Doesn't matter what you do or think. What matters is what is correct:
And why is that a reliable observation? And how does it related to you? Do you listen to the same music? Sit in the same spot? Have the same room? Have speakers pointed the same way? How do you know he is not biased by what he is seeing instead of what he is hearing?
Why you measure if listening is valid for quality control of measurements as more accurate
AES paper you are referring does not include conclusion or claims that stereo listening cannot reveal anything else than mono. Just that tonal balance and directivity errors (via reflection field) are audible as mono i.e. stereo is not needed to measure difference in preference by listening.
You didn't read what I wrote. The instructions for what I listen to comes from measurements. Listening tests qualify the impact of errors shown in measurements.Why you measure if listening is valid for quality control of measurements as more accurate
Nope. Once again you didn't bother watching what I post. The second paper absolutely covers this.
Oh really? They used $14000 B&W Speakers in Room EQ study. You call them trash? How about Martin Logan? I showed both in the video. But you couldn't be bothered to watch. Study more, complain less.
You probably refer to imaging - how small or large sound objects are in mono. Absolutely does not cover everything about everything. All studies in practice have some limitations related to speaker concept, environment and locations. Including one electrostatic does not change that.
Nice looking. Interestingly, you seem to be using Ergotron mounts for your display monitors. I'm using that brands mounts for my KH80s (I followed a set up that @jhaider 's shared here in ASR a while back).Neumann's in the house
View attachment 250676
View attachment 250677
View attachment 250678
View attachment 250679
Definitely a big improvement in sound compared with my Dynaudio BM5 MKIII. Sound stage and stereo image is crazy with the Neumanns compared with the Dynaudio's. These are keepers for sure. Also got the MA1 mic but calibration is going to take a few days, after Christmas most likely and I have 2 weeks vacation starting on the 26th
If the KH150 work in the same way as the KH80s, the speakers are reachable through an "internal" IPv6 address (they don't need/get a DHCPv6 IP from your router).I’m a bit surprised that IPv6 is required for MA-1.
“IPv6 supported and enabled”
MA 1
MA 1 - - KH 420,KH 310 A,KH 120 A G,KH 750 DSP,KH 80 DSP A G,KH 120 A W,KH 420 + DIM 1,KH 120 D G,KH 310 D,KH 80 DSP A W,Electronics - Sennheiser Discover True Sounden-de.neumann.com
This setup needs to change either the brown furniture with an anthracite one ore get other speakers
Can someone explain why the unit underneath the TV always has to be at least as wide as the TV. I don't have a TV Shrine, so must have missed the memo.
AFAIK the ipad app has not been updated for 3+ years, which is a shame. I don´t understand why Neumann has abandoned it without a equal successor.
Thanks for you answer,
That documents help, but the commands to send to each specific device (I.e. : KH80, KH750, KH150?) can/will change and this is not documented.
Very sorry that I answer twice to the same. Sure mono can reveal overall tonal balance and directivity errors better, but Toole's conclusions are not that mono is better for revealing some truth or preference about spatial quality (or anything else than studied). That's also perfectly natural imo because a) mono is irrelevant for evaluating spatial quality with stereo recording targeted to stereo listening i.e. normal usage of stereo system b) different shape of polar pattern, and level and spectrum of directivity creates different "virtual" sound stage in mono with room reflections. The last one is very sensitive to recording, listening environment (acoustics) and geometry. It's the most probable reason why rank of two tested speakers in mono/stereo series II swapped, and the worst one (dipole) in mono test is very close to as preferred as two others in stereo. So stereo lifts its rank to whole new level. Now we can just speculate that it could be clear #1 in stereo without the lowest preference in sound quality. Ok, everyone with decent experience should know that and obvious limits of mono listening for overall quality without Toole's papers from the 80s'. Of course mono is quick and easy so go ahead with it, but don't expect consensus. My wish is that you should not publish any listening impressions if they are not more thorough and you don't reveal acoustics and geometry of your listening environment.
That's my experience as well - I have strongly preferred one speaker in mono and a different speaker in stereo when doing blind level matched ABX tests, and I'm not the only one who has shared a similar experience before. I don't think these experiences contradict the conclusion of the papers in question either, I think their conclusion is being stretched into an absolute which was never claimed by the papers to begin with.
A 3-way has the potential to be better but in this case the KH 310A has directivity error around 1kHz and (surprisingly enough) shows more distortion across the board, especially in low bass. This new woofer is quite an achievement.