not to return to the roots per se. But surely it is not a random coincidence that people from the 30s to 70s made drivers like this. They were not stupid as it seems a lot of people today like to believe. These physical laws haven't changed. Obeying them once again not only makes for better drive units, it is also a very nice way to keep alive the knowledge about these technical matters."
This was from an article by Srajan Ebaen covering a visit by him to PHY in October 2007:
6moons industryfeatures: Bernard Salabert of PHY-HP
That's going too far, John, in my view.
The one thing about magazines that's fairly common around the world is that they pay peanuts for serious texts; perhaps more if you can add a picture of Lady GaGa posing nude next to an audio device.
Yet, when you read what those poorly paid rewievers have at home, those are usually $150+ k systems. Care to explain how?
Do not forget that there are many ways to lose one's virginity. For example, once a reviewer becomes associated with a manufacturer, his credibilty in testing similar devices is gone.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.