Revel Salon2, B&W 802 D3, or similarly priced speakers + Benchmark chain?

[Sal1950]

Circle of confusion... We all have different ideas of what music is supposed to sound like. I'm not sure what to make of the concept of accuracy. What I know is Toole's research produced statistically significant, repeatable preferences. But, as evidence this world isn't so simple, some like panel speakers which don't fall into the preferred majority.

Different speaker designs produce a different combinations of strength and weaknesses. Combine that with which of those strengths and weaknesses any particular listener prefers and we have a situation where people tend to lock into particular designs. It's a world full of enthusiasts that have become cultish around panels, horns, direct radiators, bipoles and dipoles. Yes some can show a closer relation to a perfect FR or radiation pattern, but I can fully understand why many will chose one that varies from that world.

(Horns and high efficiency rule, LOL)

 

[blueone]

Circle of confusion... We all have different ideas of what music is supposed to sound like. I'm not sure what to make of the concept of accuracy. What I know is Toole's research produced statistically significant, repeatable preferences. But, as evidence this world isn't so simple, some like panel speakers which don't fall into the preferred majority.

IMO, judging accuracy isn't that difficult. All it takes these days is a high quality handheld digital recorder. (I use a Tascam.) It helps if you are a musician or have access to some. Acoustic guitar is very interesting, especially a dobro. My favorite is a piano playing scales. Acapella voices, especially baritones, can tell you a lot about a tricky frequency range for some speakers. Closing a car door in a garage is interesting too. The important part is being there when the recording is made, and optimally make it in the same room as your system is in. A friend taught me this trick years ago and it's only for the brave, because "sounds good" isn't good enough for this test.

 

[andreasmaaan]

IMO, judging accuracy isn't that difficult. All it takes these days is a high quality handheld digital recorder. (I use a Tascam.) It helps if you are a musician or have access to some. Acoustic guitar is very interesting, especially a dobro. My favorite is a piano playing scales. Acapella voices, especially baritones, can tell you a lot about a tricky frequency range for some speakers. Closing a car door in a garage is interesting too. The important part is being there when the recording is made, and optimally make it in the same room as your system is in. A friend taught me this trick years ago and it's only for the brave, because "sounds good" isn't good enough for this test.

I don't think this is a reasonable test, unless you're comparing the sound of the acoustic event in your listening room with the sound of the same event recorded in an anechoic chamber.

The reason is that, whenever a recording is made in an echoic space (i.e. anywhere other than an anechoic chamber), the mic(s) in the recorder will not be able to record any information concerning the reflections, other than their delay relative to the direct sound.

Cf. with the situation where you hear the original event live: Your ears/brain will assess the directional characteristics of those reflections based on their relative time of arrival and relative amplitude at each of your ears.

Moreover, whereas for the original acoustic event the direct sound comes from one point in space and the reflections come from a multitude of other points in space, upon playback, the speaker(s) will reproduce both the direct sound and the reflections from the same point(s) in space (i.e. wherever they are in the room).

So IMO you've got layers of confouding issues here, the first set at the recording stage and the second set at the playback stage.

 

[SplitTime]

... unless he literally meant they couldn't even sell brand new ones...

He said people weren’t drawn to them, they’d always buy something else. They’d had the Salon2 in a demo room (basically inventory overhead) and had not yet sold a single new pair in over a year.

So they decided to dump the inventory / demo pair. To Sal’s point, they did indeed have at least one customer that wanted them, but didn’t want to pay full price. So they called that person up and offered them at 30% discount - he came and picked them up as soon as they crated them back up (before they changed their mind I’m sure.)

Maybe AXPONA in April...

 

[blueone]

I don't think this is a reasonable test, unless you're comparing the sound of the acoustic event in your listening room with the sound of the same event recorded in an anechoic chamber.

The reason is that, whenever a recording is made in an echoic space (i.e. anywhere other than an anechoic chamber), the mic(s) in the recorder will not be able to record any information concerning the reflections, other than their delay relative to the direct sound.

Cf. with the situation where you hear the original event live: Your ears/brain will assess the directional characteristics of those reflections based on their relative time of arrival and relative amplitude at each of your ears.

Moreover, whereas for the original acoustic event the direct sound comes from one point in space and the reflections come from a multitude of other points in space, upon playback, the speaker(s) will reproduce both the direct sound and the reflections from the same point(s) in space (i.e. wherever they are in the room).

So IMO you've got layers of confouding issues here, the first set at the recording stage and the second set at the playback stage.

You are correct, you're hearing the room acoustics twice, but in a typical somewhat dead residential living room with carpeting and upholstered furniture, and especially a room with more than 4000 cu-ft, the test works rather well. Don't knock it unless you've tried it.

 

[andreasmaaan]

You are correct, you're hearing the room acoustics twice, but in a typical somewhat dead residential living room with carpeting and upholstered furniture, and especially a room with more than 4000 cu-ft, the test works rather well. Don't knock it unless you've tried it.

It's not so much that you're hearing the room acoustics twice, but more importantly that the second time you hear them most of the directional cues your brain uses to disentangle them from the direct sound will have been obliterated. I agree that it will work better the closer your room/the recording space is to an anechoic chamber.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Circle of confusion... We all have different ideas of what music is supposed to sound like.

But those those ideas are generic. Do we/you/I have any idea of what any individual music recording is supposed to sound like? Sometimes, I think I do if I've been to the same venue to hear the same performers. Most often, I can only guess.

I'm not sure what to make of the concept of accuracy.

A standard not yet completely realized.

 

[Ron Texas]

As far as the circle of confusion goes there are a lot of different kinds of recorded music. Not everything is acoustic. Some recordings are live, others studio, and there is electronic. All I want is a satisfying musical experience without spending an enormous amount of money.

I'm not surprised several have quoted my post. There's a lot of loose ends in it, and not by accident.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

As far as the circle of confusion goes there are a lot of different kinds of recorded music. Not everything is acoustic. Some recordings are live, others studio, and there is electronic. All I want is a satisfying musical experience without spending an enormous amount of money.

Lots of loose ends, yes, and worthy of discussion. I prefer and prize classical acoustic music for which the acoustic performance is recorded and this places an extra burden on realizing "a satisfying musical experience."

 

[Ron Texas]

Lots of loose ends, yes, and worthy of discussion. I prefer and prize classical acoustic music for which the acoustic performance is recorded and this places an extra burden on realizing "a satisfying musical experience."

I thought you were a big fan of opera and choral recordings. That's acoustic music on a grand scale.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I thought you were a big fan of opera and choral recordings. That's acoustic music on a grand scale.

Yup.

 

[anmpr1]

As far as the circle of confusion goes there are a lot of different kinds of recorded music. Not everything is acoustic. Some recordings are live, others studio, and there is electronic. All I want is a satisfying musical experience without spending an enormous amount of money. .

...opera and choral recordings. That's acoustic music on a grand scale.

1) If the ideal or goal is one particular model of loudspeaker that can reproduce any recording so that the aural picture in one's living room is indistinguishable from the 'live' event, whether that event is acoustic, amplified, or otherwise manipulated, then that will probably never happen. Maybe once the 'holodeck' is a thing, or direct brain implants can be figured out.

2) Opera recordings are an impossible facsimile to achieve. Like pro-wrestling or Hollywood movies, you really have to suspend a rather large disbelief in order to make it work. There seems to be two ways to go about it. A) what I call the 'pop' way (for instance Culshaw's Decca (Solti-Vienna) and the DGG Met Ring, --the studio version from Manhattan Center (not the DVD live version which belongs in category 'B'); B) 'live' recordings, like the many Bayreuth releases. Live recordings get you there to a point, but in addition to the music you get to hear the guy next to you eating a bag of potato chips while his wife sneezes uncontrollably!

I've never heard a large choral work that made me think, "Man, it's like I'm there!"

I've given up on the quest for an 'accurate' loudspeaker in the sense of number 1, above. I think however that it is possible to fulfill your requirements for a satisfying loudspeaker that doesn't cost a lot. But you can't be tied to the klippel-type of near field measurement über alles faction; you can't have that dictate things or you'll probably be disappointed. The latest review of the six thousand dollar Genelec underscores it. A little speaker no matter how good is not going to be the ticket for opera in a large living room! At least without stretching your imagination even more so than would normally be the case. And as an up close PC speaker? For six thousand dollars? I'm sorry if I can't take it very seriously from a domestic standpoint.

 

[MattHooper]

IMO, judging accuracy isn't that difficult. All it takes these days is a high quality handheld digital recorder. (I use a Tascam.) It helps if you are a musician or have access to some. Acoustic guitar is very interesting, especially a dobro. My favorite is a piano playing scales. Acapella voices, especially baritones, can tell you a lot about a tricky frequency range for some speakers. Closing a car door in a garage is interesting too. The important part is being there when the recording is made, and optimally make it in the same room as your system is in. A friend taught me this trick years ago and it's only for the brave, because "sounds good" isn't good enough for this test.

I have also used my own recordings of acoustic sources I'm familiar with - playing my acoustic guitar, my wife's/kids voices, my kids playing sax/trombone etc - to test the accuracy/tonal quality of speakers. Sure it's not perfectly scientific and just...not perfect...but I have found it to be quite enlightening. Those sources through some speakers sound "more like the real thing" than through others. Some speakers can produce an absolutely spooky convincing experience of hearing "me" play my guitar right in front of me! (Although I enjoy imaging, my first concern is timbral accuracy. Some speakers seem to render the sounds in a sort of blanched tone, others retain or reproduce similar "timbral color" to what I hear in the real thing).

 

[Kal Rubinson]

1) If the ideal or goal is one particular model of loudspeaker that can reproduce any recording so that the aural picture in one's living room is indistinguishable from the 'live' event, whether that event is acoustic, amplified, or otherwise manipulated, then that will probably never happen. Maybe once the 'holodeck' is a thing, or direct brain implants can be figured out.

Granted but we can strive to approach it.

2) Opera recordings are an impossible facsimile to achieve. Like pro-wrestling or Hollywood movies, you really have to suspend a rather large disbelief in order to make it work. There seems to be two ways to go about it. ...........

Or, more simply, studio vs. live. The latter is more common these days because of costs but, also, because of better miking and editing techniques. In addition, I've never been bothered by subtle and random audience sounds and, to be frank, rarely ever notice them. Never heard anyone eating chips.

I've never heard a large choral work that made me think, "Man, it's like I'm there!"

Actually, choral works are among the more successful multichannel offerings and a good example from way back in multichannel history is

 

[Ron Texas]

FWIW, KEF is promoting the Blade heavily in the US. They are available for demo in select Magnolia Design Center stores.

 

[Laserjock]

Granted but we can strive to approach it.
Or, more simply, studio vs. live. The latter is more common these days because of costs but, also, because of better miking and editing techniques. In addition, I've never been bothered by subtle and random audience sounds and, to be frank, rarely ever notice them. Never heard anyone eating chips.

Actually, choral works are among the more successful multichannel offerings and a good example from way back in multichannel history is

DVD-A or SACD ?

 

[Kal Rubinson]

DVD-A or SACD ?

FWIW, SACD ripped to my NAS.

 

[vavan]

I listened to a pair of F226BEs which they had hooked up to a ML SACD player & ML amp. The ML player kept playing the 44.1KHz CD layer on the SACD. The sales guy couldn’t get the player to actually read the SACD layer. Finally he had to stream some songs from Tidal - kept complaining about the ML app and SW interface. I thought the speakers played some content very nicely; but other content did not sound right to me at all.

could you please clarify what material didn't sound right on f226be?

 

[QMuse]

could you please clarify what material didn't sound right on f226be?

Why would you care for a subjective opinion from a sighted test?

I would care for his opinion if it would be coming from a non-sighted test. I would maybe take a subjective opinion into consideration if it would be coming from some experienced like @Kal Rubinson guy who have listened many loudspeakers in the same environment. But why care for subjective opinion from some guy on the forum?

 

[vavan]

Why would you care for a subjective opinion from a sighted test?

because sometimes I find that some material on my f208s sounds less pleasing than on my headphones and I'd like to check those tracks SplitTime found "not right", no matter sighted or not