Buchardt E50

[ssashton]

It occurs to me that there’s a considerable difference in how audio engineers and musicians learn to listen. A key factor is that while experienced musicians learn to trust their ears, experienced audio engineers learn again and again to doubt them.

For musicians, it’s almost a given that every detail can—and will—change the sound: a different string, the performer’s energy, even how hydrated a reed is. There’s never really a situation where no difference exists. By contrast, in audio engineering there are many situations where a difference is either orders of magnitude too small to perceive—or doesn’t exist at all, despite appearances.

Both groups may have equally well-trained hearing, but their mindsets, and the practices that grow from them, are fundamentally different.

 

[Deleted member 34697]

It was not my intention to be impolite. I am not a native English speaker, so the right tone can be hard to strike. Sorry.

But look at it this way. No one agrees with the BBC dip in the professional world. Not Dirac, Revel, Kef, Genelec or any other serious manufacturer makes a loudspeaker with the midrange dip like Buchardt. And Harmans reseach has shown it is not preferred. And yet you just want us to trust you?

Which one(s) of those speakers would advise you to point them directly at the listener? They'd be too bright........so have to listen off axis so the highs roll off.
Same with the E50s, need to listen to them off axis too.

 

[Penelinfi]

The trouble with equalisers (in my experience) is that putting more connections, cables and electronics in the signal path invariably degrades the sound.
Even a simple adaptor can do so - when connecting the E50s here to my previously used bi-wire cable, I had to use adaptors to connect to the single terminals. Sounds much better / cleaner after I replaced the adaptors with proper connectors.

Remember your comment, seeing is believing. That still applies to people who are into audio reproduction . It's easy to convince yourself that something has changed audibly even if it hasn't, just because you've seen a visual change, or done something yourself. - Common example is people who DIY their speakers, and definitely when we swap components out or move things a little. I'd even say it could happen more easily to people with stronger beliefs, including those who "have a lot of experience"

 

[Deleted member 34697]

While measurements like signal-to-noise ratio or frequency response can predict certain aspects of quality and help design well-engineered equipment, they don't fully capture qualities like soundstage, clarity, or the pleasing characteristics of certain distortion types, making them imperfect predictors of perceived sound quality.

I really don't like the reference to "Golden ears audiophiles", in fact I find it offensive if that comment is meant for me.

For my final post on this forum I'm going to (try) & explain what makes me so confident that I can hear more than can be measured. Apologies to those who will find this boring & have already made up their minds.

In a performance, an orchestral musician has to do this, as follows, live in front of an audience of maybe 2,000 or 3,000. On the spot, as it happens, no auto-tune (imagine...). We have to adjust the pitch of every note differently depending on the context. Orchestral string players have no frets, unlike a guitar - how do they know where to place their fingers? (clue - maybe they have to listen).
There are 100 cents in a tone (difference between C - D etc). Wind players also have to manipulate the pitch depending on the context (much more difficult than for string players) - the attached chart shows by how much we all have to modify the pitch, push up or down, in order to sound "in tune". If I have to play a high A - frequency 1760 Hz, and I play 1759 Hz I'm out of tune, & then may have to play the same note in a different context and need to change the pitch - but have to do it instantly, no time for second thoughts! Meanwhile there's about 100 other players all interacting with each other in a very dynamic and active manner. Look at the chart here - these are the adjustments we all make, every minute of the time, in front of an audience, as I said, and which I've been doing as an orchestral flute soloist for over 4 decades. (+ indicates the pitch needs to be sharpened, - means it need to be flattened). Don't tell me that I can't hear when a loudspeaker is reproducing the sound as I expect to hear it!

 

[Beave]

Well, we tried. We gave it a good, honest effort.

 

[Haskil]

While measurements like signal-to-noise ratio or frequency response can predict certain aspects of quality and help design well-engineered equipment, they don't fully capture qualities like soundstage, clarity, or the pleasing characteristics of certain distortion types, making them imperfect predictors of perceived sound quality.

I really don't like the reference to "Golden ears audiophiles", in fact I find it offensive if that comment is meant for me.

For my final post on this forum I'm going to (try) & explain what makes me so confident that I can hear more than can be measured. Apologies to those who will find this boring & have already made up their minds.

In a performance, an orchestral musician has to do this, as follows, live in front of an audience of maybe 2,000 or 3,000. On the spot, as it happens, no auto-tune (imagine...). We have to adjust the pitch of every note differently depending on the context. Orchestral string players have no frets, unlike a guitar - how do they know where to place their fingers? (clue - maybe they have to listen).
There are 100 cents in a tone (difference between C - D etc). Wind players also have to manipulate the pitch depending on the context (much more difficult than for string players) - the attached chart shows by how much we all have to modify the pitch, push up or down, in order to sound "in tune". If I have to play a high A - frequency 1760 Hz, and I play 1759 Hz I'm out of tune, & then may have to play the same note in a different context and need to change the pitch - but have to do it instantly, no time for second thoughts! Meanwhile there's about 100 other players all interacting with each other in a very dynamic and active manner. Look at the chart here - these are the adjustments we all make, every minute of the time, in front of an audience, as I said, and which I've been doing as an orchestral flute soloist for over 4 decades. (+ indicates the pitch needs to be sharpened, - means it need to be flattened). Don't tell me that I can't hear when a loudspeaker is reproducing the sound as I expect to hear it!

View attachment 473264

So what? I'm a classically trained musician myself and was a champion of musical dictation during my studies: three-part and rhythmic! That doesn't give me any superiority over a specialist who was taught to listen to sound REPRODUCTION equipment.

Besides, among all my musician friends, many of whom have perfect pitch, and even better, perfect relative pitch, 9/10 listen to music on stuff no one here would want... They're satisfied because when they listen to music, they focus on parameters—including intonation accuracy, which seems to be your hobbyhorse—that have more to do with: tempo, tempo relationships, tempo fluctuations, articulations, dynamic nuances, phrasing... which are in any case respected even by an old 78 rpm recording.
Being a musician is of no use in judging the quality of a sound reproduction system. And it can even be a handicap.

 

[Beave]

While measurements like signal-to-noise ratio or frequency response can predict certain aspects of quality and help design well-engineered equipment, they don't fully capture qualities like soundstage, clarity, or the pleasing characteristics of certain distortion types, making them imperfect predictors of perceived sound quality.

I really don't like the reference to "Golden ears audiophiles", in fact I find it offensive if that comment is meant for me.

For my final post on this forum I'm going to (try) & explain what makes me so confident that I can hear more than can be measured. Apologies to those who will find this boring & have already made up their minds.

In a performance, an orchestral musician has to do this, as follows, live in front of an audience of maybe 2,000 or 3,000. On the spot, as it happens, no auto-tune (imagine...). We have to adjust the pitch of every note differently depending on the context. Orchestral string players have no frets, unlike a guitar - how do they know where to place their fingers? (clue - maybe they have to listen).
There are 100 cents in a tone (difference between C - D etc). Wind players also have to manipulate the pitch depending on the context (much more difficult than for string players) - the attached chart shows by how much we all have to modify the pitch, push up or down, in order to sound "in tune". If I have to play a high A - frequency 1760 Hz, and I play 1759 Hz I'm out of tune, & then may have to play the same note in a different context and need to change the pitch - but have to do it instantly, no time for second thoughts! Meanwhile there's about 100 other players all interacting with each other in a very dynamic and active manner. Look at the chart here - these are the adjustments we all make, every minute of the time, in front of an audience, as I said, and which I've been doing as an orchestral flute soloist for over 4 decades. (+ indicates the pitch needs to be sharpened, - means it need to be flattened). Don't tell me that I can't hear when a loudspeaker is reproducing the sound as I expect to hear it!

View attachment 473264

Try posting this in the "Master Thread: Are Measurements Everything or Nothing?" and see how your claims are received.

Link here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...urements-everything-or-nothing.62954/page-776

 

[VintageFlanker]

It occurs to me that there’s a considerable difference in how audio engineers and musicians learn to listen.

Both groups may have equally well-trained hearing, but their mindsets, and the practices that grow from them, are fundamentally different.

Yep, sure.

As both their roles suit very different purposes : music creation and music reproduction.

 

[Purité Audio]

Well, we tried. We gave it a good, honest effort.

I have two friends both 50 years in the London Philharmonic one profoundly deaf in one ear the other with pretty severe hearing loss in both ears.
Keith

 

[ssashton]

Don't tell me that I can't hear when a loudspeaker is reproducing the sound as I expect to hear it!

I don’t think anyone is really saying that. There may be some cross-disciplinary disconnect in how we talk about these things, but at the end of the day you like what you like.

The more interesting question is whether that preference holds when factors that are known to influence perception—but are not part of the actual sound—are removed. When things like sight bias, SPL matching, or room acoustics are carefully controlled, preferences can shift in ways that might be surprising. Even highly trained listeners are not immune to these influences.

If you’re genuinely interested, I’d suggest a simple listening experiment. I can prepare two sets of music files: one a direct, bit-perfect copy from a CD, the other passed ten times through a budget DAC/ADC loop. You can play them back from CD-R as much as you like and see if you can tell which one is degraded. Running the test with at least five different tracks removes the 50/50 guess factor. Approaching it with an open mind can be very enlightening, and while it is not directly related to the E50s I think it is a good introduction to critical listening in an engineering context. I’d be happy to put it together in the spirit of learning.

 

[ssashton]

@Fluty By the way, I really appreciate you sharing your experience—especially since you come to this topic from 'the other side' of performance. I hope you’ll keep contributing so we can all learn from each other. We won’t always agree, but that shouldn’t stop us from having engaging discussions. An open and understanding mindset, on everyone's part, is most productive.

One final note that may help to understand the perspective of other people's comments here. This is not a typical audiophile forum. A significant number of members here are highly experianced professional engineers with a specialisation in audio electronics, acoustics and manufacturing. Just as you have 40 years behind you in the music industry, so many members here have in designing audio gear. Those long years can come with mindsets that are hard to shake for good or bad.

 

[ScottySmallsMom]

Respectfully, to have a “good ear” as a musician all you really need is good timing and sense of pitch. You could be profoundly deaf above 4.2kHz and still hear the fundamental C8 on a piccolo. Professional musicians are prone to developing significant hearing loss by nature of their work. I say this a cautious guitar player who cherishes his ears.

I cannot imagine safely playing in the middle of a giant orchestra for decades without hearing protection. If I did, I would have little trust in my ears when it comes to accurate sound reproduction.

 

[ssashton]

Oh what a shame, he chose the blue pill.

(Not the one you keep on the bedside table)

 

[danishchelsea]

Hi All! happy to see that there are some discussion about our new E50 speakers in here. Regarding the talk about the stained black might be veneer since it does not have the finger joints? It's still solid wood, all of them are and will be for future finishes as well. If you do not like the finger joints, we can just make a pair for you without them, we build them in our own production, so we do have a ton of flexibility here

Regarding measurements of them, this is where I would have to disappoint properly all on ASR. We would have a pair shipped to Erin for testing soon, but we have with this speaker let the subjective judgment win over the objective. This is very different from many of our other designs, but if you decide your equipment from an objective standpoint (which makes sense to do), then you would want the active version of this that we would make as well. If we get so much hate for taking a different approach with this design, we can always release the first crossover we made for is which I would attached measurement of here so you can see we are not completely incompetent in doing designs There are a ton of reasons why we went in a another direction with this design, which we would release a larger paper on later. The measurement you see here is a rather easy and simple 4. order. Although it's not perfect by any means, it's the best we could do with the given design which also had to look nice, we also had designs with oval waveguides to get drivers closer, but we did not take that far as it looked ugly to me. We ended up with a design that used 1. order on the Purifi and 3. order on the SS tweeter should you be interested.

this does not mean that all passive future products from us would measure like crap now, we would in our cheaper series still develop with objective data driven designs, while still having something that looks good.

Sorry to disappoint ASR on this one, but I hope that some of you would get to listen to them one day anyways, they do sound rather fantastic despite being a little colored
Take care.

Any news about the active version of E50. How far along is this? @Mads Buchardt