Jmmlc said:
Jean
The drawing that you showed will not control the directivity. Good looks and good performance are not the same thing. Quite contrary in fact. The Azura horns look great, I suspect that is their atraction. Mine look bland. Perfomance is another thing.
Hello Earl,
Constant directivity it will not be but it will surely enlarge the -6dB angle above 6kHz (note the beak in the middle).
I have many designs in my head, here is another attempt designed just to listen to the Rolling Stones ;-)
About the perfomance of the Le Cléac'h horns, well, I prefer others people to talk about. But seems to me that few persons once wrote about a system which was "bland and lifeless" and it was not a design of mine ;-)
Best regards from Paris, France
Jean-Michel Le Cleac'h
Constant directivity it will not be but it will surely enlarge the -6dB angle above 6kHz (note the beak in the middle).
I have many designs in my head, here is another attempt designed just to listen to the Rolling Stones ;-)
About the perfomance of the Le Cléac'h horns, well, I prefer others people to talk about. But seems to me that few persons once wrote about a system which was "bland and lifeless" and it was not a design of mine ;-)
Best regards from Paris, France
Jean-Michel Le Cleac'h
gedlee said:
Attachments
art horns
http://www.medussa.be/images/photos/vazen/Vaz-031.jpg
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
http://www.medussa.be/images/photos/vazen/Vaz-031.jpg
''About the perfomance of the Le Cléac'h horns, well, I prefer others people to talk about. But seems to me that few persons once wrote about a system which was "bland and lifeless" and it was not a design of mine ;-)''
Earl's stuff has never been demoed with eclectic electronics. Wait until someone mates Earl's WGs with exquisite SE amps and vinyl, and then you are going to have a better comparison foundation of reviews.
P.S. I know that Earl will smile at this. But when acoustics are equal I am sure he will distinguish a typical receiver from a Wavac himself too. Value for money vs quality gains % will be at odds. But there are people and people out there. Value systems differ.
Earl's stuff has never been demoed with eclectic electronics. Wait until someone mates Earl's WGs with exquisite SE amps and vinyl, and then you are going to have a better comparison foundation of reviews.
P.S. I know that Earl will smile at this. But when acoustics are equal I am sure he will distinguish a typical receiver from a Wavac himself too. Value for money vs quality gains % will be at odds. But there are people and people out there. Value systems differ.
Jmmlc said:
They were obviously not talking about my designs as these testimonials will attest to:
salas said:
I have been involved in numerous blind studies of exactly this question. You know the answer.
Sighted there are huge differences, blind they all seem to go away. Sighted, differences are heard when there are none, blind no differences result in no differences.
Why is this so hard to accept?
Sure there are junk electronics that you can hear, but price and topology do not correlate with performance. I don't use a "typical" receiver, I use one that I measured to have "excellent" performance. There is a vast difference in these two situations. Many receivers are junk, mine is not. Price WAS NOT an indicator of quality.
I know that very well. But I keep my distances to what really happens in our perception when we listen critically and blind. I have given many thoughts in other threads about that. The crux remains that aficionados listen with visual clues normally. And if there is a placebo effect involved it will only have academic value to them because if it is an enhancer it is welcome! Its a pleasure seeking hobby... Well, if a glowing 845 valve is a hallucinating drug and transports the listener into music, you know what you will see in the end driving Summas! Drugs and music always had a strong relationship.😉
P.S. Typical receiver, I meant in a manner of not being boutique audio. Of course it is hand picked. You are a scientist.
P.S. Typical receiver, I meant in a manner of not being boutique audio. Of course it is hand picked. You are a scientist.
@ Jmmlc & Gedlee,
you both agree to have very different design goals and obiviously a lot of people do like the results.
Is it really needed to degrade reciprocally your work?
Sometimes it´s fun to read some teasing but please don´t get really serious with this.
@ Gedlee,
afair Jmmlc is referring to a post by yourself in which you expressed the reaction of some misinformed listeners after they listened to your design at a show.(regarding the comment `bland and lifeless` )
He was just kidding (at least i hope so) 🙂
It´s hard to believe because it contradicts in a lot of ways other experiences.
If you carefully analyze well documented dbts on this topic you have to conclude that they normally lack in scientific rigour.
Maybe i missed some, could you cite some from which you´d say they were really on par with scientific methodology?
No offense intended- it´s sometimes difficult to find the right expressions in a foreign language and not to put your feet in it. 🙂
you both agree to have very different design goals and obiviously a lot of people do like the results.
Is it really needed to degrade reciprocally your work?
Sometimes it´s fun to read some teasing but please don´t get really serious with this.
@ Gedlee,
afair Jmmlc is referring to a post by yourself in which you expressed the reaction of some misinformed listeners after they listened to your design at a show.(regarding the comment `bland and lifeless` )
He was just kidding (at least i hope so) 🙂
It´s hard to believe because it contradicts in a lot of ways other experiences.
If you carefully analyze well documented dbts on this topic you have to conclude that they normally lack in scientific rigour.
Maybe i missed some, could you cite some from which you´d say they were really on par with scientific methodology?
No offense intended- it´s sometimes difficult to find the right expressions in a foreign language and not to put your feet in it. 🙂
There is a lot of speculation about these matters. There was an extensive thread about ABX and DBT.
There are careful DBTs conducted exclusively by scientists that they could pick up different capacitors with 70% success though! Just a component only!
See that video
There are careful DBTs conducted exclusively by scientists that they could pick up different capacitors with 70% success though! Just a component only!
See that video
Member
Joined 2003
Agree 100%. Clearly different design goals, and you have both developed practical designs achieving those individual goals.
Are capacitors better than inductors? It depends on the goal.
Jakob2 said:
I am aware of what he was refering to, but I don't think that he was kidding. He says these kinds of things far too often for that to be the case.
As to the electronics study, I took part in one many years ago using an ABX box that was very scientific. Its results showed that everyone was guessing which amp was which. Then there is the Stereophile study where listeners were asked to compare two identical amps and choose a favorite (or something like that). There really are an awful lot of studies like this. The recent AES paper that showed that no one could hear 96 kHz, 24 bit sampling was very scientific. Its usually not scientific if you don't agree with it.
I never said that one can't hear electronics. I'm saying that you can't "hear" electronics by looking at it; that there are receivers that are very good; that they don't have to be expensive; and that hearing a difference in something does not make it better.
During listening comparisons, I think it is critical that one can identify a special characteristic in a certain music passage that will reliably distinguish whatever you are trying to compare, then you can quite reliably pick them out in whatever listening test that is performed. From reading most listening impressions, this is normally not revealed, which means the auditors are not using their ears like instruments during listening comparisons, but rather they are listening like a normal listener, and thus more easily subject to variations in opinions.
soongsc said:
Whatever technique you use if you can't do it reliably blind then its not as useful as you think it is.
Hi soonqsc
Keep in mind the hifi press has given blind testing a bad name generally, for what ever reasons, basically having to do with the fact that they are the marketing arm for companies that advertise.
Also it is possible to conduct such a test improperly, one must actually be careful in a number of ways not to taint the test.
A fantastic example of how hard this is was discovered by the Princeton’s paranormal lab, who’s un-reproducible results were eventually attributed to measurement errors of various sorts.
As Earl could tell you, doing a scientifically rigorous blind test is not for the beginner.
The criteria for valid data aside, the real point of these tests, “testing without prior knowledge” is that you can remove what you think and believe from your hearing.
The point of it is that even in your living room, using material of your choosing, at your own pace and schedule, best conditions, if you still can’t hear a difference between condition A and condition B without knowing which was which during the test, then for all practical purposes the difference is below audibility.
Think about a medical hearing test where you press the button when you hear the sound in the headphones.
There is a reason there isn’t a click at the beginning and end, no red light that goes on with the tone, a reason you can’t see the tester or a Vu meter, it is entirely up to your ears with no prior knowledge, NO additional clues that help you subjectively “hear better” .
Best,
Tom Danley
Keep in mind the hifi press has given blind testing a bad name generally, for what ever reasons, basically having to do with the fact that they are the marketing arm for companies that advertise.
Also it is possible to conduct such a test improperly, one must actually be careful in a number of ways not to taint the test.
A fantastic example of how hard this is was discovered by the Princeton’s paranormal lab, who’s un-reproducible results were eventually attributed to measurement errors of various sorts.
As Earl could tell you, doing a scientifically rigorous blind test is not for the beginner.
The criteria for valid data aside, the real point of these tests, “testing without prior knowledge” is that you can remove what you think and believe from your hearing.
The point of it is that even in your living room, using material of your choosing, at your own pace and schedule, best conditions, if you still can’t hear a difference between condition A and condition B without knowing which was which during the test, then for all practical purposes the difference is below audibility.
Think about a medical hearing test where you press the button when you hear the sound in the headphones.
There is a reason there isn’t a click at the beginning and end, no red light that goes on with the tone, a reason you can’t see the tester or a Vu meter, it is entirely up to your ears with no prior knowledge, NO additional clues that help you subjectively “hear better” .
Best,
Tom Danley
Some links brought be back to this thread. I do agree listening tests are tricky. Sometimes I just move the speakers to an unfamiliar environment and suddenly I hear the difficiencies I had not noticed before.
There hearing tests at the doctors also is confusing. According to such test, I should hear the sound stage shift to the right, but It doesn't happen. Then sometimes I here it like that and think it's just my ears, only to find the real reason later. So whom do I trust? The doctor measurement of my hearing or my own listening and measured data. In the end, I ignore what the doctor measured, listen to detect if there is anything wrong (note that I don't determine what's right by listening), then look at data to find the cause.
There hearing tests at the doctors also is confusing. According to such test, I should hear the sound stage shift to the right, but It doesn't happen. Then sometimes I here it like that and think it's just my ears, only to find the real reason later. So whom do I trust? The doctor measurement of my hearing or my own listening and measured data. In the end, I ignore what the doctor measured, listen to detect if there is anything wrong (note that I don't determine what's right by listening), then look at data to find the cause.
I once had two preamplifiers that internally were identical. One was package in a bland 1U rack package that was intended to go into a home theater wiring closet. The only display that it had was a row of leds that showed which input was selected. The other was packaged in a very nice box with a thick natural brushed aluminum faceplate. It had a single 'rose gold' volume knob and a big bright blue VFD display to show which input was selected. It looked expensive!
Both were managed by a generic remote control and switched thru commmon amplifers. Much to my surprise the fancy tabletop version with the gold knob was consistently selected as sounding better than the bland rack piece. Many of the listeners were 'golden eared' cronies of mine whose opinion I respected.
I was very surprised. At some point the group broke for pizza and I slipped away (without telling anyone) and swapped the PCBs from one unit to the other. Before long the group reconvened not being aware of my board swap. And once again the fancy box was perceived as superior! My respected cronies were convinced of it's superior sound, that is until I told them what I had done. It is amazing how good gold knobs and fancy bright blue displays sound!!
Both were managed by a generic remote control and switched thru commmon amplifers. Much to my surprise the fancy tabletop version with the gold knob was consistently selected as sounding better than the bland rack piece. Many of the listeners were 'golden eared' cronies of mine whose opinion I respected.
I was very surprised. At some point the group broke for pizza and I slipped away (without telling anyone) and swapped the PCBs from one unit to the other. Before long the group reconvened not being aware of my board swap. And once again the fancy box was perceived as superior! My respected cronies were convinced of it's superior sound, that is until I told them what I had done. It is amazing how good gold knobs and fancy bright blue displays sound!!
That's the reason why when I purchase electronic equipement, I try to look for lower cost products first and seldom start with high priced stuff. Some people here opened up a Goldmund CD player and found the inside to be boards identicle to some popularly priced model.
But another point of view is grounding, power supply, chassis vibration etc.
But another point of view is grounding, power supply, chassis vibration etc.
Was reading about the Econowave and this thread was linked .
Question for Dr. Geddes,
" Horns simply tend to sound harsh. This is exactly what I was trying to solve when I developed the waveguide theory. I have solved this problem and it makes a huge difference. I have been trying to point out in the data how this can be seen, but clearly people can only see what they are looking for."
I'm having trouble reconciling this and some of your other comments with your measurements of the JBL Econowave horn.
The polars look very good to me; why do you say they are not CD?
You've said that about horns using diffraction slots, but these don't have any that I can see.
What about your measurements brings you to conclude that they must sound harsh?
Question for Dr. Geddes,
" Horns simply tend to sound harsh. This is exactly what I was trying to solve when I developed the waveguide theory. I have solved this problem and it makes a huge difference. I have been trying to point out in the data how this can be seen, but clearly people can only see what they are looking for."
I'm having trouble reconciling this and some of your other comments with your measurements of the JBL Econowave horn.
The polars look very good to me; why do you say they are not CD?
You've said that about horns using diffraction slots, but these don't have any that I can see.
What about your measurements brings you to conclude that they must sound harsh?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.