Anyone see this train wreck in Stereophile?

[syn08]

Our “random” appreciation, enjoyment and evaluation, is the only true “measurement” for each of us. Individually. Listening.

Excuse my ignorance, who/what is "our" in this context?

 

[syn08]

And when doing sighted comparisons, the "aesthetic of the listener" includes lots of things beyond sound quality (such as looks of the speaker, reviews you may have read, quotes you may have seen from the designer, the mood you were in when you first heard them. the lighting in the room or the temperature or even the recording when you first heard them, and all sorts of other things beyond just sound quality).

And the (non refundable, in this case) price.

 

[dougi]

I wonder if that choppy treble is due to the battle being recessed.

JA says due to midrange and tweeter overlap.

 

[dougi]

Read his policies carefully:

http://voltiaudio.com/policies/

Best,
Anand.

It would be interesting if an Australian bought a pair. Our consumer rights in relation to refunds/major failure etc would apply regardless where the product is coming from. Perhaps difficult to enforce though!

 

[dougi]

Pretty much each of the Volti Audio "policies" are illegal in Australia. Simply publishing such policies could result in huge fines, letalone trying to enforce them. So I guess we won't be seeing any sold here.

That said, I'm intrigued. I like to hear a pair to be honest.

Sorry John, didn't see your post on the same.

 

[Sal1950]

please don't subsidize the predators.

That's new, I like it!

 

[MattHooper]

I'm on the record many times here for being against snake oil and have pointed out the problems with a purely subjective paradigm very often.

However, this post strikes me as a bit confusing:

And listening is not the final arbiter to determine whether a product has been engineered to one's liking. There is no inherent connection between listening and engineering.

That seems like an odd claim.

First, it seems contradicted by the engineering experience of many designers/engineers.

To grab from my post in another similar discussion:

For instance, the recent interview on Erin's Corner with Kef's R&D engineer David Bosch. Erin asks about Kef's speaker design process, including the role listening plays, and Bosch explained it's like a triangle, formed by simulation, measurements and listening, one leading to the other to keep refining a product.

Similarly Erin's recent interview with JBL designer Greg Timbers, who emphasized that we can't yet tell the whole sonic story (or at least perfectly predict) from measurements. Erin himself, who is by now quite experienced measuring speakers, said he has trouble determining which measurements - (if any currently known) - correlate with *some* aspects he hears when listening to different speakers. Even Amirm, you will find, in some of his reviews will start with the technical measurements which may show some deviations from neutral, resonance, frequency non-linearity or whatever, but in his subjective description might say that "surprisingly, that measured 'problem' didn't seem to stick out as much as I would have assumed.' You will find John Atkinson often enough saying the same thing upon measuring speakers (and he has one hell of a lot of experience).

So I think to say "there is no inherent connection between listening and engineering," especially in the context of audio gear, seems misleading or muddy.
Any good audio engineering will be inherently connected to the ultimate goal of "how it sounds." (Which will included whether X or Y is audible, to which degree or not, the consequences of the audibility, etc). It can also of course be directly related to any individual's (or group's) "liking" or sonic preference.

Engineering, if done well, is the same today as it is tomorrow, next year and ten years from now. Our hearing changes with age, different rooms, mood and background noise. So a speaker and low-wattage tube amp that you absolutely love here today might turn out to be something you dislike next year in a different room with higher levels of background noise.

The same could be said of any audio gear. Our hearing and taste can change in any scenario. How satisfied one is for how long with a component is always going to boil down to the individual. There may be some people here who buy some revel monitors and Benchmark amplification and keep it for 20 years, there are people who have happily lived with Quads, Maggies etc with tubes amps or whatever for long periods of time too.

The real problem here is that you praise engineering, yet hold to a subjectivist hierarchy that feeds the scam artists, snake oil salesmen and con men. You are free to choose whatever you wish for yourself, but please don't subsidize the predators.

Jim Taylor

That seems like a contradiction. To subsidize a company you have to buy their products. Yet in one sentence you both allow that someone is free to choose whatever he wishes...except he is not to 'subsidize' companies you hold in disregard.
Which is it? Is it ok if he buys what he wants? Or only if he buys what you think is ok to buy?

 

[MediumRare]

Referring to to @MattHooper and @Jim Taylor 's comments above, and some others: I believe a point of confusion for many are loose definitions of "listening" and "hearing". Here's what I mean by that:

- Listening may be objective (blind, controlled, comparative, with room correction, etc," or subjective (I liked it in the showroom/my room/with my system, etc.). Most of the time it is not meaningful in any rigorous way.
- Hearing may be either psychoacoustic (my auditory system technically perceived these sounds) or purely experiential (the highs were liquid, I didn't notice any distortion, the bass didn't move me). Critically, a lot of old farts who physiologically simply cannot hear 20-20k (me included) seem to sincerely make pronouncements justifying the latest magical/expensive items or dispute what measurements tell us, as if they have the golden ears of a 14 year-old and the connoisseurship of a trained and validated professional. Guess what, nearly none of us are qualified to say nada/zilch/beans about what we "hear".
- Measurements include lots of metrics that may be either irrelevant to audio quality or make distinctions (0.005% THD v. 0.001% THD) that are already beyond transparency for humans. They may also not include all the factors that influence sound quality. They may also be meaningful in a way that one appreciates over time but struggles to detect even in an A/B test, for lots of reasons (see hearing, above).

So what? Net, if a measurement from a reliable source tells you a device under test is deficient in a way that proper research shows influences preference or transparency, believe it over your own ears. If the measurement says the DUT is audibly transparent, accept it will not sound different from another device which is also audibly transparent. For devices which are not audibly transparent, you can use your own taste preferences (auditory, feature-set, aesthetic, ego-boosting, whatever) to make you choice. Last, our measurements of speakers is admittedly in its infancy and subject to many factors (let's start with our rooms, amplification, and taste) that go beyond our currently rudimentary "scoring" system, which @amirm has said repeatedly he does neither endorses nor objects to.

I hope that is useful to someone!

 

[MattHooper]

Thanks Jim. I find that much clearer, and it makes sense to me.

Do some of these questionable purchases support what I called the "predators" .... in other words, the con men and scam artists? Yes, they do, and that's highly regrettable. But the best way to overcome the "predators" is to educate, educate and educate some more, and do not foster the patterns of thinking that lead to their lairs. Promoting "listening" as a primary over scientific analysis fosters that pattern.

Yes I see your point.

There certainly are "patterns of thinking" that lead to being more susceptible to con men, and in audio the more egregious rip offs. (Though I'm sure there will be some fuzziness in terms of the boundary some may put in the "scam artist" category or not).

I think most of us would agree that for instance "don't worry about measurements, if you hear it, it's true" paradigm plays directly in to the hands of people selling, for instance, high priced cables that do not, despite the claims, sound different from cheaper, competently designed cables.

On the other hand, there is something of a focus on certain goals among many here which can lead to endorsing only a limited "type" of speaker based on how they meet a measured performance goal. The result being that speakers that deviate from this goal can be disparaged as "rip offs" or "cons" etc.
I don't always agree with that.

So for instance, papermill has expressed his satisfaction with his Volti speakers. Does the "train wreck" nature of how those speakers measure mean papermill has been conned or ripped off, in your view?

 

[MediumRare]

So for instance, papermill has expressed his satisfaction with his Volti speakers. Does the "train wreck" nature of how those speakers measure mean papermill has been conned or ripped off, in your view?

One can't argue with his statement that he, personally, is happy with his purchase. I am happy for him.

I do take issue with his statement "I do know that my ear is well suited to discern the performance of speakers." Given his stated 40 years of experience, I think we know how good his hearing is and therefore can easily consider the reliability and wider application of his opinions.

 

[Sal1950]

If papermill likes them, and they don't explode or burn up then he's fine. I wouldn't buy them, and probably you wouldn't buy them, and many people think they're overpriced. But if they're safe and he likes them, then go for it. I wouldn't want restrictions placed on my purchase of a Great Plains Audio 604-8H because it didn't satisfy someone else's ideas of modern suitability. Our society has freedoms in place which unfortunately allow abuses to exist. That same freedom allows us to enjoy whatever it is we enjoy and pursue our personal goals without undue interference.

It's a fine line. It has always been a fine line, and if it operates as it should, it'll always be a fine line.

I do take issue with his statement "I do know that my ear is well suited to discern the performance of speakers." Given his stated 40 years of experience, I think we know how good his hearing is and therefore can easily consider the reliability and wider application of his opinions.

Just a quick comment or two on the issues being discussed.
A fine line needs to be walked say on the issue of the Volti owner.
He is absolutely free to love the sound and purchase these speakers.
But at a science based site like this we should also be free to politely explain to him what those measurement mean and how far they go off course from being able to reproduce an accurate reproduction of the source.
It's things like this that make us different from many other sites.
I couldn't begin to count the times I've been attacked, moderated, or outright banned for trying to explain to someone why his new power cord, digital cable, etc couldn't possibly make the changes he thinks he hears.
The "who are you to tell me what to buy" is a protective retort when being advised of certain facts, whether for that particular individual or the other general public that may be reading the thread.
"please don't subsidize the predators" Predators can also be subsidized by silence. The OP here was to draw attention to the way Mr Atkinson does (minimally) a disservice to his readers by dancing around how poorly engineered these speakers really were. Nothing new there, it's always an ears first, don't upset the advertisers, approach to reviewing at Stereophile. JMHO

 

[MattHooper]

If papermill likes them, and they don't explode or burn up then he's fine. I wouldn't buy them, and probably you wouldn't buy them, and many people think they're overpriced. But if they're safe and he likes them, then go for it. I wouldn't want restrictions placed on my purchase of a Great Plains Audio 604-8H because it didn't satisfy someone else's ideas of modern suitability. Our society has freedoms in place which unfortunately allow abuses to exist. That same freedom allows us to enjoy whatever it is we enjoy and pursue our personal goals without undue interference.

It's a fine line. It has always been a fine line, and if it operates as it should, it'll always be a fine line.

Jim

Yeah, agree.

As to the con or rip-off assessment, IMO it will often have to involve nuance and a personal judgement call to a certain degree.

So for instance, most "high end" speakers are quite expensive (relative to what many 'normal folk" are willing to pay for speakers).

We could say that someone is happy with their purchase of a speaker that measures "poorly" in regards to the standards an ASR member might want.
No problem.

On the other hand, the speaker may come with all sorts of dubious claims about being "state of the art" and perhaps dubious technical claims, or claims the speaker more accurately portrays the recorded signal. So one could say if the buyer was mislead in to thinking he was buying "state of the art" speakers he has been in that sense ripped off.

As it happens I don't think the Volti speakers fall in to this category. The designer has been forthcoming that technical neutrality/accuracy per se is not his goal, but rather a sound he finds to be exciting and engaging. You like it or you don't.

(I'd throw in it's pretty similar with a brand that l enjoy, Devore, where John Devore isn't going for strict technical accuracy, but rather certain sonic characteristics he likes to hear in speakers. They'd be rejected here on measurements, but I'm glad companies like that exist to cater to those who do enjoy some out-of-the-box approaches).

Other manufacturers enter gray areas though.

BTW, this is sort of making me think about a pair of speakers I once had in my home (that I actually reviewed). They were speakers by Shun Mook.
Even back before I encountered those speakers I felt Shun Mook and their mpingo discs where the paradigm of woo-woo snail oil (I still don't believe in those claims, of course). And they built this plain looking speaker purportedly on their principles of "resonance" including "listening to different types of wood" used to construct the speaker, placing I think mpingo discs within the speaker IIRC. To my surprise, man did those speakers sound terrific!
I remain as dubious as ever as to the design principles they believe in, but they sure left a long lasting impression on me (and several people said it was the best, most amazing sound they'd ever heard in my set up).

My hunch is that, while the whole mpingo thing may be bogus, they seemed to have pretty good ears guiding them through their trial and error.

In the same way, I've heard tons of different audiophile's systems over the years, and have found that while some have fallen for the sillier aspects (expensive cables, cable risers etc), some of those systems nonetheless sounded fantastic. Their beliefs may have guided them to some dubious purchases, but their "ears" where nonetheless good enough when it comes to evaluating real sonic aspects, to guide them to a terrific sounding system. I'm still haunted by the realism of some tracks on one guy's system.

This for me is why I don't automatically rule out an audiophile's system if it has some snake oil aspects, or there aren't supporting measurements. I've been happily suprised often enough to want to hear different wacky systems.

 

[Sal1950]

This for me is why I don't automatically rule out an audiophile's system if it has some snake oil aspects, or there aren't supporting measurements. I've been happily suprised often enough to want to hear different wacky systems.

The facts usually are that the guy with the bankroll to purchase $50k in cables also has some very good high end components comprising the system.
A lack of common sense doesn't hurt his systems sound. LOL

 

[F1308]

Respectfully
Our “random” appreciation, enjoyment and evaluation, is the only true “measurement” for each of us. Individually. Listening.
If one doesn’t have the confidence in their listening abilities, and what they actually prefer, I can then understand their reliance on measurements. Would anyone drop $$$$ large based on measurements and forgo listening? What would happen if one discovers, through listening, their destination speaker and found they didn’t measure flat?
Do they deny themselves years of audio pleasure?
I don’t mean to completely discount the value of measurements, they have their place in assisting us in our decisions and manufacturers benchmarks, but they don’t trump the sophisticated nature of our personal enjoyment.
(Being new, I understand I’m a fish out of water here and don’t wish to muddy the importance of audio science. I just felt the need to respond regarding the fantastic Volti speaker.)
Regards

It goes without saying that good measures seen after thorough testing, as the one carried here day after day (thanks Amir and all the people involved), offer a window for the buyer to start the search among a pile of never ending products. I will for sure not bother to hear-testing anything not having a bare minimum, as my time is more precious than anything else.
Of course I will have my very own opinion after trying any, but unless there are severe inconsistencies in the manufacturing process, I will most probably become a happy owner.

 

[Mart68]

One issue with speakers like this Volti is that they will dictate the choice of programme. Some recordings may be artificially enhanced, some may be rendered unlistenable.

I suspect - I don't know - that owners of these speakers mostly listen to simple recordings/mixes of acoustic instruments, jazz trios, string quartets, and similar. I'd expect a typical dense rock music mix to sound dreadful through them.

For someone who does not care about high fidelity and wants a flavour of 'live' performance aka 'Musicians in the room' they may be the best thing since sliced bread, albeit the 'live in the room' effect is really the sound of a PA system layered over everything. But some people like that, which cannot be argued with.

 

[papermill]

Correct.
You don’t know.
You have no know clue until you’ve heard Volti or any other speaker. Troglodyte you the mantra.
8 years of ownership playing every possible genre from small scale to large, acoustic to electronic realistically is a tribute to these fine speakers.
That ASR stupidly disses anyone who offers a different take on the hobby, smells like religious zealots.
As I’ve discovered, you and your cohorts on this site spew your dogma over the human experience, having no idea that you are the ones limited by your narrow primitive reliance on your “measurements”, DICTATING, without evidence, how electronics and speakers will sound without even making the effort to hear them. The definition of lazy. The activity of cultism.

 

[Mart68]

Correct.
You don’t know.
You have no know clue until you’ve heard Volti or any other speaker. Troglodyte you the mantra.
8 years of ownership playing every possible genre from small scale to large, acoustic to electronic realistically is a tribute to these fine speakers.
That ASR stupidly disses anyone who offers a different take on the hobby, smells like religious zealots.
As I’ve discovered, you and your cohorts on this site spew your dogma over the human experience, having no idea that you are the ones limited by your narrow primitive reliance on your “measurements”, DICTATING, without evidence, how electronics and speakers will sound without even making the effort to hear them. The definition of lazy. The activity of cultism.

Measurements are evidence. Combined with decades of experience you can ascertain a lot, but I agree, not what any specific individual will prefer.

I can say for certainty that I personally would not like the Volti speaker. We also know from the research what most people will prefer and it isn't this.

Dogma and evidence-based deduction are not remotely the same thing. You don't seem to understand what you are criticising.

 

[SIY]

DICTATING, without evidence, how electronics and speakers will sound without even making the effort to hear them. The definition of lazy. The activity of cultism.

Uh huh.

 

[Ilkless]

the classic fallacy in high-end audio is seen here - that just because something is artisanal equals it performs better, with scant focus on the fundamentals: how it disperses sound and whether the way it disperses sound (i.e. moving air) coheres with broad principles of auditory perception shared by human beings.

Yes, our hearing differs in the details, but the mechanism is universal. And therefore speakers like the Volti that fall so far out of the bounds that we can reliably say falls within individual deviation should be called out for it, as are their owners who are willing to engage in all sorts of apologetics and mental gymnastics. The most common way this manifests is by conflating non-audio aspects of the equipment (e.g. backstory, provenance and aesthetics) with it's audio output.

 

[wwenze]

To be fair many headphones measure like that and still sound audiophilic