Time Domain measurements?

[March Audio]

Being at the recording helps. I make my own ones from time to time.

Can you explain how?

Listening live to the musicians is very different to what microphones "hear". If monitored on speakers, what speakers and how accurate are they?

 

[Joachim Gerhard]

Sometimes it is easier to build up then maintain....

 

[Joachim Gerhard]

The only that we can hope for is that we hear how the mix sounded at the end. In the old days it was more easy. There was the orchestra in one room an the mixing desc in the other. One door and you could compare.

 

[March Audio]

I build the company up to 35 Importers in various countries. They only had to make sure that they did not make any bad mistakes.

With respect that wasn't really an answer to the question . I'm sure you can see the point I'm making. OK, so you only trust your research. Maybe they only trust their research. So who is right?

 

[March Audio]

The only that we can hope for is that we hear how the mix sounded at the end. In the old days it was more easy. There was the orchestra in one room an the mixing desc in the other. One door and you could compare.

Only if the monitoring speakers were providing an accurate representation. Unless you have known standards its just one big circle of confusion.

So in essence you are tuning to the memory of an unknown standard.

 

[Joachim Gerhard]

That is the question about god. I am the creator, so I am god in my own kingdom. Sorry, no answer to my question. The first problem is that even a very got recording is not the same then what happens in reality. I judge mainly on the emotional content, the new Silje Nergard recording make me cry. It is even not high resolution. Only 44,1kHz 16Bit

 

[Joachim Gerhard]

Sorry, I have it in high res too but it does not make me kry more

 

[thewas]

Sorry, I have it in high res too but it does not make me kry more

Music you love can make you cry even if you listen to it from an old AM radio, but that has not really much to do with the technical side of sound reproduction. Like Sean Olive (damn, I can't stop quoting these Harman guys) says, Music is art, Audio is Science in the Service of Art.

 

[March Audio]

That is the question about god. I am the creator, so I am god in my own kingdom. Sorry, no answer to my question. The first problem is that even a very got recording is not the same then what happens in reality. I judge mainly on the emotional content, the new Silje Nergard recording make me cry. It is even not high resolution. Only 44,1kHz 16Bit

That's an interesting comment and one I have seen from many audiophiles.

Problem with it is that it pertains only to your personal emotional state at any instant in time. It has no relevance to the the sound quality of the speaker. What "floats your boat" in this sense may not float mine.

I can get "into" and emotionallly engaged by music playing on a cheap radio.

Sometimes I listen to my system and everything is fantastic, I'm really engaged and emotional. Other days same music leaves me cold.

The system isn't changing, I am.

 

[Joachim Gerhard]

True. Art and Science. Science in the service of art does not exist. Art is totally independent on Science.
Not all Art but mostly. For me the sky is green. That can not be disputed although the majority thinks its blue. When you go into quantum physics it’s even more strange. When we do not look, nothing is there.

 

[Joachim Gerhard]

Nobody can objectively measure speakers and correlate that to the subjective result. It is not even in the same physical domain. If we could do it it should we relative easy to make a great speaker and focus of making it cheaper. That is what Peter Walker said. In the future we can not make amplifiers better but smaller and more affordable. He though that amps without pathological problems sound the same anyway. So why doing high resolution measurements in the first place ? Because we are bored to not have any basic survival issues any more, or just for fun ? I do not think so.
.

 

[MZKM]

I have: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...o-fest-rmaf-2017-day-1.1981/page-5#post-52461

As I note there, that demo was not great.

Stereophile measured one with his name attached a while back (~$8000 in 2009), not bad:

30°H listening window:

Horizontal off-axis:

Normalized:

Step response:

Unless the tweeter axis is not the intended axis, the woofer is trailing the tweeter slightly, here the LS50:

 

[Andreas007]

True. Art and Science. Science in the service of art does not exist. Art is totally independent on Science.
Not all Art but mostly. For me the sky is green. That can not be disputed although the majority thinks its blue. When you go into quantum physics it’s even more strange. When we do not look, nothing is there.

Normally, I hear such statements from people who work in the esoteric business.

 

[thewas]

Stereophile measured with his name attached a while back (~$8000 in 2009), not bad:

Here some more measurement of his current products:
https://suesskindaudio.de/blog/2017/06/29/test-der-phaenomen-in-stereoplay-ausgabe-07-17/
https://suesskindaudio.de/blog/2018/11/25/spektakulaerer-test-unserer-beo-lx-in-lp-1-2019/

Normally, I hear such statements from people who work in the esoteric business.

https://suesskindaudio.de/audio-fractals/

 

[tuga]

Nobody can objectively measure speakers and correlate that to the subjective result. It is not even in the same physical domain. If we could do it it should we relative easy to make a great speaker and focus of making it cheaper. That is what Peter Walker said. In the future we can not make amplifiers better but smaller and more affordable. He though that amps without pathological problems sound the same anyway. So why doing high resolution measurements in the first place ? Because we are bored to not have any basic survival issues any more, or just for fun ? I do not think so.
.

I think Toole agrees with that. This is from 2006:

Two ears and a brain have advantages over a microphone and an analyzer.

And in 2015 he wrote the following:

Two ears and a brain are massively more analytical and adaptable than an omnidirectional microphone and an analyzer.

A binaural human listener is vastly more complex and capable than an omnidirectional microphone and analyzer, and we are not close to having a computer equivalent.

It's only human to want a recipe for success, a SINAD or Speaker Preference Score to solve our problems...

 

[March Audio]

Nobody can objectively measure speakers and correlate that to the subjective result. It is not even in the same physical domain. If we could do it it should we relative easy to make a great speaker and focus of making it cheaper. That is what Peter Walker said. In the future we can not make amplifiers better but smaller and more affordable. He though that amps without pathological problems sound the same anyway. So why doing high resolution measurements in the first place ? Because we are bored to not have any basic survival issues any more, or just for fun ? I do not think so.
.

Not true. Toole et al have done precisely this.

 

[March Audio]

I think Toole agrees with that. This is from 2006:

Two ears and a brain have advantages over a microphone and an analyzer.

And in 2015 he wrote the following:

Two ears and a brain are massively more analytical and adaptable than an omnidirectional microphone and an analyzer.

A binaural human listener is vastly more complex and capable than an omnidirectional microphone and analyzer, and we are not close to having a computer equivalent.

It's only human to want a recipe for success, a SINAD or Speaker Preference Score to solve our problems...

He doesnt, you have misinterpreted those specific comments and the context they were used in.

 

[QMuse]

Nobody can objectively measure speakers and correlate that to the subjective result. It is not even in the same physical domain. If we could do it it should we relative easy to make a great speaker and focus of making it cheaper.
.

Strange. I thought the whole point of CEA-2034 is just about that.

 

[Joachim Gerhard]

Stereophile measured with his name attached a while back (~$8000 in 2009), not bad:

30°H listening window:

Horizontal off-axis:

Normalized:

Step response:

Unless the tweeter axis is not the intended axis, the woofer is trailing the tweeter slightly, here the LS50:

The measurements must be the Sonics Allegra. The notch at 3.8kHz is a diffraction artifact.

 

[thewas]

The measurements must be the Sonics Allegra. The notch at 3.8kHz is a diffraction artifact.

Yes, https://www.stereophile.com/content/sonics-joachim-gerhard-allegra-loudspeaker-measurements

Here are also the Stereophile Sonics Anima measurements https://www.stereophile.com/content/sonics-anima-loudspeaker-measurements