Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Speakers vs amps and cd players (Read 76780 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #100 –
Don't you see how they start measuring at 1 kHz at -10 dB (only 5 dB away from the actual dip) and go from there? 

17 Hz to 24 kHz, -3 dB(/+18 dB offset by -5 dB at 1 kHz)
"I hear it when I see it."

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #101 –
Quote from: xnor on
Don't you see how they start measuring at 1 kHz at -10 dB (only 5 dB away from the actual dip) and go from there? 

Quite so. By such standards of injurneering excellence, these Egglestons would be flat to 10Hz referenced to 3Khz:


cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #102 –
Quote from: Rich B on
The Eggleston Works speakers use 2 12" woofers per speaker in large cabinets. That's 4 x 12" woofers. You say the low frequency response was not great? Prove it.


(1) we have reliable evidence that just packing more bigger woofers into a too-small cabinet is not the optimal route to good bass.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/egglest...er-measurements



Looking around a little I found the probable tech specs for the woofers in the above system:

http://www.dynaudio.com/int/pdf/DYN_Automo...rochure_INT.pdf

My first question was: "How did anybody mess up the response of such nicely speced  drivers." (Esotar² 1200)

An answer is right there in the driver spec sheet: Vas = 163 liters = 5.5 cubic feet. Rule of thumb is that a speaker is well matched to an enclosure with volume equal to about 3 times driver Vas or in this case 15 cubic feet.  Twice that for two drivers which is the case here or about 30 cubic feet.

The speaker enclosure Dimensions are given as 46" H by 15" W by 18" D.  but enclosure wall thickness is about 1.6" so we have to take 3 inches off of every measurement giving 43" x 12" x 15".  That nets out to about 5.5 cubic feet or only 25% of optimum.

So the double thickness MDF is a nice touch (but naively low tech given that far more stiffness can be obtained with less materials and weight using effectively designed cross bracing). It can't help making a rookie mistake like putting the wrong drivers in a too-small box.  It could be largely circumvented with some well-designed equalization, but in the high end audio world, equalization is usually thought to be some kind of evil process.

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #103 –
Quote from: JabbaThePrawn on
Abbey Road Studios use domestically available (and rather nicely finished) B&W speakers and Classé power amps. They may be an exception, but they are a major recording studio.



Yes, there are exceptions. Abbey Road famously like their B&Ws.

There are also crossover companies that sell into both pro and consumer markets, where the consumer model may simply be passive rather than active, or might be identical but clad in fancier woodwork for the living room look.
The most important audio cables are the ones in the brain

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #104 –
If you look at the shape, and consider that the woofers probably use a separate chamber, you get to a much smaller volume. There's a vent in the back.



Also, there are two woofers. The second one seems to be acoustically in series behind the visible one. This reduces Vas, but also lowers efficiency.

Weird.
"I hear it when I see it."

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #105 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: Green Marker on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Can we move on from obsessing over truisms?

Sorry. This branch of the discussion stemmed from my earlier objections to discussions that do nothing but quote from Higher Authorities - which are, in themselves, nothing but a form of endless regurgitation of truisms.



And your alternative to citing research is what?  "I heard it, therefore it is real?"


Not even that. These days "I read it on the web" suffices as uncontestable revealed truth.

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #106 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
These days "I read it on the web" suffices as uncontestable revealed truth.

Not all that much different from "I read it in a book".

"I have experience: I once even did it for my job" is not incontestable revealed truth either.

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #107 –
Quote from: Green Marker on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
These days "I read it on the web" suffices as uncontestable revealed truth.

Not all that much different from "I read it in a book".

"I have experience: I once even did it for my job" is not incontestable revealed truth either.

So where are you getting your info from mate?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #108 –
Quote from: Thad E Ginathom on
Yes, there are exceptions. Abbey Road famously like their B&Ws.

Great choice when you have an aircraft carrier sized mixing board stretching across the room between you and the speakers. I bet that sounds really good playing the Beattles. "Accurate" too.

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #109 –
Quote from: Green Marker on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on

These days "I read it on the web" suffices as uncontestable revealed truth.

Not all that much different from "I read it in a book".


I'm not sure about that at all.

Lots of crap on the web that would never ever make it into a book.

Lots of very good books: Toole, Winer, Dickason, Pohlman...

Quote
"I have experience: I once even did it for my job" is not incontestable revealed truth either.


Particularly true for people with IT, recording, production, and live sound experience.  Some call it engineering, and I've done it all. Speaking from those experiences, its not really engineering.

Some of the most mislead people on the web are EE's.

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #110 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
I'm not sure about that at all.
Lots of crap on the web that would never ever make it into a book.

Possibly, but there are published books on astrology, phrenology, crystal healing etc. Publication is not a guarantee of incontestability.

Science can be difficult to distinguish from pseudoscience, and I just think that some of the audio 'science' is getting into the pseudo category. What I mean by that is that as soon as we try to investigate whether a human listener can hear distortion at some level in "music" we have crossed the line; aesthetic judgements (which this has then become, no matter how much we try to avoid it) are outside the scope of science.

If the idea is that distortion levels can be higher in "music" and not, say, sine waves, then a difficulty is that I could come along and create a piece of music comprising four minutes thirty three seconds of 1 kHz sine wave (and "publish" it on Spotify etc. :-) ). If our would-be scientist then adds the qualifier "normal" or "typical" (music) then I think the conclusions of the experiment must always be open to question because of the possibility of cultural bias etc.

Basically, even if a scientific procedure is followed, an experiment may not be science if what is being investigated is outside the scope of science. Possibly a good topic for another thread!

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #111 –
Quote from: Rich B on
Let's see if the Paradigm Studio can match this :

<jewelry deleted>


Let's see if it can match this in dynamics, low frequency response and low distortion output. There are many, many examples out there.



Yeah, let's!  I would *love* to see a decent set of measurement of these amusing examples of audiophile eyecandy

FWIW, the loudspeakers models RichB has shown are:

Eggleston Savoy Signature  ($55,000/pr)

JM Lab Grande Utopia BE ($80,000/pr)

Nola Grand Reference VI Gold  ($298,000/pr)


The question is, of  course, how much do you have to  spend to get audio performance as good or better than these? To answer that we have ot know how they perform.


Neither Eggleston nor Nola has any  models measured at Soundstage.

There's two JM lab models measured at Soundstage -- the measurements are old and not as comprehensive as later ones.  The 'Mini Utopia' has quite nice performance  but certainly is no bass monster (steep falloff below 50 Hz) nor is the perfamnce matchless. 
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurem...lab_miniutopia/

As for the JM CHorus 706 (a bookshelf speaker) , well, hmm, I wouldn't exactly brag about that one
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurem...mlab_chorus706/



There are something like *10* Paradigm models measured by Soundstage , some perform better than others, so which model are we talking about here as the reference?
http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/index.php


RichB, have you investigated Sean Olive's loudspeaker comparison work *at all*?  Are you aware that one of his experiments included a top-rated loudspeaker of one of the audiophile mags -- and it didn't do very well at all either objectively or subjectively, compared to some much less pricey models?  Do you find that incredible?

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #112 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: Thad E Ginathom on
Yes, there are exceptions. Abbey Road famously like their B&Ws.

Great choice when you have an aircraft carrier sized mixing board stretching across the room between you and the speakers. I bet that sounds really good playing the Beattles. "Accurate" too.

cheers,

AJ



Yeah, I don't get that setup *at all*, unless there is some provision for moving  the mixing board out of the way, or levitating the loudspeakers.

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #114 –
Quote from: Green Marker on
Science can be difficult to distinguish from pseudoscience, and I just think that some of the audio 'science' is getting into the pseudo category. What I mean by that is that as soon as we try to investigate whether a human listener can hear distortion at some level in "music" we have crossed the line; aesthetic judgements (which this has then become, no matter how much we try to avoid it) are outside the scope of science.

What line does that cross? Are you saying that audio reproduction is arbitrary and without any goal?
Do you know what high fidelity stands for? Flat frequency response, minimal amount of noise and distortion, ...

This sounds more like an anti-science stance than an attempt to distinguish science from pseudoscience.


Quote from: Green Marker on
If the idea is that distortion levels can be higher in "music" and not, say, sine waves, then a difficulty is that I could come along and create a piece of music comprising four minutes thirty three seconds of 1 kHz sine wave (and "publish" it on Spotify etc. :-) ). If our would-be scientist then adds the qualifier "normal" or "typical" (music) then I think the conclusions of the experiment must always be open to question because of the possibility of cultural bias etc.

Basically, even if a scientific procedure is followed, an experiment may not be science if what is being investigated is outside the scope of science. Possibly a good topic for another thread!

What instrument produces a single clean sine wave? All bets are off as soon as you start generating artificial sounds ... you can even make phase shifts audible that are completely inaudible with music.

Science investigates both, the effect of distortion on pure tones and on music, be it jitter, harmonics distortion ... It's all science.
The only problem I see is using single tone results and claim that you can hear the same with real music. That is pseudoscience, or audiophile FUD.
"I hear it when I see it."
 

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #115 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: Rich B on
Let's see if the Paradigm Studio can match this :

<jewelry deleted>


Let's see if it can match this in dynamics, low frequency response and low distortion output. There are many, many examples out there.



Yeah, let's!  I would *love* to see a decent set of measurement of these amusing examples of audiophile eyecandy

FWIW, the loudspeakers models RichB has shown are:

Eggleston Savoy Signature  ($55,000/pr)

JM Lab Grande Utopia BE ($80,000/pr)

Nola Grand Reference VI Gold  ($298,000/pr)


The question is, of  course, how much do you have to  spend to get audio performance as good or better than these? To answer that we have ot know how they perform.


Neither Eggleston nor Nola has any  models measured at Soundstage.

There's two JM lab models measured at Soundstage -- the measurements are old and not as comprehensive as later ones.  The 'Mini Utopia' has quite nice performance  but certainly is no bass monster (steep falloff below 50 Hz) nor is the perfamnce matchless. 
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurem...lab_miniutopia/

As for the JM CHorus 706 (a bookshelf speaker) , well, hmm, I wouldn't exactly brag about that one
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurem...mlab_chorus706/



There are something like *10* Paradigm models measured by Soundstage , some perform better than others, so which model are we talking about here as the reference?
http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/index.php


RichB, have you investigated Sean Olive's loudspeaker comparison work *at all*?  Are you aware that one of his experiments included a top-rated loudspeaker of one of the audiophile mags -- and it didn't do very well at all either objectively or subjectively, compared to some much less pricey models?  Do you find that incredible?


Yes I am aware of Sean Olives work and not surprisingly, his speakers, endorsed by his company, were preferred the most.

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #116 –
Quote from: Green Marker on
Science can be difficult to distinguish from pseudoscience


Personally I think people familiar with science can easily tell the difference.

Quote
I just think that some of the audio 'science' is getting into the pseudo category.


You can indeed find plenty of experiments done by people who pretend or think they are doing science (and present it as such) but neglect to use proper controls and misinterpret the results.

Quote
What I mean by that is that as soon as we try to investigate whether a human listener can hear distortion at some level in "music" we have crossed the line; aesthetic judgements (which this has then become, no matter how much we try to avoid it) are outside the scope of science.


No. Whether the presence of a given type of distortion is audible under certain conditions is not an aesthetic judgment. Whether a given type of audible distortion is tolerable or perhaps desirable is an aesthetic judgment.

Quote
If the idea is that distortion levels can be higher in "music" and not, say, sine waves, then a difficulty is that I could come along and create a piece of music comprising four minutes thirty three seconds of 1 kHz sine wave (and "publish" it on Spotify etc. :-) ). If our would-be scientist then adds the qualifier "normal" or "typical" (music) then I think the conclusions of the experiment must always be open to question because of the possibility of cultural bias etc.


If you know what you are testing for, then you try to find a worst case signal to determine audibility. If something is only audible under certain conditions, and you can relate those conditions to more "typical" conditions in the real world, you can then attempt to make a judgment about audibility under "typical" conditions. You also can identify what may be the "exceptional" cases.

What's important is not the semantics of calling something "typical" or "exceptional" as much as learning how different specific conditions affect audibility.

Quote
Basically, even if a scientific procedure is followed, an experiment may not be science if what is being investigated is outside the scope of science. Possibly a good topic for another thread!


But if we accept this premise, then people who lack a solid understanding of acoustics, analog electronics, digital signal processing, the physiology of human hearing, et al. will just argue that the things they don't know are "outside the scope of science" without bothering to do any reading. And if one is not rather familiar with the research that has been done, then one is in no position to evaluate the veracity of that research.

It is not uncommon to see arguments that "knowledge is worthless" when people who lack a certain background find themselves arguing with people with much more extensive knowledge. They are at a distinct disadvantage in the argument and it's much easier for them to just dismiss all that knowledge than it is to do some reading, admit their ignorance, and/or (gasp) risk losing the argument.

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #117 –
Quote from: Rich B on
Yes I am aware of Sean Olives work and not surprisingly, his speakers, endorsed by his company, were preferred the most.


Excuse the expression, but you're either a troll or a moron.
"I hear it when I see it."

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #118 –
Quote
I read on the internet that those 12" drivers have Xmax < 1 mm and come out of one of the sleaziest and most careless speaker driver factories on the Pacific Rim. ;-)


Please document a source for this outrageous claim.

Quote
AFAIK you've just described any of the speakers whose images you put up for us to worship based on just your say-so.


Perhaps you are irrational, because the speakers I referenced above have anything but poor build quality. You seem to be casting aspersions here, which is intellectually dishonest behaviour. No one who is reasonable or rational for that matter would make any claim that the build quality was shoddy, or that the drive units were inadequate, or that it was just overpriced junk.

You pretty much tip your biases and prejudices by spewing such nonsense. I asked you to cite your equipment so that I could judge your equipment and choices as you seem so very confident to judge the systems I've referenced. Seems only fair.

Quote
Among rational people  speaker performance can be identified by means of good performance in proper technical tests.


Good performance in a technical test, according to your biblical definition of what constitutes 'good performance' is no guarantee of good sound quality within the room.

Quote
It is well known that high prices are proof of nothing but high prices and everything else needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis using reliable evidence.


Right, and you've provided no reliable evidence in support of your bogus claims, especially the claim about <1mm Xmax drivers. You are highly biased or conditioned, if you will, to think that expensive speakers are just overpriced junk. It's difficult to argue with someone whose prejudices override any reasonable or rational approach to honest discussion.

Quote
Where's the evidence that the speakers you have put up images of for us to worship are anything but vastly overpriced junk?


You are claiming that the speakers are vastly overpriced junk, phrased as a question, thinking I'm going to take the bait. First show that they are overpriced junk. All you've done is spew nonsense here.

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #119 –
Quote from: xnor on
Quote from: Rich B on
Yes I am aware of Sean Olives work and not surprisingly, his speakers, endorsed by his company, were preferred the most.


Excuse the expression, but you're either a troll or a moron.


Good argument. Just spew insults when you have nothing salient to offer. Sean Olive tests the speakers in his own facility, using techniques best served to bring about a result that people prefer, and lo and behold, out of all the speakers tested, his speakers were preferred.

Nothing at all suspicious about that. You're either just plain naive, or just in denial.

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #120 –
Quote from: Kees de Visser on
Quote from: Thad E Ginathom on
Yes, there are exceptions. Abbey Road famously like their B&Ws.
In that case there are many exceptions. Just to name a few:
Bob Ludwig mastering (Egglestone)
Wisseloord mastering (Egglestone)
Soundmirror (B&W e.a.)
Teldex Berlin (B&W)
Polyhymnia (B&W)
Sterling Sound (B&W)
Emil Berliner Studios (B&W)


All these studios are using vastly overpriced junk, according to a few know-it-alls here.  You know, it really wouldn't surprise me if Arnold, or some others here, were using cheap $200 junk speakers connected to a cheap AVR, in an untreated room.

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #121 –
Quote from: Rich B on
Quote
Excuse the expression, but you're either a troll or a moron.


Good argument. Just spew insults when you have nothing salient to offer. Sean Olive tests the speakers in his own facility, using techniques best served to bring about a result that people prefer, and lo and behold, out of all the speakers tested, his speakers were preferred.

Nothing at all suspicious about that. You're either just plain naive, or just in denial.


Everyone here can see that you are completely ignorant of the research, including the research they did back at the NRC, not Harman.
Then you don't seem to understand the idea of a double blind test, like at all.
You also don't seem to get that there is research without Harman employees, of non Harman products, ... and even if you exclude all Harman products from their recent research, there's still the same conclusion.
You also seem to be ignorant of the fact that Harman products did not always score well in the tests. The fact that Olive gave us enough information to e.g. identify the anonymized products in their headphone comparison, where a premium AKG product ranked worse than a Bose noise-canceling hp, also doesn't fit your little whacky conspiracy theory.


You just made a complete ass out of yourself without even noticing it.
Don't worry, you'll never hear from me again. Let us know when your brain has overcome the conspiracy theories though.
"I hear it when I see it."

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #122 –
Quote from: Rich B on
Quote
I read on the internet that those 12" drivers have Xmax < 1 mm and come out of one of the sleaziest and most careless speaker driver factories on the Pacific Rim. ;-)

Please document a source for this outrageous claim.


Is that an outrageous claim?  Given the technical malfeasance that is so obvious in the design of the Eggonyourface speakers, (or is that Eggleston?) why wouldn't some of the other mystery meat you referenced be equally defective?


Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #123 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Rich B on
Quote
I read on the internet that those 12" drivers have Xmax < 1 mm and come out of one of the sleaziest and most careless speaker driver factories on the Pacific Rim. ;-)

Please document a source for this outrageous claim.


Is that an outrageous claim?  Given the technical malfeasance that is so obvious in the design of the Eggonyourface speakers, (or is that Eggleston?) why wouldn't some of the other mystery meat you referenced be equally defective?


The absence of any reliable evidence from you says it all. All talk, no substance.

Speakers vs amps and cd players

Reply #124 –
Quote from: drewfx on
It is not uncommon to see arguments that "knowledge is worthless" when people who lack a certain background find themselves arguing with people with much more extensive knowledge. They are at a distinct disadvantage in the argument and it's much easier for them to just dismiss all that knowledge than it is to do some reading, admit their ignorance, and/or (gasp) risk losing the argument.

Yes, if someone did say that "knowledge was worthless", you might, indeed think that. (But it would be very bad manners to say it to them!  I'm sure you wouldn't do that. One might assume that the argument was lost as soon as that happened.)

"Extensive knowledge" can cover a multitude of different levels. The extensive knowledge obtained "on the shop floor" is not necessarily a substitute for the extensive knowledge obtained through reading text books, which is not a substitute for an inquiring mind. Extensive 'shop floor' knowledge of scientific procedure cannot tell you whether questions are beyond the scope of science - such as "how do we define good art?" or "is there a God?". There is a common misconception that if 'scientific procedure' is followed then what results is 'science'. But this is not true. We could follow scientific procedure to attempt to define what is funny. It might be interesting, and maybe not worthless knowledge, but it wouldn't be science.