Was this aimed at ASR?

[Robin L]

Is this a rhetorical question? (Since I know jack all about vinyl, I'd assume this would be best?). Any downsides to this sort of thing?

It still means the disc will have variable distortion that cannot be eliminated. Why go to all that trouble when the master file of the recording can be made accessible? LPs will always distort, no matter what direction they are played. The technology is inherently faulty.

 

[Robin L]

Actually I think it is beneficial to have the designer/manufacturer respond to questions. It allows a consumer to better understand the thinking behind the product, and that allows a consumer to better base a purchasing decision. That happens at ASR frequently. For my part and as an example I am happy to read John Siau's comments and explanations here.

From going through the designer's comments he states up front that he could have made his loudspeaker 'flatter' but then the tonal balance would have been 'off' from his perspective. I personally have no problems with that rationale. He builds what he likes. The Harman model (as I understand it) is designed to build what 'most' people like subsequent to a blind test. It's the difference between boutique and mass market.

That said, the following, from the review, is almost incoherent:

Roberts prefers tube amplification, especially EL-34 tubes. He believes that his speakers work well with any amplifier, but a few solid-state models get his nod of approval; any amp by Nelson Pass will do.

How can anyone go from 'the best is an EL-34. but anything from Nelson Pass gets a pass', then state 'any' amp will 'work well' but then state that 'few' SS amps mate with the speaker? What a mealy mouthed mumbo jumbo. Of course this is not the designer writing, but the reviewer, so who knows what was actually said or meant? In any case, one can certainly make a better purchasing decision, one way or the other, from reading this stuff.

I was told my link to ASR was stopped by a "spam filter", so I guess Volti's responses don't qualify as spam, though they are obviously are there to sell the product and the spam filter is up to [theoretically] prevent that sort of thing from happening. But yes, have the manufacture explain what they are up to, give them a chance to hoist themselves on their own petard.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Is this a rhetorical question? (Since I know jack all about vinyl, I'd assume this would be best?). Any downsides to this sort of thing?

Inner groove distortion at the beginning of the music.

 

[Robin L]

Just posted this at Stereophile, in the "Petard" Thread:

I'm really not sure how to respond to Jim Austin's unusually long and confusing response to “You’re Probably Wondering Why I’m Here”. I would like to note that when I mentioned/linked ASR I had two reasons that had little to do with promoting the site and a lot to do with the topic discussed. The first citation was to point out to Mr. Austin that all these people were talking about "Petard" at ASR, in thread entitled: ”Was this aimed at ASR?”. I was providing a link to that discussion, now up to over 280 posts. The other was to point out Amirm's history and qualifications for the job he does at Audio Science Review. Having had my posts delayed didn't strike me as strange, I've had delays before on account of excessive editing of posts after initially posting. So I was surprised to find out it was held up because of the link to ASR. Very strange, and very, very defensive.

Another thing, I have been aware of expensive gear that made claims of SOTA from the start of my interest in audio. High Fidelity had a review of the original Infinity Servo-Statik, back around 1970. I realized back then that the Servo-Statik was a groundbreaking product, one that would influence speaker design for years to come. And I remember the shock ‘n’ awe surrounding the Vendetta Research SCP-2 phono preamp in the mid 1980’s. Both justified their price. My complaint is not as much for the extreme high cost of 21st Century High-End gear as for the high-cost gear that technically is not up to snuff. Which goes to the heart of your argument.

 

[John Atkinson]

I was told my link to ASR was stopped by a "spam filter", so I guess Volti's responses don't qualify as spam, though they are obviously are there to sell the product and the spam filter is up to [theoretically] prevent that sort of thing from happening.

As I explained on the Stereophile site - https://www.stereophile.com/comment/595645#comment-595645 - your post was intercepted by our spam filter and placed in a folder for moderation. This isn't unusual or due to you including a specific link to ASR. As spam postings always include a URL and our site is hammered with spam, the filter is set to be aggressive with such postings. I check the site both for spam that escaped the net and for posts requiring moderation every morning around 7:30am, so if your post was submitted for moderation after that time, I wouldn't have seen it until the following morning, by whch Jim Austin had already liberated it from the holding pen.

Regarding the responses from Greg Roberts of Volti in response to the Stereophile review of the Volti Razz and the subsequent comments from readers, our rule is to allow manufacturers to respond as long as they include their affiliation. We have extended this courtesy in the print magazine since its first issue in 1962, so it didn't seem problematic to continue with it on-line.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

[Robin L]

As I explained on the Stereophile site - https://www.stereophile.com/comment/595645#comment-595645 - your post was intercepted by our spam filter and placed in a folder for moderation. This isn't unusual or due to you including a specific link to ASR. As spam postings always include a URL and our site is hammered with spam, the filter is set to be aggressive with such postings. I check the site both for spam that escaped the net and for posts requiring moderation every morning around 7:30am, so if your post was submitted for moderation after that time, I wouldn't have seen it until the following morning, by whch Jim Austin had already liberated it from the holding pen.

Regarding the responses from Greg Roberts of Volti in response to the Stereophie review of the Volti Razz and the subsequent comments from readers, our rule is to allow manufacturers to respond as long as they include their affiliation. We have extended this courtesy in the print magazine since its first issue in 1962, so it didn't seem problematic to continue with it on-line.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

Thanks for your reply, always appreciated your work. Always will.

 

[Robin L]

Both your replies are up and Austin and Atkinson say it was unintentional, a mistake, and reversed.

As Jim Austin has explained, your post was intercepted by our spam filter and placed in a folder for moderation. This isn't unusual or due to you including a specific link to ASR. As spam postings always include a URL and our site is hammered with spam, the filter is set to be aggressive with such postings.

I check the site for spam and posts requiring moderation every morning around 7:30am, so if your post was submitted for moderation after that time, I wouldn't have seen it. Apologies.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

Right. But you doubtless can understand my initial impression.

 

[MediumRare]

As I explained on the Stereophile site ...

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

John, I feel obliged to take advantage of this (to me) rare opportunity to communicate with you directly. I've admired your work for years and very much enjoyed your many appearances in YouTube videos. Congratulations - and thank you - for a lifetime of contributions to your industry and to our enjoyment of its products!

In many ways you have the most extensive experience of anyone in marrying the subjective reviews of your writers with measurements of that same equipment - and providing context for your readers to understand them both.

So, may I ask you to share with us your observations on this question of the difference (or possible gap between) between "preference" and "strict adherence to technical metrics" with respect to speakers?

 

[MediumRare]

Right. But you doubtless can understand my initial impression.

Surely, I can.

I think we are in a little bit of a supercharged frenzy in our (close to real-time) debate and echo-chamber here. We (I don't mean you specifically) also are parsing nuances of expression and opinion and (sometimes) blowing them up to tempests in teapots - it makes for fun writing and reading most of the time.

In this case our little to-and-fro has passed into a broader community and, IMO, the heat and emotion of the arguments doesn't travel well. There are certainly other voices in the Subjectivist/Objectivist deathmatch that may be inflaming passions.

Generally we'll all (again, I don't mean you specifically) be better off assuming good intentions and best efforts by others most of the time.

 

[CDMC]

I just want to take a second and point out that while many of us may disagree with the subjective reviews on Stereophile, both John and Kal who have posted here on regular basis have always been extremely professional and gracious. In my personal opinion, we owe them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to questions as to how they may moderate the Stereophile website. Let us not forget that Stereophile is also a great source of objective measurements.

 

[Robin L]

Surely, I can.

I think we are in a little bit of a supercharged frenzy in our (close to real-time) debate and echo-chamber here. We (I don't mean you specifically) also are parsing nuances of expression and opinion and (sometimes) blowing them up to tempests in teapots - it makes for fun writing and reading most of the time.

In this case our little too-and-fro has passed into a broader community and, IMO, the heat and emotion of the arguments doesn't travel well. There are certainly other voices in the Subjectivist/Objectivist deathmatch that may be inflaming passions.

Generally we'll all (again, I don't mean you specifically) be better off assuming good intentions and best efforts by others most of the time.

Generally, I'd be better off sticking to guitar, I'm making some progress there. Hopefully, this back and forth could lead to a language of subjective impressions of sound that are useful. We are not there yet.

 

[Robin L]

I just want to take a second and point out that while many of us may disagree with the subjective reviews on Stereophile, both John and Kal who have posted here on regular basis have always been extremely professional and gracious. In my personal opinion, we owe them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to questions as to how they may moderate the Stereophile website. Let us not forget that Stereophile is also a great source of objective measurements.

Agree 100%.

 

[mhardy6647]

Inner groove distortion at the beginning of the music.

Well, that works fine for any piece that starts out quiet(ly) and ends raucously.
I assume that - at least in principle - a locked runout groove can be cut on the outside edge of a disk as easily as the traditional style.

 

[Robin L]

Well, that works fine for any piece that starts out quiet(ly) and ends raucously.
I assume that - at least in principle - a locked runout groove can be cut on the outside edge of a disk as easily as the traditional style.

I would expect that it's more likely that the stylus could be thrown out of the groove at the outer edge than the inner groove.

Of course, the technique works just fine with CDs and other digital formats on disc.

 

[MattHooper]

That was a lot of hand waving. You went full word salad on the analogy used, and missed the point.

You read prosy reviews, and felt validated that your sharp ear matches a professional reviewer's. So you were willing to simply take the affirmation.

qed

Ok, my error for falling for it. You weren't really up to supporting your claim and don't care to it seems. Live 'n learn.

 

[bobbooo]

Producers target the global environment of playback systems they expect the work might be listened to on, as best they can.

And this is part of the problem, and one of the stages in the circle of confusion. The final cut of a movie is mastered to look at its best on the standardized monitor it is viewed on, which in turn will look best on cinema screens, projectors and TVs which follow these same standards. Movie producers don't change their color gradings so they'll work better on smartphone screens (despite this becoming a more popular way to consume series and films these days), so neither should music producers compromise their art to sound slightly better out of an inferior speaker such as that on a smartphone. In fact, in recent years, smartphone manufacturers have commendably improved the color accuracy of their displays, moving them closer to the standards the content was mastered with, due to this shift towards mobile viewing. Fix the standards at one end of the production>reproduction chain, and the other end will inevitably have to follow suit. TVs come in a range of sizes, and are viewed in different lighting conditions, with differing side-wall / window reflections noticeable in a dark room, at different viewing distances, by eyes of varying acuity (and some even color blind). Should the film master be adjusted to on average be ok over all these varying conditions? No, it shouldn't, and isn't. And neither should such compromises be made with music reproduction. The average studio is close enough to a well-treated home room for the sound heard in the former to translate well to the latter - all that's needed to make that happen are the same standards of audio reproduction at both ends of the chain. We have DSP/EQ etc. to adjust for less than ideal speaker form factors and listening environments (as well as old, poorly recorded material). You don't need to compromise the art by making it sound good on the poorest performing equipment in worst-case scenario environments. It would be madness to do this in the film industry, and frankly it's ridiculous this is still common practice by some in the music industry.

The world is not going this way, and the economic infrastructure that supports the production and consumption of music and audio is too complicated and diffuse. The cost of implementing more standardized audio is not worth the benefit.

Nothing will change for the better with that kind of fatalism. The benefit is better sounding music and preserving the artist's intent. I would definitely say this is worth it. The music production side has so far failed miserably to fix this issue by implementing standards, so unfortunately it's now down to the reproduction side to force this change. ASR is helping with this by measuring speakers and praising those that perform well according to the 'standard' of the preference formula, which will hopefully cause people to vote with their wallets and so encourage more manufacturers to follow this standard. The question many ask is, is this preference standard accurate enough? And the answer is, it doesn't need to be 100% accurate in order to work as a standard. For example, if speakers with the same frequency response are used in the studio and at home, and the music is mastered to sound best out of that speaker, it will translate well to the home speaker, even if both speakers have say, a dip at 2kHz. The mastering engineer will simply adjust levels to account for that dip. So then the question is, why choose the particular flat anechoic on-axis response the preference formula rewards? And the answer to that is, this is the standard least disruptive to the music industry, because it is based on the average preference of speakers in controlled, double-blind tests. In effect, most of the common arguments against the use of the preference formula are moot, because ultimately it's not really about preference - it's just a tool to ease the audio industry out of the vicious cycle of confusion it's been caught up in for decades, and towards a standard that will put an end to all this nonsense. This is the bigger picture. A good enough standard needs to be chosen, stuck with, and publicised, and Dr. Sean Olive's preference formula is the best one we have that I think most people will agree follows the majority of people's preference of the sound reproduction of music produced in a variety of unstandardized ways, and so will cause the least disruption to the industry in the transition phase towards standardization.

 

[MediumRare]

The average studio is close enough to a well-treated home room for the sound heard in the former to translate well to the latter - all that's needed to make that happen are the same standards of audio reproduction at both ends of the chain. We have DSP/EQ etc. to adjust for less than ideal speaker form factors and listening environments. You don't need to compromise the art by making it sound good on the poorest performing equipment in worst-case scenario environments. It would be madness to do this in the film industry, and frankly it's ridiculous this is still common practice by some in the music industry.

Spot on. Perhaps the biggest difference is the rise of digital sources and the decline of the LP, which forced all sorts of compromises on producers. The whole concept of the subwoofer was irrelevant when records didn't even have deep bass content to play, only rumble. You can chart the rise in interest in full-range FR with the growth of the CD. Now that deep bass is a normal part of the vocabulary and mastering to a curve is technically unnecessary, wouldn't it be great to have a standard for FR and *dynamic range* and a logo like the old "ADD" for some semblance of quality control? Never gonna happen when anybody can be a producer and post a hi-res file on Soundcloud.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Well, that works fine for any piece that starts out quiet(ly) and ends raucously.

That's not how I choose my music.

I would expect that it's more likely that the stylus could be thrown out of the groove at the outer edge than the inner groove.

If you get the ballistics right, you can fling it on the arm rest.

 

[Robin L]

That's not how I choose my music.

If you get the ballistics right, you can fling it on the arm rest.

I've been handed home-made LPs/78s to transfer as needledrops, with the groove going from inside to out.
The arm usually didn't make it as far as the armrest.

 

[smallricey]

That's conventional wisdom but research proves otherwise. I have taken the Harman tests twice and both times voted the same as majority of people tested in the past regardless of age, experience, etc.

If you think about it, we all detect boominess the same way. Or too much treble.

What I meant was some people might like certain set of frequency for their listening enjoyment? No?
Isn't harman test just test on your hearing not your the eq preference.

They might like that too much boominess or too much treble for that matter.