Hey Earl,
I'm not being sarcastic or disrespectful either as I've been called before when addressing you. However I think you ought to change name to Confusius, but in the English version, not Chinese!
This explanation did not make any sense either!?
I'm sorry, I don't know how else to explain it. Drivers matter a little, but not much. Maybe language is an issue, I don't know. I reread it and it makes perfect sense to me.
Maybe
"So yes, its all important, just not equally so."
should read
"Hence, yes, everything is important, just not all equally so."
I think that it is grammatically correct!
Maybe
"So yes, its all important, just not equally so."
should read
"Hence, yes, everything is important, just not all equally so."
I think that it is grammatically correct!
For sure it is better than my grammar!
) However changing driver AND increasing price from 130 to 160 UK Pounds (Thomann prices) AND not making speaker better doesn't make any sense to me. However maybe you had different reasons for this change….When you say distortion doesn't matter in driver. If talking above 200-300Hz, driven of course within X-max. Where is the limit of detection according to you? I can see a lot of drivers around 1-3% in German magazines as Hobby Hifi and Klang + Ton….
Peter
Its lighter and smaller, both of which are an advantage to me, but my prices are nothing like your prices, so using price as a criteria is not very useful.
The problem with your question is that there is no metric with which one can define a threshold. If THD does not correlate - at all - with perception how could one even test such a question?
Regarding price, I think in % there will be more or less the same difference in your price. However it is probably academic in a small series speaker….
I figured I would get such an answer, then it's back to the subjective path of "trust your ears";o) Or your other measurable issues…...
Cheers,
Peter
Actually not, there's a wink at the end! I agree about ears are not 100% accurate. Same as there is no exact colour memory other than basic colours, i.e green, blue etc…
I guess my sense of "humour" does not get through via internet…..
Peter
Valid point...?
I think there is a lot in the Doctors statement.
Personally I disagree with the statement.
But here is why the vast majority of people agree with it by default....They have no choice.
The statement is a fair and accurate representation of the mind set of almost the entire audio industry. Only tiny one man band or small SME's still actually design and manufacture by ear, only using basic measurements to confirm what they already have decided is correct.
One could argue that the Doctor is making a wise business decision in order to prolong his business ....He is after all a tiny one man band who happens to choose measurement over ear and as ones hearing starts to deteriorate after 25 years old the good doctor is choosing wisely! Have you passed the 70 years old mile stone yet Earl, must be close...?!
The obvious counter argument is that 99.9999% (at a rough guess!) of music and musical instruments have been designed, built and maintained by ear for the last few thousand years...
I am sure the good Doctor will be able to show vast quantities of “hard imperial evidence” demonstrating how his approach can improve on the human ear....And yet the best of the best scientific brains still can’t improve on the ears of the Steinway, Bosendorfer, Stradivarius, Yamaha etc. designers ears.
The human ear is still given priority over any lab full of equipment when it comes to designing the instruments….
The human ear / brain mechanism is still far from being fully understood and only in recent years has the huge significance of the time domain priority over the frequency domain come to light. Despite this fact, the vast majority of audio designers are still labouring away in the frequency domain…Misguided to say the least.
Lastly there is Earls huge elephant in the room, its been there for the last 50 years as he likes to remind us….He has a full on commercial bias to use all his talent and debating skills to sell us his methodology…It makes him money! From selling his books, licencing his IP, selling his speakers ( not so many nowadays though) to selling his consultancy services…He must maintain the myth / fact ( depending on your point of view) that his way is the best / only way….I beg to differ!
So I now wait for the fabulously eloquent rebuttal from the master….I do enjoy the banter!
All the best
Derek.
I think there is a lot in the Doctors statement.
Personally I disagree with the statement.
But here is why the vast majority of people agree with it by default....They have no choice.
The statement is a fair and accurate representation of the mind set of almost the entire audio industry. Only tiny one man band or small SME's still actually design and manufacture by ear, only using basic measurements to confirm what they already have decided is correct.
One could argue that the Doctor is making a wise business decision in order to prolong his business ....He is after all a tiny one man band who happens to choose measurement over ear and as ones hearing starts to deteriorate after 25 years old the good doctor is choosing wisely! Have you passed the 70 years old mile stone yet Earl, must be close...?!
The obvious counter argument is that 99.9999% (at a rough guess!) of music and musical instruments have been designed, built and maintained by ear for the last few thousand years...
I am sure the good Doctor will be able to show vast quantities of “hard imperial evidence” demonstrating how his approach can improve on the human ear....And yet the best of the best scientific brains still can’t improve on the ears of the Steinway, Bosendorfer, Stradivarius, Yamaha etc. designers ears.
The human ear is still given priority over any lab full of equipment when it comes to designing the instruments….
The human ear / brain mechanism is still far from being fully understood and only in recent years has the huge significance of the time domain priority over the frequency domain come to light. Despite this fact, the vast majority of audio designers are still labouring away in the frequency domain…Misguided to say the least.
Lastly there is Earls huge elephant in the room, its been there for the last 50 years as he likes to remind us….He has a full on commercial bias to use all his talent and debating skills to sell us his methodology…It makes him money! From selling his books, licencing his IP, selling his speakers ( not so many nowadays though) to selling his consultancy services…He must maintain the myth / fact ( depending on your point of view) that his way is the best / only way….I beg to differ!
So I now wait for the fabulously eloquent rebuttal from the master….I do enjoy the banter!
All the best
Derek.
One could well argue that's simply because it's in your pecuniary interest to do so...
Or perhaps they can. See http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptivec...uble-blind-violin-test-can-you-pick-the-strad
I have no inside knowledge about how musical instruments are designed, so your statement may or may not be factually correct. I do have inside knowledge that music making is simply out of the scope of music reproduction, although lesser minds often conflate the two. So regardless of the veracity of your statement, it's simply irrelevant.
PS as for my pecuniary interest, a year ago I worked on a contract matter for one of the big a/v companies. That's the extent of it.
Missing the point...
Hi Natehansen66,
I agree, using modern equipment to supplement our ears is of course common sense....
My point is...Designing an audio system (not just speakers) exclusively by measurement is wrong.
Its also wrong to continue to blindly pursue these measurements / results chasing what one / the establishment / current knowledge / marketing fashion dictates to be the "correct" measurements.
How does one ever establish beyond reasonable doubt that any given measurement is in fact relevant to sound quality?
Chasing constant directivity, on axis flat frequency response, off axis response, power response, group delay/ phase, THD, etc.....Who can say which if any or all are correct...Which are important or irrelevant...
If there was one (or a group) of measurements which was able to accurately correlate with life like sound reproduction we would all be enjoying the benefits of a perfect audio system which measured perfectly...
The bottom line is ALL audio systems are so flawed they fail to even come close to the "real thing" and we have arrived at this point through the multi $Billion R&D efforts of the audio industry dominated by the mind set of guys like Dr Geddes....They are all in it for the money....
Also, just because one does not make any money does not mean it’s not important or profit is not a factor...!
Hope this helps clarify my point.
Cheers
Derek.
Hi Natehansen66,
I agree, using modern equipment to supplement our ears is of course common sense....
My point is...Designing an audio system (not just speakers) exclusively by measurement is wrong.
Its also wrong to continue to blindly pursue these measurements / results chasing what one / the establishment / current knowledge / marketing fashion dictates to be the "correct" measurements.
How does one ever establish beyond reasonable doubt that any given measurement is in fact relevant to sound quality?
Chasing constant directivity, on axis flat frequency response, off axis response, power response, group delay/ phase, THD, etc.....Who can say which if any or all are correct...Which are important or irrelevant...
If there was one (or a group) of measurements which was able to accurately correlate with life like sound reproduction we would all be enjoying the benefits of a perfect audio system which measured perfectly...
The bottom line is ALL audio systems are so flawed they fail to even come close to the "real thing" and we have arrived at this point through the multi $Billion R&D efforts of the audio industry dominated by the mind set of guys like Dr Geddes....They are all in it for the money....
Also, just because one does not make any money does not mean it’s not important or profit is not a factor...!
Hope this helps clarify my point.
Cheers
Derek.
Nice presentation...Poor content!
Palas,
Thanks for the interesting article, http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptiveca...pick-the-strad
Very timely as I have just started working with a Professor of DSP on a DSP controlled device to address the problem of how to make a modern $500 instrument mimic the sound of a $4 million instrument ...
Your command of the English language is impressive...
Your points...not so much!
Guess my "lesser mind" cant grasp the depth and wisdom of your prose....
Cheers
D.
Palas,
Thanks for the interesting article, http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptiveca...pick-the-strad
Very timely as I have just started working with a Professor of DSP on a DSP controlled device to address the problem of how to make a modern $500 instrument mimic the sound of a $4 million instrument ...
Your command of the English language is impressive...
Your points...not so much!
Guess my "lesser mind" cant grasp the depth and wisdom of your prose....
Cheers
D.
That's ok, Derek. We all pretty much knew you wouldn't grasp the elementary concept that music making is out of the scope of music reproduction when you, an audio parts salesman, launched your silly diatribe in the first place. Scope shifting is a common mistake made by people who aren't very good at thinking, and a common strategy used by con men to legitimate their various scams.
We all understand that you're just trying to legitimate your business interests by going after someone who does things differently.
We all understand that you're just trying to legitimate your business interests by going after someone who does things differently.
Last edited:
Cut me deep Shrek....!
Owch Palas,
I am soooo hurt...And here was I thinking that it was the musicans who also made the instruments...Gosh don't I feel silly...Me and my little mind!
Must dash, got go "sell some audio parts now" whatever that is, I know you know best.
Hugs from your biggest fan...Love the blog and all that!
Owch Palas,
I am soooo hurt...And here was I thinking that it was the musicans who also made the instruments...Gosh don't I feel silly...Me and my little mind!
Must dash, got go "sell some audio parts now" whatever that is, I know you know best.
Hugs from your biggest fan...Love the blog and all that!
Pallas, thanks for that NPR reference. Nothing could have proven my point any better. I had seen this before by the way.
There are many more studies like this proving how flawed sighted perception actually is. It is even true in wine tasting and culinary arts. Our brains dominate our perception when they are allowed to act to the point of making these perceptions highly flawed. Measurements circumvent this problem.
There are many more studies like this proving how flawed sighted perception actually is. It is even true in wine tasting and culinary arts. Our brains dominate our perception when they are allowed to act to the point of making these perceptions highly flawed. Measurements circumvent this problem.
Earl,
Joking aside, of course I believe in the importance of modern test and measurement methodology and equipment...Just not too loose sight ( sound!) of the vital importance of the human ear / brain in listening....
The visual clues / placebo effect is well known and understood and I get how it clouds judgment.
At the end of the day how it sounds is all about how it makes you feel....you cant measure that with mics and signal generators...
Just like people..." You will forget what someone says, you will even forget what they do, but you will always remember the way they make you feel"
Cheers
D.
PS Earl your work on distributed sub woofers if great...Bordering on genius, and within the world of free standing constant directivity loudspeakers you are the one to beat. I have great respect for much that you have done and given to the audio world and DIY community...I just don't agree with everything you say...!
Joking aside, of course I believe in the importance of modern test and measurement methodology and equipment...Just not too loose sight ( sound!) of the vital importance of the human ear / brain in listening....
The visual clues / placebo effect is well known and understood and I get how it clouds judgment.
At the end of the day how it sounds is all about how it makes you feel....you cant measure that with mics and signal generators...
Just like people..." You will forget what someone says, you will even forget what they do, but you will always remember the way they make you feel"
Cheers
D.
PS Earl your work on distributed sub woofers if great...Bordering on genius, and within the world of free standing constant directivity loudspeakers you are the one to beat. I have great respect for much that you have done and given to the audio world and DIY community...I just don't agree with everything you say...!
Overkill - you suffer from the same problem as so many others. You do not seem to be able to separate the art from the reproduction.
I am as much into the art as anyone else, but that is completely beside the point here. We are not talking about art we are talking about the science of reproduction and art simply doesn't enter into the problem.
Until you can separate the two you will continue to make absurd statements like you have already made.
A loudspeaker is NOT a musical instrument. It does not know Bach from a B-52 - it should reproduce both with the same lack of imprinting itself on the sound.
I love the art, I deal with the science.
Painting is an art (one that I am an avid collector of), but photographing that painting is pure science. Properly done the photograph should instill nearly the same emotion as the original, but the camera itself has nothing what-so-ever to do with that emotion. The camera can only subtract from the art, it can never add. The closer its photograph is to the original the better the camera has done its job. There is nothing subjective or artistic about this process.
I am as much into the art as anyone else, but that is completely beside the point here. We are not talking about art we are talking about the science of reproduction and art simply doesn't enter into the problem.
Until you can separate the two you will continue to make absurd statements like you have already made.
A loudspeaker is NOT a musical instrument. It does not know Bach from a B-52 - it should reproduce both with the same lack of imprinting itself on the sound.
I love the art, I deal with the science.
Painting is an art (one that I am an avid collector of), but photographing that painting is pure science. Properly done the photograph should instill nearly the same emotion as the original, but the camera itself has nothing what-so-ever to do with that emotion. The camera can only subtract from the art, it can never add. The closer its photograph is to the original the better the camera has done its job. There is nothing subjective or artistic about this process.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.