• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Electrostatic speakers?

T.J. McKenna

Active Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
115
Likes
63
Location
Western Australia
Is that not just serendipities, if one understands that this magic is mostly lost already at the recording stage hence not really present in recordings ( if it’s not there it can’t be reproduced) .
Then we can have some combination of recordings and speakers that do this for some reason.

But the circle of confusion can not be broken from one end .

If you have more research based scientifically “better” speaker or what would we would call them :)
Does not help if the recording engineers does not have them or use them correctly..

We need both . A predictable neutral listening environment for the recording engineers and likewise at home.
Then future recordings would translate better to home listeners and thus not be a fluke or serendipity when it works.
So it’s a long term fix .
The “better” speaker alone would not help all aspects with already done recordings monitored incorrectly during production . The “better” speaker may interact more favourable with your acoustics and listening positions and give an in general better result ( less listeners fatigue and a more neutral response) but it would not help fundamentally wrongly balanced recordings all the way it would be better yes . If your end is neutral we don’t have two competing sets of random colourations to contend with and I guess that more recordings would sound ok from more genres.

Sure, recordings vary appreciably in their reproduction of timbre but my experience has been that no matter how well the recording achieves this the majority of speakers can't transmit this facet of the recording. Conversely, the rare speaker that can do "timbre" will be able to extract something from the most unpromising of candidates: Bix Beiderbecke cornet recordings from 1927 sound timbrally far more real on some speakers than others.
 

T.J. McKenna

Active Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
115
Likes
63
Location
Western Australia
Agreed that freedom from early reflections is likely beneficial, but I also think the backwave makes a significant contribution to lifelike timbre. The backwave is a major source of reverberant energy which may well be more spectrally-correct than the off-axis energy of a monopole speaker generally is.

Not that I expect personal anecdotes to have much credibility on this forum, but years ago I experimented with absorbing the backwave of large fullrange electrostats (SoundLabs) and to my ears timbre was degraded.

Along similar lines, in the course of product development I have compared monopole and bipole versions of what was otherwise essentially the same loudspeaker, and to my ears timbre was the area most obviously improved.



Imo the closest thing most of us are likely to have access to is the aural memory of experienced musicians, and their comparisons to reproduced sound. For those of us who are not experienced musicians, this implies that we attribute credibility to someone who is.

In fact, musicians are often indifferent judges of recorded sound and often own poor playback systems. My guess is that they're so immersed in "real" sound that everything else becomes an undifferentiated mess to them.
 

Duke

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 22, 2016
Messages
1,523
Likes
3,745
Location
Princeton, Texas
And of course Science says that if we can't measure something it doesn't exist except in the minds of fools.....

Um... I don't think so. There may be individuals who take that approach, but "it doesn't exist" is only one of several possible explanations.

Another is that we are measuring the wrong thing(s).

Another is that our analysis of the measurement is incorrect.

Another is that our analysis of the subjective observation is incorrect.

Another is that we are measuring the right thing(s) but our data is bad or inadequate or incomplete.

Or some combination thereof.

It's easy for different "sides" to paint one another in broad strokes, but that's not necessarily accurate and may be counter-productive, because then the "other side" feels that it has been mis-represented and often over-reacts. The ensuing spiral has been the death of many an otherwise-promising internet thread.

In my opinion.

In fact, musicians are often indifferent judges of recorded sound and often own poor playback systems. My guess is that they're so immersed in "real" sound that everything else becomes an undifferentiated mess to them.

Very true, but might you be an example of a musician who is not indifferent to recorded sound and playback systems?

I'm friends with a musician whose recordings many on this thread have probably listened to, and he is indifferent to MOST playback systems but sure loves his InnerSound Eros speakers (a discontinued model designed by Roger Sanders of Sanders Sound).
 

T.J. McKenna

Active Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
115
Likes
63
Location
Western Australia
Um... I don't think so. There may be individuals who take that approach, but "it doesn't exist" is only one of several possible explanations.

Another is that we are measuring the wrong thing(s).

Another is that our analysis of the measurement is incorrect.

Another is that our analysis of the subjective observation is incorrect.

Another is that we are measuring the right thing(s) but our data is bad or inadequate or incomplete.

Or some combination thereof.

It's easy for different "sides" to paint one another in broad strokes, but that's not necessarily accurate and may be counter-productive, because then the "other side" feels that it has been mis-represented and often over-reacts. The ensuing spiral has been the death of many an otherwise-promising internet thread.

In my opinion.



Very true, but might you be an example of a musician who is not indifferent to recorded sound and playback systems?

Yeah, I am caricaturing the notion of "Science" but too often I get the impression that it's an accurate one for some of its more enthusiastic advocates.
And I don't consider myself a real musician; more an enthusiastic dabbler. As an analogy, the best tennis coaches are rarely the best players. They're often from the ranks of the "also-rans". my theory is that the great players know not how they do it and so can't transmit their tacit knowledge. It's only the non-genius grafters who've had to analyze and dissect their technique and are consequently more suited to articulating this for their students.
 

SIY

Grand Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
10,386
Likes
24,749
Location
Alfred, NY
Perhaps, but isn't a frequency response test simply a matter of making a sweep of individual frequencies at a constant and sustained level? So you're basically only measuring fundamentals. Further, the harmonics on a real instrument are often tiny in level compared to this fundamental; surely with a complex signal isn't it at least possible that some of these harmonics aren't being accurately reproduced? Next, harmonics are largely transients; if the speaker isn't responding accurately in the time-domain then these harmonics aren't going to be properly reproduced.

But your argument points to a fundamental difference between how you and I regard science. To me, if a phenomenon exists then it's the imperative of science to treat it as real and try to explain it within its own (limited) parameters. It's not a matter of "we don't know what to do with it therefore it doesn't exist". Major differences in timbre reproduction in speakers exist (at least in my head) and it has very little to do with the FR measurements you advocate. Now, it's up to science to try to do something with this, not reduce it to an "explanation" consistent with the "established" canon of scientific dogma. Haven't you ever read Karl Popper? He'd be appalled at some of the "science" on this Forum.

As for the KRK, these are the VXT8 model, and quite comprehensive measurements are available at the RESOLUTION magazine website. FR is almost as flat as the JBL; apparently the huge differences in timbre reproduction that I at least perceive are spurious.

The first paragraph is a mix of gibberish and incorrect assertions.

The second paragraph is a complete strawman, followed by a maybe half-understood appeal to authority.

Please do better.
 

T.J. McKenna

Active Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
115
Likes
63
Location
Western Australia
The first paragraph is a mix of gibberish and incorrect assertions.

The second paragraph is a complete strawman, followed by a maybe half-understood appeal to authority.

Please do better.

Well, can you do a "Science For Dummies" explanation of why I'm such an idiot? At the moment it's simply an "ad Hominen" dismissal.
 

SIY

Grand Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
10,386
Likes
24,749
Location
Alfred, NY
Well, can you do a "Science For Dummies" explanation of why I'm such an idiot? At the moment it's simply an "ad Hominen" dismissal.

In the interests of brevity, I'll outline the incorrect statements in red, and drop a comment or two in. Hope that helps. Let me be clear: I'm not calling you an idiot, but you don't understand much about science. That's OK, I don't understand much about linguistics, though it interests me.

Perhaps, but isn't a frequency response test simply a matter of making a sweep of individual frequencies at a constant and sustained level? So you're basically only measuring fundamentals. Further, the harmonics on a real instrument are often tiny in level compared to this fundamental; surely with a complex signal isn't it at least possible that some of these harmonics aren't being accurately reproduced? Next, harmonics are largely transients; if the speaker isn't responding accurately in the time-domain then these harmonics aren't going to be properly reproduced.

But your argument points to a fundamental difference between how you and I regard science. To me, if a phenomenon exists then it's the imperative of science to treat it as real and try to explain it within its own (limited) parameters. Assumes "real." That's not the same as "chasing fantastic claims presented without evidence or plausibility." It's not a matter of "we don't know what to do with it therefore it doesn't exist". In 45 years as a professional scientist, I have never, ever, ever seen or heard anything like that. Where in the world did this crazy idea worm into your brain? Major differences in timbre reproduction in speakers exist (at least in my head) and it has very little to do with the FR measurements you advocate. Please give one demonstrated example of where frequency response and timbre don't correlate. See, the problem is, they do. Now, it's up to science to try to do something with this, what is "this," the vacuous twaddle peddled by the hucksters in high end audio? not reduce it to an "explanation" consistent with the "established" canon of scientific dogma. Haven't you ever read Karl Popper? He'd be appalled at some of the "science" on this Forum. He'd be more appalled at the clumsy use of Russell's Teapot

Please cite ONE example of a demonstrated phenomenon in audio that engineers and scientists refuse to look at.
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
Perhaps, but isn't a frequency response test simply a matter of making a sweep of individual frequencies at a constant and sustained level? So you're basically only measuring fundamentals. Further, the harmonics on a real instrument are often tiny in level compared to this fundamental; surely with a complex signal isn't it at least possible that some of these harmonics aren't being accurately reproduced?

You're not only "measuring fundamentals". Remember that a recorded signal (let's say a recording of an instrument) encodes the fundamental and all the instrument's harmonics (and any noise etc.).

If a speaker has a flat FR, then every harmonic in that recorded signal will be reproduced with the correct amplitude relative to the fundamental. If the speaker has a non-flat FR, then the relationship between the amplitude of the recorded fundamental and its harmonics will change.

Next, harmonics are largely transients; if the speaker isn't responding accurately in the time-domain then these harmonics aren't going to be properly reproduced.

Yes, and there are thresholds at which these changes become audible. Decades of scientific investigation have determined to a high level of accuracy where these thresholds lie in the midrange and treble, although there remains further work to be done (or at least documented) with regard to these thresholds in the bass.

But your argument points to a fundamental difference between how you and I regard science. To me, if a phenomenon exists then it's the imperative of science to treat it as real and try to explain it within its own (limited) parameters. It's not a matter of "we don't know what to do with it therefore it doesn't exist". Major differences in timbre reproduction in speakers exist (at least in my head) and it has very little to do with the FR measurements you advocate. Now, it's up to science to try to do something with this, not reduce it to an "explanation" consistent with the "established" canon of scientific dogma. Haven't you ever read Karl Popper? He'd be appalled at some of the "science" on this Forum.

I don't have a fundamentally different attitude towards science.

Firstly, we know from psychoacoustics that our ability to hear differences in FR is as fine as 0.1dB for wideband deviations, rising to a few dB for narrowband deviations. See the studies here and here. The kinds of differences in FR you're claiming the current science says shouldn't be audible are in fact grossly beyond scientifically established audibility thresholds (see below, where I discuss this specifically with reference to measurements of the JBL and KRK speakers you've mentioned).

So the fact that you can hear differences between the JBLs and the KRKs is not a scientific anomaly, it's exactly what you'd expect.

Secondly, I most certainly don't believe anomalies (not that we have one here) should be disregarded. The scientific method demands that all anomalies should be invetigated. The first basic requirement, however, when an anomaly appears to exist, must be to establish controls and then ensure that the apparent anomaly can be reproduced under controlled conditions. (This is no doubt how a signifcant chunk of our understanding of psychoacoustics emerged.)

Frequently, though, apparent anomalies (e.g. perceived differences between the sound of devices that psychoacoustics tells us should not sound different like, for example, cables) cannot be reproduced under controlled conditions. Wherever perceived differences can be reproduced under controlled conditions, I'm very much in favour of their further investigation.

As for the KRK, these are the VXT8 model, and quite comprehensive measurements are available at the RESOLUTION magazine website. FR is almost as flat as the JBL; apparently the huge differences in timbre reproduction that I at least perceive are spurious.

Thanks for that. The VXT8 measures extremely differently from the JBL. Let me explain how.

Firstly, on-axis FR. While both are quite flat in the upper-midrange and treble, the JBL is smoother overall, and (more importantly) the KRK has a 4dB, wideband dip in the upper bass. The KRK also has lower bass extension. Here are the FRs side by side, with the scales approximately matched:

1610703415998.png


But the really important difference is not in on-axis FR, but off-axis FR. Unfortunately we don't have identical measurements of the two speakers to compare, but plenty can be inferred from what we have. Here's the KRK's horizontal off-axis response. Again, side-by-side and stretched to a similar scale to the JBL's spinorama. I've circled the most important region of the KRK's graph:

1610703649338.png


At the top of the KRK woofer's passband, it beams significantly. At the point where the tweeter then takes over (around 2kHz), the directivity jumps back out to being very wide. This is a classic cone/dome two-way dispersion pattern: beamy in the midrange, ultra-wide in the upper-midrange/low-treble.

The JBL, OTOH, is a constant-directivity design, with a waveguide ensuring the directivity of the woofer and tweeter match at the crossover point. The speaker's radiation in the midrange is slightly wider than the KRK's, and (more importantly) its radiation in the upper-midrange/low-treble is significantly narrower.

Based on what we know about human hearing (see above), one would expect these speakers to sound very different. The approx. 4dB wideband dip in the KRK's upper bass relative to the JBL is unquestionably going to be very audible. Moreover, our perception of a speakers tonality and (especially) its spatial qualities are largely determined by its off-axis radiation, as this is what determines the spectrum of first-reflected sounds arriving at our ears a few milliseconds after the direct sound. In this case, the spectrum of the KRK's reflections are going to contain far more upper-midrange/low-treble energy, which one would expect (depending on the acoustics of the room) to result in its having a more spacious sound, and a very different tonality.
 
Last edited:

T.J. McKenna

Active Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
115
Likes
63
Location
Western Australia
In the interests of brevity, I'll outline the incorrect statements in red, and drop a comment or two in. Hope that helps. Let me be clear: I'm not calling you an idiot, but you don't understand much about science. That's OK, I don't understand much about linguistics, though it interests me.



Please cite ONE example of a demonstrated phenomenon in audio that engineers and scientists refuse to look at.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "demonstrated". Making yet another appeal to "authority" in the shape of Karl Popper, I will just cite him in his rebuke to the notion of what to many constitutes a potential hypothesis. He argues, very convincingly in my opinion, that it doesn't matter where the hypothesis comes from. It doesn't have to be "scientific"; it can be the product of a dream, a hunch, or the conjecture of a scientific nincompoop like me. What counts, and what brings it under the aegis of Science, is that it can be cast in a form that is potentially refutable. This is why he rejects the theories of Freud, Adler, and the like: the fact that their theories can be modified to "fit" any set of seemingly anomalous phenomena. Which doesn't necessarily make them untrue: it just means they're not Science.

Now, if an audiophile states that he can hear a difference between speaker cables on the floor and cables on supports to keep them from sullying themselves (sonically speaking!) on this floor, the Scientist can respond in several ways. One is just to say the guy's crazy. Very tempting, no doubt, but probably not strictly scientific. Next, he (using the pronoun in its strictly linguistic, non-ontological, way!) can simply cite some scientific law "proving" that the audiophile's contention is nonsense. However, as Popper says (invoking David Hume and the Problem of Induction), there is no such thing as an ineluctable scientific law; there are only more or less tentatively-held hypotheses and the audiophile's experience is a golden opportunity to subject the current least tentative hypothesis to yet another proof of its validity. But now we have a problem. How do we refute it? Well, we can get the audiophile to take a double-blind test to see if he can still hear the difference without the visual cues to guide him. This of course assumes that the mechanics of the test fully simulate the original conditions in which the audiophile made his "discovery". Scientists tell us that this is both possible and achievable but the audiophile has several outs if he fails. He can deny that under test conditions he is as as relaxed and responsive as he is when listening at home. He can deny that the test rig is as transparent as the original setup. And he can state that his hearing may have deteriorated in the interim. Remember, it only takes one example to refute the current least tentative hypothesis.

I used to believe in the double-blind tests without question. However, when I saw some of the "results" obtained in these tests I started to wonder. Back in the early days of the gramophone blind tests supposedly demonstrated that recorded sound circa 1910 was basically indistinguishable from live performance. And in the 1950s Gilbert Briggs supposedly did the same thing with Wharfedale speakers of the day. No doubt present-day scientists will call into question the methodology used in these tests. My unscientific opinion is that listening in a controlled situation for some abstract series of sounds is not the same as listening to music for enjoyment. I also believe that being a "trained" listener means being trained to listen to a limited number of aspects of sound such as evenness of frequency response and that therefore their evaluations are simply a reflection of their presuppositions: what goes in comes out.

As for phenomena that scientists don't seem to overly concern themselves, how about "sense of liveness", "sense of solidity"; and "beauty of timbre"? Sure,there have been a handful of glib, in-passing, assertions that these are merely manifestations of some far more scientifically-based "principle" like Flat Frequency Response. It all stems from Flat Frequency response! If you think it doesn't you're not a Scientist!

Hence my scepticism.
 

SIY

Grand Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
10,386
Likes
24,749
Location
Alfred, NY
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "demonstrated".

Ears-only, basic controls. Without that, you're back to playing make-believe.

If you can hear it without peeking, you can hear it. If you need to peek to hear it, you can't hear it. It's not complicated.
 

T.J. McKenna

Active Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
115
Likes
63
Location
Western Australia
You're not only "measuring fundamentals". Remember that a recorded signal (let's say a recording of an instrument) encodes the fundamental and all the instrument's harmonics (and any noise etc.).

If a speaker has a flat FR, then every harmonic in that recorded signal will be reproduced with the correct amplitude relative to the fundamental. If the speaker has a non-flat FR, then the relationship between the amplitude of the recorded fundamental and its harmonics will change.



Yes, and there are thresholds at which these changes become audible. Decades of scientific investigation have determined to a high level of accuracy where these thresholds lie in the midrange and treble, although there remains further work to be done (or at least documented) with regard to these thresholds in the bass.



I don't have a fundamentally different attitude towards science.

Firstly, we know from psychoacoustics that our ability to hear differences in FR is as fine as 0.1dB for wideband deviations, rising to a few dB for narrowband deviations. See the studies here and here. The kinds of differences in FR you're claiming the current science says shouldn't be audible are in fact grossly beyond scientifically established audibility thresholds (see below, where I discuss this specifically with reference to measurements of the JBL and KRK speakers you've mentioned).

So the fact that you can hear differences between the JBLs and the KRKs is not a scientific anomaly, it's exactly what you'd expect.

Secondly, I most certainly don't believe anomalies (not that we have one here) should be disregarded. The scientific method demands that all anomalies should be invetigated. The first basic requirement, however, when an anomaly appears to exist, must be to establish controls and then ensure that the apparent anomaly can be reproduced under controlled conditions. (This is no doubt how a signifcant chunk of our understanding of psychoacoustics emerged.)

Frequently, though, apparent anomalies (e.g. perceived differences between the sound of devices that psychoacoustics tells us should not sound different like, for example, cables) cannot be reproduced under controlled conditions. Wherever perceived differences can be reproduced under controlled conditions, I'm very much in favour of their further investigation.



Thanks for that. The VXT8 measures extremely differently from the JBL. Let me explain how.

Firstly, on-axis FR. While both are quite flat in the upper-midrange and treble, the JBL is smoother overall, and (more importantly) the KRK has a 4dB, wideband dip in the upper bass. The KRK also has lower bass extension. Here are the FRs side by side, with the scales approximately matched:

View attachment 106203

But the really important difference is not in on-axis FR, but off-axis FR. Unfortunately we don't have identical measurements of the two speakers to compare, but plenty can be inferred from what we have. Here's the KRK's horizontal off-axis response. Again, side-by-side and stretched to a similar scale to the JBL's spinorama. I've circled the most important region of the KRK's graph:

View attachment 106204

At the top of the KRK woofer's passband, it beams significantly. At the point where the tweeter then takes over (around 2kHz), the directivity jumps back out to being very wide. This is a classic cone/dome two-way dispersion pattern: beamy in the midrange, ultra-wide in the upper-midrange/low-treble.

The JBL, OTOH, is a constant-directivity design, with a waveguide ensuring the directivity of the woofer and tweeter match at the crossover point. The speaker's radiation in the midrange is slightly wider than the KRK's, and (more importantly) its radiation in the upper-midrange/low-treble is significantly narrower.

Based on what we know about human hearing (see above), one would expect these speakers to sound very different. The approx. 4dB wideband dip in the KRK's upper bass relative to the JBL is unquestionably going to be very audible. Moreover, our perception of a speakers tonality and (especially) its spatial qualities are largely determined by its off-axis radiation, as this is what determines the spectrum of first-reflected sounds arriving at our ears a few milliseconds after the direct sound. In this case, the spectrum of the KRK's reflections are going to contain far more upper-midrange/low-treble energy, which one would expect (depending on the acoustics of the room) to result in its having a more spacious sound, and a very different tonality.

Thank you for your very patient and exhaustive explanation. And (honestly!) I feel a sense of ingratitude in asking the following question: I'm not arguing that the JBL and KRK have enough measurable differences to account for perceptual differences between them, but my (unprovable) contention is that the KRK is both superior and more accurate in reproducing instrumental timbre. From the measurements alone you would probably expect the opposite. If I'm correct in my assertion, how does this comport with the belief that accuracy of frequency response determines accuracy of timbral reproduction? Just assume I'm not talking crap for the moment and see if you can explain it. If you can't, then you can always fallback to saying I'm talking crap. But I think you're too nice to do so even if you're thinking it.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,524
Likes
37,057
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "demonstrated". Making yet another appeal to "authority" in the shape of Karl Popper, I will just cite him in his rebuke to the notion of what to many constitutes a potential hypothesis. He argues, very convincingly in my opinion, that it doesn't matter where the hypothesis comes from. It doesn't have to be "scientific"; it can be the product of a dream, a hunch, or the conjecture of a scientific nincompoop like me. What counts, and what brings it under the aegis of Science, is that it can be cast in a form that is potentially refutable. This is why he rejects the theories of Freud, Adler, and the like: the fact that their theories can be modified to "fit" any set of seemingly anomalous phenomena. Which doesn't necessarily make them untrue: it just means they're not Science.

Now, if an audiophile states that he can hear a difference between speaker cables on the floor and cables on supports to keep them from sullying themselves (sonically speaking!) on this floor, the Scientist can respond in several ways. One is just to say the guy's crazy. Very tempting, no doubt, but probably not strictly scientific. Next, he (using the pronoun in its strictly linguistic, non-ontological, way!) can simply cite some scientific law "proving" that the audiophile's contention is nonsense. However, as Popper says (invoking David Hume and the Problem of Induction), there is no such thing as an ineluctable scientific law; there are only more or less tentatively-held hypotheses and the audiophile's experience is a golden opportunity to subject the current least tentative hypothesis to yet another proof of its validity. But now we have a problem. How do we refute it? Well, we can get the audiophile to take a double-blind test to see if he can still hear the difference without the visual cues to guide him. This of course assumes that the mechanics of the test fully simulate the original conditions in which the audiophile made his "discovery". Scientists tell us that this is both possible and achievable but the audiophile has several outs if he fails. He can deny that under test conditions he is as as relaxed and responsive as he is when listening at home. He can deny that the test rig is as transparent as the original setup. And he can state that his hearing may have deteriorated in the interim. Remember, it only takes one example to refute the current least tentative hypothesis.

I used to believe in the double-blind tests without question. However, when I saw some of the "results" obtained in these tests I started to wonder. Back in the early days of the gramophone blind tests supposedly demonstrated that recorded sound circa 1910 was basically indistinguishable from live performance. And in the 1950s Gilbert Briggs supposedly did the same thing with Wharfedale speakers of the day. No doubt present-day scientists will call into question the methodology used in these tests. My unscientific opinion is that listening in a controlled situation for some abstract series of sounds is not the same as listening to music for enjoyment. I also believe that being a "trained" listener means being trained to listen to a limited number of aspects of sound such as evenness of frequency response and that therefore their evaluations are simply a reflection of their presuppositions: what goes in comes out.

As for phenomena that scientists don't seem to overly concern themselves, how about "sense of liveness", "sense of solidity"; and "beauty of timbre"? Sure,there have been a handful of glib, in-passing, assertions that these are merely manifestations of some far more scientifically-based "principle" like Flat Frequency Response. It all stems from Flat Frequency response! If you think it doesn't you're not a Scientist!

Hence my scepticism.
The early tests from 1913 were rigged.
https://blogs.loc.gov/now-see-hear/2015/05/is-it-live-or-is-it-edison/

Diamond Disc tone tests. This wasn't exactly a blind test in the normal sense.

Nor were the later ones by Wharfedale. He recorded musicians in anechoic conditions (well outdoor hilltops in quiet areas for no reflections) and had a speaker for each musician. When listened to by a distant audience it apparently could fool them. AR used the same trick in the early 1960's.

I've demo'd to people before how a close up low reflection recording of a person or an instrument played back over a speaker can sound eerily like the music or singing is really coming from the point in the room where the speaker is. If the basic direct sound is close, the room effects trick you into hearing it as real in the room with you. Or live on the reflective shell of a soundstage at an outdoor concert.
 

T.J. McKenna

Active Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
115
Likes
63
Location
Western Australia
As an addendum to the above, I agree that your analysis does agree with my perception of their tonality. The KRK sounds recessed on many voices but also sounds brighter and more glossy than the JBL. Voice has this odd "split in two" quality: a bit "wooly" in the lower midrange and a bit "sharp"
above that. The JBL makes voice sound far more like a "unity".
However, "tonality" and "timbre" are not the same in my experience although there are areas of connection.
 

T.J. McKenna

Active Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
115
Likes
63
Location
Western Australia
The early tests from 1913 were rigged.
https://blogs.loc.gov/now-see-hear/2015/05/is-it-live-or-is-it-edison/

Diamond Disc tone tests. This wasn't exactly a blind test in the normal sense.

Nor were the later ones by Wharfedale. He recorded musicians in anechoic conditions (well outdoor hilltops in quiet areas for no reflections) and had a speaker for each musician. When listened to by a distant audience it apparently could fool them. AR used the same trick in the early 1960's.

I've demo'd to people before how a close up low reflection recording of a person or an instrument played back over a speaker can sound eerily like the music or singing is really coming from the point in the room where the speaker is. If the basic direct sound is close, the room effects trick you into hearing it as real in the room with you. Or live on the reflective shell of a soundstage at an outdoor concert.

B&W did a demonstration in the 70s (I believe) in which somebody started talking to the audience and at the end of the talk revealed he'd stopped talking halfway through and the rest had been reproduced through B&W speakers. I assume he was miming for the latter portion.
 

T.J. McKenna

Active Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
115
Likes
63
Location
Western Australia
Ears-only, basic controls. Without that, you're back to playing make-believe.

If you can hear it without peeking, you can hear it. If you need to peek to hear it, you can't hear it. It's not complicated.

But I was referring to the formulation of the hypothesis. You're talking about the testing process. The hypothesis can come from anywhere; it only needs to be put into a refutable form.
 

SIY

Grand Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
10,386
Likes
24,749
Location
Alfred, NY
But I was referring to the formulation of the hypothesis. You're talking about the testing process. The hypothesis can come from anywhere; it only needs to be put into a refutable form.

Go ahead, formulate a hypothesis, and do an actual controlled experiment. Put the methods and results to peer review (and that can be as simple as posting the details here and taking/accepting suggestions on improving your methods if they are lacking). That's a great thing, and we routinely applaud people who do that.

The issue is your categorization of anyone who won't accept a wild claim offered without evidence to be worthy of spending any effort on or of explanation as somehow closed-minded, dogmatic, whatever pejorative.
 

Duke

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 22, 2016
Messages
1,523
Likes
3,745
Location
Princeton, Texas
... my (unprovable) contention is that the KRK is both superior and more accurate in reproducing instrumental timbre. From the measurements alone you would probably expect the opposite.

Indeed I would have expected the opposite!

If I'm correct in my assertion [about the KRK being superior and more accurate in reproducing instrumental timbre, how does this comport with the belief that accuracy of frequency response determines accuracy of timbral reproduction?

Personally I would not have used the phrase "determines accuracy of timbral reproduction", because in my experience it's more complicated than that.

The KRK sounds recessed on many voices but also sounds brighter and more glossy than the JBL. Voice has this odd "split in two" quality: a bit "wooly" in the lower midrange and a bit "sharp" above that. The JBL makes voice sound far more like a "unity".

Okay, I think I see a correlation between some of this and the curves for the KRK that andeasmaaan posted in post #270 above.

However, "tonality" and "timbre" are not the same in my experience although there are areas of connection.

Though none of this was directed at me, I'd like to play along, if you don't mind.

Can you put into words the diffrence between "tonality" and "timbre"? I have my (somewhat shakey) concept of what the difference is, but I'm more interested in what yours is.

Can you tell us about the setup? Is it identical for both speakers? Nearfield or farfield? How close to nearby walls? General room acoustic conditions, and in particular what are the nearby walls like?

Would you describe either as "more lively"?

Would you describe either as "more edgy or harsh"?

Would you describe either as "better at conveying complex instrumental textures"?

Would you describe either as "more relaxing to listen to long-term"?

Unless this would be redundant, can you describe what the KRK does right (and wrong) as far as timbre goes, and likewise what the JBL does right (and wrong), timbre-wise?

Thanks!
 

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,204
Likes
16,985
Location
Riverview FL
Top Bottom