dallasjustice
Major Contributor
JBL 4367 voted "Speaker of the Year" >$20,000.
http://www.avhub.com.au/awards/this-years-awards
http://www.avhub.com.au/awards/this-years-awards
Central Scrutinizer strikes again..When did the 4367 become "over" $20,000?
LOUDSPEAKERS OF THE YEAR $10,000-$20,000
DALI EPICON 6
LOUDSPEAKERS OF THE YEAR OVER $20,000
JBL 4367
Oh. Australian Dollars. They count differently.
Actually, they'e very pro-hifi. Anti "high-end," perhaps. Maybe it's because I started out, many years ago, with Altec Lansing Valencias, but I don't find them all that unattractive. They're easier for me to look at than a lot of high-end speakers. Some of which look like robots from the first run of Battlestar Gallactica...
The Harman training should be mandatory for any serious listener and/or designer,
That thread is now just another opportunity for all the bored subjectivists to jerk off about caps.
The software is free and you can use it to train yourself: http://harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com/Is this accessible to the general public, or only Harman dealers? If so, where?
Coloration refers to an unnatural distortion in the timbre of sounds usually
associated with the presence of undesirable medium and narrow band
resonances in the playback chain and/or listening room.
Is this the one where they recommend listening to a single speaker?The software is free and you can use it to train yourself: http://harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com/
Now applying that to actual speaker evaluation requires an invitation to Harman, being a dealer or world class acoustician. On occasion Sean Olive invites other people to attend in his tests.
Don't knowIs this the one where they recommend listening to a single speaker?
But in the end "imaging" is nothing more than a amusing parlor trick that has little or nothing to do with SQ or High Fidelity.If so, that suggests that there is nothing important about the 'holographic' effect from two stereo speakers i.e. what we might call "imaging", or that it is affected by 'quality'.
It could be chick and egg: if previous technology couldn't create a powerful image, it would be put at the bottom of the list and regarded as a myth or dismissed as a parlor trick.Don't know
But in the end "imaging" is nothing more than a amusing parlor trick that has little or nothing to do with SQ or High Fidelity.
The qualities taught in the Philips Golden Ear training were, of which I would have put the Spatial Impression at the bottom of importance.
No, this is just software you run on your computer. It plays a piece of music and then changes the response using a parametric EQ. Your job is to guess what change has been made.Is this the one where they recommend listening to a single speaker?
Humbling piece of software ... We audiophiles think so much of our hearing ... Level 3 is harder than the number would suggest ...No, this is just software you run on your computer. It plays a piece of music and then changes the response using a parametric EQ. Your job is to guess what change has been made.
It starts easy with broad large changes but keeps getting more difficult as the bandwidth shrinks. First time I ran it I could only get to level 3. With a bit of practice I got to level 6 or 7. I stopped there. Sean said that to be a trained listener you need to get up to level 11 or something like that. He himself could sail well past me. Even with that bit of training I found my ears to become much more sensitive to frequency response variations of rooms and speakers.
Just download and run it.
It can all end up being a viscous circle. You listen so critically you not only become constantly dissatisfied with your gear but with your recordings themselves. Then you may end up being a "delusional believer" thinking you hear all manner of things in sighted listening, insisting that blind testing itself is flawed and to "trust your ears only".No, this is just software you run on your computer. It plays a piece of music and then changes the response using a parametric EQ. Your job is to guess what change has been made.
No, it doesn't say that. It says that speakers by far vary in their frequency response between them. That frequency response error is there whether you listen in mono or stereo. It is just that stereo makes the experience more "pretty" causing the listener to become less critical of frequency response errors. This was demonstrated by running the same test with 1 to 5 speakers and seeing that the complaints from listeners reduced about the same speakers as the number of speakers went up.If so, that suggests that there is nothing important about the 'holographic' effect from two stereo speakers i.e. what we might call "imaging", or that it is affected by 'quality'.
Imaging always comes as part of the package if the system is working at a quality level - it would be totally impossible not to be aware of spatial aspects ... just relate it to listening to live sound, meaning no PA nonsense! In fact, highly engineered recordings have enormous amounts of spatial information, far more than the "real thing"! Listening to a band doing one of these 'produced' tracks, live, would be a huge letdown ...Don't know
But in the end "imaging" is nothing more than a amusing parlor trick that has little or nothing to do with SQ or High Fidelity.