Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 89
  1. #26
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    As are researchers. There is a decided bias in Harman's tests using their "shuffler". Sean Olive responded to a post I made over at AA. The response will be quite interesting.

    Response to Sean Olive

    FWIW, I've never been swayed by exotic wood finishes or fancy multi-colored piano finish paints. My main speakers have steel frames painted in flat black Polane polyurethane. The Polks in the HT are likewise painted black although a more glossy black. The double New Advents in the garage have the utility vinyl finish. I couldn't give a $hit about bubinga wood or "X" cabinet material.

    rw
    Olive is dismissive of the issue of speaker positioning in general as well as dipole positioning specifically. Nevertheless this doesn't negate the principle of DBT for evaluating sound preferences/quality.

    Harmon International has been building speakers to Floyd Toole formula for quite few years now. Not that that is such a bad thing, for example, the highly reputed Revel line. Not my cup of tea either, though.

  2. #27
    3db
    3db is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    While it may be the only *variable*, that does not mean that the results of the test aren't affected by the particular choice of amplifier and cable used. My experience has shown that system matching is critical for optimum results. Which is why I find it difficult to get excited over any single component because it may or may not be the best solution across multiple systems.

    The amplifiers I use with the electrostats do not fare as well on my vintage speakers. Conversely, the amplifier I use with them doesn't do as well with the stats. Which is why I don't contribute much to the "which speaker should I buy with this amplifier" sort of question. My approach is to begin with the speaker and buy the best suited amp and speaker cable.

    rw
    I respectively disagree with you but before I go on, I would not buy spekaers soley on DBT because their is the WAF which is probablyu one of the biggest factors in purchasing speakers, espcially large floor standing types.

    I disagree with you that with a poweful solid state amp that cable matching and speaker matching is critical. I beleive all SS and all cables/interconnects sound the same and that
    can be easily tested thru a DBT test. Hence the value in DBT.

    Speakers are very subjective and one either likes the sound or doesn't. I don't see much value there but for things such as SS amps and cables, a DBT would finally dispell that myth.

  3. #28
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    Olive is dismissive of the issue of speaker positioning in general as well as dipole positioning specifically.
    I find that incredibly ironic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    Nevertheless this doesn't negate the principle of DBT for evaluating sound preferences/quality.
    No, but it proves he is unconcerned about optimum results.

    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    Not my cup of tea either, though.
    Nor mine. What does that tell you?

    rw

  4. #29
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by 3db
    I disagree with you that with a poweful solid state amp that cable matching and speaker matching is critical.
    With how many electrostatic speakers (with their unusually demanding reactive load) have you compared amplifiers?

    rw

  5. #30
    3db
    3db is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    The problem is that some us think that powerful SS amps suck ass are low resolving amplifiers and make a homegeneous presentation - and in blind test most low impedence high power power amps are viewed to "sound the same." Even the top SS makers in blind level matched auditions prefer tube amps http://www.stereophile.com/reference/70/

    Having said that - certainly people are swayed with their eyes and certainly people buy based on looks, impressive technologies.


    .
    SS vs tube is a personal taste thing and their is no right nor wrong. The lieks of Anthem, Bryston, SImAudio whicgh are SS amps are not low resolving amps by a long shot. I don't think their is a seperates amp out there that you can classify as low resolviong. Do a spectal analysis on the input signal and teh output signal and the only thing one should see is a difference in ampitude.

  6. #31
    Retro Modernist 02audionoob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    2,908
    I might be off-base here but I think the point of the blog article wasn't to report on whether people care about how their speakers look, but rather whether their perception of sound quality was swayed by looks. There's a big difference, in my mind.

  7. #32
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    The problem is that some us think that powerful SS amps suck ass are low resolving amplifiers and make a homegeneous presentation
    There are exceptions. One of the things that struck me decades ago was how successful Nelson Pass was with balancing the different requirements of low and high power outputs. Then, with the Stasis concept, he literally put two amplifiers in one chassis with their outputs combined in a similar (but more sophisticated) approach found in the Quad 405. Unlike the 405, however, there is zero overall feedback and no reliance upon cheapo op amps and wimpy output sections. My '81 Stasis 3 runs on the class A voltage amp up to about 4 watts / channel (out of 200 @ 4 ohms). The AB current amp takes over past there. Low level resolution is thus excellent. Another reason I purchased it was that the amp was specifically designed to drive the nasty output of the Dayton-Wright electrostats. Its 32 output devices obviate the need for any protection circuitry. For most of its life, it drove Acoustat 2+2s. Today it enjoys a leisurely retirement driving double New Advents where it runs pretty much exclusively on the sweet voltage amp.

    His current XA amps use a similar, but fundamentally simpler concept, with even better results. It begins with a simple two-stage single ended class A amp that dominates the low power range. Above a particular threshold, it transitions to a high current - but still class A - output.

    I will definitely agree that well designed, but simple circuits sound the best.

    rw

  8. #33
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by 02audionoob
    There's a big difference, in my mind.
    The two are certainly related. The sighted tests favored the ones with the fancier cabinets, chrome trimmed drivers and better name recognition.

    rw

  9. #34
    3db
    3db is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    With how many electrostatic speakers (with their unusually demanding reactive load) have you compared amplifiers?

    rw
    What amplifier characteristics are you matching exactly?

    Now I do see the need to match speakers with tube amps given a tube's amp relative low power outputs and the fact that impedance also needs to be matched. But in a SS amp, there is no need for impedance matching.

  10. #35
    3db
    3db is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by 02audionoob
    I might be off-base here but I think the point of the blog article wasn't to report on whether people care about how their speakers look, but rather whether their perception of sound quality was swayed by looks. There's a big difference, in my mind.
    Thats the biggest aspect in that article that I noticed..sited tests makes a difference no matter what component is being tested and the only way to get around the preducisms involved with seeing the test subject is doing it blindly.

  11. #36
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by 3db
    What amplifier characteristics are you matching exactly?
    Hint: I already provided one answer.

    rw

  12. #37
    3db
    3db is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Hint: I already provided one answer.

    rw
    I saw no electrical property hinted too by you. All I saw is your prference for amps to what speakers you own. So the question still stands. What electrical properties are you trying to match with your speakers?

  13. #38
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat

    While each speaker is rotated to the same position, this device really only works fairly with monopole box speakers. Dipoles will not get an optimum environment since their rear radiation contributes to their sound. Distance to back wall and the amount of reflections must be carefully optimized. rw
    That is irrelevant to the actual tests done, which did not involve dipole speakers.

    What you have described is definitely one of the biggest disadvantages of dipoles used as main speakers.
    "Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
    ------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.

  14. #39
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by Hyfi
    Each of the speakers they tested would also sound different between cables and sources which could account for the blind choices if the synergy between source and smaller speakers was in reality better than with the towers.
    Can you provide any evidence for that assertion?
    "Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
    ------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.

  15. #40
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by noddin0ff
    Seems to imply to me that, for the sighted market, improvements in marketing and product aesthetics will provide more 'bang for the buck' to consumer than sonic design improvements. Methinks Bose may be right after all.
    It may well offer more bang for the buck to some manufacturers!
    "Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
    ------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.

  16. #41
    Retro Modernist 02audionoob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    2,908
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    The two are certainly related. The sighted tests favored the ones with the fancier cabinets, chrome trimmed drivers and better name recognition.

    rw
    To clarify - I do care what my speakers look like. I like the looks of my speakers and I'd actually be willing to sacrifice some sound quality for looks. In fact, I was consciously making that decision when I chose my current speakers over their brethren from the same manufacturer. That's a totally different issue than the likelihood that I would be subconsciously influenced to think a speaker that looks more impressive actually sounds more impressive.

  17. #42
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by 3db
    I saw no electrical property hinted too by you.
    Not only did you see it, you quoted me on it! Ok, I guess you do not understand the concept of reactance. Perhaps you might want to research the topic to understand the implications. Power alone does not imply the ability to drive difficult loads. Here's one link you should read. It also suggests why tube amps may fare better driving this kind of load.

    rw

  18. #43
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by 02audionoob
    That's a totally different issue than the likelihood that I would be subconsciously influenced to think a speaker that looks more impressive actually sounds more impressive.
    Not really. Studies have shown that people who are more physically attractive are perceived to be smarter, nicer - better people. The psychology is the same.

    rw

  19. #44
    3db
    3db is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Not only did you see it, you quoted me on it! Ok, I guess you do not understand the concept of reactance. Perhaps you might want to research the topic to understand the implications. Power alone does not imply the ability to drive difficult loads. Here's one link you should read. It also suggests why tube amps may fare better driving this kind of load.

    rw
    Power is the one thing alone that gives the ability to drive highly reactive loads.....The larger the phase angle between the voltage and current allong with the low impedacne, the higher the load on the amp and its respective power supply. Wiithout reserves, you'll soom be clipping your output signal and introducing all sorts of odd numbered harmonics.

    The article incorrectly asserts that a cone speaker is mostly resistive. Thats BS by every electrical principle that I've studied as an electrical engineer. Further more the auther neglects to include the power factor angle into the definition of power.

    From his article
    "In a capacitor, the impedance is inversely proportional to frequency. So an ESL will have a high impedance at low frequencies (perhaps several hundred), and a very low impedance at high frequencies -- typically around 2 ohms."

    The lower frequencies contain way more spectral energy compared to the high frequencies and thats what makes an amp work.

    This article is incorrect in so many ways. This is article is nothing but a sloppy slaes job for its amplifiers and I would not put stock into what they are stating.

  20. #45
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat D
    That is irrelevant to the actual tests done, which did not involve dipole speakers.
    I was referring to the 2003 test where they used the "shuffler" with the intent, if not success, of eliminating speaker position as a variable. The shuffler didn't exist for the 1994 test which is why they posted two results for each speaker since there were different outcomes depending upon where those speakers were placed.

    rw

  21. #46
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by 3db
    Power is the one thing alone that gives the ability to drive highly reactive loads....
    Like I said, you do not understand the implications of reactance nor have any experience in the real world with amplifiers driving them.

    rw

  22. #47
    3db
    3db is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Like I said, you do not understand the implications of reactance nor have any experience in the real world with amplifiers driving them.

    rw
    As an electrical engineer, I know a snow job when I see it but if you choose to stick your head in teh sand and believe all that crap that was posted in that article, be my guest.

    He's made so many mistakes in that article, its not funny.

  23. #48
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by 3db
    As an electrical engineer...
    Do tell us about your amplifiers and the real world testing you've conducted. Perhaps you can teach Nelson Pass something since he has specifically designed his amplifiers to work with reactive loads for over thirty years.

    Anyone on the internet thinks he's an expert.

    rw

  24. #49
    Retro Modernist 02audionoob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    2,908
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Not really. Studies have shown that people who are more physically attractive are perceived to be smarter, nicer - better people. The psychology is the same.

    rw
    I for one am not buying it. It's different. To compare it to how we perceive people would be more like:

    1. Subconsciously perceiving one person to be a better person because they're good-looking
    2. Consciously deciding which of two people is the better-looking one - like a beauty pageant

  25. #50
    Ajani
    Guest
    A quick point:

    Sighted bias isn't limited to preferring more attractive, blinged out and expensive gear... Since many people prefer more industrial, utilitarian and plain designs...

    I've seen many audiophiles automatically assume that if Products X & Y both cost the same, but X looks really fancy, while Y is plain looking, then Y is clearly the better value for money as all the costs have gone to improving sound quality and not cosmetics... That assumption (which is quite popular in audiophile circles) is a sighted bias and is not always true... and some brands have capitalized on audiophiles making that assumption...

    I think Blind Testing is a very useful tool for designers (even planar brands, since I'm sure they can design a speaker selector that doesn't mess up dipole sound, if they want to...) and can also be for reviewers... It has little direct relevance to the consumer as we will buy what we like regardless...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •