You need to read the rules again. Moderators are also forum members. When you don't see the cop hat, we are posting as members. We have just as much right to take sides (or not) as any other member. We rarely moderate the threads we participate in.DavidL said:
Ranting are they? Not important, eh? Perhaps you need to spend some more time re-reading the posts in this thread.
Going to back to David's anology of paintings in a museum. Lighting in a museum is very important to the art on display. So, it doesn't matter if the latest LED lamps as measured by a computer produce the perfect spectrum, if the audience prefers the measurably imperfect natural light. It is the engineer's job to find what out what causes the preference and adjust the lighting accordingly.
Now of course, everyone is going to point to Toole's work. Flatness, smoothness of the FR, polars being smooth replicas of the on axis response. All that is valid. But there must be other things that are preferred by listeners also. How else can you explain the preference for WE speakers, or even the Quads, which by conventional measurements (http://www.stereophile.com/content/quad-reference-esl-2805-loudspeaker-measurements) should not be preferred by listeners.
Now of course, everyone is going to point to Toole's work. Flatness, smoothness of the FR, polars being smooth replicas of the on axis response. All that is valid. But there must be other things that are preferred by listeners also. How else can you explain the preference for WE speakers, or even the Quads, which by conventional measurements (http://www.stereophile.com/content/quad-reference-esl-2805-loudspeaker-measurements) should not be preferred by listeners.
Last edited:
Jan,
This starts to slide OT, but it is an important aspect to consider.
The question really is can a stereo system NOT "interpret" the sound??
The other aspect is that any recording, no matter how much the recordist intended it to be "neutral" is only some sort of limited sample of the sound field. Most recordings, commercially released ones, are actually artistic works in their entirety - not representing "reality" particularly.
So, what then should the speaker system do for us, the listener? One starts with significant limitations in terms of the "recorded information" to begin with, and then we want to make it seem to our ear/brain think it is "correct" or "right" or "real".
To me, a conundrum of sorts.
_-_-bear
Isn't it the age old battle between what type of accuracy you like? Either a fidelity to the signal, or a fidelity to the "sound". I.E., does what comes out of the speaker match the recorded signal, or does it match the sound of the instruments played?
Not that the two are mutually exclusive, not at all. I certainly find that the closer I get to the recorded signal, the more it sounds like the "real deal." The trouble is in the margins, the fudge factor. No sound system is perfect, so how do you make your compromises? What's important to you?
Not that the two are mutually exclusive, not at all. I certainly find that the closer I get to the recorded signal, the more it sounds like the "real deal." The trouble is in the margins, the fudge factor. No sound system is perfect, so how do you make your compromises? What's important to you?
It's a condrum indeed, but we can at least try.
But, you're right - the ultimate 'interpretation' or even delusion, is stereo.
(hint: there IS NO orchestra between your speakers ;-)
jan
Indeed they are not half bad at all... but I have yet to hear that series of Quads to "good advantage". Meaning every time that i have heard them to date they sound odd, less than natural, soundfield oddly displayed, lacking dynamics, other things... lacking bass...
so what are we saying then?
_-_-bear
That perhaps you haven't heard them set up well? Of course, I haven't even heard them, but I suspect that after my experiences with 57s and 63s, I'd like them quite a bit if used in the right position in an appropriate room.
I don't think there are different types of accuracy. You either have an output that matches the input (to some degree) or you don't. It seems to me that those who like the W.E. sound aren't arguing for their accuracy (most admit to presence of coloration and a narrow bandwidth) but rather that the sound may be inaccurate but it suits the music well. Colored perhaps, but still good at portraying the passion and essense of the music.
I have absolutely no problem with that. I've heard lots of colored systems that sounded great on the right type of music. If you can enjoy the music that way then more power to you.
I do think that good recordings should be replayed, ideally, without heavy intrusion from the personality of the playback system. Those Rose colored glasses may make some paintings look good, but you quickly tire of their ever-present contribution. Plus you are not seeing the painting as the artist intended.
Isn't that important? I've never thought, as a speaker designer, that I "knew better" than the muscians or producers and had some right to tamper with what was in the recording. I doubt that the Western Electric engineers felt any differently, but the variables they had to play with were limited. Going from full range to 2 or 3 way gives a great number of degrees of freedom for shaping the response to "more accurate" (flatter). As time went on the W.E. engineers realized the same and went down the same path.
David S.
yes, but their quest and ours may overlap, that being the theater and PA/SR application and the home. this makes all the difference.
and, imo, it's never that one deliberately designs a speaker to alter the sound, it's that no matter what you do you end up with some sort of compromise. the question remains, which compromise(s) are you willing to accept? it's that simple. minimize the compromises, sure, but some remain. now you have to pick those that are unacceptable and reject them, minimize the rest.
a "flat" frequency response is just one measurable parameter that matters. then there is the question of flat on axis? flat off axis? flat power response? flat what?
different "stuff" sounds different. configure the same drivers differently? sounds different.
accurate is a relativistic term.
_-_-bear
and, imo, it's never that one deliberately designs a speaker to alter the sound, it's that no matter what you do you end up with some sort of compromise. the question remains, which compromise(s) are you willing to accept? it's that simple. minimize the compromises, sure, but some remain. now you have to pick those that are unacceptable and reject them, minimize the rest.
a "flat" frequency response is just one measurable parameter that matters. then there is the question of flat on axis? flat off axis? flat power response? flat what?
different "stuff" sounds different. configure the same drivers differently? sounds different.
accurate is a relativistic term.
_-_-bear
If you are referring to the step response, the square wave or the distortion measurement, then yes, those measurements are extremely good. But look at the measurements that are said to relate to listener preference in blind testing: on axis response, off axis response, and resonances. There are many designs that offer much flatter, resonance free response with smooth off axis curves and yet will be outdone by the Quads in the "sounds like the real thing" department.
I thought the dispersion looked pretty good- mostly smooth and evenly rolling off in the treble off axis. Likewise the vertical dispersion (Figure 5) was much better than most multiway speakers. The frequency response measurements show very good behavior in the range where we can actually hear stuff. The only measurement which is questionable is the anechoic response, which is somewhat irrelevant to dipoles without some major corrections- proof of that pudding is the very good in-room response (Figure 6).
Yes, that is confusing, coz they've overlayed the blue (Sonus Faber) on top of the red (Quad), fooled me the first time also.
The in-room response is all over the place, IMO. And severely rolled off at both extremes. It is -6db at 80 Hz and 10 kHz. As for vertical and horizontal dispersion, the curves are more ragged than even standard 2-way cone and dome designs.
Compare the in-room response to this one:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/jbl-synthesis-1400-array-bg-loudspeaker-measurements
Aside from the little hiccup at 7kHz caused by the transition to the super tweeter, the polars are much smoother.
The in-room response is all over the place, IMO. And severely rolled off at both extremes. It is -6db at 80 Hz and 10 kHz. As for vertical and horizontal dispersion, the curves are more ragged than even standard 2-way cone and dome designs.
Compare the in-room response to this one:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/jbl-synthesis-1400-array-bg-loudspeaker-measurements
Aside from the little hiccup at 7kHz caused by the transition to the super tweeter, the polars are much smoother.
Last edited:
With all those measurements and up-to-date advanced technologies I still don't hear anything that sounds as the real thing. But the WE at this years Munich show or my Altecs remind me of it the most.
Of course, I would love to see the measurements the munich WE system.
You meant the Matterhorn at 7kHz?
JBL knows horns- I'd expect their efforts to be best of the bunch.The Quad response still looks pretty good to me. Apparently it also looked good to John Atkinson as well:
Horizontal and vertical compare well to any two or three way cone/dome system with which I'm familiar and better than most.
This is such a poor analogy.
When you go see an exhibition you use your eyes.
When you go listen to a concert you use your ears.
When you listen to prerecorded music in your home you use a stylus and a cantilever and some wire and a tone arm and a pivot and a bearing and a motor and a platter and a plinth and some more wire and a preamp and some transistors and some caps and some tubes and some more wire and a transformer and more wire and some more caps and some more wire and...
Looking at paintings is absolutely not anywhere near the same as listening to prerecorded music.
How "accurate and neutral" do you think all them caps and resistors and wires and transformers are? How about the "accuracy and neutrality" of the mic capsule and the power supply and the micpre and the compressor and the limiter and the tape deck and the...
Maybe speakers should be accurate and neutral like you say. Maybe our pres and moving coil cartridges and tonearms and platters should be too. As should the mics, mic pres, compressors, limiters, EQs, tape decks, tape stock and desk that our music is made on.
Maybe the sound of the original recording is important. But I've never ever bought an original recording for how it sounds. I've only ever bought it for what the artist or composer wanted to say. They're two very different things.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.