Richard Vandersteen does not like "digital things" that correct room modes/inefficiencies

[Koeitje]

You probably refer to their age an their idea's designing speakers. Could be (i also put some question marks about some of there statements) but can you tell me which todays modern speaker brands can deliver the same quality in imaging/staging for an reasonable price under a 1000,- Euro/USD each.

Revel Performa3 M106.

DSPs to fix room issues are ok, but treating your room before you turn to DSPs is even better.

 

[Spocko]

Above around 300 Hz (depending on the room), he may be right.
Below that, peaks and dips are probably room modes. There's no question that EQ can improve bass modes. And digital EQ is cleaner and more flexible than analog. But I prefer to use room treatment first, then EQ to fix whatever problems remain.

I believe this is the currently accepted wisdom as well. RC only helps at the listening position because the microphone is calibrated to that one area, whereas a well treated room helps the acoustics of the entire room, on-axis and off-axis.

 

[Spocko]

You probably refer to their age an their idea's designing speakers. Could be (i also put some question marks about some of there statements) but can you tell me which todays modern speaker brands can deliver the same quality in imaging/staging for an reasonable price under a 1000,- Euro/USD each.

My preferences based on my listening experiences:
1. Anything from Revel (I have the m126Be) - commonly used for under $1000
2. PSB Alpha P5 - I had these for audition, loved its clarity/imaging but did not go as low as the Debut Reference
3. Elac Debut Reference (I have these in my bedroom, solid imaging/soundstaging)

 

[q3cpma]

Enclosed some reviews they can't be wrong all.
http://www.audioreview.com/product/speakers/floorstanding-speakers/vandersteen/1b.html

Yes they can. Or should we compare some speakers reviewed here to the raving review they got? Take the Dayton B652-AIR, for example. Argumentum ad populum has no place in a rational discussion, anyway.

But ok music is in the ear of the beholder highly subjective.

Maybe, but audio reproduction certainly isn't.

Honestly, I don't even care about this brand, but trying to defend a manufacturer still using 1st order crossovers in speakers at that price without any argument simply doesn't fit in with the crowd here.

 

[Snarfie]

My preferences based on my listening experiences:
1. Anything from Revel (I have the m126Be) - commonly used for under $1000
2. PSB Alpha P5 - I had these for audition, loved its clarity/imaging but did not go as low as the Debut Reference
3. Elac Debut Reference (I have these in my bedroom, solid imaging/soundstaging)

Will give them a try if i can find them here in Holland. I'm under the impression that some of these older speaker designers don't tell us exactly how there speakers become so transparent for instance. Basically they tell what is in their vision (after lots of testing an investments) important to get a stable image like the angle of the bavel dealing time alignment, overcome first order cross overs problems etc. but they don't explain exactly how they do it (the company secret). In Germany there was a speaker brand called The Pillar M. o. A. acoustic designd by Hans Walter Lüpertz. This developer went so far that the cross over filters an other electronic parts where hidden in the speaker in a sort of box you could not open because if you did you would damage your speakers an the inside electronics to much. Still if they are for sale here in Holland they are sold in some hours that high demand there is for this brand. But if electronic parts are broken or has to be changed you probably can throw them away.

 

[Snarfie]

Yes they can. Or should we compare some speakers reviewed here to the raving review they got? Take the Dayton B652-AIR, for example. Argumentum ad populum has no place in a rational discussion, anyway.

Maybe, but audio reproduction certainly isn't.

Honestly, I don't even care about this brand, but trying to defend a manufacturer still using 1st order crossovers in speakers at that price without any argument simply doesn't fit in with the crowd here.

It is not defending it is listening to speakers an comparing them with other speakers (that could be subjective) old or new i don't care. If Vandersteen found a way so first cross overs work flawlessly in combination with an certain angle bavel an other issues than he has an point. But if today's speakers designers don't want to put the efforts in it is up to them it is more or less the same as resolving a ESS hump some put the efforts in some don't.

 

[q3cpma]

If Vandersteen found a way so first cross overs work flawlesly in combination with an certain angle bavel an other issiues

But it isn't possible to "solve" 1st order crossovers, unless you simply don't use them. The slopes simply aren't steep enough to keep the drivers in their comfort area, especially at higher volumes. This means possible cone breakup and way higher IMD.
On the other hand, most problems from higher order crossovers can be solved with DSP to reduce phase issues.

 

[Snarfie]

But it isn't possible to "solve" 1st order crossovers, unless you simply don't use them. The slopes simply aren't steep enough to keep the drivers in their comfort area, especially at higher volumes. This means possible cone breakup and way higher IMD.
On the other hand, most problems from higher order crossovers can be solved with DSP to reduce phase issues.

Thats the whole point what you stated "But it isn't possible to "solve" 1st order crossovers" supose he found a way to do just that only problem is he won't tell how. i'm not an audio technician but have a listen at minute 4 till minute 4:45 where John Atkinson's explaind how some deal with Firts order cross overs. Regarding DSP i'm 60 now an Room correction software is for me the biggest change in 50 years time i encounterd in my audio live in a more than positive way.

 

[q3cpma]

supose he found a way to do just that only problem is he won't tell how.

Come on, don't go there.

i'm not an audio technician but have a listen at minute 4 till minute 4:45 where John Atkinson's explaind how some deal with Firts order cross overs.

I wasn't talking about directivity, but something way simpler: filter slope steepness. If I used some dishonest (but not completely untrue) methods, I would ask why most state of the art manufacturers like Neumann or Genelec use the steepest possible filters.
Probably the only reason this is done is because it's hard and costly to do in passive crossovers. Phase problems aren't really audible unless extremes.

 

[Snarfie]

Come on, don't go there.

I wasn't talking about directivity, but something way simpler: filter slope steepness. If I used some dishonest (but not completely untrue) methods, I would ask why most state of the art manufacturers like Neumann or Genelec use the steepest possible filters.
Probably the only reason this is done is because it's hard and costly to do in passive crossovers. Phase problems aren't really audible unless extremes.

Don't worry I'm not going anywhere it is only based on what i hear an can compare an is probably subjective because of my specific room acoustics an taste. I can relate to your comparison with Neumann or Genelec but suppose if some speaker developers found a way as Atkinson explains how to deal with those (passive crossover filters) problems. At the end it is what the listener prefers in a speaker design/performance.

 

[levimax]

most problems from higher order crossovers can be solved with DSP to reduce phase issues.

There is one issue with higher order filters that can not be solved and that is "ringing/ transient response". It is debatable how audible this is but it is certainly measurable and can not be "fixed". Is reduced ringing worth all the trouble and expense to design drivers that can work with first order filters? I don't know but there is no free lunch and every design choice has a trade off.

 

[q3cpma]

There is one issue with higher order filters that can not be solved and that is "ringing/ transient response". It is debatable how audible this is but it is certainly measurable and can not be "fixed". Is reduced ringing worth all the trouble and expense to design drivers that can work with first order filters? I don't know but there is no free lunch and every design choice has a trade off.

Well, it's not wrong, but I doubt first order crossover use is motivated by truly engineering/scientific reasons.

 

[Snarfie]

Is reduced ringing worth all the trouble and expense to design drivers that can work with first order filters? I don't know but there is no free lunch and every design choice has a trade off.

Don't know about ringing but in minute 8:30 he explains his driver design an pattents at 9:38 till 10:39 Vandersteen explains how he avoids steep filters to design very (custome made) stiff tweeter drivers that can work fine with first order crossovers.

 

[Tangband]

Saw this John Atkinson interview with Richard Vandersteen. In minute 12:55 Richard stated that "digital things" i guess Room correction software it does sounds manipulated not musical??. He Stated also that where there are peaks or dips in a frequency curve you leave them as they are. Curious thing is that Mathaudio Room EQ is doing that with dips because they think if they correct that it could damage a driver. Basically Richard favours to use a sub woofer (vandertones minute 12:45) to compensate for room modes an in minute 14:18 he favors to use rather diffusion material instead of absorption material. Is there a most desirable way to correct your room besides treating your room 100% with diffusion or absorption materials. Another interesting subject is time domain where speakers (can) work in efficiently this is discussed in minute 4:38 they are talking about transparency/imaging/staging what ever you want to call it. Atkinson conclude in minute 6:28 that there are a view speaker companies that know how to reach this goal are there not more.?
I own Vandersteen model 1 speakers an i must say if placed correctly an for that matter using room correction software they sound amazing. They are extreme transparent an deliver an impressive staging.

ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=600&v=P8A6hN8kgC4&feature=emb_logo

I think Vandersteen is right about many things - a dsp correction with the loudspeakers randomly put in the room is always worse sounding than having a perfect installation of the loudspeaker placement in the room. With two loudspeakers in stereo you have many variables to play with.

My opinion:
Correcting the fundamental room resonances ( all beyond 80 Hz ) is very good practice with a dsp. The rest of the sound is better executed with acoustic panels ( for reflexes ) and perfect placement of the loudspeakers.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi
I would qualify his stance to : Stating the obvious.
With all due respect to Richard Vandersteen, it is a safe position to take. It also helps with marketing since they (Vandersteen Audio) cotton, after all, to the High End Audio segment of audiophilia.
This is basic you get a good starting point and correction of any kind works best ... Sometimes you just can't and some DSP, yes the digital part do help a lot. What digital can do almost transparently at times, Analog can't... I have the example of my lowly but highly enjoyable JBL LSR 308 ($500 for a pair of speakers capable of very accurate sound) where the pristine , pure , high SINAD, analog input is immediately transformed by a very cheap (per force for a $250 retail powered speaker) A to D chip to a digital stream, massaged, crossed over and fed back to a likely a pair of $5.00 DAC and then to a pair of cheap 50 watts amplifiers for what even for him, would be glorious sound...
It is not always easy to place speakers "perfectly" or to treat a living room with sound absorbers and panels. This is more the exception than the rule, even for rich audiophiles... Many (Most?) High End Audio ..'philes , are faced with issues of having to listen to music in a living environment... that is the "Living" in Living Room ... DSP, yes those digital things, can and do help...


Peace.

 

[Katji]

Funny thread. "digital things" and then "ok boomer."

 

[escksu]

Saw this John Atkinson interview with Richard Vandersteen. In minute 12:55 Richard stated that "digital things" i guess Room correction software it does sounds manipulated not musical??. He Stated also that where there are peaks or dips in a frequency curve you leave them as they are. Curious thing is that Mathaudio Room EQ is doing that with dips because they think if they correct that it could damage a driver. Basically Richard favours to use a sub woofer (vandertones minute 12:45) to compensate for room modes an in minute 14:18 he favors to use rather diffusion material instead of absorption material. Is there a most desirable way to correct your room besides treating your room 100% with diffusion or absorption materials. Another interesting subject is time domain where speakers (can) work in efficiently this is discussed in minute 4:38 they are talking about transparency/imaging/staging what ever you want to call it. Atkinson conclude in minute 6:28 that there are a view speaker companies that know how to reach this goal are there not more.?
I own Vandersteen model 1 speakers an i must say if placed correctly an for that matter using room correction software they sound amazing. They are extreme transparent an deliver an impressive staging.

ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=600&v=P8A6hN8kgC4&feature=emb_logo

Its normal. Not everyone likes such things. I too dislike all these room correction software and only use them for movies and not for stereo music.

But I don't see it as an issue whether you use it or not. Whats most important is you enjoy your music.

 

[q3cpma]

Whats most important is you enjoy your music.

Some people enjoy music on smartphone speakers despite the sound quality, not because of it. It's easy to fall into the "big fish in a small pond" pattern, when you think that what you have is good enough without even taking the time to explore the better solutions.

 

[dshreter]

If I sold speakers, I too would advocate for speakers rather than electronics as the recommended solution to audio problems.

But snarkiness aside, when it comes to HiFi as a hobby, what can be achieved with speakers designed in interesting ways and what you can do with the room is potentially more fun than an electronic push button solution. It's not objective or outcome oriented, but as a hobby I don't think it needs to be either.

 

[voodooless]

He Stated also that where there are peaks or dips in a frequency curve you leave them as they are.

Not just a Boomer, also a hypocrite.. He sells speakers with bass room correction build in:

The speaker's rear has a large black metal panel with the amplifier's heatsink fins at its base, above which are 11 trim controls for the subwoofer's 11-band equalizer, rotary Low Frequency Level and Contour controls, and four screw terminals

And he even set it up for the Stereophile review:

The nearfield response of the Vandersteen Quatro Wood CT's subwoofer (green trace) peaks between 30Hz and 80Hz, though its upper-frequency rolloff is disturbed by a boost between 120Hz and 200Hz. This is due to the settings of the graphic equalizer chosen by Richard Vandersteen when he set up the speakers in my room