SeriousApple
Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2021
- Messages
- 32
- Likes
- 31
Im not jay i can tell you that much.^^^
This message was sponsored by Jay.
Just kidding or am I?
Im not jay i can tell you that much.^^^
This message was sponsored by Jay.
Just kidding or am I?
Yes. I find some here strangely dismissive of bodies of knowledge not in Toole's ambit.I have captured also in-room response data for almost two decades so adequate data exists. Few of those measurements were visible on my web site for more than a decade, and some ASR members might remember them. Speakers were both conventional boxed and experimental - usually unidirectional full range cardioid. None of published responses had room EQ. Just decent positioning of speakers and listening point/mic if target was quite balanced response for listening (not for investigating e.g. immunity to different random positions of speakers or mic). In one case (2006) balanced sound was reached also in 16 m^2 living room of concrete flat so building/house doesn't have to absorp or diffuse everything at LF.
In addition, our local hifi forum has thread for in-room response measurements including some nice results without EQ. I'm not globally the only one who has succeeded to arrange decent measured balance without any electrical device for EQ. As already said, it needs suitable environment, speakers, work and more work for positioning, and usually some lock too, but certainly possible.
Your output on this forum indicates just narrow view to reality. Mostly simplified theories with self-composed constraints. I will not start to teach you and prove something which is clear for quite many of us. So change your attitude, stop playing objective audio god, try to understand others and study audio systems in wider variety of environments and setups. If this sounds unreasonable, you are free to remove my username from ASR right away.
Why? Just because those designs do badly on it? You don't attacks standards on practice, only on theory.Spinorama goes completely out the window for unconventional designs.
This is wrong. A major part of it is a handbook style compilation of prior research. And to be honest, the "commercial incentive" argument is a bit weak, because anyone can tell you that marketing is 99% of the market power, at least in the "normal" Hi-Fi segment.As for "preference", the entire research was sponsored, driven, and undertaken by employees with a vested interest in producing and selling loudspeakers for their bosses.
I won't say you're wrong, because it really is impossible, but do you have some concrete reasons to say/think this is the case?Harman produced some great products for sure, but they vacuumed up innovators, pulled them into the corporate line and pursued a commercial agenda under the guise of "research" for decades. What was Bose's catchline again? "Better sound through research". What research specifically, because it was hideously flawed based on the products they dished out...
Are you sure? To me, it looks like more dismissal of anything not backed by the scientific method (theory and proof).Yes. I find some here strangely dismissive of bodies of knowledge not in Toole's ambit.
If Amir wants to be transparent with the donation, what he can do is post monthly all the members that donated (with names being scrambled but do tell every donor their scrambled id). Those members that donated can then PM if their respective scrambled names did not appear or if there is amount correction (if they want). Us ASR members can visibly see how much donation ASR gets every month. I would think this info could be beneficial ie if members decided that Amir is not getting enough...more donation can be given by sympathizers. Just my 2 cents.
We've had similar discussions in the past and they lead to nought. Transparency would be good. Like auctioning off all the 'samples' to the highest bidder after they are discontinued.
Realistically, stuff gets provided by manufacturers, members, some of it on loan, some of it 'not required for return', etc. I may be naive, but I'm prepared to bet that Amir isn't going to be (too much) corrupted by 'free gifts" and "samples". He has way bigger fish to fry.
this is the guy you should be going after. He is super negative says specs dont matter and says all dacs sounds the same. He is clearly taking shots at ASR comunity. He said 6 watts at 16 ohms is useless he doesnt have any clue that it translates to more power at higher impeadnces. He is the most toxic chanel ive seen on youtube. He will go after top rated asr dacs and amps it seems like. By the way nice drawing!!
whatever dude way to haze a new member. I got hater shades on. Im staring to think you have jays face mask and your this guy why shits on asr and your putting shade on me so you can be spotless.Shameless plug. You prankster you.
whatever dude way to haze a new member. I got hater shades on. Im staring to think you have jays face mask and your this guy why shits on asr and your putting shade on me so you can be spotless. View attachment 141295
ThanksNo hate, all love, drama and comedy.
Chill out. Keep posting.
What is your point, anyway? That pointing out that EQ is almost always mandatory for LF is "offensive" or something?
Why are you painting yourself as persecuted?
Nobody denies that nonlinear and time distortion can have an importance, but...
Well, don't be put off by Amir at least. He's not the best communicator. Especially in written forum posts. The reviews are basic, don't expect too much from them. There is ample good (and not-so-good) discussion in the forum generally. Also, many "scientists" here are engineers and technicians. Americans tend to think they are the same thing. Allow for that.I feel that there's not many forums left for me anymore. Many...most of the big and significant speaker manufacturers are my clients. In addition, I can't say anything negative about the rest either no matter is it proven by science or just my subjective opinion based on listening impressions because I'm also designer of commercial speakers.
With that background I'm quite allergic to ASR forum where some part of the science is picked, scored and resistance to widen the view and investigations to less significant features exists though they are audible or perceivable for sure proven by science. Measured and published slice of the features could be the most significant, but it should be self evident that "the most significant" does not equal to "all significant" in audio scene. Limiting science to very basic studies and features such as amplitude response alone is not respectable imo. First step is to open mental lock that spinorama rules sound quality exclusively and preference rating is somehow legitimate (with correlation of 0.70 between the predicted and measured preference ratings / US patent...). No one knows all possible significant and measurable features so I'm not requiring "everything possible". Just couple of steps wider view to reality and requirements which should lead to wider range of investigations/measurements. Correlations can be searched later if someone has resources.
I know nothing about March Audio/Zaphodbeeblebrox cases, and not afraid about my designs and tools either. Should be quite widely known that my simulator might be the first one supporting optimising of speaker with spinorama and quasi 3D measurements, and design methods based on measurements and simulations.
Sorry guys...
It's probably just me, but I agreed with just about everything Jay said. It's about speakers... not electronics.
In short.. he says measurements matter, they should be done properly and for speakers those measurements are really hard to interpret aside from those that know them well. It is also hard to predict how they will sound in your room to your ears.
Jay states measurements are a tool that can narrow down a long list of options and that's certainly true.
The 'tape measure thing' he states is a bit weird at first glance but in the end what he means is that once you have speakers they must be positioned correctly and use measurements when experimenting so you can pick the optimal position and after the experiments you can use the tape measure and plots you made to put it in that optimal position.
Jay is not talking about Amir imo. He talks about speakers, measurements, positioning and listening tests in general and that these all matter.
Because there are logical arguments for this:Everything after "but" is the problem. Difficult to understand why several features with some importance is totally ignored. Not good enough reason to continue with amplitude responses and THD only on speaker forum while much more is instantly available from measurement system. Just save and publish without caring is it audible and significant for individual.
Ok, I did 'like' this, then thought that might be misread. I like the post, but don't like that you should leave. If that makes sense.Your output does not indicate much logic. Try to decide which one is correct or clarify your writing.
Well spotted this time. That's exaclty what I wrote and promised.
Research and reality you refer does not cover special gradient radiators and/or complex listening environments so I think that you know nothing...not much about combination of conditions and possibilities available for me in our house - and many others. Your reality is probably as narrow as your output and part of science you have picked for ASR members.
I also suggest reading my first reply to you. There was clearly mentioned also personal tolerance; how high response variations are accepted by the listener. You're really playing some god if one does not have right to decide personal tolerance and refuse electrical EQ no matter what measured variation at LF is. It's possible (though not probable) to hit within tolerance visible in Olive's small study about preferred in-room response without electrical EQ. Acoustically large complex/diffusive/partly absorptive environments with advanced radiators offer also some freedom; possibilities to optimize setup caring less about LF and more about some other quality features.
Anyway, I've had enough of this forum thanks to you. Please erase me.
Your output does not indicate much logic. Try to decide which one is correct or clarify your writing.
Well spotted this time. That's exaclty what I wrote and promised.
Research and reality you refer does not cover special gradient radiators and/or complex listening environments so I think that you know nothing...not much about combination of conditions and possibilities available for me in our house - and many others. Your reality is probably as narrow as your output and part of science you have picked for ASR members.
I also suggest reading my first reply to you. There was clearly mentioned also personal tolerance; how high response variations are accepted by the listener. You're really playing some god if one does not have right to decide personal tolerance and refuse electrical EQ no matter what measured variation at LF is. It's possible (though not probable) to hit within tolerance visible in Olive's small study about preferred in-room response without electrical EQ. Acoustically large complex/diffusive/partly absorptive environments with advanced radiators offer also some freedom; possibilities to optimize setup caring less about LF and more about some other quality features.
Anyway, I've had enough of this forum thanks to you. Please erase me.
I got my terrible 80s bands* mixed up and thought you'd posted this one:
Anyway, I've had enough of this forum thanks to you. Please erase me.