AsciLAB @ Purité Audio

[MKR]

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

Well, I let you research that one yourself, you can in fact ask @j_j and @Floyd Toole right here on ASR about Dr Klippel’s comment

 

[Purité Audio]

I believe Lars has already answered.
Keith

 

[NTK]

J J has said there are euphonic distortions.

Vinyl will always sound *different* than digital, right?

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Salt]

To be honest, I didn't read every post to the end, but at least my résumé is, as to be foreseeable: as low as possible distorsions even at higher levels are the goal to preserve the original signal as good as can be.
This may be achieved by exclusive techniques, that must be payed, but even can be achieved by combination of well known technology, maybe not on top notch, but close to.
Can we agree on this level (and avoid more posts without additional information to scroll through)?

 

[Purité Audio]

Absolutely if Asci believe they can make not just a good loudspeaker but the best loudspeaker, they should.
Keith

 

[boXem]

I did not expect 2025 to be the AlLsPeAkErDrIvErSSsOuNdThEsAmE year.

 

[Salt]

A L P A E D I E S S O N T E A E and l s e k r r v r s u d h s m is the answer to the question ..
Grmmpphhh...

 

[prestigetone]

These are some of the few speakers I would order without an audition. When will all of the models be filled out? The naming convention and list of products isn't that obvious.

 

[kharan]

These are some of the few speakers I would order without an audition. When will all of the models be filled out? The naming convention and list of products isn't that obvious.

	F range	C Range	S range
Passive	F6B , F6Bs	C6B, C5B	S6B
Active Cardioid	F6C	C6C, C5C	S6C
Bass	X	BX8C	BX10C

F is entry level drivers, C is mid price drivers, S is money no object drivers.





As far as Purifi vs cheaper driver goes, the audibility of distortion in the bass region is much lower than in the medium range and low treble. And the initial question was about the use of 10" Purifi instead of something else.

Another thing is distortion vs output SPL, while a lot of drivers offer low IMD at low to medium output, to the extent that it might be inaudible, the situation changes at high SPL. Distortion will rise along with SPL to the extent that it will be audible.

If Ascilab wants to stay with 10" drivers, but achieve the highest output at low distortion, there is no doubt that Purifi is among the very best options, if not the best.

 

[j_j]

To be honest, I didn't read every post to the end, but at least my résumé is, as to be foreseeable: as low as possible distorsions even at higher levels are the goal to preserve the original signal as good as can be.
This may be achieved by exclusive techniques, that must be payed, but even can be achieved by combination of well known technology, maybe not on top notch, but close to.
Can we agree on this level (and avoid more posts without additional information to scroll through)?

Well, if you can get around to it, you might consider this talk. It's not a youtube video, it's a talk before an AES local audience. I personally think the speaker is pretty well informed.

AES PNW Meeting Report - What Does "Accurate" Even Mean?

So distortion relative to what?
Accuracy relative to what?
Original signal is, now, WHAT? The original soundfield, if such existed?

 

[Purité Audio]

These are some of the few speakers I would order without an audition. When will all of the models be filled out? The naming convention and list of products isn't that obvious.

Changyeul explained the naming convention a few posts ago.
‘The Ascilab lineup may seem complex, but it can be simply categorized as follows:

There are three product lines: F, C, and S. Each line includes a passive bookshelf speaker and an active cardioid speaker. Additionally, a bass stand will be available to enhance low-frequency extension and improve bass dynamics.’
Keith

 

[kemmler3D]

Original signal is, now, WHAT? The original soundfield, if such existed?

I've gone through this debate at least a few times on ASR, my conclusion is: questing for a reference other than the recording in hand is futile for the home listener. The original sound field (original being in the studio, or what?) is a nice idea with limited practical relevance.

As for euphonic distortion - it's definitely a real thing they apply to recordings during production, sometimes quite a lot. Home listeners intentionally adding distortion with hardware is sort of like salting the food at a restaurant without tasting it.

So, to that end, I think Ascilab / Purifi are pretty desirable products.

 

[j_j]

As for euphonic distortion - it's definitely a real thing they apply to recordings during production, sometimes quite a lot. Home listeners intentionally adding distortion with hardware is sort of like salting the food at a restaurant without tasting it.

As far as linear modifications, every loudspeaker existing has a particular radiation pattern, that interacts uniquely with the room it's in.

Define "accuracy" please.

 

[Sokel]

Define "accuracy" please.

It would be simple to think of it as comparison between the original file and the recorded final output.
But recorded how? And by what? And where? And, and ,and...

 

[kemmler3D]

Define "accuracy" please.

My attempts to define accuracy start at the recording as delivered to consumer and end at "flat on-axis response and smooth dispersion"... 'smooth' being a good, non-specific weasel word and way to exit the conversation.

 

[j_j]

It would be simple to think of it as comparison between the original file and the recorded final output.
But recorded how? And by what? And where? And, and ,and...

Precisely, and ditto for playback. What was the direct to indirect ratio on the recording? Does it compare usefully to the playback? Does it clash? Etc.

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

I do not see a reason you could not perform a blind test only with yourself and an assistant,

I will report you to the Animal Humane Society for cruel and prolonged beating the dead horse!
I do not see a reason why you could not perform a blind test by yourself (instead by ASCILABS), because you are questioning the audability of Purifi distortion. Burden of proof is on you.
ASCILABS do not have any obligation to do the blind test, because they are not questioning the audability of Purifi distortion. You are.

 

[j_j]

Burden of proof is on you.

No, it's not. You're really bordering on at least hostile abuse here.

ASCILABS do not have any obligation to do the blind test, because they are not questioning the audability of Purifi distortion. You are.

They are, in fact, asserting the audibility of something, by the very claim stated above. Once you take the claim that's been made into your argument, now it's your burden to show evidence.

You are falsely demanding that the other side perform a "proof of the absolute negative", a logical impossibility.

Prove it!

Don't try to shift the burden of proof to the skeptic. When you do crap like that, you're playing the same game as psychics and faith healers.

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

No, it's not. You're really bordering on at least hostile abuse here.

They are, in fact, asserting the audibility of something, by the very claim stated above. Once you take the claim that's been made into your argument, now it's your burden to show evidence.
You are falsely demanding that the other side perform a "proof of the absolute negative", a logical impossibility.
Prove it!
Don't try to shift the burden of proof to the skeptic. When you do crap like that, you're playing the same game as psychics and faith healers.

First, to establish the facts:
1. Member @KRM @MKR is stating a very extraordinary claim: Purifi woofer distortions are below the human reception perception range!
2. AsciLabs are merely claiming this: Purifi woofers, both sonically (by their ears) and measurably (by independent parties), are better than woofers they tried from other manufacturers.

As you can see, these are two very different claims – they are not positive and negative of the same claim! So, I am not asking “the other side to perform a proof of the absolute negative” (a logical impossibility), but to perform a proof/evidence of his own claim!

Edit: @MKR
Edit: perception

 

[j_j]

First, to establish the facts:
1. Member @KRM is stating a very extraordinary claim: Purifi woofer distortions are below the human reception range!
2. AsciLabs are merely claiming this: Purifi woofers, both sonically (by their ears) and measurably (by independent parties), are better than woofers they tried from other manufacturers.

As you can see, these are two very different claims – they are not positive and negative of the same claim! So, I am not asking “the other side to perform a proof of the absolute negative” (a logical impossibility), but to perform a proof/evidence of his own claim!

So you are arguing a perceived difference. Let's see the DBT's. Measuring, ok, but then we need to know the exact situation the measurements are made in.