What makes this speaker so good?

[fpitas]

You like them because they were the pinnacle of hi-fi. A white van brought them directly from heaven to your door

Serious subject. Why don't I like Brussels sprouts?

 

[tomtoo]

I concur with these findings and it is exactly what I was trying to express in my limited English. However it also shows that you need to do a lot to show that the cheapo is inferior by what should be obvious and wide margin.

Price is not a garantie for quality. Not for objective and espeacily not for subjective quality.

 

[fpitas]

Price is not a garantie for quality.

Amir shows us that all the time. Some real expensive speakers are like sonic ice-picks to the ear drums.

 

[fpitas]

Worst measuring loudspeaker?

Those two peaks around 2 and 3kHz are significant, they may have pushed everything down in there to make them less prominent. Yes, I would think they could do better. for a sale price of £70K they should be a lot better, I nearly fell over when I saw the price at the bottom of the page. I...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Feast your eyes on craptastic sound.

 

[fpitas]

Those old cone tweeters rolled a lot beyond maybe 6kHz, so if you get used to the muffled quality they do smooth out rough-sounding recordings at times.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

One likes what one likes..
Bland clichés aside... You may need to listen to these a bit longer.. and ...
From what I see from @restorer-john post, these are not likely to be speakers with great measurements.. It happens that good measurements in turn, tend to correlate with what most people find accurate and pleasing...
You could be an outlier... or not...

Without measurements it is impossible to answer your question... accurately

Peace.

 

[tomtoo]

Worst measuring loudspeaker?

Those two peaks around 2 and 3kHz are significant, they may have pushed everything down in there to make them less prominent. Yes, I would think they could do better. for a sale price of £70K they should be a lot better, I nearly fell over when I saw the price at the bottom of the page. I...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Feast your eyes on craptastic sound.

I think that elac look more horrible in FR than they sound. That 5dB up over 10k is not realy so bad. 5dB up at 4khz would pierce my ears much more.

 

[fpitas]

Hi

One likes what one likes..
Bland clichés aside... You may need to listen to these a bit longer.. and ...
From what I see from @restorer-john post, these are not likely to be speakers with great measurements.. It happens that good measurements in turn, tend to correlate with what most people find accurate and pleasing...
You could be an outlier... or not...

Without measurements it is impossible to answer your question... accurately

Peace.

And even then we can't get inside the OP's mind and understand his preferences. But those old white van style speakers usually had a mid-bass bloom and a downward sloping response, because people liked that. Deep bass was very limited. Accurate? Heck no.

 

[fpitas]

I think that elac look more horrible in FR than they sound. That 5dB up over 10k is not realy so bad. 5dB up at 4khz would pierce my ears much more.

Well, I think it's down to which is more or less offensive. Not a good place to be when you pay top dollar.

 

[tomtoo]

Well, I think it's down to which is more or less offensive. Not a good place to be when you pay top dollar.

Sure maybe we can agree seeing a stright line would be more nice. But for FR deviations it's very importend where they are. And after 10k the influence is much less. I think some would say the speaker sounds so nice airy and persice in the highs. And this was intended by elac to sell the tweeter.

 

[fpitas]

Sure maybe we can agree seeing a stright line would be more nice. But for FR deviations it's very importend where they are. And after 10k the influence is much less. I think some would say the speaker sounds so nice airy and persice in the highs. And this was intended by elac to sell the tweeter.

Some may like that, but from playing with EQ on mine I know it hurts my ears if I have peaks up there. My ears are happiest with flat out to about 6kHz then a tiny slope down from there.

 

[Goodman]

Those old cone tweeters rolled a lot beyond maybe 6kHz, so if you get used to the muffled quality they do smooth out rough-sounding recordings at times.

Smooth out rough-sounding recordings! Now that is a big plus, not all of us listen to Diana Krall all day, I listen to her husband Elvis Costello, not audiophile but musical genius.

 

[tomtoo]

Some may like that, but from playing with EQ on mine I know it hurts my ears if I have peaks up there. My ears are happiest with flat out to about 6kHz then a tiny slope down from there.

Sure why not i prefer some 4k dip, and after 12k it can go up some db. I still prefer a linear speaker, couse i eq then to my like. And changig something that is allready good to my like is much more easy than changing something that is horrible.

 

[Goodman]

Hi

One likes what one likes..
Bland clichés aside... You may need to listen to these a bit longer.. and ...
From what I see from @restorer-john post, these are not likely to be speakers with great measurements.. It happens that good measurements in turn, tend to correlate with what most people find accurate and pleasing...
You could be an outlier... or not...

Without measurements it is impossible to answer your question... accurately

Peace.

I Have thankfully had some interesting TECHNICAL AND USEFUL answers to my question, I do not require 100% accuracy.

 

[tomtoo]

I Have thankfully had some interesting answers to my question, I do not require 100% accuracy.

Never be a slave for a straight line. Be free to prever what you prever. But dont wonder that there are others that prever something else.

Straight lines are just a good orientation to start with.

 

[Rednaxela]

If I walk into room playing a getto blaster, or transistor radio and a year latter Walk into the same room playing some Focal Speakers, I don't need an degree in engineering from MIT and 100,000 dollars of equipment to tell you which is best.

Doesn't make your question better defined though.

 

[tmtomh]

Yes, thank you, we have established and informed others that high efficiency can be a quality factor without having to set up a volume matched scientific (or pseudo scientific experiment) which so many here demand.

Thanks for your reply. When you write that "High efficiency can be a quality factor without having to set up a volume matched ... experiment," it seems you're acknowledging that volume differences can indeed shape the comparative perception of sound quality, but that you nevertheless intend to ignore the issue.

Saying that "so many here demand" a "scientific (or pseudo scientific)" experiment seems like an attempt to dismiss the importance of volume-matching, by claiming that "so many here" are (a) extreme and unrealistic ("scientific experiment"); (b) dictatorial ("demand"); and (c) not really raising a valid issue ("pseudo scientific").

It all just seems like a rather passive-aggressive way of saying, "I want to talk about what I want to talk about, and I don't want to talk about what I don't want to talk about, now entertain me."

 

[RobL]

What makes this speaker so good?

You kinda smuggled in an unproven assumption there…

 

[tmtomh]

You don’t even know the study yet you think you can argue about it.

This does seem to be the case, yes.

Besides you missing the point and you probably want to miss the point.

Also seems to be the case IMHO.

No facts just tales.

And again, I agree with your perception here.

I am out. What a waste of time.

I don't blame you. It is very easy to abuse the good faith of folks at a site like this, with the kind of behavior we are seeing in this thread. The control in a discussion like this (at least, the way this one has been shaping up) is not in the arguments someone puts forth - instead, it's in the ability to keep the discussion going and draw people in, so the OP can feel as though they took on a whole group of people and came away with their initial beliefs intact. In that kind of situation, the reasonable thing is probably just to cut off the oxygen and withdraw - advice that's hard for all of us to take though, since we enjoy the discussing, analysis and arguments!

 

[ahofer]

Thanks for your reply. When you write that :High efficiency can be a quality factor without having to set up a volume matched ... experiment," it seems you're acknowledging that volume differences can indeed shape the comparative perception of sound quality, but that you nevertheless intend to ignore the issue.

Saying that "so many here demand" a "scientific (or pseudo scientific)" experiment seems like an attempt to dismiss the importance of volume-matching, by claiming that "so many here" are (a) extreme and unrealistic ("scientific experiment"); (b) dictatorial ("demand"); and (c) not really raising a valid issue ("pseudo scientific").

It all just seems like a rather passive-aggressive way of saying, "I want to talk about what I want to talk about, and I don't want to talk about what I don't want to talk about, now entertain me."

I think he is just trying to have the measurements thread without saying it.