Markus, my trick is to work less and less and the universe feeds me.
Spend too much time on this DIY website though. Actually i think this is a great place to be.
Spend too much time on this DIY website though. Actually i think this is a great place to be.
Anyone my dear Frank. You haven't followed the thread closely enough to know that this is the last chance the members get to behave in a civil manner in this thread.
To do this requires a vast knowledge and experience.
First of all one must have good knowledge of the music and the instruments/vocalists that make such music.
Second, one must know which notes relate to what frequency.
Third, one must have timbre measurements of these instruments at the various frequencies.
Now, if we wish to get to simpler terms for design of speakers and drivers, if the decay time is proportional to wave length, and the frequency response is quite flat, then the speaker should sound well balanced.
However, if we get into the transient characteristics an perception of the fidelity of each instrument, things become more complicated because there is more into interpretation of the data and how it relates with the diaphragm vibration vs wave radiation. The good news is that only a very small portion of consumers will focus on identifying these characteristics.
Rob, if it is true what Olive found out then you could identify a speaker pair, say for 998,-$
that fullfills the requirements of that test perfectly well, so is perfect and this is the end of the story. All other speakers being more expensive whould be a rip off so should be forbidden by law.
My critisims focusses on the fact that his research did not let to a consistent aproach of the company he works for. This is not his fault and his work may not have been driven by the marketing people. On the other hand big companies are not happy when they make money alone the also want to have the fame.
It is very easy to come up with a measurement, say horse power in a car, and build up a marketing system around it. I see this forum as a chance to get closer to the truth.
that fullfills the requirements of that test perfectly well, so is perfect and this is the end of the story. All other speakers being more expensive whould be a rip off so should be forbidden by law.
My critisims focusses on the fact that his research did not let to a consistent aproach of the company he works for. This is not his fault and his work may not have been driven by the marketing people. On the other hand big companies are not happy when they make money alone the also want to have the fame.
It is very easy to come up with a measurement, say horse power in a car, and build up a marketing system around it. I see this forum as a chance to get closer to the truth.
Can you point me to where that claim was made by Olive? I can't find anything like that on his website- was it in a paper?
has to be of some value? That amount will be different to each I'll grant you!
Maybe to Tom it will have the biggest significance, no matter which way it goes😀
Still, I think you are right. If it comes up negative, then it will NOT change for one second someone out there who thinks 'Ahh, he cannot but I can hear these differences'.
About the only possible change I can see is if Tom did in fact hear the differences, and SY for one would be very intrigued (I hazard) and possibly start some investigation of his own.
Pure simple intellectual curiosity I'd say.
In any case, your question has me wondering. Why did you post this just a little while ago?? So, let's develop an acceptable test method to at least establish or not the audiblilty of this and other doubted cable areas and be done with it.
Can I assume that from what you know of the test to be done, it is significantly flawed?? Is that what lies behind your most recent comment on the matter?
If you have doubts about the methodology I think SY (and all of us) would like to know what it is, that way any improvements can be made.
It will also prevent an after the fact excuse..surely you can understand why that is also important?🙂
Gee, I must be on a lot of peoples ignore...😱...any update on when this might occur?
Sy, the conclusion was that the speakers that had the flattest on axis frequency response and a "good" but not very well specified radiation pattern came out best in the listening test. Yes, that is not wrong but only touches the surface. What about sensitivity, what about time domain behaviour ? What bugs me is not the outcome of the test but the tone is was written in. It gave the illusion of completetenes and comprehensiveness.
Maybe i am totally wrong because american english it not my mother language but that was that reached my brain.
Maybe i am totally wrong because american english it not my mother language but that was that reached my brain.
OK, so he didn't say that all speakers that have a flat on-axis frequency response and well controlled radiation pattern sound the same. I had some trouble believing that, and apparently rightfully so.
Joachim, I just looked again at Sean Olive's blogs, and I would say that he is a 'shill' for Harmon Kardon, his blogs have the objectivity of 'Dope from Hope' a publication by the late Paul Klipsch, written about 50 years ago. Fun reading, but it could lead to 'cheerleading' for a specific brand. Is there a similar blog from Bose to even things out?
Now I understand, many here are followers of Sean Olive and Floyd Toole (his mentor) who just happen to be associated with the mighty Harmon Kardon, leader in the audio industry, knower of all things, audio. Well, we might as well pack up our test equipment and go on vacation. ;-)
Now I understand, many here are followers of Sean Olive and Floyd Toole (his mentor) who just happen to be associated with the mighty Harmon Kardon, leader in the audio industry, knower of all things, audio. Well, we might as well pack up our test equipment and go on vacation. ;-)
Last edited:
Hi,
Answers like this are de facto incorrect, science isn't carved in stone but an ever evolving, growing experience.
As stated before, sticking to the mere facts one learned does not leave any room for evolution.
It is therefore by definition stationary and consequently dead.
Be learned or be learning. Nothing bizarre about that.
Cheers,😉
P.S. Thx for the reply Cal. Please do not be too trigger happy. Audio is philosophy.
Answers like this are de facto incorrect, science isn't carved in stone but an ever evolving, growing experience.
As stated before, sticking to the mere facts one learned does not leave any room for evolution.
It is therefore by definition stationary and consequently dead.
Be learned or be learning. Nothing bizarre about that.
Cheers,😉
P.S. Thx for the reply Cal. Please do not be too trigger happy. Audio is philosophy.
So first it's one, now it's the other. You're giving me whiplash. Especially when you make things up.
Science progresses on the basis of evidence, not foot-stamping, appeals to authority, bandwagons, or tale-spinning.
You have no evidence. End of story.
While I agree with a lot of what Floyd and Sean have done, I will say that neither of them is very open to alternative input and they both have a sense of "fate de acompli" which I don't completely accept. The attitude of omnipitance is completely Harman. I have dealt with Harman for decades and this attitude is pervasive.
OT - The same could be said about Apple. On topic, has this thread gotten any two people from opposite sides to actualy get together and listen to something?
My mistake, SY. No, he did not say they sound the same. It´s much worse. He did say that the ones that fullfilled the requirements sounded the best. So he found the solution to an ages old problem and that is what i call marketing. It gives the illusion of security and that is what drives markting in the end when you think about it. I whould never author a scientific paper that comes to definitive conclusions. That has to be decided by whise men that critisise my paper. As the author and inventor you are always blind to your own faults. My father told me that germans learned the art of democracy from the americans.
This is one of my pet pieves - the belief that science is ever changing. It is in one sense but not at all in another. Seldom, if ever, does new scince supplant the older science - it refines it and may redefine it, but proven scince must remain valid in light of any new theories.
One of the foundations of quantum mechanics, which so many believe, "changed everything" is that any QM theory must be consistant with Newtonian theory in the limit of larger sizes. In other words, no new theory can contradict an established theory. Nothing about Newtonian mechanics is wrong within the regions of sizes that it deals with.
The wiki article states the window goes from 2 - 50 ms. This is nonsense and I can't imagine Dr Blauert would give such a large range. There are a number of phenomenon that loosely fall under this topic (precedence, Haas etc). Yes, there are many data sets. The specific metrics differ and trying to describe them in a general way and to a general audience is not useful (or even possible)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.