Of course they were technical designers. I'd think they were more physicists than engineers, especially guys like Wente, Thuras, Fletcher. Read their articles and they get heavily into mathematics, beyond what you see in most trade lit.
I think they had more measurement capability than you are giving them credit for...this is Bell Labs. Things were actually quite advanced in the 1930s.
I am the one who was arguing for the scientific preeminence of WE/Bell/AT&T, remember?
Why is it so good? I think because it was uncompromised brute force engineering. No concern for miniaturization and little economization. they took the most obvious, high quality path to the goal.
Above, I said this stuff is more like physics lab equipment than hi fi gear. And I think they knew what a groundbreaking project they were working on and took it to the wall.
"How to Listen is a listener training course that aims to achieve those goals. Listeners are taught to identify and rate audible changes to different sound quality percepts related to the spectral, spatial, dynamic and distortion qualities of recorded music. Performance metrics based on the discrimination, accuracy and reliably of the listeners’ responses are factored into whether the listener meets the criterion of being a “trained” listener. The question of whether a listener is truly golden eared or not, is no longer a matter of conjecture and debate since How to Listen will ultimately reveal the true answer." (Taken from the above blog.)
I dunno, Rob....
Unfortunately, using an exclusive set of parameters like the ones in bold is exactly why the high-end in general produces such hideously-amusical products in the first place. Priorities like these (dynamics excepted) are all artifacts of the recording/mixing process.
I see nothing there about tone, texture, touch, phrasing, timbre, harmonics - terms used in the making and playing of music. And for me at least - and I may be in the minority here - the lack of those terms utilization in the lexicon of the high-end is precisely why I think this thread has gained as much traction as it has. Sorry Rob, but there's a few of us who simply don't give a rat's about the spectral, spatial and distortion qualities of reproduced music - because those things don't communicate emotion or intent. They can, but if they were the sole criteria, then no-one would listen to Furtwängler or Robert Johnson (poor spectral, spatial and distortion qualities).
Texture can be emotive. Tone can. Touch can. And it's the emotive and intentional qualities of reproduced music that are the now sole reason I listen. But when these qualities are missing from the dialogue a designer is having when making a product, something is wrong.
I hear ya Rob...but don't pretend you don't know what I am talking about.
There should be a dialogue box that says "Keep your day job" IMHO.
These software devices are tools, only tools.
Do you think a properly run software routine plus measurements that match the excellent predicted response guarantees a good sounding speaker? I don't!
Hello fatchance
Well have you downloaded it and given it a try?? Have your read beyond that single article?? Have you read Tooles book?? That's the only thing that spiked your interest??
Rob🙂
LOL well I think we have all had that experience.
Of course they are not everyone with a saw is skilled cabinet maker.
First of all I can't imagine anyone who doesn't listen to speakers as prototypes and make adjustments as needed. The software may not nail it the first time but it can get you close a lot faster than ever before. That is a step in the right direction. You really should pick up Tooles book. It's great reference.
Rob🙂
You mean the one written by the Vice President of Acoustical Engineering, Harman International Industries, Inc?
No, I haven't, but I've read a bunch of his white papers (co-written by a Mr. Sean Olive, no less..), including the one that says:
"The Harman International loudspeaker companies – JBL, Infinity, Harman/Kardon and Revel – have invested heavily in measurement facilities that allow them to take the fullest advantage of existing audio science. They have invested in talented engineers who understand and respect the scientific method, good sound and great music. Coupled with this is the recent work on sound field management, which allows us, for the first time in the history of audio, to deliver similarly good bass to several listeners in a room or car. Digital technology has finally reached the cost level where all of this can now be implemented in chips costing a few dollars. Having the technical ability is one thing. Knowing what to do with that technical ability is what really counts. We have both. Stay tuned."
I just don't know what to do with that - except to ignore it.
I am hugely grateful to any designer and engineer that works tirelessly to develop the best possible products they can from within the context of a scientific methodological framework - I've just seldom heard one that plays music well.
In my own experience, I've yet to hear a speaker made by any of those companies that made me consider listening to it for more than one track, let alone purchasing and living with it at home.
However, if you believe the speaker you have to be musically satisfying because it was designed and engineered by devotees of Dr. Floyd and his research, then I'm really very happy for you.
'I will definitely look into Toole's book, on your recommendation.
But he is a d0uble blind testing man...and I already expressed my perceptions of that enterprise.
Seems he is more interested in sound phomemena than music. His PhD is in stereo localization according to loudspeakers,home theater speakers,stereo speakers - AxiomAudio
Read that page and see if you think that line of thought is on the mark. To me, it is the spew of Satan!
Exactly what I am railing against...
But he is a d0uble blind testing man...and I already expressed my perceptions of that enterprise.
Seems he is more interested in sound phomemena than music. His PhD is in stereo localization according to loudspeakers,home theater speakers,stereo speakers - AxiomAudio
Read that page and see if you think that line of thought is on the mark. To me, it is the spew of Satan!
Exactly what I am railing against...
Mr. Natural has assured me that I am on the right track...
fatchance arrives at a nearby point by an alternative route...
Joe Robby argues the same point again via another plane of understanding...
_-_-bear
Toole is a smart man, and he gets funding too... but in the end he is Toole, or a?
fatchance arrives at a nearby point by an alternative route...
Joe Robby argues the same point again via another plane of understanding...
_-_-bear
Toole is a smart man, and he gets funding too... but in the end he is Toole, or a?
WE also designed and built its own drivers-something rare these days. Most speaker "designers" buy their drivers from a handful of actual designer/builders. Regards
Count me in. I hail from the plane of absent articulation so i'll let you guys do the talking.
I read your smoke signals loud and clear and offer synchronious group hugs to you all 😀
Hello Joe
Really??
Just curious what side of the fence do you think the WE engineers end up on?? They were the best men of their time and at that time it was all about the science and getting the job done.
There was no high end of presupposed garbage there is today. There were no subjectivist and objectivists as there are today.
Bet you they would love Tooles book, his backround and his methodology. Probably be very familar to them.
Rob🙂
What? Really? How did you come to that conclusion? Human nature has changed that much?
'I will definitely look into Toole's book, on your recommendation.
But he is a d0uble blind testing man...and I already expressed my perceptions of that enterprise.
. . . spew of Satan!
Aw c'mon. Lighten up a little. 🙂 I think there's a world of untapped fun and education to be had in blind listening if we we go about it right.
Here's a personal fantasy of mine (no psychoanalysis, please!):
Blindfold me and lead me by the hand into a massive audio museum chockablock with dozens of systems--lovely old WE gear, modern Berylliumed sculptures of postmodern audio art, etc., all interspersed with Golden-era consoles, Bose cubey things, Magnavox boom-boxes, and even a few chakra stones and quantum purifiers if you like.
Sit me down in front of system after system, and I will joyfully whisper notes into a micro-recorder as I experience each new audio mystery in the fresh nakedness of a newborn soul, unburdened of my prejudices.
Wow. THAT would be the experience of a lifetime for me--touching the unknown with nothing but my ears and my soul. Just the thought gets my heart racing! And oh the truths I would learn about myself in the process...
I always find it VERY amusing that the ones that "know what they heard" will rant about double blind listening tests as being SO WRONG when DBT ONLY relies upon your ability to HEAR a difference. Perhaps those pesky EYES have more of a say so about what sounds "better" when we can see the pricey speakers/amps/speaker cables/etc.....I say let the audio magazines hire a real blind person to do some reviews for a year and see what the tally looks like then..
the double blind arguments belong elsewhere, please?
the typical DBT test may or may not rely upon "your ability to hear a difference" rather it may reflect a whole range of factors that are not controlled in any DBT that I have yet to read, of those that are published. That discussion has been beaten like the dead horse so many times now... otoh it still may be one of a range of useful tools, but it is hardly definitive.
audio reviewers and magazines are red-herrings. who believes them? do you?
my system looks pretty much like hell, no one says it sounds anything but pretty darn good... few come by and say that another system has it beat after they listen to a few different sources or amps or wires that they have brought and can hear rather clearly what is "going on" without much thought or deciding, or anything like that... so much for visuals in that regard...
robh, i'm not discrediting anything that Toole has done. It's all useful research. I don't agree with some or many of his conclusions... most of this sort of research is valuable stuff... it's just that much of it is also designed a priori to get certain results in certain situations, usually it succeeds in that regard.
In my mind it is again a case not of what is being tested or found, but what is not being considered or found... of course one can argue that there is nothing that is not being found, and that there is nothing more to be gotten beyond what a Toole designed speaker delivers. Is that what is being said?
_-_-bear
the typical DBT test may or may not rely upon "your ability to hear a difference" rather it may reflect a whole range of factors that are not controlled in any DBT that I have yet to read, of those that are published. That discussion has been beaten like the dead horse so many times now... otoh it still may be one of a range of useful tools, but it is hardly definitive.
audio reviewers and magazines are red-herrings. who believes them? do you?
my system looks pretty much like hell, no one says it sounds anything but pretty darn good... few come by and say that another system has it beat after they listen to a few different sources or amps or wires that they have brought and can hear rather clearly what is "going on" without much thought or deciding, or anything like that... so much for visuals in that regard...
robh, i'm not discrediting anything that Toole has done. It's all useful research. I don't agree with some or many of his conclusions... most of this sort of research is valuable stuff... it's just that much of it is also designed a priori to get certain results in certain situations, usually it succeeds in that regard.
In my mind it is again a case not of what is being tested or found, but what is not being considered or found... of course one can argue that there is nothing that is not being found, and that there is nothing more to be gotten beyond what a Toole designed speaker delivers. Is that what is being said?
_-_-bear
Ok, so where are our good speaker drivers for home use? Where are compression drivers designed for 5-10 Watts with stable alnico magnets? Where are 97dB 15" speakers with 15-19 hz fs and 50-100 watts power handling ? Where are 18'" with 100dB and 15hz fs? Where are those advanced drivers ?
How many classical FM stations is in your area? How much accoustic uncompressed music do you listen to? Is there anybody else but 80 years old Jews in the audience of your Opera House or Orchestra Hall .?How many of you build speakers specifically with classical music in mind (last time I asked there was non among 100.000 DIY community ) I mean there is almost zero chance on stumbling on good sounding speakers in ghetto blaster community with questionable taste .And there is zero chance industry which wants to survive will produce one. You just don't teach pigs to fly, you waste your time and resources and risk to anger the pigs 🙂
How many classical FM stations is in your area? How much accoustic uncompressed music do you listen to? Is there anybody else but 80 years old Jews in the audience of your Opera House or Orchestra Hall .?How many of you build speakers specifically with classical music in mind (last time I asked there was non among 100.000 DIY community ) I mean there is almost zero chance on stumbling on good sounding speakers in ghetto blaster community with questionable taste .And there is zero chance industry which wants to survive will produce one. You just don't teach pigs to fly, you waste your time and resources and risk to anger the pigs 🙂
From axiom website:
"At Axiom, we have one passion: scientifically proven superior loudspeaker design based on careful lab measurements and proven double-blind listening tests"
That doesn't sound wacked out and utopian to you?
They might be decent box speakers for the money and all, but "scientifically proven superior" is a bit of a stretch.
That site is full of marketing hogwash in my reading and the products look like the usual run of Canadian low priced boxes. Probably not a bad deal for the price but spare me the "scientifically proven superior" bit. Sounds like a strategy to buttress their factory direct sales approach.
If I hear them and don't consider them superior does that make me "scientifically proven retarded" or something?
Read what they wrote in Bell System reports and elsewhere and it is clear where the WE engineers stood. They were total scientists.
But a lot of other "scientists" designed speakers and not all of them are even good let alone legendary. Further distinctions must be made.
From what I've read, they had. Remember, AT&T ran the telephone lines over most of the US. They were transmission engineers. They needed to be able to measure the performance of those lines to keep them running at with acceptable quality. The books about the history of AT&T and the Bell Labs are interesting reading. IIRC, they could measure amplitude within 0.2dB and phase withing 2-3 degrees by the 1940s. (I don't have the book here, but I can check during easter). Automatic FR measurement equipment? I think these guys invented it, I remember to having seen a JASA article or something, about that.
Wente designed the condenser microphone in 1917. They measured mechanical and acoustical impedance by 1926. Yes, I think they had pretty good measurement capabilities.
Regards,
Bjørn