Speaker Characteristics and Why?

[theaudiohobby]

audhob:

the common idea is that tubes are warm and fuzzy. juicy at the bottom, sweet at the top. not very well extended in either direction. that may be wrong but its common

You obviously started with the wrong notion, probably just another audiophile urban myth, Given tube hardware's typically higher impedance, their sound will exhibit greater variability than typical SS hardware.

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

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

IMO, life-like reproduction is an ambiguous term in the context of this discussion, I doubt that those plumbing for SS hardware are seeking non life-like reproduction.

[Pat D]

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

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

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

[Pat D]

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

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

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

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

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

[hifitommy]

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

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

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

[E-Stat]

...please show us any tube preamp and amp that are as accurate as a Bryston amp and preamp.

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

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[theaudiohobby]

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

rw

I take it that there are no examples are coming forth then.

[theaudiohobby]

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

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

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

I do not see the point of your vexation given that you've just done saying that you started out with a misconception, that's it's common is irrelevant in this context. And the point you were trying to make was well-covered in Pat D's response to Mr. Peabody.

[E-Stat]

I take it that there are no examples are coming forth then.

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

rw

[E-Stat]

...my question would be accurate to what the master tape or digital file? This is the perspective i am talking about, not some subjective opinion.

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

rw

[theaudiohobby]

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

rw

right on!

[RGA]

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

rw

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

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

[Geoffcin]

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for understanding.

[E-Stat]

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

rw

[hifitommy]

audiohobbby:

vexation....

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

[RGA]

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

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

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

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

Thanks for understanding.

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

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

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

[Geoffcin]

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

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

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

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

[E-Stat]

The in room measurement of the 3.6 - any in room measurements shows a +/-25db difference from 40hz to 2khz and a more than +10db boost in the bass midbass.

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

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

In summation, he writes:

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

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

rw

[theaudiohobby]

audiohobbby:

vexation....

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

Much ado about absolutely nothing , apologies for vexing you with my supposed high self opinion.

[Geoffcin]

Copied in whole from Sterophile.com;

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

rw

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

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

[E-Stat]

Whatever, his opinion was not subjective if he is saying that tubes and vinyl impart a sonic character on the signals. It was an informed observation, not a subjective opinion. I hope you know the difference... He had possession of the master tapes to make his comparison...

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

...something you don't have access to(which I think bugs the hell out of you).

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

rw

[Pat D]

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

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

In summation, he writes:

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

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

rw

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

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

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

Slightly later, he explained:

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

http://stereophile.com/floorloudspea...03/index9.html

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

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

rw

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

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