You have to understand one or two things about me. I am a scientist,
a garage scientist and I am telling you, you are very wrong in your
assumptions.
How did I discover that caps and cables have massive influence on
reproduction? Very simple, I took them out of the circuit and I was
enlightened.
I do admit that there is a slight chance I would change my opinion
for a considerable amount, if you know what I mean 😀.
Isn't it funny that with all the technology and knowledge available
today, we still have to discuss trivia like this?
Last edited:
Can I also quote Art on this? As I owner of signature 800, I can confirm that they are anything but forward. They have a soundstage way behind the speaker line, and they are not aggressive nor bloomy.
They are, like art said, polite and graceful, with very delicate sound.
If ever they are not enough aggressive like Focal or other speakers I have listened to. However if you care about timber of instruments and detail and color palette, the 800s will deliver that.
So I don't know how you can judge a speaker based on your measurements even before having listened to it.
I think I remember we had a similar argument a while ago, and yet I see you have not listened nor owned a pair of 800.
It's not like you have to like them, you might not in the end anyway, but if you take some time and listen to them carefully you will likely re-think what you think about their measurements.
I do mean it! I personally don't care they are called B&W or whatever else...I only care about good sound...don't think I am a B&W fanatic and assume they sound good just because they are called B&W...as that is very far from the truth.
Also if you have noticed Art has the same opinion and he has definitely had some other serious speakers and I am sure he doesn't care whether they are called 800 or Eutopia or Revel etc...all he cares is about good sound too.
I don't fully get it. I am an electrical engineer and based on your assumption I should care less about capacitors and cables as there is no real technical evidence. When I design something at work I make design recommendation or choose something over something else based on actual specifications.
Nevertheless, when I design electronics instead, I have discovered that there is more involved that simple specs.
You have to have trained ears to begin with, then you have to have a high resolution system which is the bases for you to hear the difference.
Then you have to listen to the thing without having preconception for this or that solution.
At that point, you will understand that capacitors and cables have an important sonic impact and do determine good part of your final result.
But I understand that until you don't hear that for yourself, it will be hard for you to believe it 😛
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Is not measuring very well for a full range 3 way pair of speakers. Those measurements are pretty dang terrible. Awful on axis response and awful off axis response.
I am a harsh judge because my ears do not respond well at all to designs that have a wide-narrow-wide dispersion profile with peakyness throughout the midrange. I have hyperacusis and listening to inappropriately designed loudspeakers makes them hurt terribly.
I have gone through years of trial and error with regards to loudspeaker design, to try and come up with an approach that works for my hearing.
What works?
1) Eliminate the wide-narrow-wide dispersion profile.
2) Use a wave guide on the tweeter for some controlled directivity in the top octaves and to ease the elimination of the wide-narrow-wide dispersion profile.
3) Have a flat frequency response with no peaking throughout the presence region and due to 1 and 2 being realised, have a nice set of off axis curves.
This works exceptionally well and also hits all the objective buttons perfectly for neutral sound reproduction, which to me, is very important.
Hardly.
I do not want a pair of loudspeakers anywhere near me that require you listen to them on one listening axis for them to have low levels of linear distortion.
This made me laugh.
No one is saying that the specification of caps and cables are to be ignored, certainly parts need to be selected for the intended application, but audio isn't exactly a demanding application.
You just contradicted the last sentence you wrote in the previous quote. As an engineer you recognise that you build things to specifications and select parts based on their specifications, but then you say there is more to it than simple specifications? You cannot have it both ways.
If it so happens that parts fail to meet their specifications or are unreliable, then sure, you need to steer clear of the crud, maybe cheap knock off parts?
No you do not. For correctly conducted blind listening tests, to ascertain part preferences, you can take anyone off the street. Even if you are 'uneducated' you are still fully capable of hearing what is better or what is worse.
This is impossible to do if you are the one conducting all of the tests and listening, unless you've arranged a perfectly fair blind listening test.
At that point, if the cables and caps have been chosen so as to satisfy all the design criteria and objective specifications, then I think you will find that they all sound the same.
If it is truly audible then any random person off the street with functional hearing will be able to hear it.
5th element, if you can't even hear the difference from let's say between a Wima film capacitor to a VCap Cu-TFT for example, there is no need for much further discussion at least on this particular topic; being the extremely straightforward person I am, I cannot hold back from saying honestly, that I highly question your designs from a musical standpoint!
There is no way someone that can't hear a difference in capacitors or cables, will be able to deliver a "special design"! In your theory all speakers that have reasonably similar specs will sound all the same!!
When I said at work I select parts based on specifications and for audio I use a different approach, this was to say how different audio design is from the rest of the electronic for me.
You deal with music and likewise a stradivari cannot be replicated even though spec wise it is wood and it has the same exact shape BUT replicas it does not sound like the original, so two different capacitors will perform differently due to different dielectric materials and different mechanical and electrical construction!!
But here is the caveat: to the great majority, a real stradivari and the copy will all sound exactly the same...HOWEVER...to a trained hear they WON'T!!
Same goes with Audio gear...I just have a friend of mine who cannot hear the difference from one amp to another, when the difference is clear to me and I have proven it to be able to identify it 3 out of 3 on a blind test.
So, all in all, YES, you need a trained ear to identify proper differences and better sound.
All I will say, is that I feel you should stop only looking at measurements and specs and start listening more and in this particular case listen to an 800Diamond or Signature800 with proper equipment hooked up and my guess is that your ears will not hurt and hopefully you will re-think your criteria of judging speakers...but even if in the end you still don't like it....at least I know you are not simply talking out of your butt but out of personal ACTUAL experience on that particular model and system!
There is no way someone that can't hear a difference in capacitors or cables, will be able to deliver a "special design"! In your theory all speakers that have reasonably similar specs will sound all the same!!
When I said at work I select parts based on specifications and for audio I use a different approach, this was to say how different audio design is from the rest of the electronic for me.
You deal with music and likewise a stradivari cannot be replicated even though spec wise it is wood and it has the same exact shape BUT replicas it does not sound like the original, so two different capacitors will perform differently due to different dielectric materials and different mechanical and electrical construction!!
But here is the caveat: to the great majority, a real stradivari and the copy will all sound exactly the same...HOWEVER...to a trained hear they WON'T!!
Same goes with Audio gear...I just have a friend of mine who cannot hear the difference from one amp to another, when the difference is clear to me and I have proven it to be able to identify it 3 out of 3 on a blind test.
So, all in all, YES, you need a trained ear to identify proper differences and better sound.
All I will say, is that I feel you should stop only looking at measurements and specs and start listening more and in this particular case listen to an 800Diamond or Signature800 with proper equipment hooked up and my guess is that your ears will not hurt and hopefully you will re-think your criteria of judging speakers...but even if in the end you still don't like it....at least I know you are not simply talking out of your butt but out of personal ACTUAL experience on that particular model and system!
+1 on 5th Element's observation that most people prefer a flat frequency response. This was confirmed in a blind listening test by diyAudio members in this poll: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/270614-subjective-blind-comparison-3in-5in-full-range-drivers.html
Drivers with peakyness or non flat frequency response were not subjectively ranked by the majority of listeners as good as drivers that were intrinsically flat in response.
A speaker that is flat in response will sound good with all genres of music. A poorly measuring speaker may sound good with certain genres or certain recordings, but will not sound universally good with all music. I am quite sure that a speaker that measures well (flat response, low distortion, good polar pattern, clean impulse) will sound good with all music. So in fact you can predict how a speaker will sound based on measurements. This is why manufacturers strive for a flat response - because it is neutral and sounds good with all music.
Drivers with peakyness or non flat frequency response were not subjectively ranked by the majority of listeners as good as drivers that were intrinsically flat in response.
A speaker that is flat in response will sound good with all genres of music. A poorly measuring speaker may sound good with certain genres or certain recordings, but will not sound universally good with all music. I am quite sure that a speaker that measures well (flat response, low distortion, good polar pattern, clean impulse) will sound good with all music. So in fact you can predict how a speaker will sound based on measurements. This is why manufacturers strive for a flat response - because it is neutral and sounds good with all music.
Last edited:
You know, people are not going to think highly of you just
because you present yourself as an engineer with trained
ears and the fact you claim owning rather expensive speakers.
I understand you have Italian genes, il cuore sportivo...,
so your reaction is normal, although a little more self control
and common respect for people you talk to can be learned and
would be appreciated, no doubt.
If you think that's bad you should check the response of the highly regarded Wilson Sasha speakers.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Fwiw, maintaining a 5dB envelope across the entire audio band is generally considered excellent, not terrible.
Perhaps you should try listening to speakers outside the house or in an anechoic chamber, because room reflections generate far higher levels of linear distortion than do speakers. I use a combination of bass traps, diffusers and absorbers, and fwiw I've also used Dirac speaker / room correction, although interestingly the system sounded best (most accurate) without it.
Stefanoo you really do dish out insulting and condescending remarks without any respect for the individuals that you are dealing with. But once again this has descended into the 'if you can't hear it you are deaf' category.
My designs present with low harmonic distortion, flat on axis frequency responses and with a controlled and flat off axis response that decays in a smooth and gradual manner. This is exactly how you want it to be.
My electronics gear is built around known and proven theory, with designs iterated until they meet the standards that they should be capable of.
Stafanoo I then now question your capabilities as an engineer.
Audio is no different than any other branch of engineering. The branches that keep satellites in orbit, make GPS and the internet work, can plan out and organise landing a tiny lander by automation on a comet hurtling thousands of km per second through space. The branches that can detect single quantities of sub atomic particles and can detect the tiniest of details in electronics equipment that our paltry senses would be incapable of.
All the engineering and design work that goes into these amazing achievements are because of basic design theory and understanding. Think about it for a moment, you're saying that you design audio equipment around a different set of criteria than you would use for something like a life support machine, or a piece of medical diagnostic equipment that requires the utmost in signal integrity. Clearly if a standard engineering point of view, for component selection, in those designs is enough for those designs, then it is enough for audio.
Home audio reproduction also doesn't require anything particularly special. It does not require absurd bandwidth, it does not require large amounts of power, nor does it need to be exceptionally low noise or have to be qualified for harsh or sensitive environments. It is not difficult to design audio equipment. Audiophiles would have you believe otherwise mind you.
No one is saying that the two capacitors of a different type/design will perform in exactly the same way. What I am saying is that if the parameters fit the bill then you aren't going to see any performance gains if another equally capable capacitor is selected for the job. Clearly you're not going to pick a Y5V or X7R for a coupling cap in the audio signal path.
Also there are a plethora of reasons why the Stradivarius violins, built hundreds of years ago, would sound different to a modern replica. Audio reproduction is NOT the same thing as making music in the recording studio. In the recording studio you want instruments to sound different due to their unique characteristics. For audio reproduction you want the system to be a straight wire with gain and for the loudspeakers to be essentially the same thing as energy conversion devices.
Stafanoo did you deliberately choose not to read the part where I said that I've been through many loudspeaker designs before I managed to come up with something that worked properly for me? I have tons of practical and personal experience with both the design and building of complete audio systems.
Yeah those are terrible too, most Wilson's measure poorly. But especially the elevated region around 700Hz - 2kHz.
It's not excellent by any standards, it's merely acceptable, +-1dB would be excellent, but where the deviations come in are what's more important than the size of the deviations themselves. The whacking great big at 3.5k is a big nono, if it were at 15k it'd be a different matter, but it isn't. Then that large 5dB peak centred on 10Khz is also not in a particularly good spot. In my opinion you can only really get away with any excessive peakyness in the top octave, but not anywhere below that.
Then why don't we all just listen to loudspeakers with xover filters in place that will protect drivers, but not integrate them correctly etc? Okay, yes, lets do that, that makes sense, loudspeaker linearity doesn't matter at all. 😱
I use multiple subs in a fully active system, driven by a DSP to handle all crossover requirements.
That's why you listen slightly off-axis, where the peaks essentially disappear.
FTR, that 'whacking great' (3dB) peak to which you refer is barely audible on-axis anyway, because the Q is high (>5). What's more likely to be audible is the longer decay at that frequency. This is pretty basic stuff that you should know.
I wonder, have you actually ever listened to these speakers? They've been reviewed by quite a number of professional reviewers and they are very highly regarded. If the issues to which you refer were as severe as you're suggesting, don't you think they would be readily picked up by a professional reviewer?
I think that was the original David Wilson approach.
Last edited:
Decay times and peaks in the frequency response are one and the same thing. If you've got a peak in the frequency response then you will see a correspondingly long decay time at said frequency. If you EQ the peak away then so away will the ridge go. One does not need to talk about decay times when all that's required is that one talks about the excess energy produced by the loudspeaker at said frequency, ie a peak.
High Q peaks tend to be the most audible once they are excited, just try listening to any SEAS excel magnesium cone without a filter. It's true that 3dB isn't gigantic but it's big enough to make the speaker less than neutral, especially with certain material.
I have not listened to them no, but my main loudspeakers do use the FST midrange with its corresponding peak at 3.5kHz so I am well aware of its qualities and its limitations.
High Q peaks tend to be the most audible once they are excited, just try listening to any SEAS excel magnesium cone without a filter. It's true that 3dB isn't gigantic but it's big enough to make the speaker less than neutral, especially with certain material.
I have not listened to them no, but my main loudspeakers do use the FST midrange with its corresponding peak at 3.5kHz so I am well aware of its qualities and its limitations.
That assumes that all response peaks are resonances, which is not correct.
You can have multipath/comb peaks and troughs with no corresponding time domain signature, and similarly you can notch a resonance peak and still see it in the time domain. Time and frequency domain distortions are not intrinsically linked.
This is assuming a loudspeaker system is minimum phase, which it most certainly is. And yes, if you notch out a resonance it's influence in the time domain will vanish. We are not talking about comb filtering created by room interactions either, simply the loudspeakers response in and of itself as these are two completely different things. However if you had comb filtering occuring as a result of the loudspeakers construction and there was a region in the frequency response that exhibited dip/peak/dip/peak/dip behaviour, then you would see ridges in the CSD corresponding to the peaks.
So explain this...
A small ridge of what appears to be delayed energy is visible at the computer monitor's line-scan frequency just below 17kHz. This is spurious and should be ignored. However, there is a notch in the on-axis response, and a more powerfully defined ridge of delayed energy at a lower frequency, 14,875Hz, both of which appear to be real.
Finally, fig.10 shows the Sophia 3's cumulative spectral-decay plot on the tweeter axis with the grille removed. It is very clean in the tweeter's region, but the on-axis notch at 1kHz is shown to be associated with some delayed energy. This could well result from a problem with the midrange unit's cone-surround termination, but I note that Art didn't comment on any coloration in this region.John Atkinson
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
A small ridge of what appears to be delayed energy is visible at the computer monitor's line-scan frequency just below 17kHz. This is spurious and should be ignored. However, there is a notch in the on-axis response, and a more powerfully defined ridge of delayed energy at a lower frequency, 14,875Hz, both of which appear to be real.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Finally, fig.10 shows the Sophia 3's cumulative spectral-decay plot on the tweeter axis with the grille removed. It is very clean in the tweeter's region, but the on-axis notch at 1kHz is shown to be associated with some delayed energy. This could well result from a problem with the midrange unit's cone-surround termination, but I note that Art didn't comment on any coloration in this region.John Atkinson
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
you are the master!! I do have a combination of sound panel and tube traps room measured and I tried to correct it as good as I could and final result is pretty linear.
I am not surprised system sounds better without the room IQ 😛
5th element, you still refuse to listen to speakers that have been regarded among the finest in the market. Art and I have been trying to point that out several times.
I think that until you listen to those speakers which you criticize so strongly it would be fair of you if you only expressed apparent design flows instead of stating those thoughts as an absolute truth and decide already how they will sound for sure.
I have designed for medical, avionics, industrial high power etc.. and I can tell you the audio design has a difference connotation from the ones above.
You don't want to believe that, you are free of doing so...but then you are using a double standard being able to question my rights and be fine, but if I question yours I am rude.
I also find so hilarious that people here didn't even point out for a second at nanoo's standards that completely modified his 801 using madonna, michael jackson and heavy metal as media to evaluate such a fine and revealing speakers and decided they didn't sound good!!!!
Again, I think it would have been more fun and productive to discuss your theory supported by detailed and attentive listening to the speakers you are analyzing.
I think that like that, your words would have gained more credibility and I would have personally had no problem accepting your ideas.
So based on this, when are you planning on going to listen to a 800Diamond or Signature800 with best of class system driving them? I really am looking forward to hearing you comments on that..and I am not just saying that...I actually mean it!
😎
I think that until you listen to those speakers which you criticize so strongly it would be fair of you if you only expressed apparent design flows instead of stating those thoughts as an absolute truth and decide already how they will sound for sure.
I have designed for medical, avionics, industrial high power etc.. and I can tell you the audio design has a difference connotation from the ones above.
You don't want to believe that, you are free of doing so...but then you are using a double standard being able to question my rights and be fine, but if I question yours I am rude.
I also find so hilarious that people here didn't even point out for a second at nanoo's standards that completely modified his 801 using madonna, michael jackson and heavy metal as media to evaluate such a fine and revealing speakers and decided they didn't sound good!!!!
Again, I think it would have been more fun and productive to discuss your theory supported by detailed and attentive listening to the speakers you are analyzing.
I think that like that, your words would have gained more credibility and I would have personally had no problem accepting your ideas.
So based on this, when are you planning on going to listen to a 800Diamond or Signature800 with best of class system driving them? I really am looking forward to hearing you comments on that..and I am not just saying that...I actually mean it!
😎
You are getting very defensive.
Why does it matter to you so much if 5th Element thinks
differently about the B&W 800's?
For as long as I have been active on this forum, I have read
a lot of good information he provided and I know he knows
stuff about DIYing speakers. He is very serious about audio
he even went through trouble of installing multiple subs.
Does that mean I agree on every single little thing he says, no,
which does not make me any smarter.
About the highly regarded speakers that cost loads of cash like
Wilson, are you pulling my leg or what? What do you think reviewers
should write about them, maybe something negative after all the
advertising being payed for? I am sure they sound ok, I don't doubt that.
Please, don't take this the wrong way. I have nothing against your R2D2's! 😉