-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
ESS speakers were clearly in the "West Coast" sound category and not known for their neutrality.
I worked for ESS for two years - 1979-1981 - and could have had anything the company made for free. I had my Dahlquist DQ-10's at the time and didn't think any ESS speaker came even close, and so never took advantage of the offer. Fortunately, from a sales standpoint, most ESS dealers weren't Dahlquist dealers, and there was a large market for the "sizzle and boom" sound of an ESS model.
During that time period, ESS purchased Dynaco, and made several standard 2 and 3-way speakers under the Dynaco brand name, none with Heil Air Motion Transformers (ESS's claim to fame). Several of the company's engineers confided to me one day that the most accurate speakers the company ever made were the Dynaco, and not the ESS brand.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
Toole's results are empirical and scientifically sound. If you want to refute them, you need to demonstate that what Toole tests measure things less that the sum of everything important in a speaker.
Let me see if I understand your point. Do you really need a carefully controlled empirical test to determine that an Altec A-7 sounds significantly different from a Revel Salon? Or do you really think that what someone really likes about a theatre horn system is exactly the same quality that someone else really likes about a tower based monitor? C'mon!
Tests prove what they prove on that which was tested by who was tested. Based on his collection of "monkey coffin" monopole dynamic speakers, perhaps the criteria is similar. On the other hand, his tests haven't begun to compare the vastly different kinds of speakers on the market including horns and various planars that have different characteristics and performance trade offs Even within Toole's (former) Harman International group, Revel speakers are voiced differently than are JBLs.
http://cdn3.ioffer.com/img/item/979/...XoAV352Euh.jpg vs. http://www.jbl.com/resources//Brands...G1_450X350.GIF
I don't buy that conclusion for a second when applied to the market in general. Otherwise, there would be no Magnepan. There would be no Quad. There would be no Klipsch. There would be no Avant Garde. And so on and so on.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by emaidel
and there was a large market for the "sizzle and boom" sound of an ESS model.
As it remains today with certain JBLs, Cerwin-Vega, Klipsch, etc. :)
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Let me see if I understand your point. Do you really need a carefully controlled empirical test to determine that an Altec A-7 sounds significantly different from a Revel Salon? Or do you really think that what someone really likes about a theatre horn system is exactly the same quality that someone else really likes about a tower based monitor? C'mon! ...
No, but I didn't exactly inply that. Toole was talking about test group averages, not particular individual preferences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
...
Tests prove what they prove on that which was tested by who was tested. Based on his collection of "monkey coffin" monopole dynamic speakers, perhaps the criteria is similar. On the other hand, his tests haven't begun to compare the vastly different kinds of speakers on the market including horns and various planars that have different characteristics and performance trade offs Even within Toole's (former) Harman International group, Revel speakers are voiced differently than are JBLs.
[Revel] vs. [JBL horn]
Revel is designed according to Toole criteria, the JBL horn is not. For that matter the latter's basic was design happened long before Toole came to Harmon International.
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
...
I don't buy that conclusion for a second when applied to the market in general. Otherwise, there would be no Magnepan. There would be no Quad. There would be no Klipsch. There would be no Avant Garde. And so on and so on.
rw
Fair enough. After all you're talking to a Maggie owner in my case, not a "monkey coffin" owner.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppachubby
Nothing excessive, but boosted to add warmth to what I'm hearing. I am also partial to bass as I am a bass guitar player.
Nothing wrong with choosing your favorite tone since there really isn't the notion of "correct" with electric instruments. It would be different, however, with an acoustical string bass. I like the taut, well defined styles of guys like Stanley Clarke (on fretless) and Yes' Chris Squire. Who do you like?
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppachubby
I am curious what you feel the key component is to gaining natural sound. This question is loaded, so how about, do you rely more on your amp, source or speakers to achieve your goal?
First of all, everything matters to an extent. For an overall factor, my answer depends upon the range. For the low end, it is dominated by the speaker and room (hopefully treated). It is only when mid and upper bass peaks are tamed that one hears good bass definition and true first octave extension. For me, there is nothing like the
For me, top end smoothness and true resolution are dominated more by the electronics than by the driver. The upper three octaves contain all the harmonic sins of everything that precedes it. I am especially sensitive to the hard, edgy and thin signature of mediocre electronics and the influence of untrapped RFI. It is fatiguing to the ear and robs the beauty of the delicacy of instruments that live in the uppermost frequencies. The solution begins with power conditioning at the source and continues with using few and simple amplification stages. My vintage system is an example of an eminently smooth, if not super extended system using a double pair of New Advents speakers. Their tweeters have virtually no response above about 15 kHz. It is the source and electronics that make the day. A Pioneer Elite changer is used as transport to a Manley DAC using a tube output stage that drives a Threshold Stasis amp running pure class A into the power levels at which I listen. Here we have a minimal number of stages (no preamp) using low dielectric constant interconnects along with source and DAC running through a power conditioner and amp using a JPS Labs power cord. Low level resolution is superb. Like the main system, it might sound a touch dull on top initially but is devoid of the false brightness found with many systems. True HF content comes through clearly and softly.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Nothing wrong with choosing your favorite tone since there really isn't the notion of "correct" with electric instruments. It would be different, however, with an acoustical string bass. I like the taut, well defined styles of guys like Stanley Clarke (on fretless) and Yes' Chris Squire. Who do you like?
First of all, everything matters to an extent. For an overall factor, my answer depends upon the range. For the low end, it is dominated by the speaker and room (hopefully treated). It is only when mid and upper bass peaks are tamed that one hears good bass definition and true first octave extension. For me, there is nothing like the
For me, top end smoothness and true resolution are dominated more by the electronics than by the driver. The upper three octaves contain all the harmonic sins of everything that precedes it. I am especially sensitive to the hard, edgy and thin signature of mediocre electronics and the influence of untrapped RFI. It is fatiguing to the ear and robs the beauty of the delicacy of instruments that live in the uppermost frequencies. The solution begins with power conditioning at the source and continues with using few and simple amplification stages. My vintage system is an example of an eminently smooth, if not super extended system using a double pair of New Advents speakers. Their tweeters have virtually no response above about 15 kHz. It is the source and electronics that make the day. A Pioneer Elite changer is used as transport to a Manley DAC using a tube output stage that drives a Threshold Stasis amp running pure class A into the power levels at which I listen. Here we have a minimal number of stages (no preamp) using low dielectric constant interconnects along with source and DAC running through a power conditioner and amp using a JPS Labs power cord. Low level resolution is superb. Like the main system, it might sound a touch dull on top initially but is devoid of the false brightness found with many systems. True HF content comes through clearly and softly.
rw
The Manley dac, is it everything it seems to be E-Stat? Is there anywhere to go from there?
-
trained listeners
it takes time to train your ears for listening tests. the training should be listening to live instruments, un-amploified AND amplified so one knows what these things sound like in a live situation.
after the training, the JBLs wont sound like the real thing just as they never have. it will be identifiable by the listener however.
ESSs DBTs involved many untrained listeners who selected what they preferred based on listening to other systems that likely didnt resemble the original sound accurately.
until my ears had been educated, i had no idea WHY speakers sounded so different. with the help of friends and a couple of very knowledgeable salesmen, i was abel to make decisions for myself that werent way off base. i am still learning after 37 years of this hobby.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3db
Well you know the old expression, a fool and his money is easily parted. Instead of waisting money on such nonsense, put into the the upgrade of gear or room acoustics. The single biggest player in sound next to the speakers are room acoustics. Treating the room would have a much further reaching affect.
If I could do a proper DBT test I would. Last year at this time I exchanged out a Technics DX940 receiever for a Yamaha RX-V1800 and I thought I heard tighter bass and a more open soundstage. But the problem is, it took me 3 hours to exchange the receivers and any audio memory accurcay is shot in an around the 2 minute mark. What I would have loved was to be able to the DBT test to see if I actually heard a difference or just perceived to hear one. The only difference I do notice without a DBT test is that the Yamaha can keep on going in power levels where the Technics was running out of gas. This was observed through a Radio Shack SPL meter and I took note of the readings. Other than that, I don't trust my hearing becuase I also hear with my eyes and the RX-V1800 is beautiful sight in my mind.
I take umbrage at the suggestion I'm a fool. I have been involved in this hobby for almost 43 years. Along the way I picked up a Bachelors Degree in Electrical Engineering and a Masters in Computer Science. I am quite familiar with how and why electrically operated devices operate. I have designed gear and modify gear. I have participated in SBT and DBT testing. Both test types raise more questions than they answer.
It has been my experience that tweak detractors usually have several things in common. A few of those are
1. A complete refusal to try any tweak they don't believe.
2. A call for DBT's.
3. An almost universal use of AV receivers.
As I said in an earlier post, (I'm paraphrasing here) "Insted of calling any tweak snake oil, try it yourself and then tell others your conclusions. I'm more inclined to listen to someone who has first hand experience. When you condemn something without knowledge it benefits no one not even yourself."
I could be just as rude and disrespectful by telling detractors "Get better gear, then you could hear what others hear". However you guys don't like to hear that.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeE SP9
I could be just as rude and disrespectful by telling detractors "Get better gear, then you could hear what others hear". However you guys don't like to hear that.
hahahaha, no "we" don't. I'm one of those wee guys with the modest gear. I think this is why humility is somewhat important around here, particularily when your years of experience and quality of gear are lacking. I won't let anyone chit on my head, but I also know my place in the food chain. It's all good, I plan to have it all down the road.
BTW Joe, check out my new thread in the analog section, opinions on either item?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeE SP9
3. An almost universal use of AV receivers.
As I said in an earlier post, (I'm paraphrasing here) "Insted of calling any tweak snake oil, try it yourself and then tell others your conclusions. I'm more inclined to listen to someone who has first hand experience. When you condemn something without knowledge it benefits no one not even yourself."
I could be just as rude and disrespectful by telling detractors "Get better gear, then you could hear what others hear". However you guys don't like to hear that.
JoeE very good points and I wish I could give you more rep points. Once again I must say you made a very good post.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeE SP9
IAs I said in an earlier post, (I'm paraphrasing here) "Insted of calling any tweak snake oil, try it yourself and then tell others your conclusions. I'm more inclined to listen to someone who has first hand experience. When you condemn something without knowledge it benefits no one not even yourself."
That is fine and all, but if you look at other side of equation, what is missing is common sense. “Try the tweak or shut up” argument is a flawed concept as it undermined the achievement we have made in science and electronic in last 100 years.
We all know that jumping off a cliff will kill you. But if you go by above argument, then we all say that if you haven’t jump, shut up and don’t say it will kill you until you try it.
The same goes for audio. There are so many snake oil out there that you have call them out without trying them, or 4 years of education you have received in college is irrelevant.
Tweaks like HI-FI fuses seem to be more of cosmetic enhancement than anything else, so dismissing them without trying them does not necessarily make the conclusion invalid.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeE SP9
I take umbrage at the suggestion I'm a fool. I have been involved in this hobby for almost 43 years. Along the way I picked up a Bachelors Degree in Electrical Engineering and a Masters in Computer Science. I am quite familiar with how and why electrically operated devices operate. I have designed gear and modify gear. I have participated in SBT and DBT testing. Both test types raise more questions than they answer.
It has been my experience that tweak detractors usually have several things in common. A few of those are
1. A complete refusal to try any tweak they don't believe.
2. A call for DBT's.
3. An almost universal use of AV receivers.
As I said in an earlier post, (I'm paraphrasing here) "Insted of calling any tweak snake oil, try it yourself and then tell others your conclusions. I'm more inclined to listen to someone who has first hand experience. When you condemn something without knowledge it benefits no one not even yourself."
I could be just as rude and disrespectful by telling detractors "Get better gear, then you could hear what others hear". However you guys don't like to hear that.
1.) I'm all for acoustic tweeking in rooms. That would include speaker placement as well. Better isolation or decoupling of a turntable from vibrations. These are all measurable items. If you mod the values of capacitance, inductance, or resistsance, of course you may hear something different. But again that is measureable
2.) A DBT test?? Your point? So? Look at my point 3 below. At least I'm open enough to say that what I may perceive to hear is actually governed by other influences such as sight or knowing in advance what I'm using. Hardly objective in my books.
3.) I distrust my first impressions of my Yamaha over the Panasonic becuase I was going on audio memory and I was not able to switch back and forth quickly enough between the two receivers to actually hear a difference. I also fail to understand your point three about using receivers.
But fuses, expensive cables where the parameters such as resistance, capacitance and inducatance are so small, ( less than .001% different in values compared to cheaper brands ) that it is impossible to hear that difference. Humanly impossible. Don't throw out your education based on subjective results. Floyd Toole and the people that believe in his methodolgy and successful results are the only people I trust to give me an obejective results. All of teh other people in magazines who report subjective results about audio cables and interconnects and other tweaks which are not based on scientific principles in the audio industry are perpetrating fraud as far as I'm concerned. I beleive you that you think you can hear a difference. I think your claim is sincere. (I'm not lumping you into the category of these audio magazine critics ) but I do question your subject results.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifitommy
it takes time to train your ears for listening tests. the training should be listening to live instruments, un-amploified AND amplified so one knows what these things sound like in a live situation. .
Actually Floy Toole through experiments showed the opposite and that both seasoned listeneres and noobs arrived at the same conclusion, only it took noobs a little longer to reach the same conclusion.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by emaidel
What I was trying to illustrate was that by using a carefully controlled and administered DBT to provide legitimate results as to which speaker sounds better than another often generates bizarre findings, and because of this, a DBT is hardly the most appropriate, or accurate, device to determine which product is/sounds better than another. The ESS PS-1 was hardly an "accurate reproducer," nor was it even a very good speaker. It had the characteristically dipped middle, boomy bottom and sizzling high end that lots of people liked (not me) at the time, and typically sold at a discount for only $99.95.. That it was selected by a margin of more than 3 to 1 over the much, much better (but still pretty awful, and horribly overpriced) Bose 901 was used by ESS to promote the "proof" that it was the better speaker, based on the scientifcally culled results of the DBT. The truth of the matter was something else altogether.
And so, it is my belief that a DBT to prove whether or not the Hi-Fi Tuning fuse works or doesn't, won't necessarily prove anything. I believe they work, EStat believes they do, and so does Stereophile. That's good enough for me.
Why would you use a DBT test to choose something as subjective as speakers. Using that arguemnet to fault a DBT doesn't hold much merit becuase liking the sound of a speaker is subjective. Are you going to buy a speaker based on the review of an audio critic or are you going to sit down and listen with your own ears to see what you like?
A conductor (of the size of a fuse) does not affect sound. It possess no quantative properties that alters the signal travelling through it. Elecltrical signal into fuse is the same as electrical signal out of the fuse.... so how can there be a change in sound? Unlike fuses, speakers impart both an acoustic and electrical signature on signal travelling through it which makes speakers sound differnet from one another. Wether you like the signature is subjective. Hence using your ESS exmaple is not very poor example of discounting DBT tests.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppachubby
The Manley dac, is it everything it seems to be E-Stat? Is there anywhere to go from there?
Anywhere to go? Absolutely. Mine is the relatively modest Sigma Delta unit from the early 90s. I bought it used for $500. There is a pic of it in the vintage system labeled "Ariston RD-11s/SME 3009". It is the black box on top of an older Toshiba transport in the shelf below the table.
Their current version is far better with balanced outputs, 24/96 capability, far larger and separate power supply, remote, etc.
Wave DAC
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3db
Actually Floy Toole through experiments showed the opposite and that both seasoned listeneres and noobs arrived at the same conclusion, only it took noobs a little longer to reach the same conclusion.
You have thoroughly mangled the conclusions of Toole's speaker preference tests using box speakers. Tommy is referring to the greater ability to discern audible differences, not preferences, with any audio component. By all means, reference your assertion.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3db
Why would you use a DBT test to choose something as subjective as speakers.
Why use a double blind test test? To determine what objective measurements correlate to listener preferences. Here's Toole's colleague Sean Olive on the topic: Olive. More on same topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3db
Are you going to buy a speaker based on the review of an audio critic or are you going to sit down and listen with your own ears to see what you like?
Both. There are a couple of trusted ears I know who can tell me quite a bit about a speaker's performance. Having said that, their preference is not always my preference. I know exactly what Harry's Pearson's preferences are and they differ from mine. On the other hand, he is capable of discerning fine differences that I alone cannot. I have on more than one occasion narrowed down my component selection based upon his observational input (and hearing his systems).
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3db
A conductor (of the size of a fuse) does not affect sound.
You continue to demonstrate simplistic speculation. Like those who look at cables and say they have no sound, you completely miss the big picture. The big picture is that cables and connectors are part of a system with the devices at either end affected by the quality and nature of the conductors.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
You have thoroughly mangled the conclusions of Toole's speaker preference tests using box speakers. Tommy is referring to the greater ability to discern audible differences, not preferences, with any audio component. By all means, reference your assertion.
rw
I have mangled nothing. Look again. :)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3db
I have mangled nothing. Look again. :)
It would seem the meaning of the word "preference" eludes you. Actually, I'm watching a video of the MLL downloaded from Olive's blog right now. Watch it yourself. It repeatedly speaks about "hearing the kinds of problems found in speakers" to determine preference. The training tools measure the ability to discern FR changes. Preference does not in any way require or infer an equal ability to hear all that is present in a recording. The preference concept in itself is supported only when the choices are limited to very similar designs, i..e box speakers vs. dipoles or horns. It is easy to prove the differing levels of acuity among listeners. Try this out and tell us how you do. At the end, you will be graded and given the results along with the results of others. Screen cap that for us. You say you like DBTs. Here's one for you. Good luck!
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Why use a double blind test test? To determine what objective measurements correlate to listener preferences. Here's Toole's colleague Sean Olive on the topic: Olive. More on same topic.
You continue to demonstrate simplistic speculation. Like those who look at cables and say they have no sound, you completely miss the big picture. The big picture is that cables and connectors are part of a system with the devices at either end affected by the quality and nature of the conductors.
rw
If you understood the effects of frequency based capacitance and inductance, your redundant responses of simplistuic speculation would stop. But your posts continue you to reinforce that you really have no clue about physics, acoutsics and engineerin principles which just strengthens yout lemming like beliefs. You just don't understand physics.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Why use a double blind test test? To determine what objective measurements correlate to listener preferences. Here's Toole's colleague Sean Olive on the topic: Olive. More on same topic.
Both. There are a couple of trusted ears I know who can tell me quite a bit about a speaker's performance. Having said that, their preference is not always my preference. I know exactly what Harry's Pearson's preferences are and they differ from mine. On the other hand, he is capable of discerning fine differences that I alone cannot. I have on more than one occasion narrowed down my component selection based upon his observational input (and hearing his systems).
....
rw
It's interesting that the performance (low test-to-test variance) of trained listeners is much higher than other listener categories. "Trained" here means trained by Harmon for speaker evaluation. The performance of "audio reviewers" was much lower than the trained and much closer to that of young, persumably inexperienced college students.
How much confidence should we put on the opinions of audio reviewers?? Not much maybe, even it we think we know their preferences. (Of course the performance of such luminaries as Harry Pearson might fair exceed that average of the category.)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3db
If you understood the effects of frequency based capacitance and inductance, your redundant responses of simplistuic speculation would stop. But your posts continue you to reinforce that you really have no clue about physics, acoutsics and engineerin principles which just strengthens yout lemming like beliefs. You just don't understand physics.
It is not I who speculates. I report my observations. You've got another word to look up. For heaven's sake man, can't you spell yourself out of a paper bag?
So, your conclusions consist of speculation AND empty hot air. I didn't think you'd be willing to so easily prove yourself wrong regarding the ability of one's hearing - despite your claim earlier. My guess is that you would do about... say -18db. Maybe a pinch better. No surprise! :)
rw
-
1 Attachment(s)
Wow E-Stat, what a cool test, I did alot better than I thought. My hearing is quite poor due to exposure as a musician when I was younger. I took a sample of how far I got, I didn't complete the whole thing as I have to go to work soon.
I'm unable to post the page of my results. I was successful to -30. I failed -36/37 and failed back to -27. I then was succesful back up to -30 again.
How did you do E? I used my speakers, do you think headphones would give an edge?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
How much confidence should we put on the opinions of audio reviewers?? Not much maybe, even it we think we know their preferences. (Of course the performance of such luminaries as Harry Pearson might fair exceed that average of the category.)
So, who are they talking about? Peter Aczel? The guys at Consumer Reports? Julian Hirsch? How can anyone know the answer without defining that term. I can guarantee you than Harry Pearson and Dr. John Cooledge hear musical detail far beyond what I can. Although I'm a lot closer than I was when I first met them when I was 19. :)
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppachubby
I was successful to -30. I failed -36/37 and failed back to -27. I then was succesful back up to -30 again.
Those are excellent results. While this is not a conclusive test, it is nevertheless a particular measure. I wish I could take it using the main system which is far more transparent than my laptop. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppachubby
How did you do E? I used my speakers, do you think headphones would give an edge?
Your phones might help.
Previous post.
rw
|