Speaker Characteristics and Why?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

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

Extended nearfield

Constant Directivity

Advantage of large panel speakers

Reduced Phase shift

Preserve waveshape

What can kill imaging

Larger direct field

Convey more information

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

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

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

Peace.

rw

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

[E-Stat]

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

Aka, facts concerning directivity.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Aka, facts concerning directivity.

rw

No, this is simply more mud PERIOD.

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

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

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

[E-Stat]

The dipole/bipole speaker radiates 50% of its output forward, and 50% backwards and nothing to its sides(whether the radiation pattern in either direction is narrow or wide).

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

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

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

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

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

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

Oh did I?

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

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

I guess you missed this!


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

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

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

rw

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

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

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

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

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

[E-Stat]

Oh did I?

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

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

I guess you missed this!

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

We are not talking about ALL speakers we are talking about monopoles and dipoles specifically.

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

Acoustical treatments were never in the discussion until you introduced it as a band aid for reflection control of the rear output of a dipole. We were talking about just the speakers, not the band aids.
I already took the listener out of the equation, we are talking about the speaker and the room PERIOD. No treatments, just the walls.

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

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

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

Yogi Berra

rw

[theaudiohobby]

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

Yogi Berra

rw

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

[E-Stat]

On first glance, seems profound however on closer look it's a convoluted and self-contradicting statement...

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

...theory and practice are only the same if theory accounts for all variables, as that cannot be guaranteed except in the simplest environments

I'm glad you got the point.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yogi Berra

rw

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

[theaudiohobby]

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


I'm glad you got the point.

rw

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

[E-Stat]

Then you have made my point. Now I must include side reflections, celling reflections along with the rearward ones.

Once again --- only when you limit the discussion to wide dispersion point sources. I speak of real world situations. Line sources have zero vertical dispersion beyond their physical height.

The speaker with the most output directed forward will have more of the original ambience of the recording rendered(hence the dipolar versus monopolar slant).

Which is regularly achieved with high directivity planar dipoles.

You keep adding treatments, and that speakers rear output becomes less and less of an issue, and the speaker radiation pattern becomes more forward - much like a monopolar speaker.

I'm thorough delighted that you understand that aspect of my point. There are very common solutions to what appear to be problems.

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

If you consider all room treatments including bass traps and acoustical panels as band aids, then so be it. I have found that the former provides smoother response and the latter, better acoustics. I'm certainly glad that concert halls don't take your empty room approach devoid of such "band aids".

People who are logical get it the first time.

Your repetition comes across as someone with Alzheimer's. And it makes quoting what you've said take more time!

If you add in all the variables to suit your point, I still am correct, because I can also add variables as well.

Do you really use bare wall listening environments?

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

[Pat D]

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

rw

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

[E-Stat]

I wasn't aware that the Orion has only tweeters for drivers!

I am delighted to help guide you through your confusion. You really need to revisit the posts to discover that the discussion was focused on the effect of adding another dome tweeter behind the first.

rw

[tube fan]

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

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

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

For my part, as speaker reviewers, I'll take John Atkinson, Andrew Marshall, and Doug Schneider over any and all of them.

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

[theaudiohobby]

John Atkinson doesn't even use analogue in his "reference" system. Frequency responce is only one of dozens of factors. NO ONE I respect fails to use analogue in their reviews. Are they deaf?

ho...hum.. you seem quite opinionated. John Atkinson provides an invaluable service to the premium domestic audio community by diligently providing a useful suite of measurements, including frequency response, for most speakers that appear in his magazine. Such not allows one to dispassionately judge a speaker quality from an objective viewpoint. It also serves as a reality check to the current crop of IMO notoriously inadequate subjective reviews that abound everywhere. If none of that matters to you then stick to the reviewers you respect.

I have Dunlavy SC-IV speakers as my backup to my 30 year old Fulton Js. I think the Dunlavy's had the very best measurements Atkinson has ever made. Trust me, my Fulton's simply BLOW THEM AWAY!

Oh really.....the word that comes to mind is preference. It is not unknown for certain folks to prefer speakers with idiosyncratic characteristics that depart from accuracy, whatever works for you.

[Feanor]

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

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

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

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

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

[Pat D]

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

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

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

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

[theaudiohobby]

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

[Mr Peabody]

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

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Feanor]

...

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

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

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

[PeruvianSkies]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Peabody]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those I've met do not.

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

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

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

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

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