Can't we all just get along?

[Loathecliff]

He deletes a bunch of comments. Even poor folks commenting know that theirs would be deleted. In his last LGK review, poster after poster would link to my video review and a few minutes later, they would be gone.

Hail "Dark Leader"

& a video vision appeared before me of ASR members sequentially, intuitively, (& very casually) posting the devastating truth, and Danny slaving 24/7 deleting until, one day, without cosmic significance.....phut.

 

[voodooless]

A lot of it is different attitudes, which may be at least partially traceable to the differences in their career experiences. Erin is an working (aerospace?) engineer who's a knowledgeable and conscientious amateur when it comes to audio, whereas Amir has been an entrepreneur and/or in high/executive-level technical management for most of his working life -- IOW, a top-notch professional who supervises the folks who supervise engineers.

I think you're in the wrong topic

 

[Hotwetrat]

Danny will defend his speakers and his "philosophy" to the death despite any amount of evident saying otherwise.

AKA he will knowingly shit all over any and all of his customers to protect his money.

It's literally this simple and is and has always been the case with an inordinate amount of 'Hi-Fi' sales persons

I am just grateful that technology has moved along enough and someone like Amir has stepped up to call out the BS scientifically, basically Amir is the Superman of the audio world, fighting to protect us years long victims of audio snake oil salesman. FOUL unscrupulous folk they are.

With regards to this Danny character, you couldn't get a cleaner case of 'EXPOSED' LOL

 

[JSmith]

Censorship, plain and simple.

... also a sign that he cannot deal with constructive or any other type of criticism. For a "boutique" speaker company, this is a poor state of affairs.

That said, it is always prudent to remember sometimes;

JSmith

 

[antcollinet]

31:40 in the video: 2 speakers playing togheter at 96 dB have a combined SPL of 102 dB. Wrong. Δ L = 10 × log n

No, that is aprox. correct. Power is related to the square of SPL , so Δ L = 20 x log n

 

[Mnyb]

Sure we all can get along , just not with the likes of Danny and others similar , that spreads the same old FUD in audio all over again, they need to go away from the hobby if its going to be salvaged.

But It's a bit saddening when peeps you think should be like minded cant get along . Even remotely scientific and "trying to be objective" journalist/reviewers/amateur's are very few one can not afford to loose any of them imho.

 

[markus]

He deletes a bunch of comments. Even poor folks commenting know that theirs would be deleted. In his last LGK review, poster after poster would link to my video review and a few minutes later, they would be gone.

I would like to see you take him up on his offer to drive down to TX and sit down and listen whether cables and power cords matter. But this time in a controlled blind test. Maybe this will "make things better" and we can finally start talking about what really matters.

 

[antcollinet]

I would like to see you take him up on his offer to drive down to TX and sit down and listen whether cables and power cords matter. But this time in a controlled blind test.

I'm sure that @amirm has better things to do with his time than travel all that way to try to convince someone who (experience tells us) is unlikely ever to be convinced.

 

[markus]

No, that is aprox. correct. Power is related to the square of SPL , so Δ L = 20 x log n

It's actually somewhere in between as 2 sound sources in a room add constructively and deconstructively depending on frequency. So you end up with something between 3dB and 6dB.

 

[markus]

I'm sure that @amirm has better things to do with his time than travel all that way to try to convince someone who (experience tells us) is unlikely ever to be convinced.

Any time spent on successfully educating someone is time well spent. I don't think that he would agree to a controlled blind listening test though. His whole business model could collapse.

 

[Andysu]

 

[Geert]

No, that is aprox. correct. Power is related to the square of SPL , so Δ L = 20 x log n

We're talking summing of SPL, don't know what power has to do with it.

Level increase Δ L for n equal loud sound sources​
Number of n equal loud sound sources​	Level increase Δ L in dB​
1​	0​
2​	3.0​
3​	4.8​
4​	6.0​

 

[Vacceo]

Any time spent on successfully educating someone is time well spent. I don't think that he would agree to a controlled blind listening test though. His whole business model could collapse.

As an education professional, I can confirm that learning can only happen when the subject is willing to do so.

 

[Astoneroad]

... also a sign that he cannot deal with constructive or any other type of criticism. For a "boutique" speaker company, this is a poor state of affairs.

That said, it is always prudent to remember sometimes;

JSmith

 

[SIY]

There are no speakers in the world that are designed with the goal to achieve excellent stereo sound.

Ken Kantor's entire career was based on doing exactly that.

 

[Pops106]

You could thank wrong-headed ancient industry practices for that which should have been discontinued long time ago but have not. Here is Dr. Toole lamenting in his book:

View attachment 214933

He goes on to say:

View attachment 214934

So no, there is no such standard. It is an old practice for the time when we didn't have a fraction of computational abilities we have today. Really for someone to trying to defend such featureless and smoothed response for a speaker is unconscionable. The only thing worse than that is not explaining that this is what he has been doing all along until I came out and pointed it out.

Not picking a fight with the boss man but...

We have got to careful to not fall into a trap of looking a bit witch hunting.

He obviously isn't doing his designs based on 1/3 smoothing and anyone with a mic can easily do much higher resolution sweeps these days.

Your measurements for FR and his are not a million miles apart and I don't think it is right to assume nobody realised there was smoothing until you pointed it out.

So when he posts the final FR response what should it be 1/6, 1/24 or no smoothing at all, that could get even more confusing for people who don't know when comparing speakers and manufacturers own measurements.

 

[antcollinet]

We're talking summing of SPL, don't know what power has to do with it.

​

Level increase Δ L for n equal loud sound sources​
Number of n equal loud sound sources​	Level increase Δ L in dB​
1​	0​
2​	3.0​
3​	4.8​
4​	6.0​

Loudness (if you are referring to the perception of loudness) is proportional to power. But is therefore proportional to the square of SPL. I'm also not sure it makes sense to use dB for loudness in that way. In approx terms, doubling the loudness needs +10dB power. Doubling SPL does not give a doubling in loudness.

So yes, I shouldn't have used delta L in my reply - but I was unaware you meant L=loudness, since you were relating it to SPL.

So more correctly delta dBspl = 20 log 10 spl1/spl2 - so doubling SPL is 6dB

It's actually somewhere in between as 2 sound sources in a room add constructively and deconstructively depending on frequency. So you end up with something between 3dB and 6dB.

True - which complicates it further. A single frequency will give between 0 and 6db depending on the sensors postion between the two sources (full cancellation or full reinforcement). Music (many frequencies) will be aprox as you say.

 

[Pops106]

It's not just about the listening room. It's the opposite, the more you reduce what your room is adding to the equation the more you will hear the room in the recording and how the speaker images that stereo information.

If a specific pair of speakers are properly setup in a fairly good listening room, a room that is not masking the sound too much and give you a better ratio of the direct sound from the speakers, you will hear how they render the stereo field different than other speakers, and that same characteristic will follow them from a room to another.

The characteristics of the speakers will often differ, some speakers have a more forward "in your face" kind of sound while others sound more laid back, and some speakers can image a wider sound field while another is giving you a more focused sound and sometimes better layering and depth.
I have nothing against using one single speaker for quantifying distortion and frequency responses, but there is so much more to the characteristics of a pair of speakers that can only be heard by listening to them in stereo.

It's not nonsense, it's a big part of how a specific pair of speakers reproduce the information that's on the recordings, and it can be "everything" for a listener and the deciding factor why the person chooses that specific pair of speakers over another.

I agree, there is a need for both.

Nobody is taking measurements on a pair of speakers, it is always based on a single speaker.

Certain things in mono, single speaker are easier to pick up on when listening.

Final and overall presentation then as a pair in stereo.

I honestly don't see an argument to be had but we are someone having it.

 

[antcollinet]

Any time spent on successfully educating someone is time well spent. I don't think that he would agree to a controlled blind listening test though. His whole business model could collapse.

The pertinent word there is successfully. You last sentence states why that success might be limited.

 

[Pops106]

The pertinent word there is successfully. You last sentence states why that success might be limited.

Problem is they both think they are the teacher and the other the student.

They come at things from completely different angles and people likely fall on either side, let's forget who is right for a minute.

It would be interesting and probably good for them to get together, it would be super interesting to see what comes out of it.

Imagine if both are right, amir comes back and says yes I heard depth and separation when we did X and now I know how to show it in the measurements with Y.