The fact is that Lynn is being misquoted (typical). He never said that he did not like the Summas, he said that he did not like the amps and that he could not judge the Summas because the amp was so bad. His comments were were twisted arround to suite the poster.
Yes. We work with the room, and work with it in a way that (we hope) augments rather than detracts from the recording. Since not all rooms are the same, and not all recordings either, there are going to be compromises and even disagreements about what works best . . .
What sounds good in a textbook (which I gather is at the extreme small end of the range of "normal" listening rooms) remains, however, a fascinating theoretical question . . .
This is what I posted:
"Lynn Olsen did not like the sound coming from the Summas at I believe an older RMAF.
He was kind enough however to suggest that the reason for that conclusion was due to the mass-market amplifier you were using with the Summas.
That's a "poor review" under "show conditions" by any standard.."
The amplifiers didn't emit the dominate sound in the room, your speakers did.
If the listener/reviewer believes the amplifier to be bad it's necessarily in relation to the sound provided by the loudspeakers.
That's a poor review of Gedlee speakers at a show.
That doesn't mean it's the *fault* of the speakers - which is what you seem to be focused on, and which was NOT the point of Ohmolt's comment that sparked your "damage control" trolling.
Again, Ohmolt's comment:
"You cannot dismiss a speaker based simply on an experience from a show. Gedlee speakers have also received poor reviews from demos like that. But the fact is that they are both great speakers."
Of course you know all this - the quotes have been provided several times and there is no real ambiguity.
Btw I noticed that my images and posts of my Iron Lawbreakers and home theatre speakers were all missing from the photo impressions page, so I apologize for any post I made in the recent past that assumed they were still there. The only speakers I could find there were my Basement Blasters. The other speakers themselves are still very much in use, as are the Basement Blasters.
Speakers usually don't make a sound without amps driving them
Simply shows why no meaningful conclusions can be drawn from informal listening tests.
That reminded of someone who went into a room at a show. They walked behind the electronics to check out the cables, found out that the cables were cheap wires bought from an electronic store, commented that system couldn't sound even mediocre with those wires and walked out again.
Speakers usually don't make a sound without amps driving them
Simply shows why no meaningful conclusions can be drawn from informal listening tests.
..or the preamp (if not part of the amplifier), or the source.
Yup, that was pretty much Ohmolt's point - making a significant decision under show conditions probably isn't the smartest thing to rely on.
(..and Lynn's description from what I remember, which was very close to what Earl posted, was basically saying DON'T *rely* on this with respect to the loudspeakers.)
Not to mention the demo material itself. It is simply preposterous to evaluate the accuracy of a loudspeaker (or the presentation of an "acoustic scene") based on a studio mix of electronically augmented performers and instruments. One may judge that it sounds (subjectively) "better" on one speaker or another, but there's no way to know which is accurate or correct. That's fine for rock and roll . . . but . . .Speakers usually don't make a sound without amps driving them
I spent a lot of time walking around the CBTs when I first heard them. 10', 3', 6" and at various heights. I don't remember much of a frequency response change, just amplitude. That was pretty remarkable. I don't know why there would be much of a frequency response change, do you?
Now you know why I don't do shows. Only heavily marketed, "in your face" systems get peoples attention.
I have never disagreed that shows were a very bad place to evaluate anything. I disagreed that anyone ever posted a bad review of the Abbeys. That has not been refuted. Feeble attempts were made to claim that there was a bad review of the Summa, but that's not the issue. The initial claim was about Abbey's. However, the Summa review claims that have been referenced were completely ambiguous.
I will tell you a story about why I stopped doing shows. At RMAF two guys poked their heads in the door, but I could hear them talking. After about 15 seconds they said "those sound terrible - no point in even going in". What more would you need to conclude that shows were pointless? Maybe they were friends of Omholt's?
I have never disagreed that shows were a very bad place to evaluate anything. I disagreed that anyone ever posted a bad review of the Abbeys. That has not been refuted. Feeble attempts were made to claim that there was a bad review of the Summa, but that's not the issue. The initial claim was about Abbey's. However, the Summa review claims that have been referenced were completely ambiguous.
I will tell you a story about why I stopped doing shows. At RMAF two guys poked their heads in the door, but I could hear them talking. After about 15 seconds they said "those sound terrible - no point in even going in". What more would you need to conclude that shows were pointless? Maybe they were friends of Omholt's?
Last edited:
You need to read my post again. I never specifically mentioned Abbey. I wrote "Geddes speakers".Now you know why I don't do shows. Only heavily marketed, "in your face" systems get peoples attention.
I have never disagreed that shows were a very bad place to evaluate anything. I disagreed that anyone ever posted a bad review of the Abbeys. That has not been refuted. Feeble attempts were made to claim that there was a bad review of the Summa, but that's not the issue. The initial claim was about Abbey's. However, the Summa review claims that have been referenced were completely ambiguous.
I will tell you a story about why I stopped doing shows. At RMAF two guys poked their heads in the door, but I could hear them talking. After about 15 seconds they said "those sound terrible - no point in even going in". What more would you need to conclude that shows were pointless? Maybe they were friends of Omholt's?
But I don't care anymore. Believe what you want. I'll leave at that.
guys, let us stick to the topic and not resort to personal attacks please? otherwise this thread will be closed...I'd guess mostly baffle effects and driver beaming . . . I see nothing in the design that addresses that. Note that I had earlier done the same walkaround thing with the LX521 specifically listening for response uniformity in the null (it's an "issue" that ORION owners are sensitive to
) and been favorably impressed . . . it wasn't that the CBT was "bad", or in any way unusual in that regard, it just lost smoothness of response (and the upper range in general) as I moved off axis. The LX521 was distinctly different . . . moving around the speaker was like turning the volume up and down.Behavior of the stereo "image" was different also . . . it was better overall with the LX521, and maintained better as I moved off-axis. As I moved into the null, however, the "image" suddenly jumped from between the speakers to behind the speakers, with a "pseudo image" appearing between the speakers and the front wall. The "tonal balance" didn't seem to change much across that jump. With the CBT the image simply collapsed as I moved off-axis, along with the overall loss of tonal balance.
The "image thing' is of course unimportant . . . we don't generally listen to or evaluate loudspeakers at 90 degrees off-axis. The change in off-axis tonal balance, however, I would expect to hear in the reflected sound in a typical listening environment. I'd expect the CBT to sound better in a relatively "dead" room (and particularly with a dead wall or "open air" behind them) and with recordings that favor that environment . . . but I've never had an opportunity to hear them that way.
Was that sighted or unsighted? From what I've read yours and his opinions of amplifiers could not be further apart.
Last edited:
Here it is:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ons-beaten-behringer-what-76.html#post3387182
It's obvious that you don't mean the Abbeys.
He specifically quoted only that portion that he didn't like:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ons-beaten-behringer-what-78.html#post3387542