Being in a same room at the same time doesn't solve the aspect of anecdote. Different listening positions do change the sound waves arriving to listener's ears.
Were they sitting on each others laps?
Maybe... Still not as objective as stationary microphone.Vulcan mind meld?
I've already asked you what the best way to compare audio electronic components in objective way is but still no answer therefore the need for repetition.Wrt "ABX" we have already discussed the possible side effects in nearly every detail, so no need for repetition. (scottjoplin will be delighted
Maybe not (but they could swap positions). But a discussion of a shared experience is, at least in my view, a huge step to breaking down some of the barriers caused by communicating via the rather clunky method of the internet.
I've heard the following from someone who lived in Switzerland.
When listening to French speaking radio station at 2 pm, they will say, "It's little after 2 o'clock, maybe little before..."
When listening to German speaking radio station, they will say, "It is exactly 2 o'clock now."
When listening to Italian speaking radio station, they will say, "It's around 2 o'clock."
Swapping position is still far from solving the discrepancies of location dependent sound. As little as half an inch of shift in listening position can cause audible difference in typical contemporary audiophile's room setup (seen all over the web). Still not as objective as a stationary microphone.
These devices unobtainable or ????
http://www.linearsystems.com/lsdata/appnotes/LSJ689_P-Channel Dual JFETs.pdf
http://www.linearsystems.com/lsdata/appnotes/LSJ689_P-Channel Dual JFETs.pdf
I've been recommending this for years, it helped a lot with endless arguments over things like wine and food.
Personal story. (Totally subjective ;-)
After long decades in various recording studios* and personal quest for the best system i could afford at home to verify the quality of my work, I was in the 1990-2000 years in a quasi definitive position to avoid any horn for my own use.
*JBL, ALTEC, UREI, Westlake, Electrovoice, Tannoy, Jensen, Lowther etc.
... Until a great professional speaker designer, friend of mine, had-me listen to a big 2 ways enclosure he designed with spherical waves horn in plain wood and a JBL 2" driver.
I was so impressed by the natural and quality of the reproduction and measurements that I immediately ordered a pair to replace the ones of my recording studio and one for my own use.
Few years after that, I heard about the work of Le Cleac’h (RIP) and immediately arranged an appointment to listen to one of his prototype. With the same conclusion.
Here, a thread about those horns:
Jean Michel on LeCleac'h horns
Not like I dislike cones speakers, I use lot of them, as everybody else. But, if I insist on this, it is because some can loose a great opportunity to get a top speaker set because he could have the same prejudices that I had about horns and the way they sound. Of course, they are not WAF and good horns are too expensive.
Yes, the nasal sound and the multiple resonances and accidents that they caused in the past with PA systems can disappear with a good design and they can offer a precise listening experience, dynamic, very transparent, while offering a high efficiency, high levels of listening without audible distortions in a home listening room.
They are unparalleled on percussion attacks, detach micro details like nail attack or picks on guitar strings, without comparison on the sections of brass or pianos, while they can stay aerial on voices. Not to forget they are more forgiving about the quality of the acoustic treatment of the listening rooms.
Only my two cents, I do not sell anything.
After long decades in various recording studios* and personal quest for the best system i could afford at home to verify the quality of my work, I was in the 1990-2000 years in a quasi definitive position to avoid any horn for my own use.
*JBL, ALTEC, UREI, Westlake, Electrovoice, Tannoy, Jensen, Lowther etc.
... Until a great professional speaker designer, friend of mine, had-me listen to a big 2 ways enclosure he designed with spherical waves horn in plain wood and a JBL 2" driver.
I was so impressed by the natural and quality of the reproduction and measurements that I immediately ordered a pair to replace the ones of my recording studio and one for my own use.
Few years after that, I heard about the work of Le Cleac’h (RIP) and immediately arranged an appointment to listen to one of his prototype. With the same conclusion.
Here, a thread about those horns:
Jean Michel on LeCleac'h horns
Not like I dislike cones speakers, I use lot of them, as everybody else. But, if I insist on this, it is because some can loose a great opportunity to get a top speaker set because he could have the same prejudices that I had about horns and the way they sound. Of course, they are not WAF and good horns are too expensive.
Yes, the nasal sound and the multiple resonances and accidents that they caused in the past with PA systems can disappear with a good design and they can offer a precise listening experience, dynamic, very transparent, while offering a high efficiency, high levels of listening without audible distortions in a home listening room.
They are unparalleled on percussion attacks, detach micro details like nail attack or picks on guitar strings, without comparison on the sections of brass or pianos, while they can stay aerial on voices. Not to forget they are more forgiving about the quality of the acoustic treatment of the listening rooms.
Only my two cents, I do not sell anything.
Last edited:
But we are still arguing about what the microphone tells us. At the end of the day if we have a system/room that does vary widely over a few inches then arguing the last gnats chuff of anything is pointless. There are bigger issues to fix there.
Of course some people do just want to argue so anything that would reduce arguments is to be stamped out. But I am with Scott that 2 or more people in the same room are more likely to get to some common ground than hundreds on a forum. Even if the consensus is only for that setup at that time.
What I'm saying (and have been) is, if one wants to investigate what made the replaying sound better or worse, one must first determine that there is audible difference through objective comparison. If not, they may be in a wild goose chase. Couple that with people's time and expense of traveling to audition something because someone subjectively noticed sound "improvement".
If you are meaning the inevitable (for a number of reasons) comb filtering that can be measured, then Toole (as I'm sure you know) has shown that we don't hear it (much)
For You maybe. For others with large CD collections it is relevant to getting the best sound. Plus I explained the connection of design topologies and how it affects the sound when you have HF. --- which would apply to any means HF enters the amplifier. Even via DAC, ac power line or cable pickup. In case you missed the point.
THx-RNMarsh
Let me guess, without level matching procedure.
Cute.
Your a real funny guy. So clever. -RNM
Last edited:
It requires traveling which brings back the following issue.
Yes, in this case everyone was in the NY area. You also need unsighted tests to eliminate the "You don't like my posh stuff just because you can't afford it." effect.
Which is not really what I have been talking about and pretty sure not what Jakob has been saying. We can't even agree what is 'good sound' on this discussion.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.