Evolution of Speaker / Electronics Ratio

[watchnerd]

So, where are the measurements that tell one that the wobbly wood panels are great for adding extra, ummm, zippiness - but not so good for accuracy ...

You mean the waterfall decay and accelerometer type plots like Stereophile does?

I haven't seen anyone do that yet for the 3 series. But I don't think the results would be shocking -- the cabinets are definitely where they cut corners to meet a price point.

I really wish JBL would make a "self contained" version of the better, more upmarket LSR705i and LsR708i, rather than requiring them to be paired with the Crown DCI system for crossover and tailor-made DSP.

 

[Cosmik]

I've never owned Quads, but I do have a pair of Martin Logans that I hook up for time to time. Electrostatic speakers still have a few advantages:

1. Broad single-driver coverage without the need for a crossover through the critical midrange and above, with perfect phase

2. Fast impulse response due to low moving mass, which also leads to less energy storage

3. Most importantly, distortion stats that are 1-2 orders of magnitude lower than dynamic drivers

They're a complete pain in the ass in other respects, but electrostats are still very hard to beat in some areas.

On your point (1), this is 'traditional' audiophile thinking. Because passive crossovers don't work properly (too shallow, or phase rotations etc.), the cry goes up that all crossovers in themselves are a bad thing. This assumption then perpetuates long after it could have been put to bed. And it is still part of the electrostatic legend. Modern DSP-based crossovers can be thought of as creating exactly the same coherency as a panel speaker, but with a much smaller, more practical, panel area.

Just looking at a randomly-selected electrostatic from Stereophile, it could be interpreted as negating your point (2). It also illustrates that the truly objective audiophile cannot exist. Comprehensive measurements of speakers can never be declared unambiguously good - people will always want to 'choose their poison'.

...if hyperprecise imaging is at the top of your list of priorities, then it may not be the speaker for you....

...As with all panel speakers, the Montis's cumulative spectral-decay plot (fig.7) appears to be very hashy, with multiple ridges of delayed energy. But as I have argued in the past, it's possible that, with a large panel, this graph is negatively affected by the multiple arrivals at the microphone—multiple arrivals that will be integrated by the ear-brain.

...As always with panel speakers, interpreting the MartinLogan Montis's measured behavior is tricky.

 

[watchnerd]

Modern DSP-based crossovers can be thought of as creating exactly the same coherency as a panel speaker, but with a much smaller, more practical, panel area.

Not really, no. No crossover is still better.

DSP crossovers, while a helluva a lot better than analog ones, are not a free lunch. You still have to choose between FIR or IIR. You still have potential issues like pre-ringing.

 

[Cosmik]

Not really, no. No crossover is still better.

DSP crossovers, while a helluva a lot better than analog ones, are not a free lunch. You still have to choose between FIR or IIR. You still have potential issues like pre-ringing.

They are a very low cost lunch. You can choose any response you like, depending on what latency you can tolerate or if you have a phobia of pre-ringing (of course the two crossovers' 'pre-rings' are complementary and sum to zero).

 

[fas42]

Attenuation of electrical noise from interference factors - lowering the noise floor is the terminology some people use. Why this particular cable should be particularly good at it I can't say, but the internals are genuinely very esoteric - the reasons put forward for audiophile consumption are nonsense of course, but I have some suspicions. I recognise the language used to describe what people hear when using this stuff, because I work towards the same goal in the end sound; noise from various sources is the culprit degrading the sound, and I use far more mundane, and cheap methods to control that.

Nicely timed. A post at WBF with a comprehensive description of the subjective impression of a "low noise" system, courtesy of these silly priced cables ... http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...-t-Hear-With-Other-Cables&p=426100#post426100

 

[fas42]

Of course, they are attributing the result to the cables, as if they contain some sort of pixie dust. Which is obviously nonsense, it's merely that cables in a system normally become an extremely weak link, and ultimately allow the end sound to be too greatly degraded. Solution? Remove, or correct the weak link - and the intrinsic quality is allowed to manifest; the bottleneck has been eliminated.

 

[amirm]

Nicely timed. A post at WBF with a comprehensive description of the subjective impression of a "low noise" system, courtesy of these silly priced cables ... http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...-t-Hear-With-Other-Cables&p=426100#post426100

Don't see a reference to noise there. What is there is imagination. A year from now he will change this and that and he will go up to "next level." That cable did absolutely nothing for him either. He just read all of that into it which is why he will upgrade in the future after that epiphany wears off.

 

[RayDunzl]

You really know how to harsh a dude's buzz, don't you?

(I probably do that too, so don't worry)

 

[Thomas savage]

Don't see a reference to noise there. What is there is imagination. A year from now he will change this and that and he will go up to "next level." That cable did absolutely nothing for him either. He just read all of that into it which is why he will upgrade in the future after that epiphany wears off.

Though Amir generally can't be trusted and loathsome as it is for me to admit he's right on this occasion. Reading these totally fictional epiphanies on places like WBF and seeing others both assume them a truth and indeed use them to affirm their own fantasy thusly setting it as a stone cold fact in the process makes me cringe nowadays...

Honestly , I literally cringe and feel uneasy as if I'm reading some testimony from a religious fundamentalist cult leader..

 

[fas42]

Don't see a reference to noise there. What is there is imagination. A year from now he will change this and that and he will go up to "next level." That cable did absolutely nothing for him either. He just read all of that into it which is why he will upgrade in the future after that epiphany wears off.

Don't need to see a reference to noise ... it's the absence of noise that creates that subjective experience - 30 years ago I had a system which went in and out of that mode continually, I spent weeks, months trying to get a handle on it. You either have a B&W TV, or you have a colour TV - if you've never come across the latter you may strongly assert that it's impossible ... but that's your misfortune ...

 

[fas42]

Though Amir generally can't be trusted and loathsome as it is for me to admit he's right on this occasion. Reading these totally fictional epiphanies on places like WBF and seeing others both assume them a truth and indeed use them to affirm their own fantasy thusly setting it as a stone cold fact in the process makes me cringe nowadays...

Honestly , I literally cringe and feel uneasy as if I'm reading some testimony from a religious fundamentalist cult leader..

The amusing thing is that he's merely describing what it's like listening to live, acoustic sound - something we all do most of the time throughout the day, in the myriads of activities we participate in; we're all totally familiar with the sensation. Yet when the source of it happens to be from some speaker cabinets, it's as if the laws of the universe have been broken ...

 

[amirm]

The amusing thing is that he's merely describing what it's like listening to live, acoustic sound - something we all do most of the time throughout the day, in the myriads of activities we participate in; we're all totally familiar with the sensation. Yet when the source of it happens to be from some speaker cabinets, it's as if the laws of the universe have been broken ...

You don't know that the "source of it" is his system. You would need to have a number of people listen to the same thing, with no knowledge of any change, and have them agree. Then you have some hope of the characteristic being that of the equipment and not the person's imagination, or need to boast about one's system's fidelity online.

The laws of human universe says we are optimistic, imaginative social animals. All of those can lead easily and trivially to the wrong conclusions about audio equipment. We have ways to get past these issues but if they are not practiced -- which they are not in that post -- there is nothing reliable to go by. He could have as well said the same system sounded like something else and you wouldn't know that is true either.

If he had discovered a drug using the same methodology, would you trust it and take it if your life depended on it?

 

[RayDunzl]

The laws of human universe says we are optimistic, imaginative social animals.

I'm pessimistic and cynical and generally anti-social. I may seem social here, but you're imagining it. It may have something to do with having been an "only child".

All of those can lead easily and trivially to the wrong conclusions about audio equipment. We have ways to get past these issues but if they are not practiced

I admit to some imagination, and of course, am able to be fooled, or fool myself. Hence, attempts at measurements here and correlation to what I think I thought I imagined I hear.

If he had discovered a drug

A couple of hits of LSD will amend your outlook on how your speakers sound.

Of course, I digress.

 

[fas42]

You don't know that the "source of it" is his system. You would need to have a number of people listen to the same thing, with no knowledge of any change, and have them agree. Then you have some hope of the characteristic being that of the equipment and not the person's imagination, or need to boast about one's system's fidelity online.

The laws of human universe says we are optimistic, imaginative social animals. All of those can lead easily and trivially to the wrong conclusions about audio equipment. We have ways to get past these issues but if they are not practiced -- which they are not in that post -- there is nothing reliable to go by. He could have as well said the same system sounded like something else and you wouldn't know that is true either.

If he had discovered a drug using the same methodology, would you trust it and take it if your life depended on it?

I do, because I experienced it with the systems I fiddled with over the years, again and again. When it's in the quality zone it doesn't matter whether you're in a filthy mood, or haven't the slightest interest in listening to music - you can no more "turn it off" then have a real piano go dirty and off in how it sounds, because you're not in the right frame of mind. I'm sure some people wouldn't hear it, and there would be different levels of sensitivity to these characteristics - that's why I'm very interested in the ASA research, because it mentions that there are some people for whom the classic ASA tests don't trigger the usual response - their hearing mechanism doesn't function in a comparable way to the "norm".

Down the track, extensive testing needs to happen to understand the precise criteria for achieving the required quality levels - it hasn't been done to date, simply because it rarely happens, and it takes some focused effort, or blind luck, to get there.

 

[fas42]

There are ways of "measuring" it, as I've mentioned many times - part of the package is the 100% invisible speakers, the tracking mono image - this is what I use, in my experiments; I can do a guesstimate of how close I am, by saying I'm, ooh, in the order of 85% invisible ...

Edit: The "drug" thing is completely useless - does having John Williams playing acoustic guitar, on the couch next to you sound better if your head is going goo-goo?

 

[Thomas savage]

I'm pessimistic and cynical and generally anti-social. I may seem social here, but you're imagining it. It may have something to do with having been an "only child".



I admit to some imagination, and of course, am able to be fooled, or fool myself. Hence, attempts at measurements here and correlation to what I think I thought I imagined I hear.



A couple of hits of LSD will amend your outlook on how your speakers sound.

Of course, I digress.

I'm anti social too, I was one of 3 with two sisters .. I can be fooled and often fool myself but I'm a realists ( possibly others would beg to differ and describe me as pessimistic, hence I'm anti social ) .

 

[fas42]

If you were to listen to mullard88's system, and then go to an adjoining room where a pair of Kii Threes were set up in optimal listening condition, back and forth, and try a variety of recordings - subjectively you would find them almost impossible to differentiate. If people understand what that means, then we're getting somewhere ...

 

[amirm]

I do, because I experienced it with the systems I fiddled with over the years, again and again. When it's in the quality zone it doesn't matter whether you're in a filthy mood, or haven't the slightest interest in listening to music - you can no more "turn it off" then have a real piano go dirty and off in how it sounds, because you're not in the right frame of mind.

Of course you experienced it. What you haven't experienced is someone else grading you that knows the absolute truth and answer. Instead, you have given yourself a test, gave yourself a grade of A without ever knowing if the answer you gave is correct!

I have given this test to others and regardless of credentials, how long you have been in the hobby, etc. it is trivial to have your brain fool you. It takes no work at all.

 

[fas42]

Of course you experienced it. What you haven't experienced is someone else grading you that knows the absolute truth and answer. Instead, you have given yourself a test, gave yourself a grade of A without ever knowing if the answer you gave is correct!

I have given this test to others and regardless of credentials, how long you have been in the hobby, etc. it is trivial to have your brain fool you. It takes no work at all.

So, you've had a system, on hand, that can conjure up convincing sound - which you can switch between hifi, and convincing modes, as required?

 

[amirm]

So, you've had a system, on hand, that can conjure up convincing sound - which you can switch between hifi, and convincing modes, as required?

There is no meaning to convincing sound. That is what you have imagined. What I am talking about is whatever change you made that you thought gave you that convincing sound. You need to verify that the change did that and not your imagination.