1951: High Fidelity

[Purité Audio]

At least it works ‘as well as’ I remember trying two silver USB cables one didn’t work at all, ( ultimate blacks) and the other spat and popped, that rather brought my USB cable experimentation to a close.
Keith

 

[watchnerd]

Nope you're wrong!

I've made binaural recordings myself and listened to those of others. They definitely sound different, not sure I prefer it, and it certainly wasn't a revelatory 'OMG THAT IS AMAZING' type of experience.

 

[sergeauckland]

To relate it to the topic of the thread: There is no way that it could have been possible to achieve such a level of sound quality for a comparable sum of money in the 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s. Even with Sonos - started production in 2005 or so - quality has taken huge leaps in recent years, with the addition of the sub, more clarity and less distortion in the latest speakers, and particularly the introduction of their room correction system for less than ideal placements. This technology is also available in the high-end of course, and I suspect that we're only now starting to see what it can do.

I agree that cheap, small 'speakers have come on a lot in recent years, and when applied to things like the Devialet Phantoms has resulted in sound quality that just wasn't possible in the past from such a small box. What I don't see is any improvement in what's possible if size and cost aren't taken into account. Quad's ESL63, B&W's 800 series etc etc are still immensely capable loudspeakers, as good as anything produced today at anything like a comparable price.

Small, convenient, cheap is where all the improvements have come, as far as I can tell. Big, full-range 'speakers don't seem to have improved to any significant extent, in fact, looking at the frequency response of some 'boutique' loudspeakers, which look like a cross-section of the Alps, in many respects they have got worse.

S.

 

[tomelex]

Nope you're wrong!

hey, I had a 50/50 chance...

 

[svart-hvitt]

I agree that cheap, small 'speakers have come on a lot in recent years, and when applied to things like the Devialet Phantoms has resulted in sound quality that just wasn't possible in the past from such a small box. What I don't see is any improvement in what's possible if size and cost aren't taken into account. Quad's ESL63, B&W's 800 series etc etc are still immensely capable loudspeakers, as good as anything produced today at anything like a comparable price.

Small, convenient, cheap is where all the improvements have come, as far as I can tell. Big, full-range 'speakers don't seem to have improved to any significant extent, in fact, looking at the frequency response of some 'boutique' loudspeakers, which look like a cross-section of the Alps, in many respects they have got worse.

S.

Floyd Toole’s latest has a nice summary of what’s happened on the speaker front over the past decades.

His charts suggest that the obvious speaker flaws are fewer today than previously.

 

[oivavoi]

Floyd Toole’s latest has a nice summary of what’s happened on the speaker front over the past decades.

His charts suggest that the obvious speaker flaws are fewer today than previously.

I just finished reading the latest edition of Toole's book. While I love it and think it's great, I do think that there is some bias there, in which the studies and experiments of Toole and his associates get more focus than competing work. This also partly applies to the chapter on speaker history. It is true, of course, that there are fewer speakers with very uneven frequency response these days. It's also cool, btw, than he comes all out in favor of dsp based speakers, and basically says that he can't see any reason to do it any other way by now. This is logical final step to equalizing speakers to be flat.

But he devotes less space to exploring the issue of distortion, dynamics and power compression for example, as this is less prominent in his own studies. With smaller bass drivers and smaller speakers, there will be distorsion and power compression in the bass. That's just a fact of life. This, however, it not something he discusses in depth. And as we know, speakers have generally gone down in size since the 70s.

That said, I also think that the SOTA in speaker design these days is vastly superior to the speakers of previous decades. Beolab 90 and 50, for example, I can't imagine there were speakers in the 80s or 90s that could rival them.

 

[svart-hvitt]

I just finished reading the latest edition of Toole's book. While I love it and think it's great, I do think that there is some bias there, in which the studies and experiments of Toole and his associates get more focus than competing work. This also partly applies to the chapter on speaker history. It is true, of course, that there are fewer speakers with very uneven frequency response these days. It's also cool, btw, than he comes all out in favor of dsp based speakers, and basically says that he can't see any reason to do it any other way by now. This is logical final step to equalizing speakers to be flat.

But he devotes less space to exploring the issue of distortion, dynamics and power compression for example, as this is less prominent in his own studies. With smaller bass drivers and smaller speakers, there will be distorsion and power compression in the bass. That's just a fact of life. This, however, it not something he discusses in depth. And as we know, speakers have generally gone down in size since the 70s.

That said, I also think that the SOTA in speaker design these days is vastly superior to the speakers of previous decades. Beolab 90 and 50, for example, I can't imagine there were speakers in the 80s or 90s that could rival them.

I agree but I think you are too critical of old Toole. Remember, he’s an old man now, and his research obviously is the result of the «streetlight effect»:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect

When he started as a researcher decades ago, his claims were controversial. So he documented what science oriented people take for granted today. He went, of course, for the lower hanging fruits in an audio world where there was more myth than documented facts.

Toole is therefore the first wave of audio researchers. The next wave looks at more complex problems, beyond the discussions at audio forums.

Having said that, Toole’s research is still controversial in audiophool circles, where anecdote always beats theory. Which means most audiophiles have yet to comprehend Toole’s basic messages.

 

[watchnerd]

Having said that, Toole’s research is still controversial in audiophool circles, where anecdote always beats theory. Which means most audiophiles have yet to comprehend Toole’s basic messages.

This made me try to think what Toole's basic message(s) are. I guess in my mind its:

1. More users favor a neutral speaker over a non-neutral one

2. It's not just about on-axis response, but the power response within room.

3. Related to #2, controlled directivity is preferred

I think that's about it...did I miss anything major?

 

[svart-hvitt]

This made me try to think what Toole's basic message(s) are. I guess in my mind its:

1. More users favor a neutral speaker over a non-neutral one

2. It's not just about on-axis response, but the power response within room.

3. Related to #2, controlled directivity is preferred

I think that's about it...did I miss anything major?

I think he also showed that the objectivist approach works as good in audio as in other sciences, even if audio is part physics and part psychology (7 senses stuff).

 

[oivavoi]

This made me try to think what Toole's basic message(s) are. I guess in my mind its:

1. More users favor a neutral speaker over a non-neutral one

2. It's not just about on-axis response, but the power response within room.

3. Related to #2, controlled directivity is preferred

I think that's about it...did I miss anything major?

Good list. You can add to this the idea that multiple subwoofers is one of the best solutions to the problem of bass in small rooms - research he apparently initiated - and that speakers with wide dispersion are preferred over speakers with more narrow dispersion. Also that early lateral reflections are preferred by most listeners as long as the speaker has good off-axis response.

 

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

Magazine contains an article written by Paul Klipsch! How cool is that?

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

 

[watchnerd]

Magazine contains an article written by Paul Klipsch! How cool is that?

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

An early informercial!

I also love the picture of the 2 cats sitting on top of the amp next to the Klipschorn.

They don't look placed....just naturally chilling.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Good list. You can add to this the idea that multiple subwoofers is one of the best solutions to the problem of bass in small rooms - research he apparently initiated - and that speakers with wide dispersion are preferred over speakers with more narrow dispersion. Also that early lateral reflections are preferred by most listeners as long as the speaker has good off-axis response.

Who is Mr. Multiple Subs? Geddes or Toole?

 

[fas42]

Some months ago I was tossing around the idea of tarting up some of these modern living speakers - I checked them out in the stores but only the top of line Sonos showed potential, and was far too expensive for the package. The best of the bunch, value for money, was Samsung, the R5 type of thing - would be an interesting project, to take it as far as the intrinsics of the product allow.

 

[fas42]

I just finished reading the latest edition of Toole's book. While I love it and think it's great, I do think that there is some bias there, in which the studies and experiments of Toole and his associates get more focus than competing work. This also partly applies to the chapter on speaker history. It is true, of course, that there are fewer speakers with very uneven frequency response these days. It's also cool, btw, than he comes all out in favor of dsp based speakers, and basically says that he can't see any reason to do it any other way by now. This is logical final step to equalizing speakers to be flat.

But he devotes less space to exploring the issue of distortion, dynamics and power compression for example, as this is less prominent in his own studies. With smaller bass drivers and smaller speakers, there will be distorsion and power compression in the bass. That's just a fact of life. This, however, it not something he discusses in depth. And as we know, speakers have generally gone down in size since the 70s.

That said, I also think that the SOTA in speaker design these days is vastly superior to the speakers of previous decades. Beolab 90 and 50, for example, I can't imagine there were speakers in the 80s or 90s that could rival them.

Modern, cheap drivers are pretty amazing - provided you don't want to wobble carpet on the floor with air currents they don't have any problem delivering - why they sound cheap and nasty is because they're driven with cheap and nasty electronics - put some competent amplification on the job, and they can produce, say, the grandeur of a pipe organ in full flight, effortlessly.

 

[watchnerd]

Some months ago I was tossing around the idea of tarting up some of these modern living speakers - I checked them out in the stores but only the top of line Sonos showed potential, and was far too expensive for the package. The best of the bunch, value for money was Samsung, the R5 type of thing - would be an interesting project, to take it as far as the intrinsics of the product allow.

This thing? How, exactly, would you tart it up?

@fas42 sometimes I can't tell if you're crazy, trolling us, or on good drugs.

 

[fas42]

This thing? How, exactly, would you tart it up?

@fas42 sometimes I can't tell if you're crazy, trolling us, or on good drugs.

Just possibly, ... , I actually research, rely than rely on a grab impression, from the visuals ...

I did a couple of days checking it out, went and listened to all the Sonos items, in the shop - they all ran out of puff quite quickly, only the most expensive one showed that there was some decent meat in the amplification, as it. Samsung were smart, it's omnidirectional - the bass driver fires down, against the flared base; treble driver fires up, against a shaped top - you know, the Beolab 5 type of thing ...

Straight away, you have a lot on your side - even dispersion, no rocking back and forth of a lightweight box. Inside, all the brands use the same technology - digital power amps, tiny PSes - an old transistor radio has more circuit board in them. There are teardowns of the Sonos which show it's made as cheapy and nasty as possible, just like the Samsung - there is not an extra cent spent anywhere, to improve integrity more than the minimum.

Which counts for little if the package doesn't deliver - in the flesh, in the areas that matter, the R5 does as well as the priciest Sonos - and the options for organising it to do proper stereo, using CD quality source, are fully in place.

 

[fas42]

Tarting up would improve the physical integrity of the frame everything sits in, make the whole assembly far heavier; improving the power supply delivery to the unit, and the subcircuits within; and making it all more robust against interference ... all the usual things I worry about ...

 

[watchnerd]

Tarting up would improve the physical integrity of the frame everything sits in, make the whole assembly far heavier; improving the power supply delivery to the unit, and the subcircuits within; and making it all more robust against interference ... all the usual things I worry about ...

It's got a tiny cheap driver in it -- what do you hope to get out of it?

 

[fas42]

It's got a tiny cheap driver in it -- what do you hope to get out of it?

Two drivers, the typical mid/bass, and tweeter - think reasonable quality mini-monitor standard. I gave the one in the showroom a bit of accelerator, and it delivered - the sort of grunt from a small Genelec, say.

Why they can do well is because the whole decoding, amplification path is extremely short, and smart - think Kii Three in terms of what the technology is doing; DSP is shaping the FR to perfectly suit each driver, and there is a devoted amp for each driver. Which is good and bad - makes it harder to get in the middle and fine-tune some aspects; but, ensures less problems to sort out.

It will be limited, of course - the exercise would be to see how far it could be pushed, without changing major parts of the whole. That said, the idea has slipped into the background - but a local chap who likes my ideas is interested in having music playing in a cafe ... could still happen.