Re: Where is this going?
I never brought horns into the picture. My beef was the claims being made on the website were exaggerated somewhat without being substantiated !!!
There has been plenty of opportunity for the proprietor of the said company to come onto this forum and to put forth his case but instead there have been a whole lot of apologists trying to defend the indefensible !!
badman said:
I never brought horns into the picture. My beef was the claims being made on the website were exaggerated somewhat without being substantiated !!!
There has been plenty of opportunity for the proprietor of the said company to come onto this forum and to put forth his case but instead there have been a whole lot of apologists trying to defend the indefensible !!
AKSA said:
They're entitled to have their opinion on what sounds good to them. But if you make the claim about the objective performance of something you need to step up to the plate and substantiate it with evidence, otherwise retract the claim !!
I think this is precisely the point. The lumped THD parameter is not a good or reliable indicator of sound quality and with a global fb amp it is relatively easy to drive the measured THD down low - as the spec wars of the eighties showed. These amps were sold on spec - mid fi Japanese mostly - and they were objective measurements with poor correlation to their sonic qualities.
Now there are many boutique manufacturers, particularly of tube amps, who don't even bother to publish detailed THD specs (though increasingly some are now identifying the order of their amp distortions), and who sell their amps based almost exclusively on review and testimonial - all of it rhapsodising about the sonic qualities, a so-called subjective measure.
These products either succeed or fail in the marketplace, and very often you would find that the buyers audition them in their system before purchase. This is a pretty acid test, I go through it all the time with my products, but it is still subjective because it relies on whether the customer likes the particular 'sound', whatever the hell that is, and interestingly, the math and measure engineers, of whose august body you are doubtless an eminent member, are unable to plausibly explain these preferences. I applaud Geddes for attempting to do just this, and he is a qualified engineer, of whom you should clearly approve, at least in the sense of club membership.
Why is this so? Where is your expertise here, apropos of your earlier comment about the appallingly dishonest non-engineers who from sheer guesswork create these sub-standard products deliberately to fleece naive audiophiles? How can you add to the body of knowledge, improve the correlation referred to by pjpoes between objective measurement and subjective sound assessment. It would be a welcome change to simply bashing the corrupt jockeys who ruthlessly ply their trade at the expense of the uneducated audiophiles out there. Can you improve upon Geddes work?
I'm well aware you do all this for sport, Snoopy. But your approach needs to be tempered with something constructive to say rather than the negative, pro-scientific creed you peddle which frankly does not account for taste in audiophiles at all.
Hugh
Now there are many boutique manufacturers, particularly of tube amps, who don't even bother to publish detailed THD specs (though increasingly some are now identifying the order of their amp distortions), and who sell their amps based almost exclusively on review and testimonial - all of it rhapsodising about the sonic qualities, a so-called subjective measure.
These products either succeed or fail in the marketplace, and very often you would find that the buyers audition them in their system before purchase. This is a pretty acid test, I go through it all the time with my products, but it is still subjective because it relies on whether the customer likes the particular 'sound', whatever the hell that is, and interestingly, the math and measure engineers, of whose august body you are doubtless an eminent member, are unable to plausibly explain these preferences. I applaud Geddes for attempting to do just this, and he is a qualified engineer, of whom you should clearly approve, at least in the sense of club membership.
Why is this so? Where is your expertise here, apropos of your earlier comment about the appallingly dishonest non-engineers who from sheer guesswork create these sub-standard products deliberately to fleece naive audiophiles? How can you add to the body of knowledge, improve the correlation referred to by pjpoes between objective measurement and subjective sound assessment. It would be a welcome change to simply bashing the corrupt jockeys who ruthlessly ply their trade at the expense of the uneducated audiophiles out there. Can you improve upon Geddes work?
I'm well aware you do all this for sport, Snoopy. But your approach needs to be tempered with something constructive to say rather than the negative, pro-scientific creed you peddle which frankly does not account for taste in audiophiles at all.
Hugh
AKSA said:
You're not aware of anything. You don't even know me so how can you make this judgment about me !! I've got better things to do than make a sport out of challenging other peoples erroneous claims on their audio equipment. Just as you are critical of the early Japanese equipment then anything today is fair game as well.
The whole audio fraternity doesn't just consist of yourself and your opinions. There are other people who are reading this thread who most likely have a more objective criteria in evaluating audio equipment than you have and I'm sure they would be happy that someone like me has brought this to their attention 😉
If you make a claim about your audio equipment then you need to step up to the plate and substantiate it with evidence. It's not acceptable to obfuscate the issue using paranormal science or audiophile speak !!
Interesting. Actually, Snoopy, I believe I made an offer to you once before on another forum to meet and discuss these weighty issues and you knocked it back. What makes you think I wish to know you now?
Aha!! So this is apparently about my claims!! I had suspected, but never realised. But I must say it's nice to be thought of as an exponent of paranormal science.
It's a shame you did not wish to meet to discuss these weighty matters, I guess I'll never know now what those beefs really were!! Unless, of course, you choose to pick up the telephone and make a local call! Rather than make these negative comments in a public forum, you might have the opportunity to confront the perpetrator, and state your moral high ground. But I don't believe you have the stomach for that....
Have a nice day,
Hugh
Aha!! So this is apparently about my claims!! I had suspected, but never realised. But I must say it's nice to be thought of as an exponent of paranormal science.
It's a shame you did not wish to meet to discuss these weighty matters, I guess I'll never know now what those beefs really were!! Unless, of course, you choose to pick up the telephone and make a local call! Rather than make these negative comments in a public forum, you might have the opportunity to confront the perpetrator, and state your moral high ground. But I don't believe you have the stomach for that....
Have a nice day,
Hugh
Snoopy you really shouldn't dismiss what I say, but instead use this as an opportunity to learn what the current thinking in science is. It is actually you who is using a non-objective assessment, not me. It's not just about liking certain types of distortion, its about the audibility of distortion. You are assuming that someone has proven that there is a correlation between THD and IMD and its audibility, i.e. our ability to hear it (objectionable or not). That isn't the case, and this is nothing new, its just very easy to measure, and so, common practice.
Geddes on Distortion
Dr. Earl Geddes has done honest scientific research which he and his colleagues put through a peer reviewed process. That is an important part of the scientific process, to ensure that incorrect bunk doesn't end up being accepted as scientific fact. It also means that until you earn your PhD, perform an acoustic study on the audibility of distortion which concludes as you have, and put it through the peer reviewed process, you shouldn't argue with it.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=109147
This is unfortunately a long read with a lot of crap, but if you read Dr. Geddes posts, as well as those of a few others, you will find great information suggesting what I am telling you, and also suggesting that we have known this for at least 20 years now.
Studies looking at the audibility of distortion at low frequencies has shown that even 10% is often not very audible or audible at all. You have the issue that all speaker produce distortion, and certain distortions are not only more audible, but more bothersome than others. One of the problems with IMD is that the 2nd and 3rd might be low in level, but the 4th is fairly high, but the percentage would still be low. This means that the percentage would imply good distortion performance, but wouldn't be revealing whats really going on. The situation only gets more complicated from there, but that at least scratches the surface as to what is wrong with your argument.
Geddes on Distortion
Dr. Earl Geddes has done honest scientific research which he and his colleagues put through a peer reviewed process. That is an important part of the scientific process, to ensure that incorrect bunk doesn't end up being accepted as scientific fact. It also means that until you earn your PhD, perform an acoustic study on the audibility of distortion which concludes as you have, and put it through the peer reviewed process, you shouldn't argue with it.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=109147
This is unfortunately a long read with a lot of crap, but if you read Dr. Geddes posts, as well as those of a few others, you will find great information suggesting what I am telling you, and also suggesting that we have known this for at least 20 years now.
Studies looking at the audibility of distortion at low frequencies has shown that even 10% is often not very audible or audible at all. You have the issue that all speaker produce distortion, and certain distortions are not only more audible, but more bothersome than others. One of the problems with IMD is that the 2nd and 3rd might be low in level, but the 4th is fairly high, but the percentage would still be low. This means that the percentage would imply good distortion performance, but wouldn't be revealing whats really going on. The situation only gets more complicated from there, but that at least scratches the surface as to what is wrong with your argument.
AKSA said:
This thread has got nothing to do with your equipment. And there is nothing that can be said to you in private that can't be said on this forum regarding this issue. Besides I suspect that you have actively campaigned to have me removed from this forum and other forums so why would I want to meet you ??
The other thing is I'm not making negative comments. The claim was made on a vendors website about the objective performance of their equipment and so far there has been no explanation as to why the actual measured results are so vastly different.
There is nothing complicated about this issue. You are the one who is complicating it using fallacious arguments. Either step up to the plate or back off !!
You are retracting now....... and then adding a malicious statement that I have deliberately canvassed to have you removed from other forums. Emphatically wrong. I have never interferred with your membership on SNA, or anyway else for that matter.
Since this is now personal, you are making comments you could later regret, and you do not wish to personally meet to resolve this, I will not comment further as the forum should not be subjected to yet another train wreck. I strongly refute your ludicrous 'objective' claims as pseudo-science and exhort you to read Geddes carefully, searching for flaws, so that you might fully comprehend the psycho-acoustic nature of sound reproduction and what it means for THD.
I might also suggest you build a few amplifiers which are very similar in topology and componentry, making tiny changes, comparing 'subjectively', and try to correlate what you find with the THD measurements. A very good place to start is lag compensation and current mirror topologies.
Adios,
Hugh
Since this is now personal, you are making comments you could later regret, and you do not wish to personally meet to resolve this, I will not comment further as the forum should not be subjected to yet another train wreck. I strongly refute your ludicrous 'objective' claims as pseudo-science and exhort you to read Geddes carefully, searching for flaws, so that you might fully comprehend the psycho-acoustic nature of sound reproduction and what it means for THD.
I might also suggest you build a few amplifiers which are very similar in topology and componentry, making tiny changes, comparing 'subjectively', and try to correlate what you find with the THD measurements. A very good place to start is lag compensation and current mirror topologies.
Adios,
Hugh
snoopy said:
Yet it does appear that the whole of this thread does consist of yourself and your opinions. It does not appear that any of the other posters have agreed with your position, so it appears that there is no-one who is "happy that someone like me has brought this to their attention".
I've had posts removed from this thread because I was defending another member of this forum, and by doing this was conducting a personal attack on you - that may be so (it wasn't intended that way and I apologise if you took personal offence). But you have refused to admit that your one man diatribe against this company, (on the basis of one published test whose veracity you cannot even confirm), is also a personal attack.
You may very well have a point, ("You may be wrong but you may be right " to quote Billy Joel), but there's been no new evidence, no contact with the manufacturer, no contact with the conductor of the test and no indication that this may change. It's just repetition of a stated position no matter who posts an opinion to the contrary. It just doesn't read well.
Life is too short - it's all music!
AKSA said:
What has Geddes got to do with an erroneous claim made about the objective performance on someone else's website ?? You haven't even read this thread properly have you ??
Whether Geddes thinks that THD is important is irrelevant. The following is the claim being made on the website. Even the guy selling this subwoofer thinks that low distortion is important so your argument is totally fallacious !! Read the thread properly instead of interjecting 🙁
Cloth Ears said:
I was talking about being banned for two weeks for criticizing audio gurus after they criticized me first 🙁
If the manufacturer doesn't want to come here to defend his product or reputation then that is his prerogative. This thread will still be here and other people can make their own judgments and comments. I wasn't going to say anymore on the matter from my last post a few days ago but I just noticed a lot of apologists putting up a weak defence so I thought that worthy of comment.
As I mentioned in another post, it is never worthwhile for a manufacturer to get involved in a public slanging match on a public forum. They either end up looking silly or seeming to be overbearing. Either way, it's just not worth their while.snoopy said:
I think they already have. I count 4 who don't state an opinion and 11 who seem to not agree with your position.snoopy said:
I didn't see the attack as being strong, which is probably why it seems so hard to mount any defence - you can't defend when there is no attack.snoopy said:
The website says something about what should happen with a design, ...but never claims that any of it's particular products meet that criteria. Your opinion is that there is a claim on the website and that the bottom-end product doesn't meet up to it. As there isn't that claim, then the rest of the argument against Rythmik falls a bit flat.
The actual test that you pointed at shows how much better the bottom-end product is (by value, at least) than other items that have also been tested.
Rather than being confrontational as you are doing here with your postings and expect the manufacturer to come here and debate with you, I think it is better to approach the manufacturer first and discuss with him about your concerns. If he does satisfy you then it would be valid to post your concerns here. In most situations this will resolve your concerns. This way it avoids alot of public slanging.
Think first and then act.
jlharden said:
I'm envious of your hornsubs- I just have a small sealed 12 for the moment (not a bad sub tho, and am building 2 relatively high-efficiency others).
I was never an indiana resident, but I did move this year- jersey to socal.
Best!
Jeff
snoopy said:
Snoopy,
I already explained how the "claim" - which as cloth ears has pointed out was not a claim with regards to a particular sub -- is likely easily valid for the 12 inch (now discontinued) and 15 inch vented systems sold by Rythmik when those systems are measured at the typical 1m/halfspace measurement.
For high output situations Rythmik suggest vented setups -- because they have lower distortion. The servo system does lower distortion significantly (go back and check the Velodyne 12 vs. Rythmik test) but it also creates a flat, deep, and adjustable bass extension - flexibility most non-servo systems do not have.
Recognize that the narrow issue you have retreated to is a tiny portion of the "claims" made on behalf of the technology, that the vague claim is correct for certain Rythmik products, and that the rest of the claims are generally validated by testing.
If you cannot recognize these things then it is clear you have a chip on your shoulder - I really thought this thread had died a peaceful death.
I am not an apologist - -I got into this thread because you radically misinterpreted two tests and immediately assumed the conditions were the same. This sort of mental mistake was the main type of mistake I pushed my students on in my 7 years of teaching mathmatics, so it was hard to ignore.
Sean
Cloth Ears said:
It's a careful play on words that eludes to the fact. Many people could easily be mislead and assume that the said product meets that spec !! Without the independent test results to prove to the contrary, would you not have mistakenly believed that a properly designed servo subwoofer would yield the lower distortion performance as claimed ??
There is no need for any slanging match. The manufacturer can quite easily clear up the issue.
Most of the subwoofer products tested poorly including the Rythmik subwoofer. Maybe OK for home theater but not good for audio reproduction applications.
seanzozo said:
Tell me where on the distortion tests of the non-servo Velodyne 12 inch subwoofer does the Rythmik subwoofer measure significantly better ?? In fact the distortion performance of the Velodyne looks to be a little bit better so what is the benefit of the servo in the Rythmik subwoofer ??
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/subwoofer-tests/8146-velodyne-spl-1200-mk2-new.html
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Snoopy
It’s an impasse, we understand what you say, but don’t agree . .
Take a few good breaths/ don’t buy a Rythmik/ take it to Consumer Affairs/ etc
But unless someone else becomes involved, you’re flogging an issue that noone else is interested in
Have a good weekend
It’s an impasse, we understand what you say, but don’t agree . .
Take a few good breaths/ don’t buy a Rythmik/ take it to Consumer Affairs/ etc
But unless someone else becomes involved, you’re flogging an issue that noone else is interested in
Have a good weekend
otto88 said:
Definition 4 applies here 😉 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delusion
Look at how many views this one thread has had and then see how many people have been interested in this thread 😉 Also no need for consumer affairs when you have forums such as this which register on Google 😉
snoopy said:
Well, maybe we had hoped fore something better to read, but I suppose any thread with the word "subwoofer" will have plenty views ... I would say cheap points
But why this witchhunting, almost all companies makes false claims or overdo their advertising
I dont think that any Rythmik buyer gets cheated with hose prices, and surely it could be much worse than that ... until now I have only heard about satisfied customers
Personally I think the drivers look a bit on the cheap side, but thats just me and they probably work a lot better than anything I could achieve on my own
- Status
- Not open for further replies.