Let your speakers design/Room design + treatments/in room EQing control everything about the in room response.
Cables and all other equipment have a very simple and common goal in transporting the signal to the speakers unaltered. All the differences combined of all these components amount to less then a simple tweak of an XO or EQ.
Your opinion has been formed and molded, I simply wonder, how difficult is it to differentuate, accuratly between the two issues, as well as others associated. For the less experienced my guess is, 'plenty difficult thanks all the same'. So then I can't see how it could possibly hurt the end result for one to find this out for themselves and KNOW what it means.
I'm not sure why it should be discouraged is all. *I* still believe it has its merits, even for 'subjective opinion' purposes, if nothing else. The fact that 'subjective opinion' varies so much between designer/builders, is proof we all hear, think and see things differently, building your own opinion is the corner stone to the way forward IMO, for he as an individual at the very least.
Don't underestimate untainted personal experience as a useful tool in the audio chain, even if it is like unobtainium these days, the point is, it is still there, but too many people, are too busy looking for OFC and gold to notice it.🙂
Mick.😉
I'm not sure why it should be discouraged is all. *I* still believe it has its merits, even for 'subjective opinion' purposes, if nothing else. The fact that 'subjective opinion' varies so much between designer/builders, is proof we all hear, think and see things differently, building your own opinion is the corner stone to the way forward IMO, for he as an individual at the very least.
Don't underestimate untainted personal experience as a useful tool in the audio chain, even if it is like unobtainium these days, the point is, it is still there, but too many people, are too busy looking for OFC and gold to notice it.🙂
Mick.😉
The problem with the "finding out on their own" situation is that it takes education and understanding to do any listening test properly. Essentially most people going out and just listening without some controls in place will make incorrect conclusions.
Subjective opinion varies because we let it vary since most listening tests, opinions go unchecked. Audio does not have to be extremely subjective, obviously the industry loves that people find it very subjective because that is the only way they can use marketing to convince people. With controlled listening tests that marketing is meaningless!!
We definitely want to find out/learn about products as much as possible but we should be atleast acknowledge the pitfalls that current exists with simplistic demos.
Subjective opinion varies because we let it vary since most listening tests, opinions go unchecked. Audio does not have to be extremely subjective, obviously the industry loves that people find it very subjective because that is the only way they can use marketing to convince people. With controlled listening tests that marketing is meaningless!!
We definitely want to find out/learn about products as much as possible but we should be atleast acknowledge the pitfalls that current exists with simplistic demos.
Last edited:
Auditioning is something I have done for years, in fact, whenever I get the chance, so I see your point clearly, but if you do enough of them, then you will see where and how they do this. Again it's just realising whats going on and keeping an open mind.
Now this has been acknowledged, its not so meaningless, IMHO.
You can only confuse your brain for so long if you have an open mind, when your mind closes it becomes a little more long term.
That the industry preys on ignorance is a given, bought a new car lately? Kick enough tires and be prepared to walk away is my advice. You will soon learn when and where, they try to bend you over. You will have plenty of time to realise how much it hurts if you closed your mind, let your defences down and didn't do your homework!
This in itself is subjective opinion, and therefore cannot be seen as inevitable fact either, but no less important WRT a long term learning curve.
Mick.
Now this has been acknowledged, its not so meaningless, IMHO.
You can only confuse your brain for so long if you have an open mind, when your mind closes it becomes a little more long term.
That the industry preys on ignorance is a given, bought a new car lately? Kick enough tires and be prepared to walk away is my advice. You will soon learn when and where, they try to bend you over. You will have plenty of time to realise how much it hurts if you closed your mind, let your defences down and didn't do your homework!
This in itself is subjective opinion, and therefore cannot be seen as inevitable fact either, but no less important WRT a long term learning curve.
Mick.
dfidler--
Another pile of opinions to throw into the mix, take or leave as you wish:
Since your room setup is predefined, design/choose the speakers to best work with what you have to use. As much as I like both dipoles and omnis, your speakers are close to a back wall, so dipoles and omnis are out.
At low frequencies (below about 500Hz, but particularly below 100Hz), the position of the woofer/subwoofer in the room dominates just about every other factor. Way beyond cabinet shape, cone material, box damping, ported or sealed. For speakers that aren't total garbage, a cheap woofer in the right place will work a lot better than an expensive fancy one tossed in any old place. Two or more cheap subs in the right places will also usually work a lot better than one sub of high price. For heavens sake, don't restrict your low bass to have to come from the same place as your mids and highs! They have different acoustical placement requirements and the odds of the best place for subs being the same place as for tweeters is very nearly zero. Putting them in the same cabinet is a compromise right from the start. Get or build a couple of small active subs and experiment a little with room positions for them (use them as plant stands or hide them around the room to keep the SO happy). If done right, they will sound like nothing at all -- all sound will still seem to come from the mains but the mains will seem to have smooth tight bass instead of the usual lumpy mess.
There's a lot of agreement (not universal, but almost) that off-axis radiation performance of the speakers is about as important as on-axis, in that the response off-axis should be similar to on-axis, but preferably dropping with off-axis angle. This is the failing of a large number of speakers, including many high priced ones. Floyd Toole's book would be well worth reading about this. Radiation pattern should be one of the highest design priorities.
Your room is small and position is over to one side, so directivity (controlling the sound to go preferentially to the listener rather than a nearby wall) is a good thing to have, if the directivity can be made consistent over frequency. Since dipoles are off the list, one approach worth checking out is a 2-way waveguide speaker, and there is a gigantic amount of well-indexed info about making some of these over at the AudioKarma econowave discussion . Don't be scared away because they "look like horns", they aren't, and they work better than most types in small rooms.
Just my 2 pence worth (seeing you're in UK...)
Another pile of opinions to throw into the mix, take or leave as you wish:
Since your room setup is predefined, design/choose the speakers to best work with what you have to use. As much as I like both dipoles and omnis, your speakers are close to a back wall, so dipoles and omnis are out.
At low frequencies (below about 500Hz, but particularly below 100Hz), the position of the woofer/subwoofer in the room dominates just about every other factor. Way beyond cabinet shape, cone material, box damping, ported or sealed. For speakers that aren't total garbage, a cheap woofer in the right place will work a lot better than an expensive fancy one tossed in any old place. Two or more cheap subs in the right places will also usually work a lot better than one sub of high price. For heavens sake, don't restrict your low bass to have to come from the same place as your mids and highs! They have different acoustical placement requirements and the odds of the best place for subs being the same place as for tweeters is very nearly zero. Putting them in the same cabinet is a compromise right from the start. Get or build a couple of small active subs and experiment a little with room positions for them (use them as plant stands or hide them around the room to keep the SO happy). If done right, they will sound like nothing at all -- all sound will still seem to come from the mains but the mains will seem to have smooth tight bass instead of the usual lumpy mess.
There's a lot of agreement (not universal, but almost) that off-axis radiation performance of the speakers is about as important as on-axis, in that the response off-axis should be similar to on-axis, but preferably dropping with off-axis angle. This is the failing of a large number of speakers, including many high priced ones. Floyd Toole's book would be well worth reading about this. Radiation pattern should be one of the highest design priorities.
Your room is small and position is over to one side, so directivity (controlling the sound to go preferentially to the listener rather than a nearby wall) is a good thing to have, if the directivity can be made consistent over frequency. Since dipoles are off the list, one approach worth checking out is a 2-way waveguide speaker, and there is a gigantic amount of well-indexed info about making some of these over at the AudioKarma econowave discussion . Don't be scared away because they "look like horns", they aren't, and they work better than most types in small rooms.
Just my 2 pence worth (seeing you're in UK...)
Last edited:
Or that little. No-one has yet scientifically validated quantifications that correlate to the sonic differences in amplifiers.
dave
I must be missing something because, from my perspective, that's utter rubbish. Rated THD, RMS power (and clipping point), tonal balance. All of these are measurable, scientifically. Clearly I've misunderstood your point because I've seen this argument before and I'm always dumbstruck by it.
Hi,
Apart from the obvious parameters .....
Yes they have, e.g. Crowhurst and Shorter donkey's years ago but everyone
chose / chooses to ignore them (and similar people) for commercial reasons.
😎 /Sreten.
They suggested based on evidence that each distortion harmonic should
should be weighted as n-squared/2n, this would massively complicate
measurements and the commercial killer being producing higher numbers.
Measurable, but with little or no solid experimental scientifically valid correlation to what the ear-brain hears.
Even clipping point is only partially helpful because how an amp clips and how well it recovers can be more important.
The closest thing we have to correlation on THD is that it is meaningless, althou some strongly suspect that the nature of the harmonics (ie HD, before the information is rushed into a single number) can tell us something about how an amp sounds, but again no scientifically valid correlation.
It easy to measure, but little has been done to correlate what we measure to what people hear. That correlation is the frontier. Measures at this point (on electronics) are useful mainly to make sure something isn't broken, and to help a designer who knows his stuff to optimize their kit (but it is amazing that some of the best of them, get roundly criticized for their work)
We are a bit further along, it seems, with correlating speaker measures to sonics, but even that is disputed and has yet to be indepenently validated.
dave
Even clipping point is only partially helpful because how an amp clips and how well it recovers can be more important.
The closest thing we have to correlation on THD is that it is meaningless, althou some strongly suspect that the nature of the harmonics (ie HD, before the information is rushed into a single number) can tell us something about how an amp sounds, but again no scientifically valid correlation.
It easy to measure, but little has been done to correlate what we measure to what people hear. That correlation is the frontier. Measures at this point (on electronics) are useful mainly to make sure something isn't broken, and to help a designer who knows his stuff to optimize their kit (but it is amazing that some of the best of them, get roundly criticized for their work)
We are a bit further along, it seems, with correlating speaker measures to sonics, but even that is disputed and has yet to be indepenently validated.
dave
I would agree with you on that (and IMO, many of the best sounding amps pay heed -- as alluded to in my last post), but where is the valid double blind correlation test with independent validation?
This is the kind of thing needed for proof as opposed to suspicion that.
And with things like this, does one just test the amp, or the amp + speaker. Because there are certainly cases where amp+speaker generate better numbers than amp or speaker alone.
Measurements are a useful tool but their ability to predict how the music comes out of the speaker move us is very limited.
dave
Hi,
That is a load of conjectural nonsense. I'm an expert (FWIW) on the sort
of algorithms* (in 13 ! dimensions) than can reproduce speech for mobile
phone networks at the hugely reduced bit rates (of about 1/10) used
in mobile networks but with higher quality than analogue networks.
Your first sentence is completely untrue, otherwise all compression
algorithms simply could not work, as there would be nothing to base
them on, and this is patently not the case.
No-one can tell the difference between a good 50% algorithm and 100%.
Hardly anyone honestly would be bothered about good 33% versus 100%.
😎 /Sreten.
*actually its nowhere near that simple, but that is speech not music processing.
Last edited:
That is the kind of R&D that will need to be tapped for pushing audio ahead... there is at least some budget for R&D. That said, the digital network i am on here does not have as high a level of intelligentabilty as the same supplier when it was analog.
Tha bit, i think, works towards validating my point.
dave
Hi,
No, not really, speech is far more predictable than music, consequently
its processing is far more complicated than music due to modelling of
the predictability and structure, and consequently the maximum
compression rates possible are far more higher.
😎 /Sreten.
Try getting a friend to try stick their mobile phone in front of a decent
radio and listen to what comes out your end, its utterly appalling.
There are very good reasons for this ....
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.