Andrew Jones’s new speaker brand - Jones and Cerreta

[Juhazi]

My bet is that most of the buyers are in Japan and Asia. Add the oligarch multi-millionares in middle east. Same with luxyry vinyl gear and exotic tube amps.

After peaking the AXPONA reports, USA has potential too. Made in USA can have a meaning...

 

[Sokel]

Add the oligarch multi-millionares in middle east.

Starter's pack for that should be half a centimeter thick 24k gold instead of the brushed alu (white gold or platinum if you want to show some class too )

Seriously now, anything 5 figure is a no-go there, is too cheap and more seriously, if the 115-ish dB figure is honest, price is a bargain.

 

[Audionaut]

If they are true ASR members

Are there also "fake" or "false ASR members" in opposite of the "true ASR members"?
Isn't it rather the case that there are members and non-members?

Starter's pack for that should be half a centimeter thick 24k gold instead of the brushed alu (white gold or platinum if you want to show some class too )

I don’t quite understand the maliciousness, though I’ve been noticing it more and more as the thread goes on. Why?
So far, no one has mentioned any terrible listening experiences, and the upper limit on speaker prices is largely open-ended.
The same people who are getting upset here about the Jones & Cerreta speakers find the prices for Purifi drivers completely reasonable.
It’s all a matter of perspective and implementation. .

 

[antcollinet]

Are there also "fake" or "false ASR members" in opposite of the "true ASR members"?
Isn't it rather the case that there are members and non-members?

There are members who subscribe to the philosophy of the site (see FAQ) and there are those that don't.

 

[Audionaut]

There are members who subscribe to the philosophy of the site (see FAQ) and there are those that don't.

Nevertheless, they are members.
Of course, one could then start distinguishing between whether they are “true” or “false” members, with the “right” or “wrong” philosophy.
I think that if you apply this to countries (true and false Americans) or religions, you can see pretty quickly where that leads.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

No true Scotsman ASR member

 

[antcollinet]

Nevertheless, they are members.
Of course, one could then start distinguishing between whether they are “true” or “false” members, with the “right” or “wrong” philosophy.
I think that if you apply this to countries (true and false Americans) or religions, you can see pretty quickly where that leads.

I read the meaning of the word true to not be the opposite off "false" but as in "true to the". Ie not meaning "people who are members and people who are not"

In this case true to the philosophy.

The word true has a large complexity of subtle meanings. Of course, you can always choose the meaning that allows you to pick a fight - or you can look at the intent of the post you are replying to, and select the meaning that fits with that.

 

[Sokel]

I read the meaning of the word true to not be the opposite off "false" but as in "true to the". Ie not meaning "people who are members and people who are not"

In this case true to the philosophy. The word true has a large complexity of subtle meanings.

I would like to think that there's no big distinction other than the Internet fighting thing.
Real life, between friends of various views at the same room, the same arguments usually turn to teasing and laughing.

The industry thing now, is a whole other issue, but as everything must come from the source: recordings.
Even the best analyzing machines depend on the test signal quality. The very signal we are interested in is music.

If its recording/production quality is crap, anything after that follows.
I'm not very optimistic.

 

[Audionaut]

I read the meaning of the word

And there it begins.
Everyone has his own meanings on words. Especially between true or false and right or wrong.

To get back to the topic of members: Anyone who is registered with ASR is a member.

As for which categories they are classified and sorted into—based on whatever completely subjective criteria—I personally couldn’t care less.

Here’s what I’d say to someone who’s an ASR member: “If you’ve been here for a while and aren’t just blindly browsing through ASR and its threads, you’ll surely come to the conclusion that it’s better to get speakers whose verified and reproducible measurements you’re familiar with.
If, despite the possible colorations, you identify it as a speaker that suits you and that you’d like to buy, go for it."

 

[Pearljam5000]

Even the truest members of ASR won't buy a speaker that measures perfectly but sounds bad to him for some reason

 

[Pearljam5000]

If a speaker measures perfectly, what could be the reason or reasons that it would sound bad to him? The only reason that I could think of would be preference. And we are fond of saying that there is no gainsaying preference .... right?

But if a member has a preference for something other than a speaker that measures perfectly, then why should we attempt to manufacture a speaker that measures perfectly? What good is it? Shouldn't we just pander to all the infinite designs out there that the various subjectivists fight over? Haven't we proven their point?

The ultimate focus of audio design MUST be one of two things. Either it's the perfect transducer (the speaker that measures perfectly) or it's whatever personal preference in the infinite universe of personal preferences that a customer might have.
If the ultimate goal is preference, then there is no reason to pursue the "loudspeaker that measures perfectly".
If the ultimate goal is a loudspeaker that measures perfectly, then the saying that there is "no gainsaying preference" is wrong.

At some point you reach a fork in the road. You're fooling yourself if you think you can go both directions at the same time.

There are 2 speakers that measure almost perfectly but sound different to me (I'd rather not say which)
So my final decision will be taken by my ears and not the measurements
I believe that most people will act like me.

 

[Jim Taylor]

There are 2 speakers that measure almost perfectly but sound different to me (I'd rather not say which)
So my final decision will be taken by my ears and not the measurements
I believe that most people will act like me.

I deleted my post. It was a worthless waste of time and effort.

 

[Pearljam5000]

I deleted my post. It was a worthless waste of time and effort.

I'll repost it because it's a shame if it'll be lost.
Jim Taylor:
If a speaker measures perfectly, what could be the reason or reasons that it would sound bad to him? The only reason that I could think of would be preference. And we are fond of saying that there is no gainsaying preference .... right?

But if a member has a preference for something other than a speaker that measures perfectly, then why should we attempt to manufacture a speaker that measures perfectly? What good is it? Shouldn't we just pander to all the infinite designs out there that the various subjectivists fight over? Haven't we proven their point?

The ultimate focus of audio design MUST be one of two things. Either it's the perfect transducer (the speaker that measures perfectly) or it's whatever personal preference in the infinite universe of personal preferences that a customer might have.
If the ultimate goal is preference, then there is no reason to pursue the "loudspeaker that measures perfectly".
If the ultimate goal is a loudspeaker that measures perfectly, then the saying that there is "no gainsaying preference" is wrong.

At some point you reach a fork in the road. You're fooling yourself if you think you can go both directions at the same time.

 

[Audionaut]

At some point you reach a fork in the road. You're fooling yourself if you think you can go both directions at the same time.

That reminds me of another thread where I asked someone a similar question, but unfortunately didn't get a reply.
Let’s say you have to choose between speakers that, as far as speakers are concerned, have relatively perfect specs—which speaker would you choose?
Which Neumann, Genelec, or AsciLab, for example, would you choose given similar diaphragm areas and performance specifications?
It’s not a fork in the road; even at the highest level, there are still selection criteria that will more or less remain a matter of taste.

By the way, I don't think the Jones & Cerreta will perform poorly, but when will we know for sure?
Luckily, Amir isn't the only one with modern equipment, so we'll eventually find out for sure.

 

[sigbergaudio]

We still don't have a perfect grasp of "measures perfectly", though.

 

[Audionaut]

We still don't have a perfect grasp of "measures perfectly", though.

I agree with you. We can only ever get as close as the current state of research allows.

PS
That said, I have to admit that I now believe the most important aspects of measurement results are comparability and consistency.
If those are in place, many issues can be resolved, and the interpretation can even be adjusted retroactively—for example, if you discover that you always see the same notch in the graph, which is caused by the measuring station and not by the object being measured.

 

[Jim Taylor]

I'll repost it because it's a shame if it'll be lost.

Well, thank you for that. Maybe it's not worthless ... I don't know at this point.

Let's put it this way:
If two speakers sound different, they don't measure the same.
If two speakers measure the same, then they don't sound different.


Let's start with two different speakers, each having perfectly flat on-axis response. Specifically the ways in which they might not measure the same according to a basic suite of tests include:
1) total radiation pattern - frequency response differences between on-axis and off-axis. This includes differences in the distribution of bass energy.
2) distribution of nulls - reflected sound having a different timbre one from the other due to, among other things, differences in interdriver spacing.
3) individual drivers exhibiting differences in distortion, especially at different frequencies one from the other.
4) resonances. I firmly believe that this is a big one.
5) radiation pattern of individual drivers - even slight differences in dispersion (beaming) can cause detectable differences in off-axis frequency balance even though on-axis frequency response is identical.
6) if the system is ported, then the port can contribute differences that are subtle, but unwanted.
7) enclosure diffraction.
8) total distortion characteristics of the two speakers. I believe a slight difference in distribution of distortion is a vastly underrated factor in listener acceptance.

Detecting these small differences demands a suite of measurements for which the degree of precision is impractical (or too expensive) for most testers. It would not be a "basic" suite of tests.

These differences may be both audible and measurable because although the human hearing system is poor at determining absolute values, it is very good at determining relative values, as in relative differences.

One more point: we know that a loudspeaker cannot recreate the original soundfield of a live performance. Therefore, you might like to think of these characteristics as imperfections within a larger imperfection .... and you would be correct. That's no reason to abandon the fight to improve the state of audio reproduction as a whole. Edison's cylinder (1877) was only less than 150 years ago. I think we've come a long way since then.

 

[mhardy6647]

I don't know I don't like the idea of heat inside the speaker because of the power supply
Obviously I'm sure he designed it with that in mind and came up with a solution.

Lot of active loudspeakers on the market.
That said, folks I know using field coils use external power supplies for the magnets.

 

[sigbergaudio]

And not even two individual units of the exact same speaker model measures exactly the same.

 

[RickS]

@MattHooper while your speaker companies clearly struggled, correlation is not causation and if anything you helped these companies by buying their speakers. But along with what I posted earlier, there is always the risk of small business failure. While fairly high, this one seems to have experienced investors that would help offset that risk. Is why I mentioned their willingness to further invest. If sales do not get you a good return on investment, you either close up shop or invest further.

Know field coils are not new, but if AJ managed to create something that could be patentable or trade secret, certainly helps give them an edge. But if field coils speakers get traction, only thing that slows competition is driver development cost. It is a very competitive market.