amhifi said:
Maybe. Just maybe we are 10% of the way (a huge portion is out of our hands -- the part from the performance to the replay medium)... so a good question is "what is accuracy?" ... with such a wide margin of error, i figure the only real practical parameter is, "can you enjoy the music?"
dave
amhifi said:
IMO what you are describing is not related to the accuracy of a speaker, but the true differences in acoustics at a live event given your location, which a high fidelity speaker would then attempt to recreate if it were captured in the recording process. If the recording mike was in row 15 the more accurate speaker will reproduce this perspective; if the recording mike was in row 25 the more accurate speaker will reproduce that perspective.
Since we don't know the recording process, what is on the master tapes, etc., the only thing we have to go by is a speaker's measurements, i.e., does it have a flat response, etc. That in itself doesn't mean the speaker will sound good, but if a speaker has a response such as the Zu Cable Druid for example:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
we "know" the speaker is not accurate, i.e., faithfully reproducing what is on the recording. That doesn't mean the Zu Cable speaker may not sound more "realistic" with certain recordings than a better engineered speaker. For example, due to room acoustics, quality of recording, etc., the Zu Cable speaker may end up reproducing a fairly flat response for a particular recording. But, if it does it is merely a matter of chance, not the result of good design. YMMV
wdavis009 said:
Flat response is usually given too much weight when one is using measurements to determine speaker accuarcy. And what about all the things that don't get measured? And all the things that we don't know to measure?
And even if you have all these measurements, how do you decide which are more important? Measurements are a useful design tool, but they don't tell you how a speaker sounds. They also don't tell you about room interaction, amp interaction, on & on.
And with the space of things that speakers don't do so much bigger than the things they do do, you can easily get 2 speakers that are both (say) 10% accurate, with very little overlap in what they do right.
Given today's state of measurement knowledge there is no way to "prove" accuarcy with measurements.
In the end you have to listen to it... are your feet tapping? you getting up & dancing... are you enjoying the music... is it all of a sudden 4 AM because you just had to listen to another side?
dave
wdavis009 said:
hi,
I know the recording process as I made some live recordings on a two-track tape recorder.
Dynamics are awasome, as well as "being there".
"Shoebox" speakers are easily blown up by big brass band, LOL.
Planet 10 is right I feel, it's the end result what matters, that is if you like it. The presentation by direct radator speakers is so different from horns, or from electrostatics. I have a friend who tried all 3 types and now has Wilsons Grand Slam. But I prefer Klipschorns, modified by urs truly.
I think I have tamed the screamy quality of the K-horns.😎
planet10 said:
Necessity. Sufficiency. If a speaker has flat on-axis response, it is not necessarily accurate. But if it doesn't have flat on-axis response, it cannot be accurate. "Tap your toe" is a nice measure of enjoyment, but not of accuracy- my old A7s made me want to get up and dance (a frightening image!), but they were not even vaguely accurate.
Surprisingly, one can tell a lot from the measurements. Not everything, but a lot. But "the measurements" absolutely, positively must include off axis stuff, power compression, impedance, cabinet resonances, in-room response, and distortion before you can say anything sensible.
It's been a while since I picked up Stereophile, but John Atkinson's measurements at the end of speaker reviews were MUCH more enlightening and indicative of performance than the reviewer blather. And I'd include his measurements of the Wilson speakers...
so the author is purely judging wilson audio by one measurement?
I know myself they are overpriced rich toys, but that's like saying you can hear what a violin sounds like by its frequency response.
that's how much attention I pay to measurements.
I have always wondered what pro audio companies mean by 'accuracy'
Its written all over the place, yet its not defined, its subjective, how can you tell if somthings accurate?
Its just what they say....every speaker manufacturer that says theirs is accurate sounds different to someone else's, yet they are all faithful?
That's not right at all. There is no such thing. Accurate by definition means there can be only one.
I know myself they are overpriced rich toys, but that's like saying you can hear what a violin sounds like by its frequency response.
that's how much attention I pay to measurements.
I have always wondered what pro audio companies mean by 'accuracy'
Its written all over the place, yet its not defined, its subjective, how can you tell if somthings accurate?
Its just what they say....every speaker manufacturer that says theirs is accurate sounds different to someone else's, yet they are all faithful?
That's not right at all. There is no such thing. Accurate by definition means there can be only one.
Hornlover said:
Ooooog!
What you want for real midrange is something like WE555s on one of the several Western Electric theater midrange horns... then if you insist on Altec, you need to hear 1003s or if you can find them 1503s with a modern driver (TAD 4001, for example) or one of the Japanese Unobtanium drivers that I have available from time to time! 😀
For the former that's midrange from ~150 up and very flat, for the latter it's from ~<300 up and very flat (out to above 10kHz. and all at ~ 109dB/1w, without a hint of "horn sound" at all.
The Altec stuff merely was a follow-on to the work done at Western Electric, btw. But 802s and 511s, nah.
The problem with the 511 comes in several areas - dispersion, aluminum construction that rings, and any xover @~500Hz. , imho, is a major problem and no-no... especially going from a cone driver to the horn...
(sorry to follow up on these posts so late in the thread...)
_-_-bear
David Wilson
Ok, David Wilson.
- Not an "engineer"
- Fabulous salesman and business person
- Speakers are "good" thanks to very good cabinets, and marginal application of fairly competent drivers and xovers... no matter which model you pick
- Got in the market early/at the right time and promoted the crap out of his stuff (read: "loaners for reviewers")
- Arguably the *worst* bass section designs ever done in a sucessful commercial speaker?
Would you buy a speaker from this man?? 😱
(jpeg of bezulbub or an all around great guy? - below...)
What this indicates is that a majority of people who buy "high-end" gear are either/or of "cloth ears", "looking for a big schwartz" (to quote an earlier poster...)
Imho, his gear has improved over time mostly because the drivers supplied by the driver manufacturers have also improved...
Btw, regarding the Dynaudio offering, it may be of some interest that the speed of sound in Aluminum is substantially faster than in air... hmmmm...
_-_-bear
Ok, David Wilson.
- Not an "engineer"
- Fabulous salesman and business person
- Speakers are "good" thanks to very good cabinets, and marginal application of fairly competent drivers and xovers... no matter which model you pick
- Got in the market early/at the right time and promoted the crap out of his stuff (read: "loaners for reviewers")
- Arguably the *worst* bass section designs ever done in a sucessful commercial speaker?
Would you buy a speaker from this man?? 😱
(jpeg of bezulbub or an all around great guy? - below...)
What this indicates is that a majority of people who buy "high-end" gear are either/or of "cloth ears", "looking for a big schwartz" (to quote an earlier poster...)
Imho, his gear has improved over time mostly because the drivers supplied by the driver manufacturers have also improved...
Btw, regarding the Dynaudio offering, it may be of some interest that the speed of sound in Aluminum is substantially faster than in air... hmmmm...
_-_-bear
Attachments
Yes all true and I think the magic word must be correct "timing" - not many around can live up to this - but then again it is often said that perfektion tend to be boring.
I think a speaker needs to be positive analytical to really reveal the music in all its glory.
Have a good new year
I think a speaker needs to be positive analytical to really reveal the music in all its glory.
Have a good new year
As it seems that everyone is talking about measurements, how many of you look at or do minimum phase measurements, and what to do thing of the data?
SY said:
True, but far too much weight is put on it... using that criteria it would be possible to find enuff insufficient about any speaker to say... inaccurate.
and i want to know what it does 40 dB down from the main signal, does it have flat response there, what is the ring-down like, what is (insert stuff here that no one has figured out yet -- ie how do you even go about describing what to test for timing, pace & rythm?)
I find those very interesting, and looking at the impedance characteristic of a speaker, most of them can be tossed... but i recently studied a measurement done by him on Ed's Horn and it really brought into question some of his methodology & results (ie the way he tested this speaker yields garbage)
dave
dave
Simple test
If I were ever to audition a speaker in a set-up as in a listening room in an audio store I'd want the salesman to put inter FM station noise on and I'd do a walk around. I do this in the ecaluation and development process of my own speakers. I find that this simple test (ideally from a pink noise generator) once you are trained for what to listen for can tell one truly a great deal about the speaker system under evaluatiion. If it fails this first test I don't need to hear any music played thank you very much.
If you do this expect the salesman to look at you like you have an eye in the middle of your forehead or something.
If I were ever to audition a speaker in a set-up as in a listening room in an audio store I'd want the salesman to put inter FM station noise on and I'd do a walk around. I do this in the ecaluation and development process of my own speakers. I find that this simple test (ideally from a pink noise generator) once you are trained for what to listen for can tell one truly a great deal about the speaker system under evaluatiion. If it fails this first test I don't need to hear any music played thank you very much.
If you do this expect the salesman to look at you like you have an eye in the middle of your forehead or something.
rcavictim,
how do you perform your noise test?
Moving your head up and down in front of the speaker or what?
Cheers Michael
how do you perform your noise test?
Moving your head up and down in front of the speaker or what?
Cheers Michael
My question about whether row 15 or row 25 was more "accurate" was somewhat facetious - they are obviously both 100% accurate because you are experiencing the the real thing, the live event, in both cases! . The next question then is whether the speaker or system that you are using recreates the row 15 version more closely or the row 25 version more closely. If it recreates the row 15 version more closely and you happen to like the row 25 live experience better, you will say that the speaker or system is less accurate than someone who prefers the row 15 live experience. In actual fact, there are so many variables, from the recording venue, to the choice of mics and mic location, to recording electronics, to signal processing in production, to the playback electronics, to the loudspeakers, to the listening room and finally to your ears, that to ascribe the quality of the listening experience to any one component in that chain is ludicrous. And our ears are by far the least flat of all of those components! Listening at a level of 90 dB, you need at least 20 dB more output at 40 Hz in order for it to sound as loud as 400Hz! ( Robinson-Dadson and Fletcher Munson curves ) You think you like flat response? Have you ever listened to a playback system that has been equalized for the flattest measured response at the listening postition? It sounds terrible! Equalization and flat frequency response are tools that can be useful in designing and setting up sound systems, but only represent a small part of what makes for a pleasurable listening experience. Most importantly, what is pleasurable for some is not so for others. This is why some will get great pleasure from listening to Wilson Audio speakers with the appropriate sources and systems, while others will prefer their own home built versions. Vive la difference!
amhifi said:
Some would but they would be wrong. If the recording is a 15 row perspective but your speakers are recreating a 25 row perspective they are not accurate, i.e., faithfully reproducing what is on the recording. Whether someone likes the sound of an accurate speaker is an altogether different issue and is a matter of personal preference. I have friends who are quite happy with their Bose speakers afterall. It comes down to the simply question: do you want a speaker that accurately reproduces what is on the recording (which may or may not sound good depending on the recording), or do you want a speaker that reproduces a sound that is to your personal liking, regardless of what is on the recording. I aim for the first, some aim for the second and that is their choice.
amhifi said:
Who is claiming that? I certainly didn't, nor did any other post in this thread. The discussion is about speakers, high end speakers in particular. According to your argument, because Richard Vandersteen and Jim Thiel don't control every other component in the chain they are wasting their time designing speakers that are relatively flat, time aligned and phase correct. I personally am thankful there are still a couple designers out there that have stuck to their guns of designing high fidelity speakers instead of going down the path of so many other manufacturers and designing speakers like Wilson. If someone likes Wilson speakers that is their choice...more power to them. Srajan at 6Moons loves the Zu Cable speakers. That is his choice. But if he tries to claim they are accurate speakers I will obviously question whether he knows what live music sounds like. 😉
Hi
You know, sometimes one is compelled to jump in from the other side of the fence.
Its kind of funny, magazines have promoted measurements and then when that was boring and complicated, measurements became meaningless.
It is now assumed that it is easy to have a situation where one hears something but does not see it in a measurement. In reality, at least outside the world of marketing loudspeakers to consumers, one finds a different situation.
I have used several different TEF machines for the last 20 years or so in transducer and loudspeaker development.
The reality is best summed up by saying that if one showed a set of comprehensive measurements to an electronic engineer without explanation, he would say it appears to be seriously broken.
I mean, loudspeakers are so far from a “perfect” device the real problem is identifying what audible thing is related to which measurement flaw.
The idea of passing / reproducing a particular complex wave shape is so far beyond what most can do it is considered irrelevant.
Even funnier, sort of, is that many popular measurement systems do not actually measure acoustic phase, they calculate it based on an assumption.
While polar distribution also has a profound effect on room sound, the hifi world has yet to adopt the measuring and modeling techniques used commonly in larger scale sound design.
Reality is few consumers have any idea what is possible through measurements and have been lead to believe this is mostly dark art. May it is a little but folks have lost track of the fact that hifi magazines and reviews are marketing agents not a source of engineering information. They will not tell you anything that will dissuade you from buying X, Y, Z.
The reason for that is the real money is in selling advertising, subscriptions only serve to convince YOU that you are buying information, a bad review does not make the advertisers happy.
How hard is it to get a review? Easy, if you’re a manufacturer, they call you up.
To get a review all you have to do is sign up for an ad package, maybe 4 runs, a quarter page each.
Writers are well writers, not engineers, they live by the pen, if someone gives them something cool to talk about (like a 2 inch thick aluminum faceplate) so much the better.
If it’s really expensive, well, they can write around that too, everyone knows you get what you pay for right?
Yep, if you have a $5000.00 watch, maybe you need some $80K speakers and $20K wires. They know exactly who the market is and what emotional buttons to push.
Happy New Years
Tom Danley
Danley Sound Labs
You know, sometimes one is compelled to jump in from the other side of the fence.
Its kind of funny, magazines have promoted measurements and then when that was boring and complicated, measurements became meaningless.
It is now assumed that it is easy to have a situation where one hears something but does not see it in a measurement. In reality, at least outside the world of marketing loudspeakers to consumers, one finds a different situation.
I have used several different TEF machines for the last 20 years or so in transducer and loudspeaker development.
The reality is best summed up by saying that if one showed a set of comprehensive measurements to an electronic engineer without explanation, he would say it appears to be seriously broken.
I mean, loudspeakers are so far from a “perfect” device the real problem is identifying what audible thing is related to which measurement flaw.
The idea of passing / reproducing a particular complex wave shape is so far beyond what most can do it is considered irrelevant.
Even funnier, sort of, is that many popular measurement systems do not actually measure acoustic phase, they calculate it based on an assumption.
While polar distribution also has a profound effect on room sound, the hifi world has yet to adopt the measuring and modeling techniques used commonly in larger scale sound design.
Reality is few consumers have any idea what is possible through measurements and have been lead to believe this is mostly dark art. May it is a little but folks have lost track of the fact that hifi magazines and reviews are marketing agents not a source of engineering information. They will not tell you anything that will dissuade you from buying X, Y, Z.
The reason for that is the real money is in selling advertising, subscriptions only serve to convince YOU that you are buying information, a bad review does not make the advertisers happy.
How hard is it to get a review? Easy, if you’re a manufacturer, they call you up.
To get a review all you have to do is sign up for an ad package, maybe 4 runs, a quarter page each.
Writers are well writers, not engineers, they live by the pen, if someone gives them something cool to talk about (like a 2 inch thick aluminum faceplate) so much the better.
If it’s really expensive, well, they can write around that too, everyone knows you get what you pay for right?
Yep, if you have a $5000.00 watch, maybe you need some $80K speakers and $20K wires. They know exactly who the market is and what emotional buttons to push.
Happy New Years
Tom Danley
Danley Sound Labs
There are many good points, but let me boil down a few;
The more manufacturers the more potential advertisers for the magazines, it is not in their interest (ie like the JGH era) to be honest to the reader. Honesty and Descrimination is a losing business model for the magazines.
Wilson is now a lifestyle product like Krell and Mark levinson. Audio now has luxury products as a category but the verbage to descriminate from an audio performance equivalent of a ferrari F50 and a Rolls Royce has not been created and appears to be TABOO.
The original post has a perfect example of the somewhat erroneous premise that the Wilson gets pulled out on the carpet as the major culprit. The Thiel CS1.6 may have a flat response but further investigation of the Soundstage! measurements shows an absolutely ridiculous distortion spike in the upper mids which is exactly why I kicked them(thiel sales) out of the store. You have to have standards! Distributing a defective speaker is unnacceptable, Wilson's are not defective they are styled subtley for the tizz boom lovers who's ego won't let them admit their lack of refinement. 🙂
Two channel is intrinsically flawed in the end, if you're arguing for "accuracy" and only using two channels for playback then you are engaged in an exercise in futility. Our auditory world is 360 degrees and if you don't have a system to produce it then simply you'll never get accuracy (which of course is still a highly subjectiv- relative a concept and a whole other thread). happy new year
The more manufacturers the more potential advertisers for the magazines, it is not in their interest (ie like the JGH era) to be honest to the reader. Honesty and Descrimination is a losing business model for the magazines.
Wilson is now a lifestyle product like Krell and Mark levinson. Audio now has luxury products as a category but the verbage to descriminate from an audio performance equivalent of a ferrari F50 and a Rolls Royce has not been created and appears to be TABOO.
The original post has a perfect example of the somewhat erroneous premise that the Wilson gets pulled out on the carpet as the major culprit. The Thiel CS1.6 may have a flat response but further investigation of the Soundstage! measurements shows an absolutely ridiculous distortion spike in the upper mids which is exactly why I kicked them(thiel sales) out of the store. You have to have standards! Distributing a defective speaker is unnacceptable, Wilson's are not defective they are styled subtley for the tizz boom lovers who's ego won't let them admit their lack of refinement. 🙂
Two channel is intrinsically flawed in the end, if you're arguing for "accuracy" and only using two channels for playback then you are engaged in an exercise in futility. Our auditory world is 360 degrees and if you don't have a system to produce it then simply you'll never get accuracy (which of course is still a highly subjectiv- relative a concept and a whole other thread). happy new year
I have read that the Wilson speakers have some great cabinets. How do we know that they are so great? Can it be scientifically proven or are we just going to take a magazines sales slogan? After seeing the frequency response of the Wilson, I am skeptical to believe that his cabinets are so special. After all if you are going to charge so much for a pair of flawed speakers, you must justify to the potential buyer why they are so expensive by discussing some Zen cabinet.
Some have written that the frequency response is overrated. The frequency response only tells us that a speaker will produce the levels that the engineer and musician intended us to hear not the sound quality. Frequency response is only a chain in the link. If not flat a speaker is a failure from the start. Why consider anything else like phase if a designer can’t even get a flat response.
Some have written that the frequency response is overrated. The frequency response only tells us that a speaker will produce the levels that the engineer and musician intended us to hear not the sound quality. Frequency response is only a chain in the link. If not flat a speaker is a failure from the start. Why consider anything else like phase if a designer can’t even get a flat response.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.