The only way to know if this or any other kind of distortion is audible, to what degree, and under what circumstances is through controlled experiments where the element undergoing scrutiny is the only variable. This is not necessarily an easy thing to do. Has it been done here? It was one of Cheevers many mistakes in his paper about THD too, a basic blunder in understanding of the scientific method. (This alone should have disqualified him.)
It seems to me that some claims about distortion such as "time delay" distortion in multiway speakers can be tested using digital time delays and multi-amping. It's also important to determine whether or not changing the controlled variable in such an experiment makes distortion appear and disappear or merely changes the nature of it. For this an undistorted reference standared is needed for comparison as well.
IMO most manufacturing claims regarding magic bullets in their latest whizbang design are based on just this fallacy. Audiophiles of course eat it up and buy into this kind of sales pitch thinking they've actually got something until the next guy with a newer shinier magic bullet comes along.
Speaking of 'shinier magic bullets' , this week, at The Show, Brian Cheney will be, once again, giving a live vs recorded demonstration, and this year, his speakers will have more than $5,000 worth of Bybee 'shiny magic bullets, thanks for the donation, Jack, added to the demonstration loudspeakers. Come one, come all!
http://www.stereophile.com/content/live-ivsi-recorded-vmps
"As we entered, soprano Lesley Olsher, wife of erstwhile Stereophile reviewer Dick Olsher, was standing before a microphone array, singing a lovely song in Hebrew."
"Brian Cheney of VMPS recorded the demo using a two-channel DSD recorder and tube condenser mics. Then, the recording was played back in both DSD and 24-bit/88.2kHz formats. "
"Most striking was the fact that the recorded playback had far more air and life than the live performance in a very deadened room. John explained that's because we were hearing the acoustic of the same room twice, both at the time of the recording and at the time of playback."
All that this proves is that he doesn't know how to conduct an LvR demo. Roy Allison was far more clever.
I think you meant make less in the first place. I know they make up for it with lots of non-minimum phase response. Dick Heyser taught me that.
It is the Hebrew which does it …
On a serious note, in recorded music reverberation is much more noticeable, since the ears (actually, ears-brain-mind) are adaptive, while microphones are not.
It is kind of tough, when we are doing a LIVE real time vs recording demonstration to use an anechoic chamber to make the recording. However, it is a lot of fun to listen to musical instruments and hear how much they deviate in live vs recorded. We are not here to fool people, just show how close we can get. For example, we don't have the players fake playing, when the sound is being played back, like AR.
" We are not here to fool people"
Good thing too, the equipment and techniques aren't up to it. Not even close.
"It is kind of tough, when we are doing a LIVE real time vs recording demonstration to use an anechoic chamber to make the recording. "
Allison didn't make AR's recordings in an anechoic chamber. He knew how to eliminate reflections using another method that was much simpler. And it worked.
"For example, we don't have the players fake playing, when the sound is being played back, like AR."
The point of the LvR presentation is to demonstrate whether or not it is hard to tell the difference. Fake playing eliminates the visual cues to the audience. A screen would work but then people would say it isn't acoustically transparent enough.
I attended two AR demos, one was the guitar player and the other was the 1905 Nickelodeon. I could tell the difference but the similarities were remarkable and unexpected, the differences slight. I don't think modern equipment could come that close. From the referenced link, VMPS didn't come even remotely close to fooling anyone. So then the question becomes what is the point in buying expensive audio gear today. My answer is that there isn't any. Technology has exhausted the possibilities of the existing paradigm and reached a dead end. So has the industry.
It is the Hebrew which does it …
On a serious note, in recorded music reverberation is much more noticeable, since the ears (actually, ears-brain-mind) are adaptive, while microphones are not.
When it all comes from the same direction as the source it makes the musicians sound like they are playing inside the Holland Tunnel and you the listener are outside. That's why commercial recordings only have a tiny fraction of the reverberation heard at most live venues. Here's a typical example;
YouTube - Nikolai Medtner ?Fairy Tales" op.20 Nr.1
BTW, if your sound system makes a concert grand piano sound like a point source it has badly distorted it. They don't call it a "GRAND" piano just because of its huge physical size.
Ouch! There is an audio industry outside the nonsense. I have to disagree on speakers. The idea that AR "nailed it" in the 60's is fairly idiosyncratic. I miss my DQ-10's on a few LP's like the "Flight of the Condor" soundtrack. I don't think anyone has done the last word in speakers.
I lived through endless AR, Advent, Bose dormroom systems and don't miss any of them. At modest level the MET-7's are truer to the source than any of them, even my 1977 vintage ones. Opinions are as they say...
Last edited:
The AR LvR demos were highly contrived. One thing remarkable about them was that it could be done at all. AR speakers did not fare so well reproducing commercially made recordings IMO. Nevertheless, there seemed to at least be an objective goal, even if it was only obtainable at the time on very rare occasion under highly restricted circmustances.
I'm surprised that people who claim to be able to hear the dropping of a gnat's eyelash cannot hear the gross difference between recordings and live music or at least they won't admit it even to themselves. It's a sad conclusion that the problem has beaten the best minds that have tackled it. But I'm hardly the first or only one to have said it. Gordon Holt said it on more than one occasion, TAS magazine said it several years ago. If it wasn't true, I don't think there would be so much interest in live music, performers, and building live venues. Of course if your idea of live music is to listen to an electronic sound reinforcement system in a sports arena, you might just as well stay at home and listen to a recording, that's all you're getting anyway.
Considering what the so called high end of this industry offers, I find it remarkable that there are any customers for its products at all.
Sorry if I misled you I would never even conjecture that two speakers could create a duplicate of a live event. I approach this as listen to what you have in front of you right now like a new dish or bottle of wine. Live music is not MY reference.
We know that we listen to an illusion when listening to recorded music on any system. Some systems/items major on giving as lifelike an illusion as they can muster, others emphasise emotion, or focus, or sound-field etc. It all ends with the buyers choice. The unfortunate aspect is that many are over influenced by makers advertised claims, perceived value,etc and do not end up with a good experience. Expectations are unclear for a very large number of potential buyers. The reason why so many professional musicians are happy with cheap or old less than SOTA systems.....they know the music and that what they listen to is illusion and thus do not have the expectations of the hi-fi purchaser who expects a recreation of the living experience whilst sipping a beer at home.
We know that we listen to an illusion when listening to recorded music on any system. Some systems/items major on giving as lifelike an illusion as they can muster, others emphasise emotion, or focus, or sound-field etc. It all ends with the buyers choice. The unfortunate aspect is that many are over influenced by makers advertised claims, perceived value,etc and do not end up with a good experience. Expectations are unclear for a very large number of potential buyers. The reason why so many professional musicians are happy with cheap or old less than SOTA systems.....they know the music and that what they listen to is illusion and thus do not have the expectations of the hi-fi purchaser who expects a recreation of the living experience whilst sipping a beer at home.
I think illusion is a poor choice of words. It's not an illusion but a facsimile. And invariably a very poor one compared to the real thing at that. Given some of the astronomical prices charged for some of this equipment, you'd expect far better. At least I would.
Hail Dick Sequerra, the man who nearly drove Saul Marantz into Bankruptcy with the 10B, the finest FM tuner of the early 1960s. And who could forget his digital tuner of a few years later which cost $4000. What do you think it's worth now? Could you get $200 for it on e-bay? I think you'd do far better wtih an MR67, MR76, or a 10B even if they don't work as well.
I met Sequerra at the home of a mutual acquaintance. He didn't make much of an impression on me.
So a speaker in the shape of a metronome. But does the front tilt back? I don't recall that it did. If it had, he could have claimed it was time aligned. Another mutual acquaintance said he had a full range ribbon speaker 15 feet tall. Was supposed to be pretty impressive.
The last one (that I saw) went for $3000 on eBay. I have a $79 Chinese AM/FM/Shortwave that I can't tell from an audiophile one. I would like to hear about the 10B story, I can't imagine enough were made to cause a dent in anyones wallet. Again an item that will always sell for => its original price.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Marantz...994?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5195c026c2
Last edited:
There was a clear heirarchy to things in the audio electronics business. Fair or unfair, Marantz and McIntosh were at the top. Dynaco was called the poor man's McIntosh. Then came the also rans like Fisher, Scott, Harman Kardon, and a tier below them Sherwood, Pilot Radio, and down below Bogen, Allied Radio, Lafayette Radio. Right or wrong this is how it seemed to me. One look at a McIntosh amplifier tells you why. It seemed built to last forever and was backed by an ironclad guarantee so strong that if it ever failed to meet its published specs, McIntosh would restore it to its original performance for free....or so they said.
Around 1962 or 1963 this most expensive of all tuners ever, $750 appears on the market. Hailed as the best tuner in the world, even some radio stations bought it to replace their tuners for monitoring their own signal quality. It had a built in oscilloscope for monitoring multipath distortion. McIntosh not to be outdone came out with a separate unit with an oscilloscope to connect to their tuners and of course it had that "McIntosh look" and feel.
I think it was the development cost that nearly did Marantz in. The best and most expensive equipment doesn't necessarily sell very well. $750 was a lot of money in those days. Not quite enough to buy a new car but definitely enough for a down payment on one. Perhaps JC knows more details.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.