new to fullrange

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Using technology...achieving what?...what technology?, ...the point, what do you want to achieve?
Our music should be as fully accurate, an exacting copy...from the stage, studio...to our listening rooms.

Possibly, but setting aside approach, you're still not saying what this 'technology' is, nor the apparently universally accepted and applicable criteria you appear to be implying exists for the 'exacting copy'. I haven't run across that myself.

By simply saying one should just listen, fully aware of its shortcomings, giant spikes in SPL response, spot on a frequency of say, an Oboe, that instrument is technically & audibly highlighted. The listener can now say, "it just brings out that Oboe in the piece!" Cause & effect....with an incorrect conclusion as to why & how.

Mmm. But nobody mentioned this 'just listen' business until you joined the thread. They hadn't before your first post (apart from a brief, and perfectly reasonable comment by Dave advising not to make a major evaluation until the driver suspensions are bedded in) and they didn't after it either. It was in fact yourself who raised the matter when you saw fit to insert inaccurate and sweeping generalisations into the mouths of others. Nobody else did.

I have often listened to music that is "flat", uninspiring & hard to listen to...I attribute this to poor recordings & mixing.

Which can be the case. It can also be the case that the system is poorly designed for the task in hand.

When an individual says a system "measures good, but sounds bad"...I will attribute that poor sound to the aforementioned poor recording...

I'm sure you will, but you appear to be making a large number of assumptions or ignoring an equally large number of factors since you haven't expanded on the matter, all of which can have a dramatic impact on behaviour and therefore 'sound'. For example, a corner horn will measure badly under anechoic conditions, but in practice sound far better (and actually measure better) because said anechoic conditions are inappropriate for measuring boundary-loaded designs. Context.

We as humans, think ourselves superior in thought, vision, hearing, touch...all our senses...

We do? What utter twaddle. I for one don't think any such thing, so if you could stop making inaccurate generalisations about other people's views, that would be super.

those attributes that can be measured, we fall very far down the totem pole of these abilities. Time & again, under strict testing, void of possible errors, we really hear rather poorly....the moniker, just listen, is appealing to a fully unscientific endeavour...we are not in this case listening for accuracy, but we are listening with emotion, ego & bravado.

A moniker that you, not anybody else, introduced into this thread. And while you may be a proponent of 'science', you still haven't mentioned what, precisely, the universally applicable scientific criteria you are evoking are.
 
Last edited:
Post number eight, Planet 10, "listen first"...before I had joined in...error No. One.

You all know full well which devices we use to measure our drivers performances, frequency response to Decibel graphing is just but one. Signal to noise ratio (more so for amps), Fast Fourier Transform, those waterfall graphics, etc, THD series. Error No. Two...

The problem is, no one device can perfectly convert one form of energy into another...taking an electrical signal & converting it into a compression & rarification of atmospheric molecules.

By a failure of a reasoned approach to attaining this seemingly impossible, Hurculean task, we will forever mire in failure.

"I used to think the time would come that man would rise above the beast, I gave up thinking that way long ago". Roland Orzabal

Human beings would never have ventured into space by thinking, "that seems about right".

------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick.....

My calculator is my best friend it seems.
 
Post number eight, Planet 10, "listen first"...before I had joined in...error No. One.

...and congratulations on ignoring what I said, viz: 'apart from a brief, and perfectly reasonable comment by Dave advising not to make a major evaluation until the driver suspensions are bedded in'.

Context. Dave did not say 'just listen'. He was advising the gentleman to 'listen first' before rushing in and apply an HF shelving filter without

a/ Waiting until the moving components are properly bedded in, which takes a few hours to do gently, and

b/ Establishing whether the basic balance of low frequencies to the rest of the range in the given system / room & position is to taste. Far too often, excessive shelving is applied, ignoring the actual in-room balance, power response &c. Neither of these matters are in the least mysterious; you appear to have simply misunderstood what he said.

You all know full well which devices we use to measure our drivers performances, frequency response to Decibel graphing is just but one. Signal to noise ratio (more so for amps), Fast Fourier Transform, those waterfall graphics, etc, THD series. Error No. Two...

So you are now saying we can all read your mind and already know specifically what you are referring to? No. I for one cannot, and wouldn't presume to think I could. If you want to come across as 'scientific', great; however, the onus is on you to be precise. I'm not going to guess.

The problem is, no one device can perfectly convert one form of energy into another...taking an electrical signal & converting it into a compression & rarification of atmospheric molecules.

Neither can anything else for that matter.

By a failure of a reasoned approach to attaining this seemingly impossible, Hurculean task, we will forever mire in failure.

Very true. But quoting the co-founder of Tears for Fears isn't an especially reasoned approach to the subject when you haven't yet said what the universally applicable criteria, metrics &c. you are referring to are. You have mentioned a handful of measurements that can be taken, but not yet said what characteristics you insist upon.
 
Last edited:
But Rick, the data you are using to make those comments is far from complete (and the ea==measure was taken under unknown conditions) so it is hard to make any conclusions from it, We can assume that it is an on-axis measure, but it is rarey the case that one listens to these on-axis.

You can argue all you want but, unless you have actually listened to these for an extended time you are shooting at shadows.

dave
This is the catch, it can often be argued that the measurements are lousy, shame on the speaker industry as a generalisation. People who produce speakers should go to the effort of making and publishing proper measurements.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.