I don't think so. You miss the difference between a standard for sound reproduction and the reproduction of the musical sound.
So you going to post those "critical and universally accepted parameters that makes the history and aesthetics of music!" ?
I can not wait to see how fluffy and meaningless words = to anything scientific and factually 😀
huh?
You posted this There are critical and universally accepted parameters in the music world
Parameters have nothing to with subjectivity according to you but now you post its a matter of culture?
So I call you on it and you can not produce? Is this always how the "HiFi" crowd works its magic.....well spoken, fancy words but at the end of the day nothing is objective just subjective?
So what did the arrows tell you?
Best, Markus
P.S. I'm still waiting for a detailed description of the circumstances when you "witnessed the failure of this [post #677] suggestion first hand". What you presented in post #703 is far from being detailed.
You can surely call but the approach here looks quite biased! Why should I go on? Is it worth? It doesn't seem to me.
You and many others don't want to accept the fact that your dear measurements rely on subjective opinions regarding the basic principles and parameters. These are given for granted, assumed to be true and used to build a "scientific" procedure. A vicious circle within the vicious circles!
Would it be worth at the end of day?
Maybe this helps your ability to abstract:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Best, Markus
Sorry with all the meaningless banter we missed the important post that is meaningful to this DIY forum.
Aespeaker.com forum might have a project or two.
I know a member (fb I think is his name) on this forum has the TD15M, QSC horn, BMS 4550 CD and is building a 2-way design (active). Im not sure he has a build thread on this site but his build thread so far is here.
TD15M-A, BMS4550, QSC Horn - Build thread with questions - AVS Forum
Augerpro has built 2 way designs with 12" eminence woofers, QSC horn/B&C CD
HTGuide Forum - Can you smell what Brando's cooking!?
Augerpro also did all the great measurements on many woofers, horns and drivers.
I have the TD12M (very similar just the 12" vs 15"), Im also using the QSC horn/BMS 4550 CD with it. Im on the box building stage, Im following Augerpro design. I believe he might be creating crossovers in the future for the TD12M option.
Gentleman, this has nothing to do with pro or hifi drivers.
So, either you post on-topic or you don't post at all.
/Hugo
So, either you post on-topic or you don't post at all.
/Hugo
Again, you did post "critical and universally accepted parameters" and Im just curious to findout what those "critical parameters" are.
Maybe I will ask others on here.....Does anyone else know what the "NON subjective, critical and universally accepted parameters" are when it comes to defining music SQ?
Measurements are far from subjective....Everyone knows when they see great measurements maybe you have never done a measurement or read enough on how speakers are built?
I never read a build thread where someone posted measurements saying they are great and others argue they are bad so your point about measurements relying on subjective opinion is completely false too.
Good and accurate measurements have no subjectivity in them, to think otherwise is foolish especially on a site where speaker building actually happens.
Conclusion, I care about measurements when it comes to driver choices and speaker builds. Im not an expert speaker builder but I can follow others in what they build.
Drivers have no idea about any content either, a hifi driver can not reproduce music better then a pro driver (same the other way around, they equally produce sound)....there is simply zero documented proof of that Hifi drivers are better!! Subjective opinion from the more extremely subjective critical listening crowd doesnt count as fact when they do not produce a shred of evidence to back up that opinion.
Last edited:
I haven't made any claim. I have made a suggestion based on the demonstration of a clear fault of the actual procedure that you and others continue to report again, again and again!
The fault is: can you demonstrate your choice of parameters is necessary and sufficient to establish the best possible scientific procedure for the reproduction of music? I can't see such demonstration.
Until then it will be a just a vicious circle.....
Gentleman, this has nothing to do with pro or hifi drivers.
So, either you post on-topic or you don't post at all.
/Hugo
Ok! For me such discussion (about critical listening) ended a long time ago.....
No, that's a distortion of what was said!
My point were that in acoustical music you have a reference of what a real guitar or piano etc. should sound like, thus the system can also be evaluated subjectively for accuracy of playback. With movies, there are little if anything that you can use as a reference to evaluate it, thus allowing for some of the other parameters to become more important. Further with movies your attention is divided between looking and listening, allowing for the same. Please don't try and look for an argument where there are none.
That's exactly what I was trying to say all along. 😕
No distortion of the what some of said, its just a summary and you just repeat that SQ is more important in 2 channel. 😕
I know if a movie sounds bad, just like you would know if a song sounds bad...no arguement needed you just need to understand that there are references in movies to evaluate. A sound crew would laugh at your opinion when creating sound for movies from walking to doors shutting it definitely matters and its the same refrences as a piano note...why is that so hard for you to understand? You are not above Movies...you are not above anyone acutally 😕
Yes, the secondary debate talking down to the HT world thinking SQ isnt needed is crazy....its purely a choice in the end. I know more people that love music and use Ipods so I guess music SQ is a choice too....imagine that.
Last edited:
We're not trying to find and define the parameters that are "necessary and sufficient to establish the best possible scientific procedure for the reproduction of music" but of any sound and space over loudspeakers. We have identified a lot of parameters but I admit we need to gain more knowledge (see http://harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Technologyleadership/Documents/Scientific Publications/13686.pdf).
When listening in stereo or even multichannel, the simple insight is that the original is something the audio/mastering engineer heard (sound field at your ears not equal sound field at the original venue - or there is no original venue because the recording is a multitrack production). So your only chance to hear the original is to go to each and every studio to experience the original or rebuild each and every studio at home or try to find parameters that help you standardize the listening environment for the recording/mixing/mastering engineer and the consumer within these parameters. Only the latter makes sense. That's what the "circle of confusion" is all about.
If you want to have the "real" thing, then listen to a binaural recording you made with mikes in your ears.
Best, Markus
P.S. You haven't made any claims? Distorted reality? Do you want me to cite some of your posts?
Last edited:
Do you actually understand english or is it me that can't explain myself????
I'm surely not talking down on HT, why on earth would you think that?? Perhaps it is you that choose to see it that way.
To me the order of importance of certain aspects are different between these two systems, I did not once say SQ isn't important in a HT setup!! It is because of SQ issues I had with HT that I'm not using my system anymore.
Funny enough, up until BD, the decoding schemes which were accepted by the "HT crowd" (not that I want to see a difference like you try to) were of such low SQ that I wasn't interested in HT for music listening. As I said myself, I hope BD will solve that. BTW if you have BD from 2005 you are lucky, over here it's just starting to take of, thanks to the BD / HDDVD? fight and it still seems like they can't make up their mind what standard to use. Judging by the past, SQ isn't important when making that decisions.
Last time I ask, gentleman:
We discuss drivers, not each other.
There's plenty of free room in the bin.
/Hugo
We discuss drivers, not each other.
There's plenty of free room in the bin.
/Hugo
Hello Andre
It seems it depends what side of the fence you are on. I would not say it was an order of importance but more a limitaion of the DVD media. BD we have the space required for lossless codecs but not conventional DVD. When I set-up up my HT I use it as a 5.1 music system as well. I used multichannel SACD as my reference or 5.1 24/96 DVD's. That could be why I don't feel there is a difference between a 2 channel, 5.1 HT or 5.1 Music system. The basic requirements are exemplary sound in all applications.
Rob🙂
Last edited:
Cone coating
Cone coating is one thing that's much more prevalent in home drivers, This tends to create a tradeoff between MMS and top end damping. Pro drivers tend to tolerate a little more top-end nasties, probably for several reasons:
Makes sense, you don't often see a JBL driver used in a poor design (L100 excepted 🙂 ), where you see Scan-Speaks and Vifas in low quality stuff all day long.
Cone coating is one thing that's much more prevalent in home drivers, This tends to create a tradeoff between MMS and top end damping. Pro drivers tend to tolerate a little more top-end nasties, probably for several reasons:
- They're more likely to be used actively with steep slopes
- They don't have to worry about designers who can't design a crossover with good breakup suppression
- They want to maintain as much efficiency as possible
Makes sense, you don't often see a JBL driver used in a poor design (L100 excepted 🙂 ), where you see Scan-Speaks and Vifas in low quality stuff all day long.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.