Well, whaddaya know! [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Well, whaddaya know!



RoyY51
08-03-2012, 01:55 PM
Last November, I posted an excerpt from a review by Michael Fremer of Stereophile that seemed to generate much spirited conversation among the Audio Review regulars. The discussion soon degenerated into two camps: "$4200 is too much to pay for a mid-level amplifier" and "$4200 is not too much to pay for a mid-level amplifier". I would now like to quote Art Dudley from the new issue of Stereophile:

"People who lack our enthusiasm for recorded music and exceptional playback gear delight in criticizing high-end audio as fraudulent. I don't share that point of view. We are crippled not so much by fraud as by a bit of greed, a bit of sloppy, cost-ineffective engineering, and a lack of willingness on the part of all of us to speak up and say, 'I'm sorry, but an interconnect is not, under any conditions, worth as much as a new car.' For me, that lack of willingness ends today." He also states; "It's time to call bullshjt on $30,000 amplifiers that would be priced to sell for $10,000 tops, if not for their massive, jewelry-like casework."

It's heartening to me to see a reviewer from the same mag as Fremer take a stand against greed. I'll be curious to see how this goes over with some of Stereophile's big-bucks advertisers.

Your thoughts?

JoeE SP9
08-03-2012, 07:16 PM
I've always though very highly of Art Dudley.

I for one would be quite interested in a "megabuck" amplifier in "plain Jane" casework. Buying audio jewelry has never really appealed to me.

I too have wondered how they justify cables that cost more than a good amplifier. Am I missing something?

A good example of this is Stratos amplifiers. They are repackaged Symphonic Line. The price is very different.

tube fan
08-03-2012, 08:27 PM
For God's sake, we need just a few blind listening tests to expose these extremely expensive units as consumer fraud.

markw
08-04-2012, 07:08 AM
For God's sake, we need just a few blind listening tests to expose these extremely expensive units as consumer fraud.Many "audiophiles" don't believe in blind tests. They always find fault with the methodology, particularly when they don't show any audiable difference.

JoeE SP9
08-04-2012, 07:10 AM
Charging more than something is worth does not qualify as fraud. It doesn't however say much for the purchaser.

Making unfounded claims does qualify as fraud. To my knowledge none of the overpriced "audio jewelry" manufacturers make any fraudulent claims.

tube fan
08-04-2012, 08:11 AM
Charging more than something is worth does not qualify as fraud. It doesn't however say much for the purchaser.

Making unfounded claims does qualify as fraud. To my knowledge none of the overpriced "audio jewelry" manufacturers make any fraudulent claims.

What IS fraudulent are the claims of "reviewers" like MF that every new horribly expensive component is WAY, WAY better than anything that came before. Many "reviewers" are no more "golden eared listeners" than a man off the street. Blind tests would reveal that most of these golden eared reviewers are frauds. Yes, of course, IMO.

RoyY51
08-04-2012, 08:35 AM
Many "audiophiles" don't believe in blind tests. They always find fault with the methodology, particularly when they don't show any audiable difference.

I've always suspected that the real reason that some audiophile writers don't like blind tests is, rather than faulty methodology, that blind tests would expose them as less-than-golden-eared. Their reputations and livelihoods depend on the audiophile community trusting their aural acumen, and without that trust they're just ordinary writers. Let's face it: there's no way that 50-60+ ears are going to pick up the details that they used to. As long as they don't get involved in double-blinds, they can maintain the facade.

JohnMichael
08-04-2012, 09:21 AM
Many "audiophiles" don't believe in blind tests. They always find fault with the methodology, particularly when they don't show any audiable difference.


Back in the day when audio shops had walls of speakers sitting on multiple shelves with a switchbox in the center you had the opportunity to compare several pairs of speakers. I remember hearing differences but I continued listening to the speaker to decide if the differences were a good thing or a bad thing. Yes you can hear differences but can you tell which will be satisfying in the long term?

I can hear differences in wires when switched back and forth. I have to listen to them for a few days before I know if they are compatible in my system with my ears. I bought a pair of IC's once that sounded incredible at first with female vocals and bass. The brightness of the cables that emphasized female vocalists slowly grew fatiguing.

In my opinion DBT might be good for narrowing down a choice but more listening is needed for long term satisfaction. Yes and I know my examples are not true DBTs but my thoughts on quick comparisons.

Feanor
08-04-2012, 12:43 PM
I've always suspected that the real reason that some audiophile writers don't like blind tests is, rather than faulty methodology, that blind tests would expose them as less-than-golden-eared. Their reputations and livelihoods depend on the audiophile community trusting their aural acumen, and without that trust they're just ordinary writers. Let's face it: there's no way that 50-60+ ears are going to pick up the details that they used to. As long as they don't get involved in double-blinds, they can maintain the facade.
I tend to agree. I think I hear differences among tubes, opamps, and even cables, but it's only uncertainly..

I'll grant that DBTs can have severe limitations depending on the test design; ultimately they can only prove that differences can't reliably be heard under the conditions of the test.

But given you can, with care, select an excellent sounding system for say, $3000, how else could you justify a $100k+ system if not for differences at the very limit of perception? And having spent $100k, (or any amount more than you could sensibly afford), you don't want to believe that DBTs prove that you can actually hear a difference.

thekid
08-04-2012, 12:48 PM
If I understand how any "blind" test works it subjects the items to the same testing methodology but eliminates any pre-conceived bias on the part of the reviewer. Most companies and professional reviewers do not like them because it can expose the weakness of both the product and the reviewer. To the extent a blind test can eliminate a reviewers bias' then I think they should be welcome in the industry.

A truism in this hobby is that individual tastes and listening preferences will vary. Why would we expect that to be any different with people who are "expert" reviewers/listeners. They most likely can identify subtle differences in gear in part because of the amount of critical listening they do. I doubt that their listening expertise is significantly different than the average audiophile or audio enthusiast. Their main strength is their ability to describe what they hear. As you become aware of their writing style and methods then you can probably get an idea of whether the gear they are testing is in line with your personal preferences.

markw
08-05-2012, 05:14 AM
I don't see blind testing as an end-all and be-all for determining preferences.

I see it more as determining differences between two items. All to often one hear about "night and day" differences between two disparately priced units and this is a good way to see just how defined that difference is. If one uses such hyperbole, it should stand up to a DBT, no?

I remember back in "the day", blind tests were useful in helping people determine which speakers they really liked as opposed to what they wanted to like, and it didn't always wind up being the more expensive, better reviewed ones. But, human nature being what it was, many times they went for the more expensive big name speaker. Gotta love human nature...

E-Stat
08-05-2012, 06:51 AM
Many "audiophiles" don't believe in blind tests. They always find fault with the methodology, particularly when they don't show any audiable difference.
Audiophiles are not the only ones who find fault with the methodology and the numerous assumption sets.

A Historical Overview of Stereophonic Blind Testing (http://www.affordableaudio.org/aa2010-09.pdf)

markw
08-05-2012, 07:26 AM
Audiophiles are not the only ones who find fault with the methodology and the numerous assumption sets.

A Historical Overview of Stereophonic Blind Testing (http://www.affordableaudio.org/aa2010-09.pdf)They sure make the biggest stink about it. I guess they really don't trust their own ears, at least when they can't have their eyes to validate their choices.. Egos are fragile I guess.

Drug companies sure seem to go by them.

E-Stat
08-05-2012, 07:53 AM
They sure make the biggest stink about it.
Some find pseudo science and misapplication of science misleading.


Drug companies sure seem to go by them.
There are significant differences in the way drug trials are conducted and musical playback systems are evaluated:

1. The drugs are administered in exactly the same way they are normally taken. That is most certainly not the case with the majority of audio tests. In the medical world, there are no additional devices added to the the test chain or Rube Goldberg-esque "simulations" used to *prove* a point. Having said that, I linked to a true online DBT using randomly generated samples of computer-based music and posted my results.

2. Training has zero effect on drug trials. It is neither desired nor valuable.

3. Medical blind studies include a segment of participants who get placebo.

I have been an Audio Research fan since I first heard the SP-3a and D-76 in 1974 and as a result, have owned one or more of their components since 1981. If the result of Tube Fan's blind testing *proves* there is nothing better sounding on the market today than thirty year old ARC models, then I find that to be indicative of failure on the part of his testing methodology.

Speaking of which, I have asked him on two occasions to detail his testing methodology and he has declined in both instances.

YBArcam
08-05-2012, 08:07 AM
Personally, when comparing two components, I like to have each in my system for a month or even longer. This allows time for me to adapt to the sound, to get used to it, and to have it ingrained in my memory. Once I've done this for a month or longer, a switch up becomes much more striking because I'm used to the previous sound. The differences between the components become more obvious.

The problem with DBTs is that this setting is not a natural way to listen to music. The frequent changes cause confusion, and listeners are too focused in identifying small differences in sound, rather than listening to the whole. Our auditory memories are short, and this is cited as a reason for requiring quick changes between components. Unfortunately, you don't really get a sense of how something sounds by hearing it for a few seconds. As with learning anything, repeating the activity over and over allows it to sink in.

With respect to mega buck gear, I recently did a big downgrade on my speakers and actually prefer the sound. I wasn't trying to get something better, just trying to save some cash while not losing much in terms of performance. Actually preferring the new speakers was a surprise.

This drove the point home for me that cost is one factor, however there are two others: component matching, and listener preference. In my case, the new speakers were not better, but think they match my system and my preferences more.

There is no doubt that the more you spend the better you will get. Better parts, better build. Up to a point this will likely have a positive impact on sound quality, but as we all know there is a point of diminishing returns and eventually what you begin paying for is less about sound and more about styling.

markw
08-05-2012, 11:50 AM
It seems that post four was a self-fufilling prophecy. IMNSHO, the greater the price disparity, the easier it should be to identify the different DUTs..

E-Stat
08-05-2012, 12:38 PM
IMNSHO, the greater the price disparity, the easier it should be to identify the different DUTs..
I agree entirely. Have you ever seen a DBT between something like an Audio Research REF 610T and a NAD integrated?

markw
08-05-2012, 01:16 PM
I agree entirely. Have you ever seen a DBT between something like an Audio Research REF 610T and a NAD integrated?No, but it would be interesting, assuming that both were of comparable power ratings and operated within their specified limits.

Where I'd really like to see this is with cables and interconnects.

E-Stat
08-05-2012, 01:40 PM
Where I'd really like to see this is with cables and interconnects.
How exactly would you carry out such a double blind test?

markw
08-05-2012, 02:34 PM
How exactly would you carry out such a double blind test?You know, but you just don't want to admit that it's as simple as that and most likely very few people would be able to differentiate between the two in a brief listening period,

And, "brief" is the qualifying factor here. .The greater the price disparity, the less time should be needed to differentiate between them.

As to how, it ain't that difficult if you use common sense and honest people.

But, this will be my last post on this subject. As some newbies might not be aware, several years ago, Mtry was banned for supporting DBT's here. Heaven knows, you can trash religon, countries and almost anything but call audiophiles reliance on pure subjective impressions into question and you're gone, like yesterdays train.

wotta site ;-)

E-Stat
08-05-2012, 03:05 PM
You know, but you just don't want to admit that it's as simple as that and most likely very few people would be able to differentiate between the two in a brief listening period,
What I know is that performing a true DBT without compromising the signal in any number of uncontrolled ways is impossible. Here's a great example of profound ignorance.

"Well controlled test" (http://sound.westhost.com/cablewhitepaper.htm)

Scroll down to interconnects and read the test methodology.

"You do not need any test equipment. You can use your preamplifier to do the switching. You will need a Y connector so you can connect the two interconnects under test (let's call them "A" and "B") to the same component -- probably your CD player.

Note that the Y connector is the same for both interconnects, so even if you believe that the Y connector somehow corrupts the sound (they don't), the same corrupted signal will pass through both interconnects so the test will still be valid. Remember that we are only listening for any difference between the interconnects, and you can hear that difference (if present) on any signal, even a corrupted and distorted one. Inexpensive Y connectors can be obtained from Radio Shack. If you want audiophile grade Y connectors, Sound Connections International (phone 813-948-2907) sells beautifully built, gold plated units at reasonable prices.

Connect one end of interconnects "A" and "B" to the Y connector. Do so for both channels.

Connect the other end of interconnect "A" to one of your preamp line level inputs (such as "CD"). Connect the other end of interconnect "B" to your tape monitor input. Do so for both channels. Be sure you don't reverse the channels. All line level inputs on a preamp are identical, so it doesn't matter which ones you use.

You could connect the interconnects to any other line level input on your preamp instead of Tape. But the tape monitor inputs allow to switch back and forth between interconnects by toggling the tape monitor switch instead of having to press different input switches, or rotating a knob. Toggling a single switch is more convenient and makes it easy to do the test 'blind' so you don't know which interconnect you are listening to. Doing the test blind is desirable so your personal prejudices don't influence the test results...

The test is done by simply listening to music while switching back and forth between the two sets of interconnects as much as you wish. The idea is to try to hear any difference between the interconnects. There is no time limit, you may switch whenever you wish and take as long as you want.

The test is easiest to do if you have a remote control preamp so you can sit in your listening chair and simply push the Tape Monitor button on the remote whenever you want to switch to the other interconnect. If you don't have a remote control preamp, then you may need an assistant to switch for you whenever you signal them to do so.

To do the test blind, press the tape button several times quickly so you get confused and don't know which interconnect you are listening to. If your preamp has an indicator light showing what you are listening to, then either put a piece of black electrical tape over the light or close your eyes while you do the test.

After doing this test, you will discover that all the hype surrounding interconnects is just that. The fact is that all well designed interconnects sound identical."

Seems reasonable, right? Where do I start with the obvious flaws? What happens in the real world when you employ a Y-adapter connected to the two cables is that now with the grounds connected, the electrical characteristics of both cables is now present at the end of either cable! What you end up comparing is BOTH CABLES to BOTH CABLES.

Let me say that again if you missed it: You are now comparing BOTH CABLES to BOTH CABLES!

Not to mention that tape monitor loops typically have active buffer circuits which necessarily alter the playing field. Higher performance cabling most often has a lower dielectric constant which interacts less with all sorts of devices like CD players, preamps, power amps, EQs, etc. Buffering eliminates that other real world aspect. Understandably, you most certainly can't tell the difference between the summed (and worsened characteristics) of both cables for either choice! I just happen to have a capacitance meter and some Y adapters and verified this behavior for myself.

FAIL

ABX cable boxes necessarily share the same fatal flaw along with adding quadruple the number of jacks and adding TWO additional cables at either end of the box in order to make the comparison. The addition of added contacts, switches also can negate differences in cable shielding which can affect HF response. You dumb down the results in addition to comparing BOTH to BOTH. Real science does not conduct test with multiple uncontrolled variables that totally negate the purpose behind the test itself! When you use boxes to compare amps, the situation gets worse. Now you are combining the feedback loops of both amps to really confuse the issue.

Contrary to our clueless engineer's assertions, the ONLY WAY to do it is via a single blind test where an assistant changes the cables outside of view of the person taking the test.


And, "brief" is the qualifying factor here. .The greater the price disparity, the less time should be needed to differentiate between them.
Yes and no. What these clowns fail to understand is the cable becomes an active part of the system directly interacting with the devices to which they are attached. Some gear - good and bad alike - is more sensitive to cable metric variations.


As to how, it ain't that difficult if you use common sense and honest people.
Sorry, that's just not true for anyone who understands the issues (and measure them) as I have described.

tube fan
08-05-2012, 07:23 PM
Back in the day when audio shops had walls of speakers sitting on multiple shelves with a switchbox in the center you had the opportunity to compare several pairs of speakers. I remember hearing differences but I continued listening to the speaker to decide if the differences were a good thing or a bad thing. Yes you can hear differences but can you tell which will be satisfying in the long term?

I can hear differences in wires when switched back and forth. I have to listen to them for a few days before I know if they are compatible in my system with my ears. I bought a pair of IC's once that sounded incredible at first with female vocals and bass. The brightness of the cables that emphasized female vocalists slowly grew fatiguing.

In my opinion DBT might be good for narrowing down a choice but more listening is needed for long term satisfaction. Yes and I know my examples are not true DBTs but my thoughts on quick comparisons.

I don't believe in short term blind listening tests. When I am comparing units blind, I take several weeks. I use short blind tests to show those who claim that they can hear VAST differences between components (or wines) that they cannot even
consistently identify their "vastly" better unit.

tube fan
08-05-2012, 07:38 PM
Some find pseudo science and misapplication of science misleading.


There are significant differences in the way drug trials are conducted and musical playback systems are evaluated:

1. The drugs are administered in exactly the same way they are normally taken. That is most certainly not the case with the majority of audio tests. In the medical world, there are no additional devices added to the the test chain or Rube Goldberg-esque "simulations" used to *prove* a point. Having said that, I linked to a true online DBT using randomly generated samples of computer-based music and posted my results.

2. Training has zero effect on drug trials. It is neither desired nor valuable.

3. Medical blind studies include a segment of participants who get placebo.

I have been an Audio Research fan since I first heard the SP-3a and D-76 in 1974 and as a result, have owned one or more of their components since 1981. If the result of Tube Fan's blind testing *proves* there is nothing better sounding on the market today than thirty year old ARC models, then I find that to be indicative of failure on the part of his testing methodology.

Speaking of which, I have asked him on two occasions to detail his testing methodology and he has declined in both instances.

I've explained my blind testing method many times: my wife or a friend changes units (or doesn't change units), and I listen to dozens of vinyl records and rate each record on a 100 point scale. The best unit (yes, of course, FOR ME) is the one that produced the highest scores on those records. Not hard at all! BTW, NOTHING I heard at the 2010, 2011, or 2012 CASs produced higher scores than my humble system: Audio Research SP8 preamp (or Mystere Ca-21 preamp), Audio Research D-70 Mark two amp, VPI Scoutmaster tt, Benz Ruby 3 cartridge, Auditorium 23 tranny (or Bob's CineMag tranny), Audio Research PH3 phono (or Fosgate phono), and Dunlavy SCIV speakers (or Fulton Js).

JohnMichael
08-05-2012, 07:38 PM
I don't believe in short term blind listening tests. When I am comparing units blind, I take several weeks. I use short blind tests to show those who claim that they can hear VAST differences between components (or wines) that they cannot even
consistently identify their "vastly" better unit.



But please answer to all who have asked, how do you conduct your blind listeneing tests?

tube fan
08-05-2012, 07:40 PM
Personally, when comparing two components, I like to have each in my system for a month or even longer. This allows time for me to adapt to the sound, to get used to it, and to have it ingrained in my memory. Once I've done this for a month or longer, a switch up becomes much more striking because I'm used to the previous sound. The differences between the components become more obvious.

The problem with DBTs is that this setting is not a natural way to listen to music. The frequent changes cause confusion, and listeners are too focused in identifying small differences in sound, rather than listening to the whole. Our auditory memories are short, and this is cited as a reason for requiring quick changes between components. Unfortunately, you don't really get a sense of how something sounds by hearing it for a few seconds. As with learning anything, repeating the activity over and over allows it to sink in.

With respect to mega buck gear, I recently did a big downgrade on my speakers and actually prefer the sound. I wasn't trying to get something better, just trying to save some cash while not losing much in terms of performance. Actually preferring the new speakers was a surprise.

This drove the point home for me that cost is one factor, however there are two others: component matching, and listener preference. In my case, the new speakers were not better, but think they match my system and my preferences more.

There is no doubt that the more you spend the better you will get. Better parts, better build. Up to a point this will likely have a positive impact on sound quality, but as we all know there is a point of diminishing returns and eventually what you begin paying for is less about sound and more about styling.

As I have said many times, I use long term blind listening tests. quick changes mean nothing.

tube fan
08-05-2012, 07:57 PM
I agree entirely. Have you ever seen a DBT between something like an Audio Research REF 610T and a NAD integrated?

I went to a DBT comparing high res digital (high res for digital, NOT for analogue, of course) to MP3 digital. Over 90% of the "audiophiles" actually preferred the MP3 digital!!! The difference was NOT subtle. My wife said, BEFORE the units were revealed, that these self styled audiophiles MUST be deaf! Two week later, I was at another blind test that had the same result (90% preferring the MP3 sound). I have been to hundreds (probably thousands) of blind tastings of wines, and extremely few experts could identify their favorite wines. I know one rich member (who buys every 95+ Parker wine), who simply CANNOT even tell when a wine is corked!!! Don't think that the exact same thing does not happen in audio "reviewing". Remember early ss and early digital were, it is widely admitted today, simply HORRIBLE!!! HORRIBLE!!! Yet, the same "experts" who praised digital at the start, tell us that this time we should listen to them. I just came back from the 2012 CAS, and in rooms that had both analogue and digital, the analogue simply DESTROYED the digital. Ditto for ss versus tubes. BTW, analogue (even via several analogue tape decks) and tubes were EVERYWHERE at the show.

tube fan
08-05-2012, 08:05 PM
But please answer to all who have asked, how do you conduct your blind listeneing tests?

Again, Again, Again: I have someone change a unit (or not), and I rate vinyl records. The unit that produces the highest scores is the best unit FOR ME. Not hard at all. Mark, these are NOT short term tests. The kind of blind tasting tests I prefer are similar. I rate wines blind when drinking them as I normally do: with food.

Hyfi
08-06-2012, 04:06 AM
As some newbies might not be aware, several years ago, Mtry was banned for supporting DBT's here. Heaven knows, you can trash religon, countries and almost anything but call audiophiles reliance on pure subjective impressions into question and you're gone, like yesterdays train.

wotta site ;-)

It was not because he supported DBTs, it was the way he went about it and the way he treated others who did not agree with him and his Band of Merry DBTers.

I was there.

Hyfi
08-06-2012, 04:07 AM
A good example of this is Stratos amplifiers. They are repackaged Symphonic Line. The price is very different.

Just curious where you got that from.

Symphinic Line is built in Germany while the Stratos Amps are built in the USA so I don't see how one can be a rebadge of the other.

E-Stat
08-06-2012, 05:51 AM
I've explained my blind testing method many times: my wife or a friend changes units (or doesn't change units), and I listen to dozens of vinyl records and rate each record on a 100 point scale.
Thanks. What has confused me about your stories is that you describe a single blind test yet your posts here and elsewhere reference only double blind tests. Your wife most certainly knows which cable is connected. Perhaps you should adjust your constant references from DBTs to SBTs accordingly as there is a big difference. Don't get me wrong - I've done SBTs with my wife as well. I just see so much confusion and misinformation about this topic.

BTW, I never play the same side of a record in succession due to unavoidable groove damage. Perhaps you have multiple copies of the same disc.


BTW, NOTHING I heard at the 2010, 2011, or 2012 CASs produced higher scores than my humble system:
Scores? Surely you understand that audio shows are not the best way to compare anything at a critical level. Much better exists (from Audio Research and numerous other firms) if you're interested.

E-Stat
08-06-2012, 05:55 AM
Over 90% of the "audiophiles" actually preferred the MP3 digital!!! The difference was NOT subtle. My wife said, BEFORE the units were revealed, that these self styled audiophiles MUST be deaf!
The best systems I've heard (mostly at Sea Cliff) have never sounded "impressive" - just incredibly natural, three dimensional and with phenomenal resolution. Clearly, many folks like loud.


Yet, the same "experts" who praised digital at the start, tell us that this time we should listen to them.
To whom do you refer? Julian Hirsch? Len Feldman? My mentors certainly did not share that sentiment in the 80s.

JoeE SP9
08-06-2012, 08:00 AM
Just curious where you got that from.

Symphinic Line is built in Germany while the Stratos Amps are built in the USA so I don't see how one can be a rebadge of the other.

The Stratos website used to say so. I don't know if it still does. They get the PCB's and main components from Symphonic line and place them in their own case work.

Feanor
08-06-2012, 08:02 AM
Thanks. What has confused me about your stories is that you describe a single blind test yet your posts here and elsewhere reference only double blind tests. Your wife most certainly knows which cable is connected. Perhaps you should adjust your constant references from DBTs to SBTs accordingly as there is a big difference. Don't get me wrong - I've done SBTs with my wife as well. I just see so much confusion and misinformation about this topic.
...
I don't believe that full scientific rigour is necessary to have useful blind tests for personal use. Suspicious as I am, I think rejection of single-blinds testing because it isn't rigorous, is often a cop-out by those fearing they'll be shown-up for not hearing what they say they can hear.

Indeed scientific rigour calls for double blind and also a series of trials with multiple subjects, and subject to statistical analysis. But personal testing doesn't need need these things to be meaningful to those involved. Fundamentally, with a few trials of a single-blind test you can usually correctly differentiate the components, that tells you something. Even more helpful, maybe, is if you cannot differentiate the components -- after all, even if differences actually do exist they are obviously not very significant.


...
BTW, I never play the same side of a record in succession due to unavoidable groove damage. Perhaps you have multiple copies of the same disc.
....
I doubt that it is necessary to listen to actual LPs for the tests. By many reports, hi-rez rips capture the full character of vinyl recordings. In any case the playback medium isn't likely to be of major significance in component comparison, (unless the comparison is vinyl vs. digital).

E-Stat
08-06-2012, 08:09 AM
I don't believe that full scientific rigour is necessary to have useful blind test.
Nor do I as I have conducted some SBTs myself.

What I think is absolutely necessary is using valid tests that aren't fatally flawed from the outset. They only produce incorrect conclusions. And lots of them!


I doubt that it is necessary to listen to actual LPs for the tests
But that is most certainly NOT what Tube Fan did.

JohnMichael
08-06-2012, 08:41 AM
Just curious where you got that from.

Symphinic Line is built in Germany while the Stratos Amps are built in the USA so I don't see how one can be a rebadge of the other.




Why am I talking about the Soulution amplifiers in a review of Odyssey gear? Because I heard about both from solid-state-amp connoisseur Alon Wolf of Magico. I wasn’t a bit surprised when he recommended the Soulution 700s—they cost a fortune and had a helluva reputation for excellence. But I was surprised when he suggested that I also give a listen to a little amp called the Odyssey Khartago. First of all, I’d never heard of Odyssey, though, as it turns out, the company’s been around for a decade, and second…well, I’ll get to that in a moment.

“I’ve been using the Khartago in the factory for years,” said he, “to test loudspeakers. It isn’t a Soulution 700, but it’s…good enough.” Good enough for the Wolfman is good enough for me, thought I, and promptly called Klaus Bunge of Odyssey, who happens to be located a scant two hours away in picturesque Indianapolis, Indiana. A week or two later Klaus, a big bearded bear of a man, drove down to Cincy with a Khartago and a pair of Stratos monoblocks in hand—both hands, actually. (Though I won’t have the space to talk specifically about the Strati, you can take it for granted that everything I say about the Khartago goes double for Odyssey’s monoblocks.)

Bunge has been importing German hi-fi into the United States for better than twenty years. Indeed, throughout the eighties he almost single-handedly put the German electronics company Symphonic Line on the map. In the late nineties, he decided to offer a more “cost-effective” line of amps and preamps in addition to his pricey imports. Somehow he managed to talk the folks at Symphonic Line into supplying him with the same circuits it used in its amps, which Klaus then builds, stuffs, tweaks, sticks in handsomely finished custom-made anodized-aluminum boxes, and sells factory-direct. (All this work is done in the good ol’ U.S. of A.) The Khartago, for instance, has specs that are nearly identical—as they should be, considering they use virtually the same boards—to those of the celebrated Symphonic Line RG-1 Mk IV. Both output 115Wpc into 8 ohms; both have a bandwidth that extends out to 400kHz; both have high damping factors, exceptional slew rates, and oodles of current. The only thing they don’t share is price. The Symphonic Line RG-1 Mk IV is currently $6800; the Odyssey Khartago costs $799.


TAS 195: Odyssey Audio Khartago Stereo Amplifier | AVguide (http://www.avguide.com/review/tas-195-odyssey-audio-khartago-stereo-amplifier)

Hyfi
08-06-2012, 09:05 AM
I can speak to the Stratos amp since I have owned one for about 12 years. Good strong bassie amp and a bargain for the $1200 it cost me with the cap upgrade. I know I can send it back for an overhaul for about $500.

But, that said it is no way in the same league as my Counterpoint at 4x the price. It does not have the mids or highs and can be a little congested in comparison.

I guess it would be interesting to hear both Odyssey and Symphonic Line setups side by side with same speakers, wires, CDP and music. I would bet $10 that the SL setup still sounds a tad better and the units are not just rebadged and identical on the inside.

hifitommy
08-06-2012, 08:50 PM
tube fan: "What IS fraudulent are the claims of "reviewers" like MF that every new horribly expensive component is WAY, WAY better than anything that came before."

it is quite obvious that you have not heard truly high end equipment. the caliburn and sirius TTs michael gushed about ARE that good. the big wilson speakers as well. audio research and VTL electonics belong in that grouping. please get thee to a proper demo of this level of equipment.

its not to say that just because those items are on demo that they will sound their best but they very likely will sound grossly better than the mid fi items that some seem to think are as good as it gets.

how about an equipment list sir. mine can be found at the asylum.

E-Stat
08-07-2012, 07:22 AM
how about an equipment list sir. mine can be found at the asylum.
Look on previous page. He lists at bottom of one of his posts.

I had a friend in the 70s who used Fulton Js. A dealer that I later worked for sold Fultons (and Audio Research) - although he only stocked the FMI 80 bookshelf which is the "midrange" for the J modular.

It's a system I could most easily be happy with, but it is not even close to what you could hear at Sea Cliff.

RGA
08-07-2012, 08:14 AM
So the assumption is that paying more is a fraud?

So a B&W Nautilus is not any better than an N805 which is no better than 705 which is no better than a 303?

In 95% of cases - the most expensive speaker from a company is MUCH better than the least expensive speaker in a company line-up and by a dramatic margin. If you can't hear that and you need a double blind test then you should be out of this hobby and doing something like photography - something that doesn't involve ears.

The DBT guys - seriously you CAN'T tell the difference between an SL 1200 with a $50 Audio Technica cart from Technics and a top of the line Clearaudio with their top arm and cart?

REALLY? You need a blind test because Clearaudio is tricking you?

You need a DBT to tell you that TAPE machines at CES were destroying CD?

I kind of get the DBT argument for cables because the prices are frankly crazy and I personally view them as tone controls.

But giving them the benefit of the doubt - because they're tone controls - it is conceivable that the wire could have a big difference in their system and not much at all in another system (possibly the one involved in the DBT).

DB tests in audio all have ridiculous problems - you are welcome to put faith in them but at least acknowledge they're highly problematic. The one speaker(out of a pair) on a spinner that gets rotated - all speakers being driven by the same amp whether it's designed for said high negative feedback amplifiers or not - is crap science but they have famous engineers writing white papers. Corporation science isn't science. AES is filled with people who work at those corporations.

As for reviewer's ears versus non reviewers - reviewer's are audiophiles who write.

Hyfi
08-07-2012, 08:31 AM
RGA -

If a company manufactures a $4k amp and a $30k amp, and the cost of the parts are within $1k-$2k, but the $30k amp does not sound 8X better, is that not fraud?

I really don't think so. What it really is, is Capitalism running wild.

Capitalism = Legal, yet Immoral

The real people to blame are not the MFGs but rather the people who actually buy the stuff and keep the prices at an outrageous Price per Quality skewed state.

If people are willing to throw that kind of money around, because they can, than why not take it?

tube fan
08-07-2012, 09:58 AM
Look on previous page. He lists at bottom of one of his posts.

I had a friend in the 70s who used Fulton Js. A dealer that I later worked for sold Fultons (and Audio Research) - although he only stocked the FMI 80 bookshelf which is the "midrange" for the J modular.

It's a system I could most easily be happy with, but it is not even close to what you could hear at Sea Cliff.

Well, the Fulton Js sound much more realistic than the FMI 80s do. Flat from 18hz to 40,000hz. I'm sure my Dunlavy SCIVs measure better than the Fultons (no surprise as JA's measurements of the Dunlavy SCIVs still set the standard for loudspeakers). Bob Fulton designed his speakers by ear and Dunlavy designed his by measurements. Still, I listen mostly to the Fulton J speakers, so I guess I am in the "sounds good" camp, and not in the "absolute sound" camp. BTW, Soundlabs are at the top of my list of speakers. Why they don't get more attention stuns me. I'll bet I would prefer the Soundlabs over Sea Cliff.

tube fan
08-07-2012, 10:17 AM
Thanks. What has confused me about your stories is that you describe a single blind test yet your posts here and elsewhere reference only double blind tests. Your wife most certainly knows which cable is connected. Perhaps you should adjust your constant references from DBTs to SBTs accordingly as there is a big difference. Don't get me wrong - I've done SBTs with my wife as well. I just see so much confusion and misinformation about this topic.

BTW, I never play the same side of a record in succession due to unavoidable groove damage. Perhaps you have multiple copies of the same disc.


Scores? Surely you understand that audio shows are not the best way to compare anything at a critical level. Much better exists (from Audio Research and numerous other firms) if you're interested.

Well, you are probably correct about the quality at audio shows, but it's hard to hear most gear at stores, unless you travel a lot. As for new, expensive Audio Research hybred units, I consistently favor the older, more "tube-like" sound. For me, the SP8 was Audio Research's best sounding pre. The folks at the Walnut Creek Magnepan store agree with me on this point: instead of getting better or more realistic, many brands, not just Audio Research, go in the opposite direction. Bigger and more complicated, with wonderful parts, all too often does not translate into better sound.

tube fan
08-07-2012, 10:31 AM
Thanks. What has confused me about your stories is that you describe a single blind test yet your posts here and elsewhere reference only double blind tests. Your wife most certainly knows which cable is connected. Perhaps you should adjust your constant references from DBTs to SBTs accordingly as there is a big difference. Don't get me wrong - I've done SBTs with my wife as well. I just see so much confusion and misinformation about this topic.

BTW, I never play the same side of a record in succession due to unavoidable groove damage. Perhaps you have multiple copies of the same disc.


Scores? Surely you understand that audio shows are not the best way to compare anything at a critical level. Much better exists (from Audio Research and numerous other firms) if you're interested.

I don't go back and forth between two units often. I listen to and rate dozens of vinyl records on one unit, and then do the same with the other unit.

The person who changes the components does NOT rate them, so it's as blind as it needs to be for those who listen.

E-Stat
08-07-2012, 10:43 AM
Well, the Fulton Js sound much more realistic than the FMI 80s do. Flat from 18hz to 40,000hz.
A little hyperbole always works for some. :)


I'll bet I would prefer the Soundlabs over Sea Cliff.
That is a somewhat mixed comparison. I really like the big Scaenas with the quad depth charge subs, but they do not have single driver coherence. When HP heard my system in Atlanta, his reaction was "these speakers are going to cost you a fortune". What he meant was they can reveal differences between the finest components and that I would need to upgrade other system components. On the other hand, I have no plans to drain my retirement funds to achieve that goal!

What I would really like to hear is a large Sound Lab (or array) driven by the incredible sources, amplification and cabling he has always had access to for the past thirty years. I regret not hearing Ray Kimber's huge array he showed at RMAF for a couple of years.


For me, the SP8 was Audio Research's best sounding pre.
Yet, it has a definite sonic character and has nowhere near the resolution of what is possible today, much less the SP-10 or SP-15. Your preference is your preference. Better still exists.

To keep my comments in perspective, I would certainly make that statement about my amplification stages as well. They are eminently musical and have served me well for well over a decade, but simply not SOTA.

RGA
08-07-2012, 10:45 AM
RGA -

If a company manufactures a $4k amp and a $30k amp, and the cost of the parts are within $1k-$2k, but the $30k amp does not sound 8X better, is that not fraud?



What is 8 times better. You could have two amplifiers one at 2k and one at $20k and the 20k could sound pretty much identical except for a slightly better treble response - that SLIGHT difference means the $20k amp is listenable all day every day versus "you want to turn it off in 20 minutes.

Take Pass Labs - they sell two integrated amplifiers for $7150. One is a Class A 30 watt amp - the other is a 150 watt class A/B amplifier - they were compared - but I bet for a lot of music a lot of the time we'd have difficulty telling them apart - depending of course on the speakers.

The DBTs used in some of these speaker tests only have ONE speaker being tested.

The magazine reviews with their measurements measure ONE speaker - not both.

As for amplifier prices well some makers have said their lower powered amplifiers sound "identical" to their bigger powered amplifiers except that their bigger powered amplifiers can drive harder to drive speakers and or to a lot louder levels. So in that sense you're paying $30k for a $4k sounding amplifier. They sound the same - but not with a very tough to drive speaker at high levels they don't.

Hyfi
08-07-2012, 10:48 AM
What is 8 times better. You could have two amplifiers one at 2k and one at $20k and the 20k could sound pretty much identical except for a slightly better treble response - that SLIGHT difference means the $20k amp is listenable all day every day versus "you want to turn it off in 20 minutes.

Take Pass Labs - they sell two integrated amplifiers for $7150. One is a Class A 30 watt amp - the other is a 150 watt class A/B amplifier - they were compared - but I bet for a lot of music a lot of the time we'd have difficulty telling them apart - depending of course on the speakers.

The DBTs used in some of these speaker tests only have ONE speaker being tested.

The magazine reviews with their measurements measure ONE speaker - not both.

As for amplifier prices well some makers have said their lower powered amplifiers sound "identical" to their bigger powered amplifiers except that their bigger powered amplifiers can drive harder to drive speakers and or to a lot louder levels. So in that sense you're paying $30k for a $4k sounding amplifier. They sound the same - but not with a very tough to drive speaker at high levels they don't.

Sounds like an excuse to get easier to drive speakers rather than an extra $30k just to drive hard ones.

E-Stat
08-07-2012, 10:50 AM
The person who changes the components does NOT rate them, so it's as blind as it needs to be for those who listen.
But NOT a DBT. You do understand the difference? It is also necessarily a long term, not instantaneous comparison. I share your view that long term comparisons are more valid for determining more subtle differences than quick audio cowboy switching as promoted by the DBT camp.

There are some (not me) who disregard the validity of SBTs from the infamous "clever hans" potential. :)

hifitommy
08-07-2012, 03:49 PM
tube fan,

i am surprised that you don't know that the fmi 80 is part and parcel a main part of the jmod setup. the best part it turns out as alone they are excellent. mel schilling had a store in woodland hills and when i mentioned the jmod (he sold them) he suggested that there were much better speaker systems out there for much less. his disdain for the woofer section was obvious. maybe he just didnt like robert fulton.

E-Stat
08-07-2012, 04:37 PM
ti am surprised that you don't know that the fmi 80 is part and parcel a main part of the jmod setup.
As I mentioned earlier, it is the midrange. Exactly.

Agreed the J(unior) mod is better, but only because it extends the bandwidth of the small bookshelf at both ends.

hifitommy
08-07-2012, 04:43 PM
ralph, it wasnt YOU whom i felt didnt know about the 80 being the mid. it was the tube fan who stated: "Fulton <acronym title="JavaScript">Js</acronym> sound much more realistic than the FMI 80s do".

did you ever meet mel schilling? he was coldly honest. he may still be running a shop in PA. my friend bought IMF monitor IIIs from him sound unheard before mel came to california.

E-Stat
08-07-2012, 05:04 PM
ralph, it wasnt YOU whom i felt didnt know about the 80 being the mid. it was the tube fan who stated: "Fulton <acronym title="JavaScript">Js</acronym> sound much more realistic than the FMI 80s do".
No, I was just pointing out that apparently TF doesn't understand its design even after my first comment. It's got the same box and one or two Peerless tweeters depending upon age. Thanks for the corroboration.

Also, the Janszen designed tweeter built by RTR had response to 30 kHz like most modern stats, but I find that speakers with truly flat on axis response even to 20 kHz sound unnaturally bright. My speakers have a HF contour that I always use to roll off the top at bit.


did you ever meet mel schilling? he was coldly honest. he may still be running a shop in PA. my friend bought IMF monitor IIIs from him sound unheard before mel came to california.
Never did although the name was well known back in the day.

tube fan
08-07-2012, 08:17 PM
A little hyperbole always works for some. :)


That is a somewhat mixed comparison. I really like the big Scaenas with the quad depth charge subs, but they do not have single driver coherence. When HP heard my system in Atlanta, his reaction was "these speakers are going to cost you a fortune". What he meant was they can reveal differences between the finest components and that I would need to upgrade other system components. On the other hand, I have no plans to drain my retirement funds to achieve that goal!

What I would really like to hear is a large Sound Lab (or array) driven by the incredible sources, amplification and cabling he has always had access to for the past thirty years. I regret not hearing Ray Kimber's huge array he showed at RMAF for a couple of years.


Yet, it has a definite sonic character and has nowhere near the resolution of what is possible today, much less the SP-10 or SP-15. Your preference is your preference. Better still exists.

To keep my comments in perspective, I would certainly make that statement about my amplification stages as well. They are eminently musical and have served me well for well over a decade, but simply not SOTA.

We all have our personal reality triggers, and mine are likely different from yours. I blind tested the SP8 to the SP10 over a month, and I consistently preferred the SP8 which was perfectly (yes, for me) balanced as it reproduced both the attack and decay of notes. The SP10 captured the attack SLIGHTLY better, but was SIGNIFICANTLY poorer on decay. Ditto for tonal purity. The SP 10, 11, and onward all sound too ss for my tastes. Right now I am listening mostly to my Mystere Ca 21 preamp which is even more tube-like and tonally pure than the SP8. One of my friends has the Sound Lab with a powered bass, and it produces extremely musical sound. Plus, it's not expensive!

tube fan
08-07-2012, 08:24 PM
tube fan,

i am surprised that you don't know that the fmi 80 is part and parcel a main part of the jmod setup. the best part it turns out as alone they are excellent. mel schilling had a store in woodland hills and when i mentioned the jmod (he sold them) he suggested that there were much better speaker systems out there for much less. his disdain for the woofer section was obvious. maybe he just didnt like robert fulton.

DUH!!! Yes, I have known for thirty years that the FMI 80 is the midrange unit in the Fulton J MODULAR system. The bass unit is huge, and flat to 18hz, and TIGHT! The RTR high midrange/tweeter elestrostatic driver goes out to 40 hz. I just said that the Fulton J (with the HUGE, and fantastically accurate bass unit and the RTR tweeter) was much better than the Fulton 80 alone. DUH!!!

tube fan
08-07-2012, 08:31 PM
As I mentioned earlier, it is the midrange. Exactly.

Agreed the J(unior) mod is better, but only because it extends the bandwidth of the small bookshelf at both ends.

Yes, NOTHING I posted indicated that I did not know that the Fulton J was the midrange unit of the Fulton J MODULAR system. And, yes, the addition of the huge, and hugely accurate bass unit and the never bettered RTR electrostatic tweeter "extended" the response of the Fulton 80 (to 18 hz and 40,000 hz!!!). GIT A GRIP!!!

E-Stat
08-08-2012, 07:49 AM
Yes, NOTHING I posted indicated that I did not know that the Fulton J was the midrange unit of the Fulton J MODULAR system.
Well, congratulations then for stating the obvious.


(to 18 hz and 40,000 hz!!!). GIT A GRIP!!!
You're mistaken if you think the Janszen designed tweeter is "flat to 40 kHz".

Feanor
08-08-2012, 08:26 AM
..., but I find that speakers with truly flat on axis response even to 20 kHz sound unnaturally bright. My speakers have a HF contour that I always use to roll off the top at bit....
Why do you suppose that is? I noticed the same thing since I acquired the means to actually measure response on my system.

My Magneplanar MG 1.6 don't measure flat to 20 kHz in my rooms, rolling off a little about 5 kHz and fairly sharply above 12 kHz. I can use the digital equalizer plug-in to my computer music player to flatten the response to 12 kHz and beyond, but the result is definitely too bright. What sounds best and most natural is a gradual roll-off above about 4 kHz. That is, I use the equalizer to produce a smooth the roll-off, not a flat response.

I recall Mike Anderson quite a while a good using a Behringer EQ to do the same sort of roll-off.

Is the reason poor recording practice? Or that much of the sound is room reflections rather than direct? Or something else?

E-Stat
08-08-2012, 08:33 AM
Why do you suppose that is?
Here's commentary from an engineer whose opinion pretty much matches my experience. I've always found too bright sounding systems fatiguing to listen to.

One explanation (http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=general&n=620057&highlight=high+frequency+Tony+Lauck&r=&search_url=%2Fcgi%2Fsearch.mpl%3Fsearchtext%3Dhigh %2Bfrequency%26b%3DAND%26topic%3D%26topics_only%3D N%26author%3DTony%2BLauck%26date1%3D%26date2%3D%26 slowmessage%3D%26ip%3D%26sort%3Dscore%26sortOrder% 3DDESC%26sortRank%3DForum%26forum%3Dgeneral)

Feanor
08-08-2012, 10:19 AM
Here's commentary from an engineer whose opinion pretty much matches my experience. I've always found too bright sounding systems fatiguing to listen to.

One explanation (http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=general&n=620057&highlight=high+frequency+Tony+Lauck&r=&search_url=%2Fcgi%2Fsearch.mpl%3Fsearchtext%3Dhigh %2Bfrequency%26b%3DAND%26topic%3D%26topics_only%3D N%26author%3DTony%2BLauck%26date1%3D%26date2%3D%26 slowmessage%3D%26ip%3D%26sort%3Dscore%26sortOrder% 3DDESC%26sortRank%3DForum%26forum%3Dgeneral)
Tony's explanation is basically that high frequencies roll-off in the concert hall, (depending on the concert hall, etc.). Personally I'm sure this is true. But it begs the question, why don't recording engineers aim for a more natural balance in their final recordings?

Less obvious questions would be does this typical imbalance affect audio enthusiasts choice of playback media (LP vs. digital) or component type (tube vs. solid state).

In any case it's confirmed for me that almost all recordings are too bright played back flat. This insight goes 'way back for me even before the digital era. So the aim of equalization, for those who choose to used it, is almost always going to be a smooth, gradual roll-off from somewhere in the mid-range. In my case I'm down about 5-6 dB at 10 kHz, (unfortunately the highest frequency I can hear at listening volumes).

E-Stat
08-08-2012, 12:12 PM
But it begs the question, why don't recording engineers aim for a more natural balance in their final recordings?
A few do, Although Sir TtT won't get empirical *proof*, I find that is one the beneficial results of using a more distant, minimally miked setup as used by labels like Telarc, Reference Recordings, Windham Hill, Chesky, etc. Ever heard a bright sounding Telarc recording?


Less obvious questions would be does this typical imbalance affect audio enthusiasts choice of playback media (LP vs. digital) or component type (tube vs. solid state).
I am one of few "audiophiles" to likes to have a HF contour on the speaker to tame bright recordings. That's where having a treble control also works. I typically lower the HF control on the Sound Lab backplate by about 2 db for vinyl playback. That may, however, simply have to do with my particular front end combinations.

What also exacerbates the issue is that the sum of all noise, upper harmonic distortions and RFI/EMF gremlins congregates at the top. One of the biggest benefits to me of high performance cabling - of all flavors - and dedicated power lines / conditioning is a reduction of a false brightness caused by these factors. The typically extended response of SS gear can further exaggerate this grunge. Better is almost always less bright. Not dull - but clean. I have been nearly reduced to tears hearing the incredible amount of HF energy that HP's systems can generate while at the same time not sounding the least bit bright, hard or brittle. Bell trees and cymbals sound so naturally sweet.

Replacing the wall wart switching power supply for the Squeezebox Touch in the garage system with a stiff linear immediately made the sound there less bright, yet more detailed. Poster Boldeagle refers to this phenomena as "non-bright". I have to agree.

Feanor
08-08-2012, 12:23 PM
...
What also exacerbates the issue is that the sum of all noise, upper harmonic distortions and RFI/EMF gremlins congregates at the top. One of the biggest benefits to me of high performance cabling - of all flavors - and dedicated power lines / conditioning is a reduction of a false brightness caused by these factors. The typically extended response of SS gear can further exaggerate this grunge. Better is almost always less bright. Not dull - but clean. I have been nearly reduced to tears hearing the incredible amount of HF energy that HP's systems can generate while at the same time not sounding the least bit bright, hard or brittle. Bell trees and cymbals sound so naturally sweet. ...
Excellent points. Although my experience is less in terms of equipment heard, it is the same. That is, get rid of the grunge and things sound a lot better. Records you thought were awful turn out to be not so bad.

I suspect that a great deal of the preference for tubes and vinyl can be attributed to their ability to hide or smooth over the "grunge" factors you mention. (This said, the greatest revelation I ever had was when I got rid of my old Phase Linear 400 which embodied every vice ever attributed to solid state.)

E-Stat
08-08-2012, 03:33 PM
I suspect that a great deal of the preference for tubes and vinyl can be attributed to their ability to hide or smooth over the "grunge" factors you mention.
Yes and no. There are two separate issues here.

Remember that the quality of tube gear is as much a function of the output caps used as is the tubes. The type (and linearity) has greatly evolved over the years. My preamp underwent a factory upgrade that was largely an output capacitor and power supply change which profoundly affected the sound quality - using the same tubes. Cheap tube devices use cheap caps. Some 70s era receivers from Pioneer et. al. sounded "tube-like" because their outputs were capacitively coupled. Translation: run the signal through cheap caps to soften the output.

The benefits to analog over most digital has to do with a much wider effective word size and sample rate. Redbook is incapable of matching the best analog.

tube fan
08-08-2012, 03:46 PM
Well, congratulations then for stating the obvious.


You're mistaken if you think the Janszen designed tweeter is "flat to 40 kHz".

OK, the RTR electrostatic speaker was listed as flat from 1500Hz to 30 KHz, with a sensitivity of 88 dBs @1 watt/1 meter. The units were 14.5 inches by 14.5 inches by 12 inches. Most of the source of bright sound occurs BELOW 10,000 Hz. Anything above say 12,000 reproduces the air you hear at live musical events.

E-Stat
08-08-2012, 04:30 PM
OK, the RTR electrostatic speaker was listed as flat from 1500Hz to 30 KHz, with a sensitivity of 88 dBs @1 watt/1 meter.
Thank you for acknowledging the exaggeration. And the response of the Janszen designed driver is not flat to 30 khz. You continue to embellish the story. According to Infinity which used the same drivers in the Servo Statik, it is about 3 db down at the extremes. Don't get me wrong - those are great tweeters with about a 30 degree dispersion angle that were used by many a speaker. There is, however, a difference between a speaker's "response" and the degree to which it is truly flat.


The units were 14.5 inches by 14.5 inches by 12 inches.
Those are the dimensions of the box, not the panels. Apparently, you've never the seen the panels naked. Let me help you out. It is an array of six panels that are each approximately 3" x 5.75".

Tweeter array (http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o240/speakerlabfan/FultonJ011.jpg)

tube fan
08-08-2012, 08:39 PM
Thank you for acknowledging the exaggeration. And the response of the Janszen designed driver is not flat to 30 khz. You continue to embellish the story. According to Infinity which used the same drivers in the Servo Statik, it is about 3 db down at the extremes. Don't get me wrong - those are great tweeters with about a 30 degree dispersion angle that were used by many a speaker. There is, however, a difference between a speaker's "response" and the degree to which it is truly flat.


Those are the dimensions of the box, not the panels. Apparently, you've never the seen the panels naked. Let me help you out. It is an array of six panels that are each approximately 3" x 5.75".

Tweeter array (http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o240/speakerlabfan/FultonJ011.jpg)

Of course, you are again talking nonsense: my RTR tweeters are naked, sitting on top of the 80 speaker. The size of the unit is as I stated. Your comment about the size of each driver is irrelevant, as are 95% of your "points". I've heard just about every tweeter ever made, and none beat the accuracy of the RTR ESR 6 (yes, OF COURSE, IMO). BTW, as I have said, I have always loved the sound of the Soundlab electrostatic speakers, and that they are at the apex of my speaker ratings. That translates, for those who don't know what "apex" means: the top or best in a class.

E-Stat
08-09-2012, 05:33 AM
Your comment about the size of each driver is irrelevant
Sorry, but that's like saying the size of a dynamic speaker's cone is irrelevant - only the box in which its mounted matters. The size and configuration of the radiating area of electrostatic panels is everything! It determines bandwidth, output capability and imaging. And really best when not put in a deep box. The enclosure is important only to the extent of being non-resonant especially for full range designs. Which is why the U-1s are mounted in a 100 lb steel frame.


... as are 95% of your "points"
Kindly provide proof to your assertion about their performance. It is likely they are not run as low as 1500 hz either as that would limit their output. The Servo Statik had 30% more tweeter area (8 panels vs 6) and chose 2 kHz.


I've heard just about every tweeter ever made...
The Ghost of Melvin Returns.


, and none beat the accuracy of the RTR ESR 6 (yes, OF COURSE, IMO).
My point is that your comments will be more convincing without the exaggerations. It was a nice fish, but you need to bring your hands closer together.


BTW, as I have said, I have always loved the sound of the Soundlab electrostatic speakers, and that they are at the apex of my speaker ratings.
I certainly enjoy them, but they will not play as loudly as it seems you prefer unless you get a large array.

tube fan
08-09-2012, 08:22 AM
Sorry, but that's like saying the size of a dynamic speaker's cone is irrelevant - only the box in which its mounted matters. The size and configuration of the radiating area of electrostatic panels is everything! It determines bandwidth, output capability and imaging. And really best when not put in a deep box. The enclosure is important only to the extent of being non-resonant especially for full range designs. Which is why the U-1s are mounted in a 100 lb steel frame.


Kindly provide proof to your assertion about their performance. It is likely they are not run as low as 1500 hz either as that would limit their output. The Servo Statik had 30% more tweeter area (8 panels vs 6) and chose 2 kHz.


The Ghost of Melvin Returns.


My point is that your comments will be more convincing without the exaggerations. It was a nice fish, but you need to bring your hands closer together.


I certainly enjoy them, but they will not play as loudly as it seems you prefer unless you get a large array.

I listen 90%+ of the time to old school jazz, and, even at live levels, the Soundlabs would do fine, as do the Fulton Js with a low power tube amp. Your other "points" are too picayune to merit a comment.

E-Stat
08-09-2012, 08:52 AM
I listen 90%+ of the time to old school jazz, and, even at live levels, the Soundlabs would do fine, as do the Fulton Js with a low power tube amp.
Thanks for the response.

I rediscovered a multi-disc CD (gasp!) of Blue Note stuff the other day. Not my usual fare, but still enjoyable.

hifitommy
08-18-2012, 08:48 AM
speakers voiced to be flat in an anechoic chamber WILL tend to sound bright. a fair number of studio monitors also sound bright as the engineers sometimes like to use them like microscopes on the sound.

it seems that the majority of speakers do not sound bright but music mixed bright will come through that way.

system building depends on component matching to avoid these anomalies as much as possible.

tube fan
08-20-2012, 09:22 PM
Most of my listening levels are from 70 to 94 db. All out classical levels can hit 105+dbs, as can my wife's trance and house cds.

Brian Beck
07-10-2013, 11:48 AM
The argument here about whether the RTR ESL tweeters go to 30KHz or 40KHz is missing a very important point. You have to first specify the "dB down" or dB limits. My car speakers will respond to 100KHz if you will allow a -60dB window. "Flat" to x-KHz is a meaningless concept to engineers because nothing is ever truly flat. You have to specify: -0.1dB, -1dB, -3dB or -6dB (all commonly used), or something else. And dBs compared to what? 1KHz? What if there is a narrow notch at 1KHz, or a peak? In what room, at what angle, at what setting? Manufacturers routinely ignore the dB limits (and they know better) so they can make their products look good, and also out of frustration with all these unknowns/uncontrollables. The RTR spec sheet simply says 30KHz. The little response chart looks to be hand drawn and shows maybe a -1dB droop at 20KHz compared to, say, 5Khz. So the specs simply give you some very vague notion of bandwidth, and little more.

Now, Fulton did in fact modify the RTR crossover point to roughly 6.5KHz (from 1.5KHz) and he also added a bypass path for the highest frequencies, so he did reshape the response. Because the roll-off of almost any speaker is gradual, with crossover pushing-and-prodding one can boost the bandwidth (essentially by reducing everything else). In any case, I must say that I agree with Tube Fan that the RTRs, as modded and used in the Fulton J Modular, are among the very best reproducers of the highs that I've ever heard. Airy, atmospheric, but lacking in etch and added texture.

And I could make a similar argument for the bass response spec limits, where room acoustics matter much more.