AsciLAB @ Purité Audio

[Sokel]

Once again my only point is we are likely in diminishing returns territory here,

No, we are not, that's what we try to explain here.
Think of the mentioned W371A which is an amazing tool. One sees the drivers and thinks "power!"

Well.. no. Lots of reports about how early the protections come alive with demanding program and elevated levels (hence the 8183A) .
It's the designs that dictates, its cardioid for example helps with rooms but can eat a good portion of energy. And not only that, it uses both pure woofer AND subwoofer units, different animals.
The trades off to this seems chaotic, right? And that's were a competent company along with high quality components comes to put the limits.
Stuff like these Purifi, or Audio Technology drivers (if one want all the kick available), etc or Scan-Speak if budget is tighter help enormously to go to reference, full bodied levels with iron authority, decent power demands, low distortion, etc.

There's no free lunch at speakers.

 

[MKR]

No, we are not, that's what we try to explain here.
Think of the mentioned W371A which is an amazing tool. One sees the drivers and thinks "power!"

Well.. no.Lots of reports about how early the protections come alive with demanding program and elevated levels (hence the 8183A) .
It's the designs that dictates, its cardioid for example helps with rooms but can eat a good portion of energy. And not, it uses both pure woofer AND subwoofer units, different animals.
The trades off to this seems chaotic, right? And that's were a competent company along with high quality components comes to put the limits.
Stuff like these Purifi, or Audio Technology drivers (if one want all the kick available), etc or Scan-Speak if budget is tighter help enormously to go to reference, full bodied levels with iron authority,decent power demands, low distortion, etc.

There's no free lunch at speakers.

We will agree to disagree, and I am only referring to the use of Purifi, not the design in general, which is looking to be excellent. If you can achieve same audible performance with lower cost drivers, then diminishing returns. No? Of course this is not proven one way or the other in this specific case, by me or anyone else, only it was a genuine question I had for ASCI and only they can prove this out. The burden of proof is not on me the “consumer”, rather it is on the manufacturer. And to re-state, not questioning the engineering ability of the ASCI folks, far from it, I think I have made that abundantly clear.

 

[AsciLab]

We will agree to disagree, and I am only referring to the use of Purifi, not the design in general, which is looking to be excellent. If you can achieve same audible performance with lower cost drivers, then diminishing returns. No? Of course this is not proven one way or the other in this specific case, by me or anyone else, only it was a genuine question I had for ASCI and only they can prove this out. The burden of proof is not on me the “consumer”, rather it is on the manufacturer. And to re-state, not questioning the engineering ability of the ASCI folks, far from it, I think I have made that abundantly clear.

What kind of proving do you want?
We open all the datas we can provide.
And I can explain the datas with each fundamental reasons.
Hearing threshold limit? Back ground noise?
Well, I can hear Purifi is better than many other drivers.

 

[Sokel]

We will agree to disagree, and I am only referring to the use of Purifi, not the design in general, which is looking to be excellent. If you can achieve same audible performance with lower cost drivers, then diminishing returns. No? Of course this is not proven one way or the other in this specific case, by me or anyone else, only it was a genuine question I had for ASCI and only they can prove this out. The burden of proof is not on me the “consumer”, rather it is on the manufacturer. And to re-state, not questioning the engineering ability of the ASCI folks, far from it, I think I have made that abundantly clear.

You can sure compare.
Go to Erin's website for example and compare the compression and multitone distortion of a 6'5" Purifi equipped speaker with some other made to a budget.
Differences are way audible.

Suggesting lowering the performance of the reference model of a company does not even make commercial sense unless you suggest some dubious "upgrade" scheme which Asci has not shown so far, they seem more than honest.

 

[prestigetone]

All of the speakers I have seen with Purifi drivers have been top of class in terms of how they measure. March Audio, AsciLab, SunAudio and Buchardt. Looking at the spinorama rankings 5 out of the top 20 are all using Purifi. Kii which are among some of the best speakers in most respects are from the same architect behind Purifi. If people are going to say there is no difference then there needs to be data to back this up or at least a blind ABX test. Prove the negative. I am seeing a lot of this on ASR where the science is important among the snake oil but many people still stand by subjective analysis at the same time. It's okay to have both, but I think we are finding that the better things measure the more reliable the sound. All of the top Amir recs are in the same class. I would expect nothing less from AsciLab. What they have done, with the price they are selling these for is nothing short of groundbreaking.

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

We will agree to disagree, and I am only referring to the use of Purifi,... If you can achieve same audible performance with lower cost drivers, then diminishing returns. No?

No! Where is the evidence that other lower cost drivers can achieve same audible performance as Purifi woofers?

Of course this is not proven one way or the other in this specific case, by me or anyone else, only it was a genuine question I had for ASCI and only they can prove this out. The burden of proof is not on me the “consumer”, rather it is on the manufacturer.

???
The burden of proof is only on you, because you are the only man on this planet who is saying that distortion of Purifi woofers is below the hearing threshold! ASCILab certainly is not saying that!

 

[MKR]

What kind of proving do you want?
We open all the datas we can provide.
And I can explain the datas with each fundamental reasons.
Hearing threshold limit? Back ground noise?
Well, I can hear Purifi is better than many other drivers.

Thank you for genuinely considering my assertion, I really appreciate! To remove bias and perception error, I think only way to prove this out is a blind listening test. When you say you can hear the difference, I assume this was with a blind test?

 

[MKR]

You can sure compare.
Go to Erin's website for example and compare the compression and multitone distortion of a 6'5" Purifi equipped speaker with some other made to a budget.
Differences are way audible.

Suggesting lowering the performance of the reference model of a company does not even make commercial sense unless you suggest some dubious "upgrade" scheme which Asci has not shown so far, they seem more than honest.

I did not at all suggest lowering performance… yet once again … I suggested that maybe lower cost drivers could provide same level of audible performance.

 

[MKR]

No, we are not, that's what we try to explain here.
Think of the mentioned W371A which is an amazing tool. One sees the drivers and thinks "power!"

Well.. no. Lots of reports about how early the protections come alive with demanding program and elevated levels (hence the 8183A) .
It's the designs that dictates, its cardioid for example helps with rooms but can eat a good portion of energy. And not only that, it uses both pure woofer AND subwoofer units, different animals.
The trades off to this seems chaotic, right? And that's were a competent company along with high quality components comes to put the limits.
Stuff like these Purifi, or Audio Technology drivers (if one want all the kick available), etc or Scan-Speak if budget is tighter help enormously to go to reference, full bodied levels with iron authority, decent power demands, low distortion, etc.

There's no free lunch at speakers.

Are you saying lower cost Scan Speak driver offers similar audible performance as Purifi (in the hands of a capable designer of course)?

 

[AsciLab]

Thank you for genuinely considering my assertion, I really appreciate! To remove bias and perception error, I think only way to prove this out is a blind listening test. When you say you can hear the difference, I assume this was with a blind test?

It wasn’t blind test. If it wasn’t, then will the all the measurements and proof be unreliable things?

Or If I tell you yes it was a blind test, then how can I prove it was blind test?

I can tell my impression. With measurements. I don’t say my only personal experience. I’m saying based on measurements. And still there are a lot bottle neck by loudspeaker non-linearity in audio system. Driver performance limit can be easily heard by ear.

If you believe lower price driver(cost don’t mean performance always though) provides same “hearing” performance compared to Purifi, There are also lower price models. Our C and F series are quite good design for its price range.

 

[Sokel]

Are you saying lower cost Scan Speak driver offers similar audible performance as Purifi (in the hands of a capable designer of course)?

No, that's has its cost too. 500 EUR Scan-Speaks are really nice but you can't compare their 2" VC with the 4" one of the Audio-Technology, nor with the genius design of the Purifis,each for its own reasons and parameters which IS audible.

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

I suggested that maybe lower cost drivers could provide same level of audible performance.

No, they couldn't! Please stop beating that poor dead horse!

 

[MKR]

It wasn’t blind test. If it wasn’t, then will the all the measurements and proof be unreliable things?

Of course not, didn’t say that. But you said you hear a difference. Vs what other drivers and how do you know bias did not impact your perception? I am truly not being flippant here or trying to be disrespectful, my questions are genuine and I absolutely respect your designs, they measure superbly. I just have not seen evidence that all other design parameters being equal, the Purifi drivers offer an audible performance advantage vs other comparable lower cost drivers that also offer low distortion (albeit not as low as Purifi). But I should say, if you can use and afford Purifi, there is no harm whatsoever in doing so, except a possibly lighter wallet than is necessary

 

[Sokel]

Of course not, didn’t say that. But you said you hear a difference. Vs what other drivers and how do you know bias did not impact your perception? I am truly not being flippant here or trying to be disrespectful, my questions are genuine and I absolutely respect your designs, they measure superbly. I just have not seen evidence that all other design parameters being equal, the Purifi drivers offer an audible performance advantage vs other comparable lower cost drivers that also offer low distortion (albeit not as low as Purifi). But I should say, if you can use and afford Purifi, there is no harm whatsoever in doing so, except a possibly lighter wallet than is necessary

It would be better to PM @Duke so he can explain you the real-world, audible importance of a strong or clever motor, on top of everything else.
There's no way around this.
Don't worry, we all learned it the hard way sometime during the hobby, specially if slam and impact is amongst out priorities.

 

[AsciLab]

Of course not, didn’t say that. But you said you hear a difference. Vs what other drivers and how do you know bias did not impact your perception? I am truly not being flippant here or trying to be disrespectful, my questions are genuine and I absolutely respect your designs, they measure superbly. I just have not seen evidence that all other design parameters being equal, the Purifi drivers offer an audible performance advantage vs other comparable lower cost drivers that also offer low distortion (albeit not as low as Purifi). But I should say, if you can use and afford Purifi, there is no harm whatsoever in doing so, except a possibly lighter wallet than is necessary

Okay. The evidence I think and believe is measurements and equality with listening impression.

And you’re saying the evidence that possibility of hearing low distortion you want to see can only be proven by blind test. Am I understanding the right way?

So, the evidence you want is based on personal listening impression without bias.

Then, How can I provide to you someone’s personal impression as evidence? What if you and the other’s hearing impression or ability are different? Is it possible to prove with text?
If the way you want to prove is enormous survey like Harman did, Sorry I can’t do that.

 

[Audio Science Pal]

Looks like AsciLab is building a very nice speaker at a fair price.

 

[MKR]

It would be better to PM @Duke so he can explain you the real-world, audible importance of a strong or clever motor, on top of everything else.
There's no way around this.
Don't worry, we all learned it the hard way sometime during the hobby, specially if slam and impact is amongst out priorities.

Sorry, not following, learned exactly what the “hard way”? And certainly I understand the need for a strong motor, many drivers have strong motors. As to “clever”, well, that can mean many different things of course. Anyway, we are speaking on circles, no need to continue, thanks for your comments and taking the time to respond.

 

[MKR]

Okay. The evidence I think and believe is measurements and equality with listening impression.

And you’re saying the evidence that possibility of hearing low distortion you want to see can only be proven by blind test. Am I understanding the right way?

So, the evidence you want is based on personal listening impression without bias.

Then, How can I provide to you someone’s personal impression as evidence? What if you and the other’s hearing impression or ability are different? Is it possible to prove with text?
If the way you want to prove is enormous survey like Harman did, Sorry I can’t do that.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I do not see a reason you could not perform a blind test only with yourself and an assistant, there is value in that, not asking for some grand scientific study. Anyway, no matter, the horse is now beaten to death. I wish you the very best in your endeavors, no doubt in my mind you will be very successful with your designs. And I leave you with the below, which I am certain you are aware of. This content is my primary evidence for questioning distortion audibility and related blind testing. I suppose Dr Klippel may know what he is talking about

https://www.klippel.de/fileadmin/kl...on caused by design_part 1_Klippel_Werner.pdf
4. Impact on Perceived Sound Quality The reproduced sound quality as perceived by a listener is one of most important criterion for the preference of an audio product. Systematic subjective evaluation requires a doubleblind test strategy and psychometrical tools for assessing the sensations reliably and quantitatively.
5. Conclusions Linear and nonlinear distortion are unavoidable in current electro-acoustical transducers
Some distortion which are audible might be still acceptable or even desirable in some applications.

 

[Purité Audio]

I am struggling to think of a situation where audible distortion is desirable, in the reproduction of music.
Keith

 

[Lars Risbo]

only to try to mask other distortions in the recording or signal chain. Much of the audiophile struggling has been to mix and match distortions to taste. My experience is that everything gets so much simpler when distortion is reduced in the entire chain. It’s about preserving (ie not destroying) the magic sound of the source rather than the hopeless task of trying to add back lost magic.