Speaker Characteristics and Why?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Actually, you just fail to acknowledge them. Which is fine by me. :) Now that everyone (including GUAB) agrees that dome drivers have wider dispersion that flat planars, that observation is no longer questioned. I also pointed out there are quite a few manufacturers who do not agree with your notion of the universal use of the term "rear" when it comes to surround sound. As per your recommendation, it's quite easy to take a look at the back of receivers and processors to determine that. In the space of five minutes I found THX, NAD, Onkyo, Sony, Pioneer, McIntosh, and Krell. There are likely others. Accept that or not - your choice.

I also posted links that supported the use of the word rear to describe speakers for the rear/sides of the room. As I stated earlier, the words are interchangble, and have been for years. This is not a point of debate, but a point just to muddy the original point.


What triggered my original comment was a series of observations regarding directivity by Tom Danley of Danley Sound Labs (http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/), a speaker manufacturer of commercial horns. Here are some examples:

Extended nearfield (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=general&n=568136&highlight=directivity+tomservo&r=)

Constant Directivity (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=43012&highlight=directivity+tomservo&r=)

Advantage of large panel speakers (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=42964&highlight=directivity+tomservo&r=)

Reduced Phase shift (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=58165&highlight=directivity+tomservo&r=)

Preserve waveshape (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=34926&highlight=directivity+tomservo&r=)

What can kill imaging (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=53165&highlight=directivity+tomservo&r=)

Larger direct field (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=58467&highlight=directivity+tomservo&r=)

Convey more information (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=speakers&n=220143&highlight=directivity+tomservo&r=)

While I likely didn't convey the role of directivity nearly as well as Tom, that has been my point all along. Naturally, there is no consensus among speaker designers as to what works best in all aspects, but I do relate facts.

One decided sensitivity I have is with coherency and the typical use of multi driver solutions. While there are certainly exceptions (and one of Tom's designs might be one of them), I am aware of the different radiation patterns of the different drivers. I was listening to a friend's JBL speaker and was immediately taken with the weird image. Since it ran a 5" midrange beyond the ideal range, its dispersion in the upper midrange / lower high region was significantly narrower than either the woofer below or the dome tweeter above. The image was like that of a carnival mirror, pinched in the middle and wide at the top and bottom. While I'm not suggesting this is the case with every speaker, that is the first thing I noticed - which the owner had never noticed.

You might want to look at Tom's work (via the link) as it is used commercially in places like Turner Stadium in Atlanta. His horn designs are unique in that all the drivers radiate from the same mouth - and thus have the same radiation pattern and directivity one finds with full range speakers. Because the directivity is constant, it readily supports use in any kind of array given its symmetric design. Which, by the way is also true of the Sound Lab electrostat. In my gallery is a large array demonstrated at RMAF by Ray Kimber. Dr. West put together an even larger proof of concept array at a large auditorium in Utah using a 2 x 6 grid of the same 922s used by Kimber. Two tall by six wide. It created a full range constant directivity source measuring about eighteen feet square.

Peace.

rw

More mud, good gracious.......

[E-Stat]

More mud, good gracious.......
Aka, facts concerning directivity.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Aka, facts concerning directivity.

rw

No, this is simply more mud PERIOD.

This is simple, so there is no need to throw a host of BS into the picture.

In a empty room (you know, that place with four walls) with no listener and no listening seat (which removes the how close you sit BS) you have a bipolar/dipolar speaker(either will do), and a monopolar speaker. The dipole/bipole speaker radiates 50% of its output forward, and 50% backwards and nothing to its sides(whether the radiation pattern in either direction is narrow or wide). When the rear half of the panels outputs hit the front wall, it spreads(even if horizontal plane was only considered), and those reflections scatter. It is engaging the room(even if only mids and highs were considered) more than a speaker that may have a wide forward dispersion pattern(considering the horizontal plane only) that narrows with frequency. Since we already understand that a dipole becomes MORE multidirectional with frequency, and a monopolar speaker with a dome mid/tweeter becomes more directional with frequency, the result is clear. The dipole will interact with the room more at mid and high frequencies than a monoplar dome tweeter, and this is especially so at mid and high frequencies.

A speaker that radiates in two directions will have more reflections in room than a speaker that radiates in one direction. This is so simple and clear, that even my kids can figure this out.

[E-Stat]

The dipole/bipole speaker radiates 50% of its output forward, and 50% backwards and nothing to its sides(whether the radiation pattern in either direction is narrow or wide).
Now we're back to denying the dispersion characteristics of dome drivers. Very clever.


A speaker that radiates in two directions will have more reflections in room than a speaker that radiates in one direction. This is so simple and clear, that even my kids can figure this out.
But that is not the question. You've gotten so far off track you've forgotten what you've said previously.

"Personally, I don't like the artificial spaciousness of in room reflections coming from my front speakers, which is why I usually choose speakers with more controlled directivity.

Directivity is not a constant across all speakers, be they dipoles or not. Nor are room reflections unless you assume zero in the way of acoustical treatments. Do you listen in an empty room? That might explain your point. :)

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Now we're back to denying the dispersion characteristics of dome drivers. Very clever.

Oh did I?

Since we already understand that a dipole becomes MORE multidirectional with frequency, and a monopolar speaker with a dome mid/tweeter becomes more directional with frequency, the result is clear.

When the rear half of the panels outputs hit the front wall, it spreads(even if horizontal plane was only considered), and those reflections scatter. It is engaging the room(even if only mids and highs were considered) more than a speaker that may have a wide forward dispersion pattern(considering the horizontal plane only) that narrows with frequency.

I guess you missed this!


But that is not the question. You've gotten so far off track you've forgotten what you've said previously.

"Personally, I don't like the artificial spaciousness of in room reflections coming from my front speakers, which is why I usually choose speakers with more controlled directivity.


Directivity is not a constant across all speakers, be they dipoles or not. Nor are room reflections unless you assume zero in the way of acoustical treatments.

rw

We are not talking about ALL speakers we are talking about monopoles and dipoles specifically. Dipoles have a figure eight directional pattern, whether it is a tight figure eight or not. It will by its rearward output(of which it generates regardless of dispersion pattern) will have more reflective energy in the room than a speaker that radiates most of its output forward regardless of dispersion pattern. Any speaker that introduces a lot of reflections into the room adds artificial spaciousness that was not in the recording. Plain and simple.

Trying to introduce all kinds of variables to this basic tenet is nothing more than a side show, rather than addressing this basic tenet.

Acoustical treatments were never in the discussion until you introduced it as a band aid for reflection control of the rear output of a dipole. We were talking about just the speakers, not the band aids.


Do you listen in an empty room? That might explain your point.

I already took the listener out of the equation, we are talking about the speaker and the room PERIOD. No treatments, just the walls.

[E-Stat]

Oh did I?
"The dipole/bipole speaker radiates 50% of its output forward, and 50% backwards and nothing to its sides."

Nothing to the sides? Sure they do. C'mon, T - you know all about reflection points both laterally and above (at least with point source speakers). If there were no side radiation, such would not exist. :)


I guess you missed this!
Nope. I've lived with dipoles and monopoles for over thirty years. Hint: room treatments.


We are not talking about ALL speakers we are talking about monopoles and dipoles specifically.
I give up with your continued attempt at throwing all dipoles in the same corner, regardless of their directivity and regardless of the effect of minimizing room effect by acoustic treatments. Sheesh.


Acoustical treatments were never in the discussion until you introduced it as a band aid for reflection control of the rear output of a dipole. We were talking about just the speakers, not the band aids.
I already took the listener out of the equation, we are talking about the speaker and the room PERIOD. No treatments, just the walls.
You sure do like saying the same thing twice. No matter as I'll only answer once.

Sorry, I was talking about real world situations in real world rooms, not empty ones out of a textbook you talk about. You seem to have difficulty thinking outside this theoretical box with what happens in the real world. :)

"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is."

Yogi Berra

rw

[theaudiohobby]

"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is."

Yogi Berra

rw
On first glance, seems profound however on closer look it's a convoluted and self-contradicting statement, theory and practice are only the same if theory accounts for all variables, as that cannot be guaranteed except in the simplest environments, the entire statement falls flat.

[E-Stat]

On first glance, seems profound however on closer look it's a convoluted and self-contradicting statement...
That was Berra's humorous style which is probably lost across the pond. He has a lot of others like "When you reach the fork in the road, take it"


...theory and practice are only the same if theory accounts for all variables, as that cannot be guaranteed except in the simplest environments
I'm glad you got the point. :)

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

"The dipole/bipole speaker radiates 50% of its output forward, and 50% backwards and nothing to its sides."

Nothing to the sides? Sure they do. C'mon, T - you know all about reflection points both laterally and above (at least with point source speakers). If there were no side radiation, such would not exist. :)

Then you have made my point. Now I must include side reflections, celling reflections along with the rearward ones. You have also concurred with my point that reflections do not travel in straight paths. Isn't this easier than the BS angle?



Nope. I've lived with dipoles and monopoles for over thirty years. Hint: room treatments.

Treatments alter the natural direct to reflection ratio of the speaker(band aid). If you do that, then all you are doing is changing the ratio of the reflection pattern from vary degrees of a dipole to a monopole. If I did the same thing with a mono polar speakers frontal reflections, I still does change what I have previously stated. The speaker with the most output directed forward will have more of the original ambience of the recording rendered(hence the dipolar versus monopolar slant). You keep adding treatments, and that speakers rear output becomes less and less of an issue, and the speaker radiation pattern becomes more forward - much like a monopolar speaker.



I give up with your continued attempt at throwing all dipoles in the same corner, regardless of their directivity and regardless of the effect of minimizing room effect by acoustic treatments. Sheesh.

You should, its irrelevant. Treatments are a band aid in this equation.



You sure do like saying the same thing twice. No matter as I'll only answer once.

People who are logical get it the first time. People that are more emotional than logical have to be reminded more than once. We are talking science here, not Psychology. That requires logic and doesn't deal with emotions.


Sorry, I was talking about real world situations in real world rooms, not empty ones out of a textbook you talk about. You seem to have difficulty thinking outside this theoretical box with what happens in the real world. :)

"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is."

Yogi Berra

rw

If you add in all the variables to suit your point, I still am correct, because I can also add variables as well. The bottom line is a monopole has less engagement with the room than a dipole has. I said that when I got into this thread, and now I am saying it as I exit it.

[theaudiohobby]

That was Berra's humorous style which is probably lost across the pond. He has a lot of others like "When you reach the fork in the road, take it"


I'm glad you got the point. :)

rw

I am surprised that Sir T has chosen to indulge you.....this thread ran it's course many moons ago and as a consequence you have resorted to type i.e. going round in circles :Yawn:

[E-Stat]

Then you have made my point. Now I must include side reflections, celling reflections along with the rearward ones.
Once again --- only when you limit the discussion to wide dispersion point sources. I speak of real world situations. Line sources have zero vertical dispersion beyond their physical height.


The speaker with the most output directed forward will have more of the original ambience of the recording rendered(hence the dipolar versus monopolar slant).
Which is regularly achieved with high directivity planar dipoles.


You keep adding treatments, and that speakers rear output becomes less and less of an issue, and the speaker radiation pattern becomes more forward - much like a monopolar speaker.
I'm thorough delighted that you understand that aspect of my point. There are very common solutions to what appear to be problems.


You should, its irrelevant. Treatments are a band aid in this equation.
If you consider all room treatments including bass traps and acoustical panels as band aids, then so be it. I have found that the former provides smoother response and the latter, better acoustics. I'm certainly glad that concert halls don't take your empty room approach devoid of such "band aids". :)


People who are logical get it the first time.
Your repetition comes across as someone with Alzheimer's. And it makes quoting what you've said take more time!


If you add in all the variables to suit your point, I still am correct, because I can also add variables as well.
Do you really use bare wall listening environments?

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I am surprised that Sir T has chosen to indulge you.....this thread ran it's course many moons ago and as a consequence you have resorted to type i.e. going round in circles :Yawn:

You are 100% correct on this, and since merry go rounds have such a short duration of pleasure for me, this ride is pretty much over.

[Pat D]

That was my reaction to his response as well. GUAB?

rw

I wasn't aware that the Orion has only tweeters for drivers! :confused5: No, if I wanted to compare the dispersion patterns of two speakers, I surely would like to see a polar plot. Theaudiohobby was right.

[E-Stat]

I wasn't aware that the Orion has only tweeters for drivers! :confused5:
I am delighted to help guide you through your confusion. You really need to revisit the posts to discover that the discussion was focused on the effect of adding another dome tweeter behind the first.

rw

[tube fan]

As far as I know, there's only one reviewer posting here.

I looked over a bit of what you linked for other reviewers. Of course, I've heard of Wes Philips and Art Dudley as they do reviews for Stereophile.

Stephen Rochlin of enjoy-the-music posts at AA; Bob Neill posts at AA and also deals in other speakers besides AN; there is a Chris Redmond at AA, too; Paul Messenger and Peter van Willensward I've heard of but that's about all. I know nothing at all about Leonard Norvitz, and all I know about Constantine Soo and Jack Roberts is what I found with the links you provided.

For my part, as speaker reviewers, I'll take John Atkinson, Andrew Marshall, and Doug Schneider over any and all of them.
John Atkinson doesn't even use analogue in his "reference" system. Frequency responce is only one of dozens of factors. NO ONE I respect fails to use analogue in their reviews. Are they deaf? I have Dunlavy SC-IV speakers as my backup to my 30 year old Fulton Js. I think the Dunlavy's had the very best measurements Atkinson has ever made. Trust me, my Fulton's simply BLOW THEM AWAY!

[theaudiohobby]

John Atkinson doesn't even use analogue in his "reference" system. Frequency responce is only one of dozens of factors. NO ONE I respect fails to use analogue in their reviews. Are they deaf?ho...hum.. you seem quite opinionated. John Atkinson provides an invaluable service to the premium domestic audio community by diligently providing a useful suite of measurements, including frequency response, for most speakers that appear in his magazine. Such not allows one to dispassionately judge a speaker quality from an objective viewpoint. It also serves as a reality check to the current crop of IMO notoriously inadequate subjective reviews that abound everywhere. If none of that matters to you then stick to the reviewers you respect.

I have Dunlavy SC-IV speakers as my backup to my 30 year old Fulton Js. I think the Dunlavy's had the very best measurements Atkinson has ever made. Trust me, my Fulton's simply BLOW THEM AWAY!Oh really.....the word that comes to mind is preference. It is not unknown for certain folks to prefer speakers with idiosyncratic characteristics that depart from accuracy, whatever works for you.

[Feanor]

ho...hum.. you seem quite opinionated. John Atkinson provides an invaluable service to the premium domestic audio community by diligently providing a useful suite of measurements, including frequency response, for most speakers that appear in his magazine. Such not allows one to dispassionately judge a speaker quality from an objective viewpoint. It also serves as a reality check to the current crop of IMO notoriously inadequate subjective reviews that abound everywhere. If none of that matters to you then stick to the reviewers you respect.
....
Oh really.....the word that comes to mind is preference. It is not unknown for certain folks to prefer speakers with idiosyncratic characteristics that depart from accuracy, whatever works for you.
Well, exactly, TAH. JA's measurements & observation provide a very useful foil to the opinions of the subjectivists.

A great deal has to do with preferences of the listener (which might be based on relatively little experience). I have said before that assertions about accuracy of tubes and vinyl are often nothing more than the conviction that since these are right any other sound must be wrong by definition.

BTW, in the latest version of TAS, Jonathan Valin, who generally prefers tubes generally, observed that the best solid state amplification exceeds tubes in resolution and is better able to resolve complex music involving many instruments or voices. Valid doesn't go so far as to say the s/s is more accurate, but does acknowledge that it can do some things better.

Tube Fan, in contrast, just states the tube are categorically better and that anybody who doesn't think so is stupid ... so sad, really.

[Pat D]

John Atkinson doesn't even use analogue in his "reference" system. Frequency responce is only one of dozens of factors. NO ONE I respect fails to use analogue in their reviews. Are they deaf? I have Dunlavy SC-IV speakers as my backup to my 30 year old Fulton Js. I think the Dunlavy's had the very best measurements Atkinson has ever made. Trust me, my Fulton's simply BLOW THEM AWAY!

I have never found it makes much difference which high fidelity format one uses to audition speakers. Long ago, I used to use LPs or a cassette compilation to evaluate speakers. The main disadvantages of LPs are that one cannot control what cartridges and cassette decks the store had on hand. CD playback is much more consistent and mostly they have better recordings on them. I seemed to like pretty much the same speakers no matter what format I used.

I looked up JA's measurements of the Dunlavy SC-IV/A on line and while they are very good, they do not appear to be the best ever. I have no idea how well the Fulton J would measure as I have never seen any measured results. J. Gordon Holt seemed to think it was subjectively well balanced, but I have never heard them. Anyway, if you like the Fulton J, you go right on using them. You won't get any complaints from me about what speakers you prefer.

A speaker does not have a single frequency response. Indeed, it has a different frequency response in every direction. The NRC, Stereophile, and Audio Ideas Guide all perform a number of frequency response measurements from different angles so as to get a better idea of how a speaker will perform. In this thread, we have one person complain about a single measurement, the on-axis measurement (and one has to decide just how to measure that, too!), without taking any account of the ensemble of measurements. He has, in effect, decided that one single measurement is the one that counts, and has proved deaf to any suggestion that the dispersion measurements are very important, and also room response. Indeed, one of the contributions of the researches of Dr. Floyd Toole was to show the relationship of anechoic measurements to how a speaker will likely sound and perform in typical rooms.

[theaudiohobby]

Well, exactly, TAH. JA's measurements & observation provide a very useful foil to the opinions of the subjectivists.

A great deal has to do with preferences of the listener (which might be based on relatively little experience). I have said before that assertions about accuracy of tubes and vinyl are often nothing more than the conviction that since these are right any other sound must be wrong by definition.

BTW, in the latest version of TAS, Jonathan Valin, who generally prefers tubes generally, observed that the best solid state amplification exceeds tubes in resolution and is better able to resolve complex music involving many instruments or voices. Valid doesn't go so far as to say the s/s is more accurate, but does acknowledge that it can do some things better.

Tube Fan, in contrast, just states the tube are categorically better and that anybody who doesn't think so is stupid ... so sad, really.You nailed it, but what to do :D, it's pointless wading into discussion speaking for the accuracy of tubes and vinyl, as most proponents of that viewpoint do not advance quantifiable facts.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You nailed it, but what to do :D, it's pointless wading into discussion speaking for the accuracy of tubes and vinyl, as most proponents of that viewpoint do not advance quantifiable facts.

The ones that have actually used tubes and vinyl(on the professional side), have said while it is more pleasing to the ears, it is not accurate to what is heard on the master tapes. For me, enough said on that!

[Mr Peabody]

Arguing whether tubes or solid state is more accurate is pointless. First of all, both technologies very wildly in response and accuracy. To say solid state is more accurate is an incorrect statement, same as if it was said about tubes. In general, tubes are more accurate but in a different realm than solid state and vice versa. SS, that i've heard and in general, can not convey the depth, presence and micro/macro dynamics as the finer tube gear I've heard. On the other hand I have yet to hear tube gear convey the transient response and physical impact of live performance in the same way as finer solid state I've heard.

There are bad examples of both technologies and not all the bad examples are entry level either. It is about preference and never is it apples to apples so it's pointless and to take a stand on one line or the other is ignorant.

Sir T, some of the most ignorant folks I've run upon, in it's true meaning, to audio and sound have been musicians. You and your friends have preferences as well and just because some one has heard a master or demo don't give any more creedance than one of us who have been to live shows, that includes Classical, Jazz or other reference shows. I actually do not want my system to sound like a Rock concert in tonal response. Any one who has even heard some one play the acoustic guitar in their living room should be able to jusge if a system approaches that same experience.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sir T, some of the most ignorant folks I've run upon, in it's true meaning, to audio and sound have been musicians. You and your friends have preferences as well and just because some one has heard a master or demo don't give any more creedance than one of us who have been to live shows, that includes Classical, Jazz or other reference shows. I actually do not want my system to sound like a Rock concert in tonal response. Any one who has even heard some one play the acoustic guitar in their living room should be able to jusge if a system approaches that same experience.

Mr. P. I hate to break it to ya, but a person who has access to a master tape is one up on those who do not. I would have to respectfully ask, just what perspective could you add if you didn't - you have no reference point. Live shows(unless it was the one recorded) does not always give you a good reference point, as you are hearing the live PA system as well(unless it is a pure acoustical performance). I don't compare my tapes with the live performance, I compare it to what I heard either through the monitoring sources, or a set of very good headphones. Comparing a recording to a live event is apples and oranges IMO, and I do not understand why folks use that as a point of reference except to hear the true tone of a particular acoustic instrument. Live does not equal 10 microphones strategically placed in a live environment. You are only going to hear what you captured, and nothing more - which is really just a snapshot of that performance.

I have heard my master tapes played back over many kinds of sources, but the ones that have ventured far away from what I have as a reference are tube amps, and vinyl records. Bernie Grundman happens to agree with this perspective(well I actually agree with his perspective is more accurate).

How many people have heard a live acoustical guitar in their living room? Not many I would guess, and that goes for a live acoustical concert, a rock concert, and a jazz concert.

I don't know what musicians you have been hanging out with, but the ones I have recorded and hung out with have very good ears, and know what a accurate recording sounds like.

Can a tube amp sound great? absolutely! Can vinyl sound great? absolutely! However, there is a reason why the truly great recording studios use SS amps, and not tube ones.
There is also a reason why the engineers that transferred the Mercury Living Presence series to SACD, CD, and vinyl have said that the SACD and CD sound more accurate to the tapes.

Lastly, you cannot point to me and my friends - the only things that i think you have actually heard from me are my Disney mixes, and you don't really know my friends. I have not read anything that you have posted in terms of music that I have worked on. Perhaps you should not have made this so personal.

Until I have heard a tube amp playing a vinyl record that sounds like my master tapes, my opinion will continue to be what it is. My preferences are for equipment that can reproduce the master tapes(and digital audio) in the same way as I hear them in my studio, or on the monitoring system i used for the recording. Remember, I am not just a casual listener sitting in front of my speakers making subjective opinions. My perspective is a bit different than yours, for very obvious reasons.

[Feanor]

...

Sir T, some of the most ignorant folks I've run upon, in it's true meaning, to audio and sound have been musicians. You and your friends have preferences as well and just because some one has heard a master or demo don't give any more creedance than one of us who have been to live shows, that includes Classical, Jazz or other reference shows. I actually do not want my system to sound like a Rock concert in tonal response. Any one who has even heard some one play the acoustic guitar in their living room should be able to jusge if a system approaches that same experience.
Mr. P, if I understand you, I don't agree. :wink5:

Accuracy is with respect to the master, not some live performance or other (which is highly dependant on the venue in any case). A live performance is what we, (the listeners), want to hear -- well and fine, but the master is what the recording engineer / producer wants us to hear.

[PeruvianSkies]

Mr. P, if I understand you, I don't agree. :wink5:

Accuracy is with respect to the master, not some live performance or other (which is highly dependant on the venue in any case). A live performance is what we, (the listeners), want to hear -- well and fine, but the master is what the recording engineer / producer wants us to hear.


I don't know that I agree either, although I will probably open up a big can of worms with this one...

I have yet to hear a live recording that sounds better sonically than a studio-produced recording, although there are some nice qualities to the "live" feel, it does not come close to the quality of the studio cut.

That being said, I think that the live recording and studio recording offer other differences as well, not just in quality, but in the placement of things, with regards to the studio we are hearing the producer/engineer intent of placement. Some people do not understand this concept, although it's hard to unless you experience it firsthand, which people who have adequate equipment and the right recording can understand fully....

Prior to delving deep into this hobby, I always knew that there was various qualities in different recordings and mastering processes, but until I started getting into the higher-end equipment and listening to finely mastered material on those systems did I first experience the three-dimensional qualities of a recording in which you can simply close your eyes and hear the placement of the instruments with the mix. You can sense the depth of the drums, the proximity of the vocal harmonies, the spatial patterns created with layering of guitars, etc etc. Once hearing and experience this, I had to have that within the confines of my own home and have tried to replicate that to the best of my ability with certain budget restrictions over the past few years. I have a long way to go, but a good start at any rate.

Of course, a studio recording is meant to bring forth and evoke a different type or response and different recordings are done with various techniques and intentions to create a style or concept that fits the profile of the music as well.

Live music is a whole different thing altogether, most of us would not want to listen to music at home the same way we hear it live at a concert, even at the best concert venue or concert hall with ideal acoustics, it's just different. Most of the time, it's meant for large open spaces and the music is treated and acoustically designed to hit people at various locations within the hall. Furthermore, I have heard things like Handel's Messiah at Heinz Hall (un-amplified) and still prefer the sound of the DVD-A that I have as well as a few SACD's. While the experience at the live performance was emotionally driven by actually being there live, the recordings that I have are far superior in quality and the sonic qualities are much more coherent and that is what I want to hear when I am sitting at home and enjoying it.

To me, a speaker shouldn't have that much of a 'characteristic', it should represent with as much intent as possible the true nature of the source and be neutral to that. Of course, each speaker is flawed and therefore cannot produce this perfectly and will have inherent attributes that some prefer this type over another, but overall I think what we are aiming for is something in the middle of the road and we place speakers either above or below that with regards to hitting that mark of excellence to us. Speakers that are too bright, tin-sounding, harsh go to the top of that mark, and speakers that are dull, and uninspiring go below the line.

[Mr Peabody]

Mr. P. I hate to break it to ya, but a person who has access to a master tape is one up on those who do not. I would have to respectfully ask, just what perspective could you add if you didn't - you have no reference point. Live shows(unless it was the one recorded) does not always give you a good reference point, as you are hearing the live PA system as well(unless it is a pure acoustical performance). I don't compare my tapes with the live performance, I compare it to what I heard either through the monitoring sources, or a set of very good headphones. Comparing a recording to a live event is apples and oranges IMO, and I do not understand why folks use that as a point of reference except to hear the true tone of a particular acoustic instrument. Live does not equal 10 microphones strategically placed in a live environment. You are only going to hear what you captured, and nothing more - which is really just a snapshot of that performance.

Indeed, "a true tone of an instrument". If you want your reference to be a mechanical reproduction that's your choice

I have heard my master tapes played back over many kinds of sources, but the ones that have ventured far away from what I have as a reference are tube amps, and vinyl records. Bernie Grundman happens to agree with this perspective(well I actually agree with his perspective is more accurate).

I don't have the time to dig up links but there are many studios who use analog recording. I wouldn't doubt if Chad at Acousticsounds uses tube gear in their studio.

How many people have heard a live acoustical guitar in their living room? Not many I would guess, and that goes for a live acoustical concert, a rock concert, and a jazz concert.

Geez, I'd sure hope that people have at least heard a guitar in their home. An acoustic concert could be as simple as a school Jazz band. Are you really trying to convince me that your recordings with microphones is a better reference than the original instrument?

I don't know what musicians you have been hanging out with, but the ones I have recorded and hung out with have very good ears, and know what a accurate recording sounds like.

Those I've met do not.

Can a tube amp sound great? absolutely! Can vinyl sound great? absolutely! However, there is a reason why the truly great recording studios use SS amps, and not tube ones.
There is also a reason why the engineers that transferred the Mercury Living Presence series to SACD, CD, and vinyl have said that the SACD and CD sound more accurate to the tapes.

Lastly, you cannot point to me and my friends - the only things that i think you have actually heard from me are my Disney mixes, and you don't really know my friends. I have not read anything that you have posted in terms of music that I have worked on. Perhaps you should not have made this so personal.

It's not personal. But your position does not give you the last word in every thread. This is a forum and not the Sir T gospel hour.

Until I have heard a tube amp playing a vinyl record that sounds like my master tapes, my opinion will continue to be what it is. My preferences are for equipment that can reproduce the master tapes(and digital audio) in the same way as I hear them in my studio, or on the monitoring system i used for the recording. Remember, I am not just a casual listener sitting in front of my speakers making subjective opinions. My perspective is a bit different than yours, for very obvious reasons.

Well you use different speakers and apparently different reference but still subjective.

[Mr Peabody]

Feanor, it is the artist, their performance and talent that one should want to hear not some engineer's jacked up recording of that. I can't believe you all are telling me a recording of the original performance is better than the real thing. Most recordings aren't even made with all the musicians in the studio at one time any more. You are telling me that a recording of a guitar or sax sounds better than hearing that guitar or sax played in real life. If that's the way you all think and feel discussion over because you have all lost your way.

[Mr Peabody]

Feanor, I may have missed the spirit of your post. I use a text reading program and sometimes it does not pick up on graphics.

[Feanor]

Feanor, I may have missed the spirit of your post. I use a text reading program and sometimes it does not pick up on graphics.
Humm ... I'm not sure I understand the problem, Mr P, but I'll reiterate my point.

That a recording sound like a live performance is we, the listeners, hope for, however it is in hands of the engineer and producers to deliver it. This they might do more or less well. Thus the objective standard for accuracy of reproduction is the master, what the engineer & producer actually created, not some hypothetical live performance.

Or to put it a bit different, the "accuracy" with which a recording captures the quality of a live performance, and the accuracy with which equipment reproduces the recording are two different things. Equipment should be accurate to the recording; it can never really compensate for the shortcomings of the recording.

Personally I never get to hear masters, but if Sir Terrence, somebody who gets to hear masters on a regular basis, tells me that solid state reproduces the sound of the master more accurately than tubes, I'm inclined to believe it.

All this is apart from the fact that live performances are highly variable depending on the numerous factors, notably the concert hall and your seat in it.

[Feanor]

Feanor, it is the artist, their performance and talent that one should want to hear not some engineer's jacked up recording of that. I can't believe you all are telling me a recording of the original performance is better than the real thing. Most recordings aren't even made with all the musicians in the studio at one time any more. You are telling me that a recording of a guitar or sax sounds better than hearing that guitar or sax played in real life. If that's the way you all think and feel discussion over because you have all lost your way.
Well no -- or rather maybe. Because how good the live performance sounds depends on our seat in the house, (amongst other things). What the engineers capture depends on the placement of their microphones which might be much better than our seats, (and of course on their mix-down skills, etc.).

In any case I've often heard better sound sitting in my living room than I have at a live performance. That is, given a good recording and my half-decent system, I have often preferred the sound at home to a lousy seat in a lousy hall.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Feanor, it is the artist, their performance and talent that one should want to hear not some engineer's jacked up recording of that. I can't believe you all are telling me a recording of the original performance is better than the real thing.

I take it from this response that you have very little respect for what a audio engineer does. First, no audio engineer in know does "jacked" recording or mixing, and not every recording is bad or great. Secondly, I have have faithfully captured an artists jacked up performance, and recorded many jacked up artists with no talent. There is always two sides to a coin. By this statement, every talented artist has had their outstanding performances jacked up by every audio engineer - which is a crock pot of crap.

Thirdly, you need to read what I have stated again. Comparing a live environment with the recording of that live environment is apple and oranges. We are capturing a live performance "snapshot" using carefully placed microphones, and we can in no way capture that performance entirely, as it would require more microphones than any mixing desk could accommodate. In saying that, sometimes the mix IS better than the live performance, especially when that performance involves a PA system in a room with overly live acoustics or just plain bad acoustics.



Most recordings aren't even made with all the musicians in the studio at one time any more.

Every studio recording I have worked on had all of the musicians and singers in the studio at the same time. In large part, this is not necessary with today's technology, and a good engineer can create a mix so well done in spite of that, you would not know the difference.


You are telling me that a recording of a guitar or sax sounds better than hearing that guitar or sax played in real life. If that's the way you all think and feel discussion over because you have all lost your way.

I good high quality microphone with DXD capture can erase the difference between a live sax, and a recording of it if the reproduction chain is up to the task. Can't tell you how many times I was in the studio working on something, and had my kids run in disappointed that the artists really was not there, because to them, it sounded like they were.

The last thing I would like to school you on is the role that an audio engineer plays today. If you think for one moment the audio engineer has the last word on what goes out the door, you are quite frankly mistaken. The marketing department has the last word. I can not tell you how many times I have recorded an artist, done a excellent mix and master job on it, only to have the marketing department of the studio who that artist belong to tell me to compress and up the volume, making that excellent mix job sound like trash. Audio engineers(with the exception of a few) stop having the last word on the mix back in the late eighties. We have been over ruled by the producers, and the studio so many times it has become a topic of conversation at local AES and M.P.S.E. meetings. Many of us have come to the conclusion that most studios are not interested in quality as much as they are interested in loudness. So before you open your chops and blame the audio engineer for a poor recording, think about that fact before you speak or write down your opinions.

Sometimes the ignorance of the listener is far more of a problem that the quality of a audio engineers work. It is easy to sit in your chair judging what somebody else has done. My next question would be this...can you do better?

Feanor, thanks for your response. It cut my down considerably, as I was going to make the exact points you did.

[PeruvianSkies]

First, no audio engineer in know does "jacked" recording or mixing, and not every recording is bad or great. Secondly, I have have faithfully captured an artists jacked up performance, and recorded many jacked up artists with no talent.

What do these two sentences even mean?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

What do these two sentences even mean?

If you cannot make it out, then there is no point in me telling you. No offense, but its meaning is pretty plain.

[Mr Peabody]

Better, maybe, but surely just as good.

[Mr Peabody]

If you cannot make it out, then there is no point in me telling you. No offense, but its meaning is pretty plain.

Translation: I don't even know myself. Sometimes I get so caught up in twisting what people say around, I confuse myself.

[theaudiohobby]

Well no -- or rather maybe. Because how good the live performance sounds depends on our seat in the house, (amongst other things). What the engineers capture depends on the placement of their microphones which might be much better than our seats, (and of course on their mix-down skills, etc.).

In any case I've often heard better sound sitting in my living room than I have at a live performance. That is, given a good recording and my half-decent system, I have often preferred the sound at home to a lousy seat in a lousy hall.I agree with in entirety, the BBC Proms takes place at the Royal Albert every year, and the sound in many parts of that hall is atrocious, lack of sparkle and diffuse to the point of being incomprehensible :eek6: , the mikes have the best seats in the house :lol: .

[theaudiohobby]

That a recording sound like a live performance is we, the listeners, hope for, however it is in hands of the engineer and producers to deliver it. This they might do more or less well. Thus the objective standard for accuracy of reproduction is the master, what the engineer & producer actually created, not some hypothetical live performance.

Or to put it a bit different, the "accuracy" with which a recording captures the quality of a live performance, and the accuracy with which equipment reproduces the recording are two different things. Equipment should be accurate to the recording; it can never really compensate for the shortcomings of the recording.Correct with a single quibble, one may choose to compensate for, or tune to one tastes, shortcomings of a recording or room by using various forms of equalization.

[Feanor]

Correct with a single quibble, one may choose to compensate for, or tune to one tastes, shortcomings of a recording or room by using various forms of equalization.
To some extent, in particular the room (which you can think of as part of the equipment). But as for a bad recording, "you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's tail".

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Translation: I don't even know myself. Sometimes I get so caught up in twisting what people say around, I confuse myself.

That was a nice try. My point being I have recorded artists that really had a bad performance night, and I have recorded some folks with no talent which created a bad recording as well.

I think it is a bit naive to think that artists are always at the top of their game during a recording session, and that an audio engineer can compensate for their shortcomings.

As far as twisting your words, that would be a waste of time. Your opinion while yours, was completely wrong, and there is no point in twisting what was wrong in the first place.

[E-Stat]

BTW, in the latest version of TAS, Jonathan Valin, who generally prefers tubes generally, observed that the best solid state amplification exceeds tubes in resolution and is better able to resolve complex music involving many instruments or voices. Valid doesn't go so far as to say the s/s is more accurate, but does acknowledge that it can do some things better.
Agreed. I have to smile when I hear unqualified declarations of superiority about any specific audio component or format. I use vinyl and digital. Solid state and tube. Planar and dynamic. Untreated rooms and treated rooms. There are always trade offs and preferences involved. Understanding those sheds light on one's choices. :)

rw

[E-Stat]

Personally I never get to hear masters, but if Sir Terrence, somebody who gets to hear masters on a regular basis, tells me that solid state reproduces the sound of the master more accurately than tubes, I'm inclined to believe it.
So which tubes (and appropriately matched speakers) were chosen as the representative for ALL tube gear used to make this determination? Using which priorities? Using indifferent cabling? I find it a bit amusing to declare a single all-encompassing answer. As for Bernie, his vast mastering background is largely with multi-miked popular music, not minimally miked acoustical music. That factor alone could steer your preference. A list of his many projects is available online.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So which tubes (and appropriately matched speakers) were chosen as the representative for ALL tube gear used to make this determination? Using which priorities? Using indifferent cabling? I find it a bit amusing to declare a single all-encompassing answer. As for Bernie, his vast mastering background is largely with multi-miked popular music, not minimally miked acoustical music. That factor alone could steer your preference. A list of his many projects is available online.

rw

Bernie experience covers a whole lot more ground that must multi miked popular music, and it is not really accurate to put him in that kind of box.

As far as what gear was made to use that determination, from what I understand his experienced is pretty vast when it comes to both tubes and vinyl. His gear cannot be called into question, as it is of much higher quality than anyone's around here.

I also heard Elliot Scheiner and Chuck Ainlay same the same things that Bernie has stated, so there must be some legitimacy to their claims as their mirror my own experience and observations. You may not agree with their observations, but one has to admit they all have far more experience on this than many folks here have.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Agreed. I have to smile when I hear unqualified declarations of superiority about any specific audio component or format. I use vinyl and digital. Solid state and tube. Planar and dynamic. Untreated rooms and treated rooms. There are always trade offs and preferences involved. Understanding those sheds light on one's choices. :)

rw

And one has to admit ones perspective and priorities. One who sits on their couch enjoying music would have a much different perspective than one who records, mixes and masters that music. They get a chance to try far more things than the casual listener, which means they probably have a perspective that is a bit more broad than the casual listener has.

[Mr Peabody]

And one has to admit ones perspective and priorities. One who sits on their couch enjoying music would have a much different perspective than one who records, mixes and masters that music. They get a chance to try far more things than the casual listener, which means they probably have a perspective that is a bit more broad than the casual listener has.

Only according to you. You can't make this statement as you have no idea what any one's background or experience is. Why don't you come down off your pedestal and get some oxygen. It's not only audio engineers who have access to a variety of equipment. You have such a god complex I don't even know why you stay here unless it's to accept your praise from your groupies here.

[E-Stat]

Bernie experience covers a whole lot more ground that must multi miked popular music, and it is not really accurate to put him in that kind of box.
Perhaps you are unaware of the meaning of the phrase "largely". It means the majority. Significantly more than half. You take at look at the 1000+ entries found here (http://www.discogs.com/artist/Bernie+Grundman) and attempt to convince us that the majority of his work involves minimally miked material.


As far as what gear was made to use that determination, from what I understand his experienced is pretty vast when it comes to both tubes and vinyl.
Exactly. You have no idea. You present only speculation.



You may not agree with their observations, but one has to admit they all have far more experience on this than many folks here have.
Which has zero bearing on why anyone would take your unsubstantiated speculations as gospel.

rw

[E-Stat]

One who sits on their couch enjoying music would have a much different perspective than one who records, mixes and masters that music.
You seem to have difficulty understanding the concept of "exposure". Bernie could spend decades never hearing the dozens of fine tube products out there or hearing them with properly matched speakers. Certainly not most monitors with roller coaster impedance curves. Once again. your argument is based entirely upon speculation in search of facts.


They get a chance to try far more things than the casual listener, which means they probably have a perspective that is a bit more broad than the casual listener has.
More assumptions. How many more would you like to serve up?

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Perhaps you are unaware of the meaning of the phrase "largely". It means the majority. Significantly more than half. You take at look at the 1000+ entries found here (http://www.discogs.com/artist/Bernie+Grundman) and attempt to convince us that the majority of his work involves minimally miked material.

I don't believe I mentioned anything about a majority, more assuming perhaps. Are you assuming that mimimal miking could NOT have occured in those 1000+ entries? Are you also assuming that is his entire body of work? Once again your assumption processing is on over drive.



Exactly. You have no idea. You present only speculation.

Oh really now. Now only a fool would think a person that has done more than 1000+ gigs only did it using a few pieces of equipment. Since his career spans 30+ years, equipment has evolved from analog to digital, and from tubes and transistors to DAW's, and from off the shelf stuff to fully custom made. One can gather from that breathe of time that he has used quite a number of recording, mixing, mastering, and monitoring equipment. I know I have in the last 25 years.




Which has zero bearing on why anyone would take your unsubstantiated speculations as gospel.

rw

A great way to side step reality isn't it! Your posturing continues to amaze me.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Only according to you. You can't make this statement as you have no idea what any one's background or experience is.

I know what you have written here, and there is no mention of any studio mixing experience, no mastering experience, and no recording experience. The only experience you have mentioned is your sit in the chair and listen experience.


Why don't you come down off your pedestal and get some oxygen. It's not only audio engineers who have access to a variety of equipment.

I haven't seen any evidence that your experience trumps theirs. As a matter of fact, I haven't seen anyone mention that they are an audio engineer except myself. I haven't read about anyones vast experience with recording, so it would stand to reason that an audio engineer would have more access to different equipment than most here. They interact with different kinds of microphones with different sonic and capture characteristics, different kinds of amplification systems, different kinds of instruments and monitoring systems, most know acoustics pretty well, and quite a few are extremely well versed on both analog and digital technology. I haven't seen anyone claim that vast spectrum of experience and interaction - at least not on this board.



You have such a god complex I don't even know why you stay here unless it's to accept your praise from your groupies here.

Now you know these kinds of stupid foolish statements don't faze me one bit, and if you don't know this, you should now.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You seem to have difficulty understanding the concept of "exposure". Bernie could spend decades never hearing the dozens of fine tube products out there or hearing them with properly matched speakers. Certainly not most monitors with roller coaster impedance curves. Once again. your argument is based entirely upon speculation in search of facts.

How do you know the breathe of exposure, have you talk to him? I know I have.



More assumptions. How many more would you like to serve up?

rw

I think a person with 1000+ gigs and more than 30 years doing his thing would trump anything you have accomplished in audio. I think that goes for Ainley and Scheiner as well.

How many Grammy's have you won?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Originally Posted by Feanor
BTW, in the latest version of TAS, Jonathan Valin, who generally prefers tubes generally, observed that the best solid state amplification exceeds tubes in resolution and is better able to resolve complex music involving many instruments or voices. Valid doesn't go so far as to say the s/s is more accurate, but does acknowledge that it can do some things better.

And I think this sums up why most recording studios and audio engineers prefer using high quality SS amps over tubes, and apparently high quality domes and cones over ribbons and electrostatics. A recording studio has to be able to accommodate all forms of music, not just solo or small ensemble instrumental works, and solo and small ensemble voices. You will go out of business fast trying to design a studio for just those purposes.

[hifitommy]

boy, what a pissssing contest! stt, i expect that youre going to take the stance of an AES member which doesnt always jibe with audiophiles. i agree though that reproduction cant compare directly with live performance nor even a master tape.

as much as we all parrot the love of accuracy, sometimes that factor can prove to be less than satisfying. still, we strive for accuracy to the live experience.

there are some things we must agree to disagree on and neither side will ever prove the other entirely wrong.

preferences loom mightily on both sides of the fence as illustrated by mark waldrop's preference for the surround presentation whereas i prefer the audience view.

he is highly skilled and well educated and way prefers digital over analog.

to me, there seems to be something more complete about analog and the way tubes present both analog AND digital.

electrostats and other planar speakers arent often used in the studio as conventional dynamic drivers will usually play louder and are the tools most sound engineers evolved with.

when we pronounce in absolutes, we are displaying an unwillingness to consider other viewpoints. many of the ideas expressed here are worth at least consideration.

[E-Stat]

Are you assuming that mimimal miking could NOT have occured in those 1000+ entries?
Actually, I find a few cases. Call it 1%. Which supports my original observation. It makes perfect sense that he would choose what works best with the lion's share of the content - generic pop music.


Are you also assuming that is his entire body of work?
By all means, please do substitute data for any of your speculations.


One can gather from that breathe of time that he has used quite a number of recording, mixing, mastering, and monitoring equipment. I know I have in the last 25 years.
How does that demonstrate that he has extensive experience with the many, many high performance tube products that are available today? You are the master of speculation. Don't tell me, don't tell me - you're close buddies with him as you are with John Curl. :)

rw

[PeruvianSkies]

Translation: I don't even know myself. Sometimes I get so caught up in twisting what people say around, I confuse myself.

You are getting a big greenie for that one, whoooo.

[E-Stat]

How do you know the breathe of exposure, have you talk to him? I know I have.
Great. Now tell us specifically which tube amp(s) and preamps he has auditioned using exactly what speaker(s). Provide us the depth of your knowledge of him. We're all ears. ;)


I think a person with 1000+ gigs and more than 30 years doing his thing would trump anything you have accomplished in audio. I think that goes for Ainley and Scheiner as well.
There is a fundamental concept that you completely miss. For some odd reason, you believe that such accomplishments automatically mean that he spends extensive time auditioning ALL of the highest quality amplifiers on a regular basis. Why do you believe that? Have you ever seen a collection of hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment at his house (as I have on numerous occasions with my reviewer friends)? Tell us about it. What system does he use? Surely, you must have intimate details to be so sure of his judgment. Can you provide any facts?


How many Grammy's have you won?
Do you honestly believe there is any connection - whatsoever - between the quality of a recording and that award? Do you hold "Use Somebody" by Kings of Leon to be a statement of the highest quality of the recording art? How about "Not Ready to Make Nice" by the Dixie Chicks? Do they rival the efforts of Reference Recordings. Telarc, Windham Hill, Sheffield, Everest, Wilson, et. al. ? Is that what you believe? On second thought, that might be unfair to pick just any Grammy Award. Surely, you have some specifics in mind. Tell us about say two or three that are representative of his work. We'd be curious as to what they are and why you think they represent the state of the recording art.

rw

[PeruvianSkies]

Great. Now tell us specifically which tube amp(s) and preamps he has auditioned using exactly what speaker(s). Provide us the depth of your knowledge of him. We're all ears. ;)


There is a fundamental concept that you completely miss. For some odd reason, you believe that such accomplishments automatically mean that he spends extensive time auditioning ALL of the highest quality amplifiers on a regular basis. Why do you believe that? Have you ever seen a collection of hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment at his house (as I have on numerous occasions with my reviewer friends)? Tell us about it. What system does he use? Surely, you must have intimate details to be so sure of his judgment. Can you provide any facts?


Do you honestly believe there is any connection - whatsoever - between the quality of a recording and that award? Do you hold "Use Somebody" by Kings of Leon to be a statement of the highest quality of the recording art? How about "Not Ready to Make Nice" by the Dixie Chicks? Do they rival the efforts of Reference Recordings. Telarc, Windham Hill, Sheffield, Everest, Wilson, et. al. ? Is that what you believe?

rw


Nothing like painting yourself into a corner is there? Too bad everyone else sees it now. Going back on topic....

Does anyone have opinions regarding the speaker characteristics of Thiels?

[Mr Peabody]

I know what you have written here, and there is no mention of any studio mixing experience, no mastering experience, and no recording experience. The only experience you have mentioned is your sit in the chair and listen experience.

NO, you are wrong, I have much more than "sit in the chair", my posts show that where needed. Not all of us try to boast and turn every post we write into a resume and name dropping affair. Because most of us are intelligent enough to make convincing statements without bringing up we know who or did what to some how validate or substantiate what we have said. Most of us do not have inferiority complexes that we have to stoop to your tactics. That's why you haven't read everybody's business.

I haven't seen any evidence that your experience trumps theirs. As a matter of fact, I haven't seen anyone mention that they are an audio engineer except myself. I haven't read about anyones vast experience with recording, so it would stand to reason that an audio engineer would have more access to different equipment than most here. They interact with different kinds of microphones with different sonic and capture characteristics, different kinds of amplification systems, different kinds of instruments and monitoring systems, most know acoustics pretty well, and quite a few are extremely well versed on both analog and digital technology. I haven't seen anyone claim that vast spectrum of experience and interaction - at least not on this board.

I haven't seen any evidence that your or their experience trumps mine, now that you mention it. Being an audio engineer and a $5 bill might get you a cup of coffee but it don't mean much to me. I'm sure you haven't been to every studio in the world or even the U.S. to know what gear is there. The reason one might not use tubes is in one word, maintenance. Tubes are expensive to be replaced, pay to have some one to replace them, the heat factor, down time when maintenance is needed, tubes would burn out quicker in a studio with the continuous hours of use, none of which have to do with the sound quality.


Now you know these kinds of stupid foolish statements don't faze me one bit, and if you don't know this, you should now.

That was simple free mental health advice. Don't make me call Dr. Phil

[Mr Peabody]

I haven't heard many Thiel, based on what I've heard they have more of a sweet presentation, some may use the term "musical". The sound as I remember was balanced but not a speaker with a lot of bass slam. I liked Thiel's sound but for personal use like a bit more dynamics.

[PeruvianSkies]

I haven't heard many Thiel, based on what I've heard they have more of a sweet presentation, some may use the term "musical". The sound as I remember was balanced but not a speaker with a lot of bass slam. I liked Thiel's sound but for personal use like a bit more dynamics.

Mr P.

Once again, your analysis is pretty much spot-on with what I experienced as well. I was only asking because a former co-worker was inquiring as he saw a set on Audiogon and was asking my opinion of them for Jazz music.

They are the Thiel 2.4's, which are the exact speakers that I heard awhile back in a very good 2-channel setup. My experience was that they seemed to lack a lot of the low end punch, but demonstrates a very sweet and sweeping sound, I still think for the price though that he could snag a slightly more well-rounded speaker, especially for Jazz. I think he will be missing out on some of the low-end presence.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Actually, I find a few cases. Call it 1%. Which supports my original observation. It makes perfect sense that he would choose what works best with the lion's share of the content - generic pop music.

So, you picked that percentage out of clean air or what?



By all means, please do substitute data for any of your speculations.

Sorry, don't speculate on things like this. I wouldn't make the comments I do if I didn't know for sure.



How does that demonstrate that he has extensive experience with the many, many high performance tube products that are available today? You are the master of speculation. Don't tell me, don't tell me - you're close buddies with him as you are with John Curl. :)

rw

I am going to respond to this stupid comment as best I can. When I wrote for Surround Sound Magazine, I did a story on him. I spent three hours interviewing him on the various things he has done, and the variety of equipment he uses. When I recorded concerts for the LA symphony, I took the projects to him for mastering, and got a chance to see the different types of equipment he uses to master. When I did my own recording projects with my church, I took it to him for mastering because of the previous great team work we had done before. He is also a yearly speaker at our local AES meetings, and which I have heard much about the equipment he uses, and how he uses them. Is he a close buddy, nope, but we have had quite a few business and basic interactions over the years, which make me far more able (with credibility) to know what he did than you.

As far as the John Curl remark. How stupid is it that you go over to another website, mention no name, no dates, no specifics at all, and expect him to make a connection. This has more to do with your stupidity, than it has to do with my connection to him.

Now you on the other hand are totally speculating, and assuming, which is what you do so well.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Great. Now tell us specifically which tube amp(s) and preamps he has auditioned using exactly what speaker(s). Provide us the depth of your knowledge of him. We're all ears. ;)

All ears and no brains. I think it is stupid for you to ask me exactly what specific equipment he has used, that is not necessary, but it does give you an opportunity to dismiss what i have said. Sorry, not falling for that bait. Specifics are not necessary, and a lot of time beyond your scope of understand anyway.



There is a fundamental concept that you completely miss. For some odd reason, you believe that such accomplishments automatically mean that he spends extensive time auditioning ALL of the highest quality amplifiers on a regular basis. Why do you believe that?

I don't think I said that. You are putting words in my mouth.


Have you ever seen a collection of hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment at his house (as I have on numerous occasions with my reviewer friends)?

No, he has millions of dollars worth of equipment in his studio. And yes, I have seen it.


Tell us about it. What system does he use? Surely, you must have intimate details to be so sure of his judgment. Can you provide any facts?

His system is custom made. Within his studio, he can patch an input to various kinds of processing and amps designed to create a certain effects. Among those amps are high quality custom tube designs he does himself. When I asked him why he doesn't use those amps for his standard playback system, he says they color the sound, and that all tube amps color the sound to some degree. I heard the same comments from Chuck Ainley and Elliot Scheiner. So I would think that a person who actually designs his own tube amps can tell me more about their effects on sound than some arm chair listener who has never designed one.



Do you honestly believe there is any connection - whatsoever - between the quality of a recording and that award? Do you hold "Use Somebody" by Kings of Leon to be a statement of the highest quality of the recording art? How about "Not Ready to Make Nice" by the Dixie Chicks? Do they rival the efforts of Reference Recordings. Telarc, Windham Hill, Sheffield, Everest, Wilson, et. al. ? Is that what you believe? On second thought, that might be unfair to pick just any Grammy Award. Surely, you have some specifics in mind. Tell us about say two or three that are representative of his work. We'd be curious as to what they are and why you think they represent the state of the recording art.

rw

Each recording is taken on its own merits. You don't compare different recording made in different studios by different engineers with different artists. This is the stupidity of your statement.

Bernie reputation among audio circles is well known and well established. You as a arm chair listener are neither. So to attempt to discredit him to build an argument shows the weakness of your argument. All one has to do is read the interviews he has done, and it would be clear he has done more than you, has more experience in audio than you, and has had far more exposure to different equipment than you do, so it is not necessary for me to defend is reputation.

Since you have a previous history of circular arguments, I know when to hold them, when to fold them, and when to not waste my time continuing them.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That was simple free mental health advice. Don't make me call Dr. Phil

Since you are no psychiatrist, you can keep your free mental advice for yourself. I have no need for it.

You have never recorded a single thing. Probably never even been in a studio. Never have touched a single slider on a mixing board, and probably have never placed a single microphone anywhere. You are in no position to talk about anything recording related except what you hear in your chair after the fact.

As far as the rest of your BS, keep it. It probably helps you to feel better about yourself.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Mr P.

Once again, your analysis is pretty much spot-on with what I experienced as well. I was only asking because a former co-worker was inquiring as he saw a set on Audiogon and was asking my opinion of them for Jazz music.

They are the Thiel 2.4's, which are the exact speakers that I heard awhile back in a very good 2-channel setup. My experience was that they seemed to lack a lot of the low end punch, but demonstrates a very sweet and sweeping sound, I still think for the price though that he could snag a slightly more well-rounded speaker, especially for Jazz. I think he will be missing out on some of the low-end presence.

I am going to say this on this post as well. Claiming that you are MPSE, AES, and SMPTE certfied when you are not is fraud plain and simple. A poster on Blu ray.com did this, and found himself in very hot water. It would take nothing for me to have a rep from the Motion Picture Sound Editiors come here and embarrass the hell out of you for this juvenile joke. And that goes for SMPTE as well.

[Geoffcin]

This kinds of post doesn't belong here. Let's just all chill out and settle this off the boards like gentlemen.

[E-Stat]

So, you picked that percentage out of clean air or what?
I viewed the list and counted based upon the labels and content. There is virtually no classical content outside of soundtracks.


Sorry, don't speculate on things like this
Fine. Then demonstrate that the linked list is incorrect.


I am going to respond to this stupid comment as best I can. When I wrote for Surround Sound Magazine, I did a story on him. I spent three hours interviewing him on the various things he has done, and the variety of equipment he uses. When I recorded concerts for the LA symphony, I took the projects to him for mastering, and got a chance to see the different types of equipment he uses to master. When I did my own recording projects with my church, I took it to him for mastering because of the previous great team work we had done before. He is also a yearly speaker at our local AES meetings, and which I have heard much about the equipment he uses, and how he uses them. Is he a close buddy, nope, but we have had quite a few business and basic interactions over the years, which make me far more able (with credibility) to know what he did than you.
The irony is that if you really knew the answers to my simple question, the results would be shorter than your non-answer.


As far as the John Curl remark. How stupid is it that you go over to another website, mention no name, no dates, no specifics at all, and expect him to make a connection.
Apparently you think he is an idiot who doesn't remember if he had ever modified Onkyo gear. I don't share your low opinion of him.


Now you on the other hand are totally speculating, and assuming, which is what you do so well.
Yet another non-answer to what most folks would consider a simple question. :)

rw

[E-Stat]

Specifics are not necessary, and a lot of time beyond your scope of understand anyway.
Yet another non-answer. You continue to demonstrate that you have no clue.


I don't think I said that. You are putting words in my mouth.
Yet another dodge. Instead of a direct answer like " He's heard the Audio Research 610T, VTL Siegfrieds, Atma-Sphere MA-2s, etc.", you babble on about what you think occurs. I understand completely what happens when you don't know the answer. :)


No, he has millions of dollars worth of equipment in his studio. And yes, I have seen it.
Great. So tell us all the various tube components that you assert he must have heard in order to form his opinion. Is that question beyond your comprehension?



His system is custom made. Within his studio, he can patch an input to various kinds of processing and amps designed to create a certain effects. Among those amps are high quality custom tube designs he does himself.
Ah, he is an electronics hobbyist. Perhaps he should try what is available in the market instead.


So I would think that a person who actually designs his own tube amps can tell me more about their effects on sound than some arm chair listener who has never designed one.
So, the designer of this (http://cgi.ebay.com/great-USB-valve-TUBE-DAC-kit-recommend-/170517344355?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0) $70 kit must necessarily understand the state-of-the-art in all tube electronics because he can make one? Are you serious?



Each recording is taken on its own merits. You don't compare different recording made in different studios by different engineers with different artists. This is the stupidity of your statement.
Yet another dodge. Why is it that you cannot think of a single recording of the 1000+ listed that does something special and tell us why you think that is so? That's not a trick question!


Bernie reputation among audio circles is well known and well established. You as a arm chair listener are neither.
Fine, so educate us oh knowledgeable one. Give us actual data on which your opinions are based instead of empty rhetoric.



All one has to do is read the interviews he has done, and it would be clear he has done more than you, has more experience in audio than you
I see. Again, obviously you have no idea whatsoever. You continue to use the "Argument from Authority" fallacy without having any substance on which to base it.



, and has had far more exposure to different equipment than you do, so it is not necessary for me to defend is reputation.
Then tell us about it oh knowledgeable one! Such would be an easy task for someone who really knows the answer. You pen hundreds of words which communicate a simple truth: You really don't know (that's where all your speculations come into play), but you assume that he really has! Honestly, I didn't expect you to provide even an inkling of an answer to very simple questions. Just like when you had your tantrum over the simple question "So, what cabling do you use?". It is just amusing to see you pontificate and when your hand is called, you fold.

rw

edit: Follow this (http://www.berniegrundmanmastering.com/technical.html) page and see if you can find the word "tube". How about here (http://www.berniegrundmanmastering.com/technical/disc_cut.html) ? Having any luck?

Indeed, there are interviews with him that provide insight. Listen to this (http://www.gearwire.com/media/berniegrundman-006-lo.wmv)one. I agree with a lot that he says.

"It isn't about natural with pop music"

Exactly. Harmonic integrity and the ability to recreate the natural space of acoustic music isn't critical for pop music. He goes on to talk about hearing lots of recordings and compares that to viewing art in museums across Europe. After a while, you figure out which recordings stand out. While I don't relate to rap music, at about 4:00 in the interview, he speaks of maintaining his own memory of sound references:

"There's something that it does that makes it exceptional. You have that in your mind now"

I can most certainly relate to that concept. When I think of a natural sounding recording of piano, I think of Liz Story's .Wedding Rain album on Windham Hill. Here you have an analog recording of her Steinway using two mikes with no compression, limiting, etc. I have heard her live (unamplified, of course) at Woodruff Hall and understand the live element. If asked, I could provide several examples of similar references. I was taken aback that as a recording engineer, you cannot relate to that concept and readily provide your own examples.

[PeruvianSkies]

One would think that someone with such vast knowledge and expertise, especially with 'custom made' equipment would be willing to share a picture or two.....

How about those speaker characteristics?

[Geoffcin]

Let's just keep our distance guys. I've had enough excitement for today.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

One would think that someone with such vast knowledge and expertise, especially with 'custom made' equipment would be willing to share a picture or two.....

How about those speaker characteristics?

What my system looks like is not any of your business, and never will be. If showing my system is the criteria for credibility, then there would be a lot of people that were not credible including yourself.

[Pat D]

So which tubes (and appropriately matched speakers) were chosen as the representative for ALL tube gear used to make this determination? Using which priorities? Using indifferent cabling? I find it a bit amusing to declare a single all-encompassing answer. As for Bernie, his vast mastering background is largely with multi-miked popular music, not minimally miked acoustical music. That factor alone could steer your preference. A list of his many projects is available online.

rw

No one is pretending anyone has heard all the tube gear in the universe (why limit it merely to the planet?). But since you have raised the point about all tube gear, please show us any tube preamp and amp that are as accurate as a Bryston amp and preamp.

http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/preamplifiers/bryston_bp6_cseries/

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/bryston_4b_sst/

[hifitommy]

i once tried a bryston pre and it was lifeless. otoh, i bought a used arc sp3a1 that upset the applecart.

dc to daylight freq response, unparalleled dynamics, imaging and soundstaging, plus true coloration to sounds. it made me re-evaluate my conception of tubed components and made it clear to me why someone buys ARC or VTL equipment and all through an adcom 555II!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

i once tried a bryston pre and it was lifeless. otoh, i bought a used arc sp3a1 that upset the applecart.

dc to daylight freq response, unparalleled dynamics, imaging and soundstaging, plus true coloration to sounds. it made me re-evaluate my conception of tubed components and made it clear to me why someone buys ARC or VTL equipment and all through an adcom 555II!

It seems to me that DC is 0hz, and the ARC SP3A1 starts at 10hz, not quite DC. What exactly is lifeless when describing audio?

My next question would be, what if I were using a condenser microphones with a high quality SS mixing desk, could I trust that a tube pre-amp or amplifier will sound neutral to the source, or will it add a tube like characteristic to the sound? If the entire recording path was non tubed, will a tube based reproduction device(s) change that sound quality? How about if it was an all digital recording path with a combination of condenser and dynamic microphones? Will it represent these types of recordings neutrally, or will it change the sound to something more "warm" and "life like?"

Just askin....

[theaudiohobby]

i once tried a bryston pre and it was lifeless. otoh, i bought a used arc sp3a1 that upset the applecart.

dc to daylight freq response, unparalleled dynamics, imaging and soundstaging, plus true coloration to sounds. it made me re-evaluate my conception of tubed components and made it clear to me why someone buys ARC or VTL equipment and all through an adcom 555II!Whatever works for you, your preference does not impact the question above though. Also, it seems to me that you started out with the wrong conception, whatever it was.

[hifitommy]

well STT, dc to daylight is of course a euphemism for very wide freq response. why didnt you challenge the daylight spec?

all in good natured fun. but the s.o.t.a. in ss and tubes is showing both ss and valve sound to be converging to a narrow margin.

the sp3a1 isnt exactly new but certainly was one of the early convergences. its 'tubeness' is very low in character. it shocked me how unlike tubes it sounds. as for your reference to the condenser mike, i say it reveals what is there in the source, condenser mike or tube driven ribbon.

i mourn the fact that i let my beloved rogers LS3/5As out of my fingers. those speakers revealed a completely different acoustic to nearly every cut i played which is logical as many records individual cuts are recorded differently. paired with this arc preamp i am quite sure that characteristic would be even more obvious.

yes the rogers were colored in the midbass (my spendor s3/5s, their descendant, dont have that bump nor the slightly compressed highs of the t27) but they rendered the voice and acoustics exceedingly well (quatre preamp and specto-acoustic p202 amp at that time).

[hifitommy]

audhob:

the common idea is that tubes are warm and fuzzy. juicy at the bottom, sweet at the top. not very well extended in either direction. that may be wrong but its common. hearing the arc for the first time in my system was revelatory. quite unlike the scenario i just related.

i dont buy components as sound effects but for lifelike reproduction within financial limitations.

[Mr Peabody]

What if E-stat does present a brand of tube gear he feels is more accurate, what does that prove? It would be more interesting to know if you PatD or theaudiohobby have actually heard any tube gear. And to read Sir T's post I have to wonder about him as well. Some examples would be nice, that way we know what you refer and can be on the same page. That doesn't say much for any of you who argue a point with no basis. There are some tube gear that still sounds stereotypical with lush coloration but there is also some tube gear that is very accurate.

I have good examples of both in Krell and Conrad Johnson. CJ is doing incredible things with their more current gear. My CT-6 preamp is amazing in bringing the best of both sounds to the presentation. It's able to walk a bass line like not much else I've heard in either tube or solid state. Krell does good bass but it sounds technical, no sense of rhythm or pace. The CJ gives me that sense as well as adding textures to the sound, more micro and macro dynamics. How can the Bryston be accurate when it lacks those same characters as in the Krell. I can see when trying to mimick a master where technical might be preferred but when people are listening to a recording they want it to sound like music. Music played by humans typically reflects rhythm and pace. My power amps use EL-34's so I know there are tube power amps with tighter grip. I admit I have not heard any tube gear to this point to transient better than the Krell. A kettle drum into my Dyn's are startling with Krell. When I play my bass guitar the notes are not taught and clean like with the Krell or Bryston, their are harmonics. The harmonics are shown better by some tube gear.

There also should be a concensus of what the base of "accurate" is. Are you talking accurate to a recording of an instrument, such as Sir T, or, are we talking accurate to what the instrument actually sounds like if you were standing there listening. If it's the former as Sir T, then you'd have to believe all recording equipment is equal in it's ability as Sir T. I happen to know that's not true. Any one who goes through there music library has to understand there are some big differences.

[theaudiohobby]

:23:
What if E-stat does present a brand of tube gear he feels is more accurate, what does that prove? :idea: That there is tube gear out there thats measurebly more accurate than a number very good and measurebly accurate SS hardware. Given the current discussion, that's not a bad point to make.

[theaudiohobby]

audhob:

the common idea is that tubes are warm and fuzzy. juicy at the bottom, sweet at the top. not very well extended in either direction. that may be wrong but its commonYou obviously started with the wrong notion, probably just another audiophile urban myth, Given tube hardware's typically higher impedance, their sound will exhibit greater variability than typical SS hardware.


hearing the arc for the first time in my system was revelatory. quite unlike the scenario i just related.

i dont buy components as sound effects but for lifelike reproduction within financial limitations.IMO, life-like reproduction is an ambiguous term in the context of this discussion, I doubt that those plumbing for SS hardware are seeking non life-like reproduction.

[Pat D]

i once tried a bryston pre and it was lifeless. otoh, i bought a used arc sp3a1 that upset the applecart.

dc to daylight freq response, unparalleled dynamics, imaging and soundstaging, plus true coloration to sounds. it made me re-evaluate my conception of tubed components and made it clear to me why someone buys ARC or VTL equipment and all through an adcom 555II!

What a preamp sounds like in your particular system and what you like at home are not the issue here. What Sir T. wants to know is what is on the master tape.

[Pat D]

What if E-stat does present a brand of tube gear he feels is more accurate, what does that prove? It would be more interesting to know if you PatD or theaudiohobby have actually heard any tube gear. And to read Sir T's post I have to wonder about him as well. Some examples would be nice, that way we know what you refer and can be on the same page. That doesn't say much for any of you who argue a point with no basis. There are some tube gear that still sounds stereotypical with lush coloration but there is also some tube gear that is very accurate.

I have good examples of both in Krell and Conrad Johnson. CJ is doing incredible things with their more current gear. My CT-6 preamp is amazing in bringing the best of both sounds to the presentation. It's able to walk a bass line like not much else I've heard in either tube or solid state. Krell does good bass but it sounds technical, no sense of rhythm or pace. The CJ gives me that sense as well as adding textures to the sound, more micro and macro dynamics. How can the Bryston be accurate when it lacks those same characters as in the Krell. I can see when trying to mimick a master where technical might be preferred but when people are listening to a recording they want it to sound like music. Music played by humans typically reflects rhythm and pace. My power amps use EL-34's so I know there are tube power amps with tighter grip. I admit I have not heard any tube gear to this point to transient better than the Krell. A kettle drum into my Dyn's are startling with Krell. When I play my bass guitar the notes are not taught and clean like with the Krell or Bryston, their are harmonics. The harmonics are shown better by some tube gear.

There also should be a concensus of what the base of "accurate" is. Are you talking accurate to a recording of an instrument, such as Sir T, or, are we talking accurate to what the instrument actually sounds like if you were standing there listening. If it's the former as Sir T, then you'd have to believe all recording equipment is equal in it's ability as Sir T. I happen to know that's not true. Any one who goes through there music library has to understand there are some big differences.

In this context, we are talking about accuracy in the sense of not changing the character of the signal. In this case, Sir. T wants to know what's on the master tape, good, bad, or indifferent, not to gussy it up.It's a different problem than making your home system sound the way you like it.

I have heard systems using tube equipment and some of them sounded very good. Some of them did not.

[hifitommy]

well audiohobby, "You obviously started with the wrong notion" did i? which notion do YOU think i should have started with? would you please dictate that to me so i can follow YOUR agenda. its obviou8s that you missed the point. i was responding to STT from whom i might accept admonitions given HIS experience.

notice that i said it was a common idea. that was some if my consideration. as i said: " that may be wrong but its common". the variability that you refer to is more associated with tube amps than preamps. remember- "It's just a hobby"

and patD: i am positive that STT will let me know if i am off topic.

[E-Stat]

...please show us any tube preamp and amp that are as accurate as a Bryston amp and preamp.
Congratulations! You are the lucky winner of the 2010 Julian Hirsch Excellence in Audio Evaluation award. You will receive the official certificate in the mail soon.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

What if E-stat does present a brand of tube gear he feels is more accurate, what does that prove? It would be more interesting to know if you PatD or theaudiohobby have actually heard any tube gear. And to read Sir T's post I have to wonder about him as well. Some examples would be nice, that way we know what you refer and can be on the same page. That doesn't say much for any of you who argue a point with no basis. There are some tube gear that still sounds stereotypical with lush coloration but there is also some tube gear that is very accurate.

I don't know, I guess I have said I have heard tube equipment about a million times on this website, so anyone who states that they wonder if I have ever heard tube equipment, they obviously have not been paying much attention to what I have written. I just went to an audio show and heard all kinds of tube equipment, and wrote about it as well.

If anyone(and I am not going to mention any names) has stated they have heard accurate tube equipment, my question would be accurate to what the master tape or digital file? This is the perspective i am talking about, not some subjective opinion.


I have good examples of both in Krell and Conrad Johnson. CJ is doing incredible things with their more current gear. My CT-6 preamp is amazing in bringing the best of both sounds to the presentation. It's able to walk a bass line like not much else I've heard in either tube or solid state. Krell does good bass but it sounds technical, no sense of rhythm or pace. The CJ gives me that sense as well as adding textures to the sound, more micro and macro dynamics. How can the Bryston be accurate when it lacks those same characters as in the Krell. I can see when trying to mimick a master where technical might be preferred but when people are listening to a recording they want it to sound like music. Music played by humans typically reflects rhythm and pace. My power amps use EL-34's so I know there are tube power amps with tighter grip. I admit I have not heard any tube gear to this point to transient better than the Krell. A kettle drum into my Dyn's are startling with Krell. When I play my bass guitar the notes are not taught and clean like with the Krell or Bryston, their are harmonics. The harmonics are shown better by some tube gear.

Funny, almost all of the high qualtiy SS amps I have heard and owned do very well with instrument timbres, textures, and harmonics. I have owned two different Bryston amps, and neither bleached the harmonics or timbre from the music, so I am not sure what Bryston's everyone else is listening to.


There also should be a concensus of what the base of "accurate" is. Are you talking accurate to a recording of an instrument, such as Sir T, or, are we talking accurate to what the instrument actually sounds like if you were standing there listening. If it's the former as Sir T, then you'd have to believe all recording equipment is equal in it's ability as Sir T. I happen to know that's not true. Any one who goes through there music library has to understand there are some big differences.

Since when do recordings change the way an instrument sounds? You are throwing a lot of assumptions around here. Maybe I pay attention more carefully to my recordings than most folks, but on my recordings, instruments sound exactly like they sound if you were right next to them. I am not sure if anyone here has heard a DXD based capture, but DXD captures everything an instruments produces with all of the harmonics, timbres and textures intact. You don't miss a thing with DXD like you could with redbook CD. So when I speak of accuracy, I am talking about a amp that adds nothing to the recording. If the recording is bad, I want it to sound bad, not glossed over so it sounds listenable. If it is full of rich musical textures, I want to hear them, not an amp that adds even more than what was recorded. I want the characteristics of the recording itself to emerge intact, and not have some euphonic dressing or icing added to the mix.

Peabody, I never said all recording equipment is equal or all recordings, I never even suggested such a thing, so I have no idea why you would even type such a thing in a post with my name in it, unless you are making things up to make a point. Make your point, but leave the assumptions and misrepresentations out of the conversation.

As I mentioned before(and you got in a huff over) my perspective is just a bit different from the casual listeners perspective. My job is to listen to what is on the tape or digital file with no dressing, salt or pepper mixed in. I want to hear exactly what is on it not for my own pleasure, but because it is my job to do so. If I am mixing on a system that adds coloration, even a little bit of it, the mix will not sound very good in the end. I need a system that adds no coloration to the mix, because what I do is not for my own personal pleasure, it is for everyone except myself. So my mixes have to translate well to all types of equipment, and not to just one type of equipment. I leave the adding of dressing, salt and pepper to the end user, not in my studio. That is the perspective i am coming from. The systems I use for mixing allow you to hear the difference when a tube, condenser, ribbon, and a dynamic microphone has been used for the recording, or if all of them have been used. I need to hear cable hum, if air conditioners are coming through, cars are heard, and yes even an airplane passing overhead. If these are passed on to the listener because the monitoring system colorations are covering it up, then the monitoring system is inadequate.

[theaudiohobby]

Congratulations! You are the lucky winner of the 2010 Julian Hirsch Excellence in Audio Evaluation award. You will receive the official certificate in the mail soon.

rwI take it that there are no examples are coming forth then. :cool:

[theaudiohobby]

well audiohobby, "You obviously started with the wrong notion" did i? which notion do YOU think i should have started with? would you please dictate that to me so i can follow YOUR agenda. its obviou8s that you missed the point. i was responding to STT from whom i might accept admonitions given HIS experience.

notice that i said it was a common idea. that was some if my consideration. as i said: " that may be wrong but its common". the variability that you refer to is more associated with tube amps than preamps. remember- "It's just a hobby"

and patD: i am positive that STT will let me know if i am off topic.I do not see the point of your vexation given that you've just done saying that you started out with a misconception, that's it's common is irrelevant in this context. And the point you were trying to make was well-covered in Pat D's response (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=338591&postcount=328) to Mr. Peabody.

[E-Stat]

I take it that there are no examples are coming forth then. :cool:
Examples of what? More simplistic and useless tests performed on test tones to prove accuracy when the standard is dynamic music?

rw

[E-Stat]

...my question would be accurate to what the master tape or digital file? This is the perspective i am talking about, not some subjective opinion.
So, you're not looking for subjective opinions. Naturally then, that rules out anything that either you or Bernie has said, including your inability to state exactly which tube amps (other than his own) which he has heard. Hint: those are subjective opinions. What then is your basis for evaluation? If it is not a subjective opinion, what then is the nature of the test of accuracy to which you refer? THD plots? FR curves? Please clarify.

rw

[theaudiohobby]

Examples of what? More simplistic and useless tests performed on test tones to prove accuracy when the standard is dynamic music?

rw
:yikes: right on! :lol:

[RGA]

So, you're not looking for subjective opinions. Naturally then, that rules out anything that either you or Bernie has said, including your inability to state exactly which tube amps (other than his own) which he has heard. Hint: those are subjective opinions. What then is your basis for evaluation? If it is not a subjective opinion, what then is the nature of the test of accuracy to which you refer? THD plots? FR curves? Please clarify.

rw

No you have missed the truth. If the subjective experience follows the measured response then it is the right path - Example - it measures good and so they will like it and so their opinion is better than everyone elses - it is based on fact, not quirky subjectivity. It's a way to insinuate that when they make a purchase it is truly the "right and best" product.

It's safe to like something that measures the best - doesn't matter if the measurements are grossly incomplete - it's a security blanket.

[Geoffcin]

It's safe to like something that measures the best - doesn't matter if the measurements are grossly incomplete - it's a security blanket.

Your wrong in your belief that measurments cannot tell the "story" so to speak of what is good/not good. Measurements are simply that, measurements. It's their interpretation that you are having a hard time with!

A speaker that measures dead flat from 20Hz to 20kHz will NOT sound better than one that has a +3dB (or more) "bass hump" in the 80-Hz-100Hz range. In fact it will sound THIN compared to a speaker designed like that. This "bass hump" thing is so prevalent in the industry that some manufacturers have created wildly inaccurate speakers that when paired with equipment that is also designed to have an inaccurate sonic signature you get a response that isn't even remotely close to nominal.

Still there's guys out there who will claim that this is the REAL sound, and the measurments must be false.

Oh, and if you want to continue to talk tube vs SS there's a place for it, and it's NOT in this forum.

Thanks for understanding.

[E-Stat]

It's safe to like something that measures the best - doesn't matter if the measurements are grossly incomplete - it's a security blanket.
;)

rw

[hifitommy]

audiohobbby:

vexation....

actually i am more vexed by your high self opinion. you should really reconsider it as it is misplaced. you must be getting hypoxic up there on your high horse.

[RGA]

Your wrong in your belief that measurments cannot tell the "story" so to speak of what is good/not good. Measurements are simply that, measurements. It's their interpretation that you are having a hard time with!

A speaker that measures dead flat from 20Hz to 20kHz will NOT sound better than one that has a +3dB (or more) "bass hump" in the 80-Hz-100Hz range. In fact it will sound THIN compared to a speaker designed like that. This "bass hump" thing is so prevalent in the industry that some manufacturers have created wildly inaccurate speakers that when paired with equipment that is also designed to have an inaccurate sonic signature you get a response that isn't even remotely close to nominal.

Still there's guys out there who will claim that this is the REAL sound, and the measurments must be false.

Oh, and if you want to continue to talk tube vs SS there's a place for it, and it's NOT in this forum.

Thanks for understanding.

The in room measurement of the 3.6 - any in room measurements shows a +/-25db difference from 40hz to 2khz and a more than +10db boost in the bass midbass. The measurers will always say - this is because of the room. Okay then it's because of the room. So where do you listen to the 3.6. Presumably they are meant to be sold as outdoor loudspeakers? Now I know why everyone gets rid of magnepan - they were under the impression they could be used indoors with 4 walls and ceiling.

There is no way you can convince yourself or me that this is a perfectly flat loudspeaker.
"such measured bass behavior does appear to be characteristic of panel speakers. Yet the midrange diaphragm does not have a response peak apparent. It neatly covers the 200Hz to 1.2kHz region, with relatively steep rolloffs above and below that bandpass. From this graph, the ribbon tweeter seems both to be set a little low in level, and comes in rather high in frequency." The cumulative spectral-decay plot (fig.7) shows an initially clean decay in the treble, but then some hashy behavior

This is one of the least accurate speakers in the industry and you're telling us that speakers with 3db boosts at 80hz are a problem - c'mon. And listening to them they sound muddy dark rolled off but also bright and wompy in the bass. Very much like this graph shows.

[Geoffcin]

. And listening to them they sound muddy dark rolled off but also bright and wompy in the bass. Very much like this graph shows.

When did I say anything about my speakers being perfect? This graph is flawed in so many ways it's comical. Anyone who has Magnepans, or any other of a myriad of other panel speakers for that matter, can tell you that they have to be placed correctly and the room set up for them correctly also. In my room with a test cd and a ratshack meter (using the adjusted curve) I get 40Hz-16kHz +/- 3dB. Through the midrange though I get better than +/- 2dB. All measurments are taken at the only point that matters, the listening position.

In addition the impedance of Magnepans are essentially flat, and almost purely resistive in nature so partnering them with a high impedence tube amp lets you hear the qualities of the amp, and not the reactive nature of the speakers.

I don't know where you heard muddy/dark/bright/whompy Magnepans, but most likely it was a broken pair. Certainly I've never heard one that sounded that way that wasn't broken, and I feel I can speak for the tens of thousands of happy Magnepan owners on this.

[E-Stat]

The in room measurement of the 3.6 - any in room measurements shows a +/-25db difference from 40hz to 2khz and a more than +10db boost in the bass midbass.
Actually, it was not an in-room measurement.You'll find the following commentary in the review:

"The logistics of the magazine's relocation to New York meant that I could not perform in-room measurements in BD's listening environment, but I suspect that the MG3.6/R's behavior will be better behaved in a room."

In summation, he writes:

"As I have written before in these pages, measuring physically large speakers with in-room quasi-anechoic techniques is in some ways a fruitless task. The usual assumption, that the measuring microphone is very much farther away than the largest dimension of the speaker being measured, is clearly wrong. "

Measurements that are acknowledged to be flawed from the outset aren't particularly useful.

rw

[theaudiohobby]

audiohobbby:

vexation....

actually i am more vexed by your high self opinion. you should really reconsider it as it is misplaced. you must be getting hypoxic up there on your high horse.Much ado about absolutely nothing :rolleyes5:, apologies for vexing you with my supposed high self opinion.

[Geoffcin]

Copied in whole from Sterophile.com;

Editor: The review of the Magneplanar MG3.6/R in the August Stereophile caught my attention. I am a proponent of open-baffle speakers because of their room acoustic advantages and the absence of sound coloring boxes. So I looked with great interest at figs.2 & 3 on page 89 showing individual driver frequency responses and their summation.

The nearfield measurements of woofer and midrange in fig.2, presumably taken only an inch or so from the driver surface, are a valid set of data. You also could have measured the tweeter at such close range and obtained useful information. Where things fall apart is in fig.3 when you form the complex sum of nearfield measurements and the 50" tweeter "farfield" measurement. This curve does not represent the frequency response a listener might experience at any distance and is therefore extremely misleading.

The nearfield frequency response of an acoustic source is only proportional to its farfield response if the source is small, ie, omnidirectional, and if it is in free-space. Summing a driver diameter corrected woofer nearfield response to a farfield midrange response works for a small monitor on a stand, but already has errors when the speaker is larger and the woofer is close to the floor—when the conditions move away from free-space or anechoic.

The Magneplanar is clearly not a point source and, being open-baffle, it has an acoustic short circuit between front and back. This causes a 6 dB/octave low-frequency roll-off in the farfield response. So from all open baffle nearfield measurements you have to subtract first a 6dB/octave (= 20dB/decade) slope before you can sum the data with other farfield measurements. When you apply this correction to the MG3.6 woofer response you see that it flattens from 400Hz to 60Hz and shows a peak at 47Hz. Similarly the midrange has to be corrected before you can use it for the composite response. The actual room response is still different from this composite, though, primarily due to the effect of the floor on woofer radiation.

You might consider to add a measurement taken with a 50ms time window at your listening position, spatially averaged and half-octave smoothed to include the room. I think as a measurement that allows true comparison between speakers, this would be more useful than the composite data that are correct only in a few special cases.

I hope this letter helps your readers to understand the difficulties in describing a loudspeaker by measurements.—Siegfried Linkwitz, Corte Madera, CA, www.linkwitzlab.com.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So, you're not looking for subjective opinions. Naturally then, that rules out anything that either you or Bernie has said, including your inability to state exactly which tube amps (other than his own) which he has heard. Hint: those are subjective opinions. What then is your basis for evaluation? If it is not a subjective opinion, what then is the nature of the test of accuracy to which you refer? THD plots? FR curves? Please clarify.

rw

Whatever, his opinion was not subjective if he is saying that tubes and vinyl impart a sonic character on the signals. It was an informed observation, not a subjective opinion. I hope you know the difference. He had possession of the master tapes to make his comparison, something you don't have access to(which I think bugs the hell out of you).

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

No you have missed the truth. If the subjective experience follows the measured response then it is the right path - Example - it measures good and so they will like it and so their opinion is better than everyone elses - it is based on fact, not quirky subjectivity. It's a way to insinuate that when they make a purchase it is truly the "right and best" product.

It's safe to like something that measures the best - doesn't matter if the measurements are grossly incomplete - it's a security blanket.

Unfortunately he was not using measurements, he was using his ears. You cannot use this arguement on everyone.

[E-Stat]

Whatever, his opinion was not subjective if he is saying that tubes and vinyl impart a sonic character on the signals. It was an informed observation, not a subjective opinion. I hope you know the difference... He had possession of the master tapes to make his comparison...
I do draw a distinction between observation and subjectivity, but such requires more in the way of descriptors. Really, there are so many aspects to a recording to be preserved that such a wide and simple sweep of the brush doesn't mean much. Especially when you have no idea as to what he has used for his tube reference other than his own amp design. Not only that, it doesn't cover line level devices where the source output speaker matching issue disappears. I presume your knowledge of his exposure to tube line stages is equally absent.


...something you don't have access to(which I think bugs the hell out of you).
Naturally, we would all like to have access to the master. I have, however, compared the direct master of a Telarc recording to the result having participated in a very minor way - I was the official timer :) Even so, there are priorities that come into play with such an evaluation. I have spoken of my biases often which are based upon the type of music I favor and what I find most important - and they are very different from the mainstream pop stuff that dominates Bernie's discography.

rw

[Pat D]

Actually, it was not an in-room measurement.You'll find the following commentary in the review:

"The logistics of the magazine's relocation to New York meant that I could not perform in-room measurements in BD's listening environment, but I suspect that the MG3.6/R's behavior will be better behaved in a room."

In summation, he writes:

"As I have written before in these pages, measuring physically large speakers with in-room quasi-anechoic techniques is in some ways a fruitless task. The usual assumption, that the measuring microphone is very much farther away than the largest dimension of the speaker being measured, is clearly wrong. "

Measurements that are acknowledged to be flawed from the outset aren't particularly useful.

rw

Well, we agree on that. I have often enough told RGA he doesn't understand speaker measurements. He understands up and down and right and left, but does not understand what is being measured.

I would not say that there is anything wrong with the FR measurements, they are what they are and are shown in the graphs for the individual drivers. In a letter to Stereophile, Siegfried Linkwitz said they are valid, and he could say what they meant:

"Where things fall apart is in fig.3 when you form the complex sum of nearfield measurements and the 50" tweeter "farfield" measurement. This curve does not represent the frequency response a listener might experience at any distance and is therefore extremely misleading."

Slightly later, he explained:

"The Magneplanar is clearly not a point source and, being open-baffle, it has an acoustic short circuit between front and back. This causes a 6 dB/octave low-frequency roll-off in the farfield response. So from all open baffle nearfield measurements you have to subtract first a 6dB/octave (= 20dB/decade) slope before you can sum the data with other farfield measurements. When you apply this correction to the MG3.6 woofer response you see that it flattens from 400Hz to 60Hz and shows a peak at 47Hz. Similarly the midrange has to be corrected before you can use it for the composite response. The actual room response is still different from this composite, though, primarily due to the effect of the floor on woofer radiation. "

http://stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/303/index9.html

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I do draw a distinction between observation and subjectivity, but such requires more in the way of descriptors. Really, there are so many aspects to a recording to be preserved that such a wide and simple sweep of the brush doesn't mean much. Especially when you have no idea as to what he has used for his tube reference other than his own amp design. Not only that, it doesn't cover line level devices where the source output speaker matching issue disappears. I presume your knowledge of his exposure to tube line stages is equally absent.

No, my knowledge is not that limited, he has talked about it quite extensively. However, I cannot see the point in listing all of the things in my notes just to impress you. It is not necessary, and it does not change his or my opinion.



Naturally, we would all like to have access to the master. I have, however, compared the direct master of a Telarc recording to the result having participated in a very minor way (I was the official timer). Even so, there are priorities that come into play with such an evaluation. I have spoken of my biases often which are based upon the type of music I favor and what I find most important - and they are very different from the mainstream pop stuff that dominates Bernie's discography.

rw

I am not talking about a comparison of the master to the final result, I am talking about just listening to the master through a tube based signal path(i.e. tube pre-amp and amplifier)

The problem with your last statement is that the world does not revolve itself around your biases.

[E-Stat]

No, my knowledge is not that limited, he has talked about it quite extensively. However, I cannot see the point in listing all of the things in my notes just to impress you. It is not necessary, and it does not change his or my opinion.
Your lack of ANY detail whatsoever isn't very convincing.


I am not talking about a comparison of the master to the final result, I am talking about just listening to the master through a tube based signal path(i.e. tube pre-amp and amplifier)
We're back to your inability to tell us exactly which tube components limit your perspective.


The problem with your last statement is that the world does not revolve itself around your biases.
Such is only helpful to place observations into context. The music market world most certainly revolves around mediocrity!

rw

[Geoffcin]

Hey guys, let's keep this thread on speakers.

[E-Stat]

Hey guys, let's keep this thread on speakers.
It is an inescapable fact that speaker choice affects the resulting optimum type of amplifier. Understanding that fact has guided the selection in my three systems, Unfortunately, there are some folks who don't understand that concept - which I find to be a very critical factor for anyone's selection process (and non-compatibility).

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Your lack of ANY detail whatsoever isn't very convincing.

My lack of detail is my choice. I have played round robin with you to many times. You seem to continuously miss what I am saying. I am not here it impress or convince you, you are too dismissive to even attempt to do so.



We're back to your inability to tell us exactly which tube components limit your perspective.

It is not an inability, it is a choice. Why waste my time so you can just dismiss whatever is listed. You seem to have an excuse(or BS) for everything.



Such is only helpful to place observations into context. The music market world most certainly revolves around mediocrity!

rw

That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. I don't see the mediocrity, and I work in the industry. Just because something does not fit your taste does not make it mediocre. That is just arrogance.

My question still goes unanswered, which I am afraid it will. If the answer was given, it would make my point. Instead you are dancing around the question with irrelevant answers, which makes me understand my participation in the conversation is done.

[E-Stat]

My lack of detail is my choice. I have played round robin with you to many times. You seem to continuously miss what I am saying.
Your lack of detail defines your level of experience. Perhaps I miss your intent as I can only interpret what you write. Which is precious little beyond speculation or that which illustrates you have no clue.


It is not an inability, it is a choice.
That's what all criminals say when they take the Fifth. :)


That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it.
As is yours and Bernie's. Such does not define a truth.


I don't see the mediocrity, and I work in the industry
Ever heard of I-Tunes, Napster or Amazon.com? Low resolution online downloads represent two thirds of the market. 112M CDs (not BR) vs. 288M downloads (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070322121539.enwwmbqh&show_article=1)


My question still goes unanswered,...
I am not aware of any question of yours where I share your insecurity to answer. What again was that?

rw

[Geoffcin]

It is an inescapable fact that speaker choice affects the resulting optimum type of amplifier. Understanding that fact has guided the selection in my three systems, Unfortunately, there are some folks who don't understand that concept - which I find to be a very critical factor for anyone's selection process (and non-compatibility).

rw

While I agree with the first statement, there comes a point where it becomes obvious that your not going to make any more converts. We don't really need another thread of endless bickering.

[Mr Peabody]

I didn't realize the 3.6 had a dynamic driver. I see they now have a 12" and the review I found said it helped in the low end region quite a bit.

[E-Stat]

The only problem is that JA is guessing - they have never sounded good in room to me...They measured the speakers and they're some of the worst in existence.
I'm glad that we agree that the admittedly faulty measurements are useless.


My issue is with spending a great deal of time to measure a speaker when you KNOW at the outset that whatever the result will reflect very little back to how they sound in room. JA says this for heaven sake.
Once again we agree. He says that measuring ALL large planars is flawed using his methodology and gear.


And the speakers need to be set-up according to manufacturer recommendation. That magazine doesn't do that with any sort of consistency at all.
That is certainly possible!


My dealer has the 1.6 maggies and several other people just browsing all commented "bright and thin". They got up and left.
That is not at all the experience I had just last week when I heard them in Salt Lake City.


Everyone I know who has them or used to own them complain all the time about getting them to work in room.
Please illustrate with facts. That does not appear to be the case with the majority of users over at MUG.



And of all the demo rooms at Soundhounds the room with the 1.7 had a cd player that you could not open and put a new one in. As Terry noted - with Magnepan they like to control the music that gets played (read between the lines - if you play anything hard they'll never sell).
I heard them with a McIntosh player. Is that what you were forced to listen to?


You have not illustrated that you understand measurements - all you have done is post what someone else, Linkwitz, says and that he basically said what JA said - the measurements are not representative of the loudspeaker - but he has provided no actual measurements himself.
A smart engineer acknowledges when a test procedure lacks relevance to the real world.


He has not said that the speaker in room will be dead flat from 20hz - 20khz with zero distortion perfect phase and polar response - all he has talked about is the various problems associated with JA's measuring of the speaker. Umm got it. JA said the same thing.
What JA said was that he was NOT able to provide in room measurements and from the outset, the underlying assumption of his speaker test does NOT apply to large planars. He acknowledges the limitations of his own testing. I applaud his honesty.


I suppose I demand some actual evidence that these speakers are the bee's knees of accuracy.
As with all speakers, they are imperfect but not to the degree the predisposed erroneous test seems to suggest. You'll have to expand beyond the Julian Hirsch thing.

rw

[E-Stat]

I see they now have a 12" and the review I found said it helped in the low end region quite a bit.
You are confusing the 3.6 with something else. There are no 12" cones in any Maggie. Such would be obvious if you were to see how thin they are. Dynamic, yes. Hence the name since they use magnets to drive the mylar diaphragms.

rw

[Geoffcin]

They have never sounded good in room to me. Never - not once. Any room. My dealer sells the bloody things and is in agreement on this.

My dealer has the 1.6 maggies and several other people just browsing all commented "bright and thin". They got up and left. The ribbon brightness I just kind of accept from ribbons (since I heard the same sound from the Apogee Duetta II and later the Scintilla) - the false sense of air they put out I think I can tame - the bass is ok and the midrange a little thick. This was positioned in a room that wasn't near any wall of any kind. I actually like the 1.6 overall because for the money against most competing speakers using metal tweeters the "treble" issue is not a big deal since the others have that but don't sound as open.

And of all the demo rooms at Soundhounds the room with the 1.7 had a cd player that you could not open and put a new one in. As Terry noted - with Magnepan they like to control the music that gets played (read between the lines - if you play anything hard they'll never sell).

.

Thanks RGA!

I've just sent a copy of this post of yours to Magnepan for review. They always like to hear how their dealers are presenting their speakers, so perhaps with any luck your little dealer will not be burdened with having to sell them anymore.

I'm sure they will be very appreciative when they find out how much you've helped them with their little problem.

[Mr Peabody]

Well, I didn't think the 3.6 had a woofer so I didn't understand Lingquist's continual reference to one. Then to make matters worse, I did misread the review, the writer was merely comparing the surface area to show the large difference between the panel and a 12. What's that they say, haste makes waste :) Thanks for sending me back.

[Pat D]

PATD

You have not illustrated that you understand measurements - all you have done is post what someone else, Linkwitz, says and that he basically said what JA said - the measurements are not representative of the loudspeaker - but he has provided no actual measurements himself. He has not said that the speaker in room will be dead flat from 20hz - 20khz with zero distortion perfect phase and polar response - all he has talked about is the various problems associated with JA's measuring of the speaker. Umm got it. JA said the same thing.

I suppose I demand some actual evidence that these speakers are the bee's knees of accuracy.

The curve you have shown, Fig. 3 in JA's review is NOT a measurement but a composite. If you want FR measurements, though done differently for the bass and midrange than for the tweeter, look at Fig. 2. JA's description of the curve in Fig. 3 should be quite clear, but you missed it.

"Fig.3 Magnepan MG3.6/R, anechoic response on-axis at 50", averaged across 30 degrees horizontal window and corrected for microphone response, with the complex sum of the nearfield woofer and midrange responses plotted below 300Hz."

Linkwitz pointed this out, too, and shows the limitations of JA's usual methods when dealing with dipoles. I'll quote Linkwitz again for you, and note that he says to JA "you form the complex sum of nearfield measurements and the . . . farfield measurement."

"Where things fall apart is in fig.3 when you form the complex sum of nearfield measurements and the 50" tweeter "farfield" measurement. This curve does not represent the frequency response a listener might experience at any distance and is therefore extremely misleading."

Now, JA is not the only reviewer who has used composites of measurements of different types, which are spliced together. Julian Hirsch used to do it, too. It can work pretty well with monkey coffins such as I have, but it doesn't work with dipoles without further modifications. Linkwitz, who has no objection to composite response curves, then tells how one might do a better one when dealing with a dipole:

"The Magneplanar is clearly not a point source and, being open-baffle, it has an acoustic short circuit between front and back. This causes a 6 dB/octave low-frequency roll-off in the farfield response. So from all open baffle nearfield measurements you have to subtract first a 6dB/octave (= 20dB/decade) slope before you can sum the data with other farfield measurements. When you apply this correction to the MG3.6 woofer response you see that it flattens from 400Hz to 60Hz and shows a peak at 47Hz. Similarly the midrange has to be corrected before you can use it for the composite response. The actual room response is still different from this composite, though, primarily due to the effect of the floor on woofer radiation."

http://stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/303/index6.html

RGA added this comment:
"I suppose I demand some actual evidence that these speakers are the bee's knees of accuracy."

This is a straw man as far as I am concerned, also black and white thinking. Just because I point out that the performance of the Maggie 3.6 is not as bad as Fig. 3 looks does not by any means imply that I think the 3.6 is specially accurate. In the right set up, though, I think they should sound pretty good.

I should point out that JA has measured other dipoles, and has done room response measurements on some of them, so his guess that the 3.6 would perform better in a room is a very well-educated guess. Why don't you ask E-stat and Geoffcin what sort of room responses they get with their dipole speakers?

[Feanor]

The only problem is that JA is guessing - they [ Magneplanars ] have never sounded good in room to me. Never - not once. Any room. My dealer sells the bloody things and is in agreement on this. So JA making an assumption that they will sound good in room has zero basis in any fact. They measured the speakers and they're some of the worst in existence. Then they claim - they will sound better in a room. WTF?
...
This is nothing more of less than what you claim for Audio Notes -- don't be such a hypocrite.


...
My dealer has the 1.6 maggies and several other people just browsing all commented "bright and thin". They got up and left. The ribbon brightness I just kind of accept from ribbons (since I heard the same sound from the Apogee Duetta II and later the Scintilla) -
...
So since a lot of people like ribbons, I guess they like "bright and thin"; so that would be a matter of taste ... or maybe they prefer a more resolved, transparent, and authentic sound.


...
Still the biggest complaint with them is getting them to sound right in an actual room. Everyone I know who has them or used to own them complain all the time about getting them to work in room.
...
This is slanderous billsh!t. I for one have asserted many times that they are not hard to place if you observe a few, simple parameters -- incidentally, Audio Notes have exactly the same issue. Again, cut the hypocritical crap: you're fooling no one.


...
You can't move your heard. The speakers have such a huge noticable shift with head movements.
...
More defamatory billsh!t ... certainly not just by turning your head or inclining it a bit, which is what you implying. Moving your head (and presumably you body), couple of feet will make a difference with the quasi-ribbons, (though possibly not with the 1.7 supertweeters).
...

RGA, stop misinforming people, and stop hypocritically flogging your prefences as if they were devine revelation.

[E-Stat]

... or maybe they prefer a more resolved, transparent, and authentic sound.
The cleanest and most extended top end response I've heard outside of a live event was on Nola Grand References (having a line array of ribbon tweeters) driven by C-J and VTL electronics sourced by an EMM Labs player and Valhalla cabling. While there was incredible power and dynamic capability at the top, they were not at all *bright*. "Thin" is never a word one would attribute to that speaker. :)

rw

[RGA]

RGA added this comment:
"I suppose I demand some actual evidence that these speakers are the bee's knees of accuracy."

This is a straw man as far as I am concerned, also black and white thinking. Just because I point out that the performance of the Maggie 3.6 is not as bad as Fig. 3 looks does not by any means imply that I think the 3.6 is specially accurate. In the right set up, though, I think they should sound pretty good.

I should point out that JA has measured other dipoles, and has done room response measurements on some of them, so his guess that the 3.6 would perform better in a room is a very well-educated guess.

Actually Pat that is quite fair enough - I did not intend to create a straw man here implying that you were saying they were perfectly accurate. And I also see that because JA did test other dipoles in the past that he would resonably conclude they would do better in room. I was looking more at the sound of the Quad and the magnepan and JA was looking at the overriding technology being a dipole design and noting the issues he has measuring them. So I'll eat my dose of humble pie.

[Geoffcin]

You can send them this as well if you like. Doesn't bother me.
Soundhounds does sell the line, after all, for a reason. They do sell.

You mean they USED to sell them..... :lol:

My dealer, Lyric HiFi, sells more kit in a month than your little backwater dealer does in a decade. A good portion of which is Magnepans. Their setup there is absolulely stunning.

Oh, here's a link;

http://www.lyricusa.com/

Anytime you want to come and here some REAL HiFi gear (set up properly that is!) now you'll know where to find it.

[RGA]

You mean they USED to sell them..... :lol:

My dealer, Lyric HiFi, sells more kit in a month than your little backwater dealer does in a decade. A good portion of which is Magnepans. Their setup there is absolulely stunning.

Oh, here's a link;

http://www.lyricusa.com/

Anytime you want to come and here some REAL HiFi gear (set up properly that is!) now you'll know where to find it.

It appears we don't agree on much. First you have no idea how much gear Soundhounds sells. British Columbia is one of the most expensive places in the word to live. Victoria is in general considerably more expensive to live than most of the rest of British Columbia. Soundhounds is arguably "the" game in town. So they sell. They sold Magnepan many years back and they picked the line up again.

I am going to Sounhounds tomorrow so I will check to see if Magnepan can handle what I bring. Top Sim Audio should have enough power.

Soundhounds carries most of the top "mainstream" high end brands which is why they can afford to have opinions and why it is easy to sell - they never have to push a brand on anyone. But few ever actually ask for any advice.

B&W
Paradigm
Sonus Faber
Audio Note
Quad
Magnepan
Harbeth
Meridian
Dynaudio
Linn
REL

That is JUST the speaker line they carry in stock when I went last week. That doesn't include the brands they carry but carry to order . For instance they had Cerwin Vega CLS 215 which are ridiculous behemouths wating to be picked up.

The front end line

Audio Note
Classe
Wyatech Labs
Creek Audio
Rotel
McIntosh
Musical Fidelity
Sim Audio
Ayre Acoustics
Meridian/Soolos
Linn
Arcam
Denon
Marantz (the better Marantz)
Jolida
Antique Sound Labs
Bryston
Octave

And that's just the stuff I could see and remember.

They also have a new website which makes them look a little more posh than your link naner naner naner LOL:22:

http://www.soundhounds.com/

Though it's not complete and they say this in their forum.

[RGA]

This is slanderous billsh!t. I for one have asserted many times that they are not hard to place if you observe a few, simple parameters -- incidentally, Audio Notes have exactly the same issue. Again, cut the hypocritical crap: you're fooling no one.

How is that slander. The people I know have said their biggest problem is positioning. Unless you know who I know then I am merely repeating the subjective response of other people. If they were easy to position then they should sound quite good under show conditions and yet fans will always come up with excuses for poor sound - and the first excuse is always "the rooms" and the second "you didn't use good front end gear" - usually before I have even mentioned what the gear is or what the rooms was like.



More defamatory billsh!t ... certainly not just by turning your head or inclining it a bit, which is what you implying. Moving your head (and presumably you body), couple of feet will make a difference with the quasi-ribbons, ...

My experience has been otherwise with them. Sitting on a couch in front of the right speaker illustrates that they have a small listening window - there isn't much off axis to my ear. Sitting between the speakers is a must and when I move slightly I hear a shift. That is not defamatory it is what I hear. I feel they have a head in the vice kind of requirement. Perhaps in a bigger room sitting further back it might be alleviated.

But since I am not allowed to have an opinion on magnepan because the moderator is a fan and will tattle then I will not discuss the speaker in the future. If you don't like the speaker and you say why you don't that is slander - gotcha - I do request that you put that in forum rules - speaker discussions okay but you must love the sound of all panels or else!

[Feanor]

How is that slander. The people I know have said their biggest problem is positioning. Unless you know who I know then I am merely repeating the subjective response of other people. If they were easy to position then they should sound quite good under show conditions and yet fans will always come up with excuses for poor sound - and the first excuse is always "the rooms" and the second "you didn't use good front end gear" - usually before I have even mentioned what the gear is or what the rooms was like.
...

My experience has been otherwise with them. Sitting on a couch in front of the right speaker illustrates that they have a small listening window - there isn't much off axis to my ear. Sitting between the speakers is a must and when I move slightly I hear a shift. That is not defamatory it is what I hear. I feel they have a head in the vice kind of requirement. Perhaps in a bigger room sitting further back it might be alleviated.
BS, PhD ... bullsh!t piled higher & deeper.

[RGA]

So Feaner - anyone who hears the maggy panel different than you is wrong is that it?

How is that BS. Most loudspeaker makers and most people who buy speakers are also wrong and full of BS when they opt for dynamic coned speakers. These are all preferences based on a subjective response and I post what I hear and why I would not make the choice - but that's BS - okay gotcha. New moderators in town just gotta learn the ropes

[Feanor]

So Feaner - anyone who hears the maggy panel different than you is wrong is that it?

How is that BS. Most loudspeaker makers and most people who buy speakers are also wrong and full of BS when they opt for dynamic coned speakers. These are all preferences based on a subjective response and I post what I hear and why I would not make the choice - but that's BS - okay gotcha. New moderators in town just gotta learn the ropes
Oh, please; you hypocracy is amazing.

Revised quote: "So RGA - anyone who hears the Audio Note box different than you is wrong, is that it?"

Here's the big difference: I have never said that cone speakers are crap, but you, on the other hand, have made that assertion about panels.

Yeah, most makers opted for dynamic speaker. But I wonder why, if Audio Note speakers are so great, so few makers, (actually none), choose to copy them? The objective fact of the matter -- and dispite the hype and mystique -- is that AN speakers are extremely simple designs that any maker could copy without a difficulty or patent infringement, if they chose to do so. But they don't

[RGA]

Oh, please; you hypocracy is amazing.

Revised quote: "So RGA - anyone who hears the Audio Note box different than you is wrong, is that it?"

Here's the big difference: I have never said that cone speakers are crap, but you, on the other hand, have made that assertion about panels.

Yeah, most makers opted for dynamic speaker. But I wonder why, if Audio Note speakers are so great, so few makers, (actually none), choose to copy them? The objective fact of the matter -- and dispite the hype and mystique -- is that AN speakers are extremely simple designs that any maker could copy without a difficulty or patent infringement, if they chose to do so. But they don't


I chose the King Sound panel as one of the best rooms I heard at CES and Martin Logan was very close. I also very much like the Quad 2905. Contrary to what view. I have illustrated that in fact I like panels - at least some panels - just as I like some boxed speakers.

As for Audio Note and who copies them - well Audio Note copied Snell - Snell copied L.L. Beranek. I am not sure I understand the logic of copying. Since you can buy a kit and build it yourself a second company would have to start building them and undercut Audio Note - since msot companies are interested in appearance it's not exactly something to copy. And then you also have to copy it and make it better. I do not see too many people copying magnepan either but that does not mean that magnepan is "bad" it means that a company is better off producing their own stuff and differentiating themselves from the rest of the field.

[Geoffcin]

It appears we don't agree on much. First you have no idea how much gear Soundhounds sells. British Columbia is one of the most expensive places in the word to live. Victoria is in general considerably more expensive to live than most of the rest of British Columbia. Soundhounds is arguably "the" game in town. So they sell. They sold Magnepan many years back and they picked the line up again.

Though it's not complete and they say this in their forum.

Your little island has a total economic product similar to some of the smaller towns in the outlying suburbs of NY. To compare it's wealth to Manhattan, or the NY region?! I think not.

[jpaik]

Eventually, multi-page "conversations" with RGA inevitably end with readers' eyes glazing over, and participants' heads exploding. Not pretty.

[Geoffcin]

But since I am not allowed to have an opinion on magnepan because the moderator is a fan and will tattle then I will not discuss the speaker in the future. If you don't like the speaker and you say why you don't that is slander - gotcha - I do request that you put that in forum rules - speaker discussions okay but you must love the sound of all panels or else!

Now this has risen to the level of slander (actually libel since it's in written form).

Since when has anyone supressed your opinions here? Your can be sure we've disagreed you on just about every point you've made but please show me where your opinions have been surpressed. Can't find one example eh? That's becasue NOWHERE has anyone moderated ANY of your posts for content, OR deleted any posts EVER?! The ONLY one who has deleted your posts has been YOU. Perhaps you think by deleting them that someone else will think that a mod did it? Was that the reason? Very poor behavior on your part, very bad indeed.

[Feanor]

I chose the King Sound panel as one of the best rooms I heard at CES and Martin Logan was very close. I also very much like the Quad 2905. Contrary to what view. I have illustrated that in fact I like panels - at least some panels - just as I like some boxed speakers.

As for Audio Note and who copies them - well Audio Note copied Snell - Snell copied L.L. Beranek. I am not sure I understand the logic of copying. Since you can buy a kit and build it yourself a second company would have to start building them and undercut Audio Note - since msot companies are interested in appearance it's not exactly something to copy. And then you also have to copy it and make it better. I do not see too many people copying magnepan either but that does not mean that magnepan is "bad" it means that a company is better off producing their own stuff and differentiating themselves from the rest of the field.
Yes, you have praised the King Sound on occassion and it's a panel; I must concede that. In the post you deleted :hand: , you did seems to condemn ribbons unreservedly, but not all panels are ribbons nor all ribbons panels.

My point about copying, (emulating, or whatever), AN speakers is simply that it could be easily be done. Any why not if if were workth doing? It's not like ANs are all that cheap: somebody could rip them off at a much lower price, lower even than the kits.

See the sophisticated AN/E innards ...

http://www.audionotekits.com/_images/SpeakerParts1.jpg

[Geoffcin]

Yes, you have praised the King Sound on occassion and it's a panel; I must concede that. In the post you deleted :hand: , you did seems to condemn ribbons unreservedly, but not all panels are ribbons nor all ribbons panels.

My point about copying, (emulating, or whatever), AN speakers is simply that it could be easily be done. Any why not if if were workth doing? It's not like ANs are all that cheap: somebody could rip them off at a much lower price, lower even than the kits.

See the sophisticated AN/E innards ...

http://www.audionotekits.com/_images/SpeakerParts1.jpg


This is interesting. Do you think you could put together a list with prices? I really would like to see what it would cost.

[E-Stat]

See the sophisticated AN/E innards ...
A contemporary Advent.

rw

[Geoffcin]

A contemporary Advent.

rw

I'm glad you said contemporary! Henry Kloss would be rolling over in his grave if you called an thin walled un-damped cabinet with a hole in it his kinda speaker.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Yes, you have praised the King Sound on occassion and it's a panel; I must concede that. In the post you deleted :hand: , you did seems to condemn ribbons unreservedly, but not all panels are ribbons nor all ribbons panels.

My point about copying, (emulating, or whatever), AN speakers is simply that it could be easily be done. Any why not if if were workth doing? It's not like ANs are all that cheap: somebody could rip them off at a much lower price, lower even than the kits.

See the sophisticated AN/E innards ...

http://www.audionotekits.com/_images/SpeakerParts1.jpg

Ouch!

[mlsstl]

I just want to thank everyone for reminding me why I don't post much around here....

Whew.

[E-Stat]

I'm glad you said contemporary! Henry Kloss would be rolling over in his grave if you called an thin walled un-damped cabinet with a hole in it his kinda speaker.
Well, I find there's a lot to like about the coherency of a nicely balanced two way. While most you find today use six to seven inch woofers, AN goes a touch bigger to make it full range. Which is similar to what Henry did with his high excursion ten incher in a twelve inch basket albeit with a different design. I confess that I'm not a big fan of stuffing speakers in a corner.

rw

[Mr Peabody]

RGA, as Sound Hounds carry both Sonus Faber and Dynaudio have you heard them enough to describe any difference? And, did you get a chance to hear the Octave? I was impressed but it was driving Confidence 1's, quite a load for a 40 watt amp. it did a formidable job though. I would still choose a more efficient speaker myself.

[Pat D]

Actually Pat that is quite fair enough - I did not intend to create a straw man here implying that you were saying they were perfectly accurate. And I also see that because JA did test other dipoles in the past that he would resonably conclude they would do better in room. I was looking more at the sound of the Quad and the magnepan and JA was looking at the overriding technology being a dipole design and noting the issues he has measuring them. So I'll eat my dose of humble pie.
:cool:

[Geoffcin]

Well, I find there's a lot to like about the coherency of a nicely balanced two way.
rw

Actually my favorite speaker design after planars is a quality 2-way monitor. I currently have three different vintage examples of this design. The KLH Model 6, EPI 100, and the EPI 180, which is similar to a "stacked" 2-way array in one box. I also use the modest sized 2-way JM Labs Micron Carats in my computer rig. Anyone who thinks I'm a one-type-of-speaker guy is mistaken!

[RGA]

Yes, you have praised the King Sound on occassion and it's a panel; I must concede that. In the post you deleted :hand: , you did seems to condemn ribbons unreservedly, but not all panels are ribbons nor all ribbons panels.

My point about copying, (emulating, or whatever), AN speakers is simply that it could be easily be done. Any why not if if were workth doing? It's not like ANs are all that cheap: somebody could rip them off at a much lower price, lower even than the kits.

See the sophisticated AN/E innards ...

http://www.audionotekits.com/_images/SpeakerParts1.jpg

Feaner

If you can try to listen to an AN Kit speaker - essentially a kit is exactly as you describe - a put your own version together - AN gives you the drivers and the parts. Take the best kit builder you know - or the best engineer you know and have him build it. Then side by side compare it to the finished product.

If there is an AN product that I have heard that didn't do it for me it was an Audio Note kit E speaker. Lot's of people think it's easy - but it's not.

Also if you are ever in Victoria you can have a conversation about this issue with Terry. It might interest you to know that Boston Acoustics also holds the rights on the original Snell Speakers. And now Denon owns the rights. But despite the fact that the BA owner liked the AN speakers more than his own offering he concluded that with their looks in today's market they would not be able to sell them in large enough quantities. Boston is now a different company so you never know - eventually a less expensive version may crop up in Japan.

The trick is that the company that tries to copy needs to be able to get the drivers, they have to have the necessary machines and programs to match the drivers - each one is hand matched and each one has the specifications to model number. And it is that process that AN has that a kit builder doesn't and to what I heard that is the whole ball game. The AN E Kit is a deader sounding product - based on the one sample I have heard. A different kit builder may do better.

There is not much to a lot of speakers and if you start pulling stuff apart and looking at parts and design nothing out there can't be copied. Even with Audio Note they talk about cabinet dimensions a lot but really AN gives that information away for FREE - you can download that off several of their sites. You can get Peter to tell you the model number of the woofer and tweeter that was used before they modded it. You can get the wiring and cap values.

In other words they are happy to give anyone all the information needed for almost everything they make. Even the Ongaku - you can get that amp's entire schematic and build your own. I wish more companies would give that info away - but you open yourself up to attack when they find out how much the parts cost when you look under the hood.

But looking at parts is a dangerous game. The parts inside one AN E kit versus the parts used for upper models look entirely different. The boxes look the same as you go up the parts quality dramatically changes.

[RGA]

Now this has risen to the level of slander (actually libel since it's in written form).

Since when has anyone supressed your opinions here? Your can be sure we've disagreed you on just about every point you've made but please show me where your opinions have been surpressed. Can't find one example eh? That's becasue NOWHERE has anyone moderated ANY of your posts for content, OR deleted any posts EVER?! The ONLY one who has deleted your posts has been YOU. Perhaps you think by deleting them that someone else will think that a mod did it? Was that the reason? Very poor behavior on your part, very bad indeed.

Umm some of my posts have been half deleted - some in response to tah. I went back and deleted the whole thing if it is going to be deleted in part.

post number 75 was edited for content and another one was edited and I elected to delete it so saying it never ever happens is not correct. http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=34376&page=3

I delete my posts if I feel after reading them I was being insulting - sometimes I catch myself fast enough and sometimes I don't. People seemed to get overly worked up about my opinions on a speaker so I deleted them to preserve the peace. damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[Geoffcin]

Umm some of my posts have been half deleted - some in response to tah. I went back and deleted the whole thing if it is going to be deleted in part.

post number 75 was edited for content and another one was edited and I elected to delete it so saying it never ever happens is not correct. http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=34376&page=3

I delete my posts if I feel after reading them I was being insulting - sometimes I catch myself fast enough and sometimes I don't. People seemed to get overly worked up about my opinions on a speaker so I deleted them to preserve the peace. damned if you do and damned if you don't.

You know that's not what I meant. Obviously your posts are not inviolable, and I can only speak for my own use of the mod function. However, your assertion that in some way your posts in this thread were suppressed by a mod (me) are false. If you've deleted your own posts in order to remove insulting remarks I am fine with that.

[GMichael]

I just want to thank everyone for reminding me why I don't post much around here....

Whew.
Pull up a chair and have some popcorn. The show will be resuming shortly. Got any beer?

[Feanor]

Feaner

If you can try to listen to an AN Kit speaker - essentially a kit is exactly as you describe - a put your own version together - AN gives you the drivers and the parts. Take the best kit builder you know - or the best engineer you know and have him build it. Then side by side compare it to the finished product.

If there is an AN product that I have heard that didn't do it for me it was an Audio Note kit E speaker. Lot's of people think it's easy - but it's not.
...
I haven't heard any AN but certainly I'd like to. The most likely opportunity would be Toronto where there's a dealer, (Toronto Home of Audiophile (http://thoaudiophile.com/)), but I don't even get to TO very often, much less Victoria.

AN has a bewildering number of options for each product model, not the least the least for the AN-E. Even the kits run from US$1550 to $7000 plus $950 for Russian birch cabinets. The picture I showed above was for the $1550, Kit 02, model. The $7k model, (here (http://www.audionotekits.com/speakerkit04.html)), obviously has some exotic and doubtless costly drivers -- but note that the crossover is still a simple 2nd order.

The thing that we can say about the AN designs, apart from some exotic materials in some models, is that they are extremely simple in fundamental design.

On the face of it $1550 is exorbitant for the Kit 02. The drivers strongly resemble Seas Prestige series, (mid-range), drivers. A pair of CA22RNX paper cone woofers (https://www.madisound.com/store/product_info.php?cPath=45_228_257&products_id=1600)would be under $200; a pair of 27TDFC soft dome tweeters (https://www.madisound.com/store/product_info.php?cPath=45_229_324&products_id=792) under $90. The simple crossover would scarcely exceed with $100 with mid-quality capacitors of which there are only two per side. Add hardware and damping material for say $50. As for the cabinets, birch plywood, (but maybe not Baltic), would run maybe $120 -- if you settled for MDF more like $30!

... but oh! I forgot: there's the AN voodoo you're paying for.

[Geoffcin]

The thing that we can say about the AN designs, apart from some exotic materials in some models, is that they are extremely simple in fundamental design.

On the face of it $1550 is exorbitant for the Kit 02. The drivers strongly resemble Seas Prestige series, (mid-range), drivers. A pair of CA22RNX paper cone woofers (https://www.madisound.com/store/product_info.php?cPath=45_228_257&products_id=1600)would be under $200; a pair of 27TDFC soft dome tweeters (https://www.madisound.com/store/product_info.php?cPath=45_229_324&products_id=792) under $90. The simple crossover would scarcely exceed with $100 with mid-quality capacitors of which there are only two per side. Add hardware and damping material for say $50. As for the cabinets, birch plywood, (but maybe not Baltic), would run maybe $120 -- if you settled for MDF more like $30!

... but oh! I forgot: there's the AN voodoo you're paying for.

So your saying that you could source with similar drivers, and build an ANe clone for about $500, and AN charges $1500 for the cheapest kit?!

For about $1500 I could switch out the mid-level tweeters in the AN kit for the top-of-the-line ScanSpeak Revelator tweeter http://www.madisound.com/store/product_info.php?products_id=1581 and a matching Revelator woofer. https://www.madisound.com/store/product_info.php?cPath=45_228_257&products_id=949 and STILL have money left over to a top quality crossover and box.

Wow, they even sell a kit that nearly matches;

https://www.madisound.com/store/product_info.php?products_id=8591

[Feanor]

So your saying that you could source with similar drivers, and build an ANe clone for about $500, and AN charges $1500 for the cheapest kit?!

For about $1500 I could switch out the mid-level tweeters in the AN kit for the top-of-the-line ScanSpeak Revelator tweeter http://www.madisound.com/store/product_info.php?products_id=1581 and a matching Revelator woofer. https://www.madisound.com/store/product_info.php?cPath=45_228_257&products_id=949 and STILL have money left over to a top quality crossover and box.

Wow, they even sell a kit that nearly matches;

https://www.madisound.com/store/product_info.php?products_id=8591
Well that's pretty much what I'm saying. But then again ...

RGA scarcely needs anyone to speak for him, but he'll likely say that AN has closely tuned their under-braced plywood cabinet to resonate in just the right way to tweak the efficiency and overall sound of their designs, and that it is reasonable on their part to ask to be compensated for this development.

The question remains whether the AN "voodoo" is really necessary or as effective as it's claimed to be. A real AN "clone" would need to have the under-braced, lightly-stuff cabinet and the wider baffle. Also, it would need a crossover designed for near-wall placement -- but, it anything, that's easier because it omits "baffle shelf compensation"; the wider baffle helps with this too.

My amateur guess is that the AN crossovers are deficient in that they don't include a circuit to suppress resonances that many woofers have above their appropriate ranges, (this would be the case with the CA22RNX driver). Of course careful driver selection would mitigate this.

If I were designing a speaker to emulate the AN -- by which I mean mainly near-wall placement -- I'd try the following:

Retain the wide baffle
Omit baffle shelf compensation in the crossover
Include woofer resonance surpression
Select a lower xover point vs. the 2000 Hz of the AN, maybe 1500 Hz or lower, (but still 2x the FS of the tweeter)
Choose a higher order xover, maybe 4th order.
Build an MDF rather than plywood cabinet since it is easier to work plus less resonant and therefore of more predictable result without a lot of tweaking.

[RGA]

Feanor

There is a saying that goes a long the lines that a product can be more than the sum of their parts.

When you look at most speakers and break it down to parts it does not equal the cost of the product - if you want to call out AN that's fine but you'll have to call out your own magnepans and other speakers - The guy at Soundhounds repairs magnepans - and every other speaker on the market - he bought Audio Note - you want to know the cost of the parts inside speakers you will be surprised that AN does very very well compared to most (and better than everything that Soundhounds sells) - so while it's nice to say it looks inexpensive - the rest of the stuff at soundhounds is even LESS expensive or has an even lower ratio than the AN E- so if the AN E looks cheap heaven help the rest of the stuff they carry. Peter operates on a cost to retail price of around 3:1 - My $300 B&W was pulled apart and had less than $30 in parts including the cabinet. 3:1 versus 10:1 And that grows worse the higher up the models.


They have tried MDF - but they don't sound good. The original Snell were chipboard and the early AN speakers were chipboard. They have been experimenting with every kind of wood (that make sense).

The comment about simple is I think fair. Everything they design is in some respects "simple" SET is simple - one of their amps is very probably the simplest amplifier that can be made with 2 stages. Their CD players are simple - there's barely anything inside.

AN speakers are slightly damped with carted sheep's wool.

At the end of the day it's still a business they have to make a profit to keep going as well. I think it's good that Peter has his roots in the kits and believes in increasing the knowledge base of users. But he like anyone else has employees - British paid union employees not slaves in China.

Musical instruments can go from $80 for a guitar to thousands - looking at them I don't see the money. Feeling them I get a better sense - listening to them it's obvious.

The issue is that people can look at graphs and they can look at the parts and draw conclusions - or they can listen. I know which one I choose to do. The AN's "magic" is in the cabinet, and the matching process and they would argue the cabling. Art Dudley's version of the E IMO probably represents the sweetspot in terms of bang for the dollar. Medium sized rooms easy enough to drive. Still I went to CES and heard mega systems - I didn't hear anything better than the $51k AN room. I may be biased but a lot of others felt the same way. I would have the big Acapella system and the Trenner and Freidl next. Trenner was also not using very expensive front end kit at times and so it might have ranked first spot - it certainly did for impact.

But back to parts - Once you start getting into high prices people seem to immediately look at drivers. Well one could buy a Cerwin Vega CLS 215 which is Huge - lots of cabinet - big huge 15 inch drivers with pink surrounds a mid and horn tweeter - nice connectors on the back - something like $450 on line. More drivers bigger drivers, more cabinet, weighs a bit. Must be more expensive. Take Burr Brown - they used to have a price list of their DAC chips. .60 for a cheap one and $1.80 for the top of the line most expensive ones. You buy a CD player for $600 and the top model would charge $2000 - Arcam did this - same exact transport and parts but a better DAC. The Movie The Corporation noted that Alpine Decks were made for $0.61 - they sell for $200. Alpine is often viewed as making the better budget car decks. So Sony and JVC and Pioneer probably cost half that to make.

And frankly the whole cost thing has been done to death. I buy based on the end result of what I hear. If AN can make a vastly better sounding product that costs them half what a competitor is using then good for them.

Stereophile

"A note on value: Just a short while ago, I saw a thread on AudioAsylum.com suggesting that Audio Note loudspeakers must be wildly overpriced, given their very plain appearance in comparison with most other expensive speakers. One savant noted the E's lack of a grille: a notorious scheme for cost-cutting by devious manufacturers, he said. I felt as if I'd stepped into a world where an expensive car would be criticized for lacking low-profile wheels, a rear-view videocam, a spoiler, and a fancy paint job—until it occurred to me that I'd never left that world in the first place. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

A product such as this confounds a mindset such as that. In addition to the happy prospect of buying a thing that sells for less than its predecessor and sounds at least as good, the latest version of the Audio Note AN-E/SPe HE offers the kind of performance that simply must be heard to be understood: more music than sound. Like its stablemates, the AN-E/SPe HE is not the sort of audio product that prompts its new owner to pull special record after special record off the shelves just to hear the bass depth on this one, the imaging specificity on that. Rather, the SPe HE is the sort of thing that will compel you to play every record you own, all the way through, without interruption—arguably because it does a better job than most of really connecting the listener with the dramatic, intellectual, and emotional intensities captured in every groove. I can't recommend it strongly enough.—Art Dudley

Frankly the E has gotten too much yak yak in this thread so you either audition it or you don't. If you are in New York then the best place to audition is Amherst Audio in Boston. Is that driveable? The Ontario dealer does not have a good listening space nor does he have the equipment - nor for that matter does he have current gear.

Bob Neil is the guy to talk to. http://www.amherstaudio.com/

[RGA]

So your saying that you could source with similar drivers, and build an ANe clone for about $500, and AN charges $1500 for the cheapest kit?!

For about $1500 I could switch out the mid-level tweeters in the AN kit for the top-of-the-line ScanSpeak Revelator tweeter http://www.madisound.com/store/product_info.php?products_id=1581 and a matching Revelator woofer. https://www.madisound.com/store/product_info.php?cPath=45_228_257&products_id=949 and STILL have money left over to a top quality crossover and box.

Wow, they even sell a kit that nearly matches;
https://www.madisound.com/store/product_info.php?products_id=8591

It's worse - the AN Kit does not include the cabinet. They will send you the cabinets for $950 but that's an optional extra.

[Geoffcin]

Well that's pretty much what I'm saying. But then again ...

RGA scarcely needs anyone to speak for him, but he'll likely say that AN has closely tuned their under-braced plywood cabinet to resonate in just the right way to tweak the efficiency and overall sound of their designs, and that it is reasonable on their part to ask to be compensated for this development.

.[/LIST]

I would say it's reasonable if they did any of the development themselves, but the design dates back to the work of late Peter Snell. It's interesting to note that the Snell type E had a rear firing tweeter in addition to the front. Can anyone say di-pole?(actually bi-pole) Even more remarkable is that the older Snell type E measured BETTER than it's two lettered imposter.

http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/1091snell/index4.html

I expect it sounded better too.

[Geoffcin]

It's worse - the AN Kit does not include the cabinet. They will send you the cabinets for $950 but that's an optional extra.

And how are they going to justify the "matching" cabinet cost when it's obvious that the one thing they can claim, the "tweaking" of all the parameters of the build cannot be done on a kit before hand?

[Geoffcin]

Well here's something funny; After reading the review of the Snell E on Stereophile I'm digging on these speakers! Probably my penchant for funky "New England" sound speakers coming through. I'l have to add this to my list right after I find my minty pair of AR3a's

[theaudiohobby]

I would say it's reasonable if they did any of the development themselves, but the design dates back to the work of late Peter Snell. It's interesting to note that the Snell type E had a rear firing tweeter in addition to the front. Can anyone say di-pole?(actually bi-pole) Even more remarkable is that the older Snell type E measured BETTER than it's two lettered imposter.

http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/1091snell/index4.html

I expect it sounded better too.That's the price of progress :crazy: , What I find most amazing is how the differences in the measurements of the two designs validate Hoffman's law, the Audio Note E sacrifices bass output of the original design to achieve 1.5dB increase in senstivity. That said, given the popularity of the speaker state-side, it would seem that Audio Note made the right call, afterall the reports from the California Audio Show have many listeners raving about it's transparency, tight and 'extended' bass. The whole episode speaks volumes about the inability of many seasoned audio enthusiasts to determine a neutral sounding speaker. I suppose folks should remember that the maxim goes "If it sounds good, it is good" rather than "If it sounds good, it is accurate and good". :)

[RGA]

I would say it's reasonable if they did any of the development themselves, but the design dates back to the work of late Peter Snell. It's interesting to note that the Snell type E had a rear firing tweeter in addition to the front. Can anyone say di-pole?(actually bi-pole) Even more remarkable is that the older Snell type E measured BETTER than it's two lettered imposter.

http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/1091snell/index4.html

I expect it sounded better too.

expecting things to sound better and actually bothering to audition them are different - well to me anyway. Peter and Peter were very close friends. Partly why Peter Q has the rights to the line. That does not mean that they agreed on everything. Part of the reason the AN E is not the same as the Snell E - quite a lot of things different really. All of the parts and cabinet material, the fact that one is corner loaded the other isn't with different port dimensions. Snell didn't invent the cabinet dimensions either. Snell came up with the Wave Launch and part of the matching process. The progression has gone on for years.

Good luck:6:

[RGA]

And how are they going to justify the "matching" cabinet cost when it's obvious that the one thing they can claim, the "tweaking" of all the parameters of the build cannot be done on a kit before hand?

Peter mentions this on the site. You are not getting the matching process when you buy the kit - and he says it's highly doubtful you will be able to equal the sound of the production units. So you are not getting a speaker in the kit that is as good - but then you're also paying less than half the price - so it's up to you. People have free will to make their choice. My choice would be not to buy a Kit E. The other kits fine but not the speaker kit. Now if I was not comparing the Kit E to the production Kit and I was just comparing the Kit E to other $3-$5k production speakers it is still good - but it doesn't get me raving up and down.

Cheers,

[Geoffcin]

Peter mentions this on the site. You are not getting the matching process when you buy the kit - and he says it's highly doubtful you will be able to equal the sound of the production units. So you are not getting a speaker in the kit that is as good - but then you're also paying less than half the price - so it's up to you. People have free will to make their choice. My choice would be not to buy a Kit E. The other kits fine but not the speaker kit. Now if I was not comparing the Kit E to the production Kit and I was just comparing the Kit E to other $3-$5k production speakers it is still good - but it doesn't get me raving up and down.

Cheers,

I don't believe a word of it. It's a classic case of voodoo. Of course your the happiest of cool-aid drinkers so you'll never see the truth of this.

[Geoffcin]

expecting things to sound better and actually bothering to audition them are different - well to me anyway. Peter and Peter were very close friends. Partly why Peter Q has the rights to the line. That does not mean that they agreed on everything. Part of the reason the AN E is not the same as the Snell E - quite a lot of things different really. All of the parts and cabinet material, the fact that one is corner loaded the other isn't with different port dimensions. Snell didn't invent the cabinet dimensions either. Snell came up with the Wave Launch and part of the matching process. The progression has gone on for years.

Good luck:6:

The plans were not passed because they were friends, because Mr Snell died suddenly and the company passed directly to his business partner. If anything the plans were copied and the rear tweeter deleted so as not to arouse suspicion, or more crassly, to save a buck.

The Snell E sold for about a grand and was probably worth it. I can't see anything in the modern copy that would make me think it would be worth any more. In fact without the rear firing tweeter it should cost LESS to produce.

[Feanor]

I don't believe a word of it. It's a classic case of voodoo. Of course your the happiest of cool-aid drinkers so you'll never see the truth of this.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

But surely not: RGA says he's an atheist.

[E-Stat]

Since you talked about being "educated" and how things need to be kept in check around here with this quote:

"This site is not that bad. It is just that folks here are educated enough that you just cannot say anything and get away with it. You got to know your stuff, or you will get checked. Nothing wrong with that, it keeps the integrity of the site intact, and keeps the misinformation to a minimum."
<!-- / message --> <!-- sig --> __________________
Sir Terrence


While that comment was said in context with movies and home theatre about which he is eminently qualified, it certainly applies here, too. Indeed, calling someone's hand over conflicting comments or a lack of substantiation does keep misinformation to a minimum. We see how he responds to getting "checked". :)

"it is none of your damn business" (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=338927&postcount=107)

"it quite frankly is none of your business (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=320677&postcount=188)

rw

[RGA]

Feanor and Geofcin

I enjoyed reading your perspectives. Good luck with that.

.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

While that comment was said in context with movies and home theatre about which he is eminently qualified, it certainly applies here, too. Indeed, calling someone's hand over conflicting comments or a lack of substantiation does keep misinformation to a minimum. We see how he responds to getting "checked". :)

"it is none of your damn business" (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=338927&postcount=107)

"it quite frankly is none of your business (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=320677&postcount=188)

rw

If that "checked" comes from you, don't hold your breath for any response. ;)

Both responses were certainly applicable to the topic at hand, which had nothing to do with my equipment at all.

[E-Stat]

... which had nothing to do with my equipment at all.
I don't understand the fixation you have with your equipment. Is your opinion limited to only hearing it? This is now the third or fourth time you've pursued that tangent. The question has to do with supporting your opinion on tube gear as supported by that which you've heard - in any familiar environment. Take your pick. You continually demonstrate that such experience is completely absent.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I don't understand the fixation you have with your equipment. Is your opinion limited to only hearing it? This is now the third or fourth time you've pursued that tangent. The question has to do with supporting your opinion on tube gear as supported by that which you've heard - in any familiar environment. Take your pick. You continually demonstrate that such experience is completely absent.

rw

I seems to me that YOU have this fixation not me. I have had to tell you twice that my equipment it is not the topic at hand, and I have had to say this in more than one thread. So I think you have this twisted.

Secondly, I work with quite a few audio engineers that just happen to be audiophiles as well, so I have heard various types of equipment handling both analog and digital formats.

You have over and over claimed that my experience is limited when it comes to tube equipment, yet there is no facts to support this opinion - you are making it up, and repeating it over and over as if it will suddenly become truth. An assumption is an assumption no matter how many times you repeat that assumption.

In dealing with you Ralph, you have demonstrated over and over a dismissive character when one lists specifics. When I told you that I had heard the entire line of Nordost's cables, you responded as if I was foolish to do so, but never acknowledged that it was smart to educated myself on the sound throughout their entire line. When I stated the wire I ultimately choose was a custom made wire, you made a statement to the effect that is could not be as good as the Nordost, even though you have never heard it. When I gave specifics on my amps, you denegraded them, without even so much as a listen. So you can see after this, I have no interest or motivation to discuss specifics with you ever again. Sometimes ones actions can do more to dissaude gaining specifics when the response is dissmissive, or continously denegrading. You have exibited both.

[E-Stat]

I have had to tell you twice that my equipment it is not the topic at hand...
It never has been.


You have over and over claimed that my experience is limited when it comes to tube equipment, yet there is no facts to support this opinion
Why is it you always take the Fifth when asked that simple question?


When I told you that I had heard the entire line of Nordost's cables, you responded as if I was foolish to do so, but never acknowledged that it was smart to educated myself on the sound throughout their entire line.
Did you really burn in and try all fourteen models in your system? How did Valhalla compare with Tyr? And ended up with - none of them? The generic stuff was better than Odin? Really? FYI, while I appreciate Nordost, I don't own any myself. And I use some Blue Jeans cable in the garage system and purchased and terminated some bulk Belden 89259 for the office computer/house system since I needed about ten meters.



When I stated the wire I ultimately choose was a custom made wire, you made a statement to the effect that is could not be as good as the Nordost, even though you have never heard it.
If you recall, I asked what it was. What are its metrics? You just won't find generic cable that has a super low dielectric constant. Again, you take the Fifth every time. No substance at all.


When I gave specifics on my amps, you denegraded them, without even so much as a listen.
Onkyo is not exactly known for state of the art gear and they only make a mid-fi amplifier today (like my NAD). If they were so wonderful, why modify them? Are they as good as the new Bryston 28B (which itself is a far better amp than previous models from them)?


So you can see after this, I have no interest or motivation to discuss specifics with you ever again.
The relevancy of your assertion about the superior accuracy of SS over tubes is directly proportional to your demonstrated exposure. Which is absent. Very few of us (certainly not I) have truly state of the art systems. But then you claim that with your millions of dollars of investment, you know THE answer - yet have no idea about what is really available on the market. That is sad if you truly love musical reproduction.

rw

[Geoffcin]

Speakers guys, were in speakers forum here!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It never has been.

Great, I am sure you will stop asking the question in further discussions.


Why is it you always take the Fifth when asked that simple question?

Because a detailed list of equipment I have heard has never been the basis of stating something you have observed over a long period of time. If it was, then almost nobody here would be able to discuss anything. I have never seen you are anyone else ask somebody for a specific list of what they have heard as a basis of respecting an observation. If you are not going to ask everyone to do this, then you should not ask me. I do have a right to respond as I please just like you do.



Did you really burn in and try all fourteen models in your system? How did Valhalla compare with Tyr? And ended up with - none of them? The generic stuff was better than Odin? Really? FYI, while I appreciate Nordost, I don't own any myself.

Yes all of the cables were burned in before they got to my studio. I do not have my notes in front of me, so I cannot tell you what my observation between cables are. I don't keep this information once I have made my decision, and I see no purpose in doing so since I am not going to buy any new cables anytime soon.




If you recall, I asked what it was. What are its metrics? You just won't find generic cable that has a super low dielectric constant. Again, you take the Fifth every time. No substance at all.

I don't care what the metrics are, that is not my area of expertise, and I was not interested in that at all. All I cared about was how good they sounded, and how much they cost. I said this before, and now I have to say it again.



Onkyo is not exactly known for state of the art gear and they only make a mid-fi amplifier today (like my NAD). If they were so wonderful, why modify them? Are they as good as the new Bryston 28B (which itself is a far better amp than previous models from them)?

My amp was not purchased today, is not consider mid fi by anyone I know (except you as an off handed insult), and was not a big seller here like it was in Japan. You modify something not because it was bad or poor in the first place, but because you know you can get more from the design than it already has.

The answer to the last question is no. But let's face it, not a lot of amps are.



The relevancy of your assertion about the superior accuracy of SS over tubes is directly proportional to your demonstrated exposure. Which is absent. Very few of us (certainly not I) have truly state of the art systems. But then you claim that with your millions of dollars of investment, you know THE answer - yet have no idea about what is really available on the market. That is sad if you truly love musical reproduction.

More stupid assumptions, damn give me a break and say something you know for damn sure!!!!!

[Geoffcin]

AMPS, CABLES, TUBES? Not for this thread.

Got a personal beef?

Take it to the Steel Cage.

[astrallite]

Beaming can be fixed using 3-way design right? Say a 6-8" woofer, a 2-4" midrange driver to compliment the tweeter.

For example, NHT Classic 3 uses a midrange driver, Energy Veritas v2.2, and the Revel Ultima Gem2. All 3 have shown almost ruler-flat frequency response out to 12k even at very wide horizontal angles (>45 degrees).

[Pat D]

Beaming can be fixed using 3-way design right? Say a 6-8" woofer, a 2-4" midrange driver to compliment the tweeter.

For example, NHT Classic 3 uses a midrange driver, Energy Veritas v2.2, and the Revel Ultima Gem2. All 3 have shown almost ruler-flat frequency response out to 12k even at very wide horizontal angles (>45 degrees).

45 degrees? Paul Barton long ago said that after the direct response, his greatest concern was the first reflections off the side walls. Hence, he put great emphasis on the far off axis response, 60-75 degrees off axis.

http://stereophile.com/interviews/231/index2.html

[astrallite]

45 degrees? Paul Barton long ago said that after the direct response, his greatest concern was the first reflections off the side walls. Hence, he put great emphasis on the far off axis response, 60-75 degrees off axis.

http://stereophile.com/interviews/231/index2.html

Yeah that's why there's a greater than (>) sign in front of 45. It's a mathematical symbol in case you didn't know.