An Example of a Component Audition at a Dealer: Applying My Method and Afterthoughts
- Thread starter tmallin
- Start date
I agree with almost everything you said. I had this discussion (I wrote him a letter in response to his article in Sterophile) with J.Gordon Holt. I do not agree that unamplified music lovers have no opinion to offer. The job of of a speaker is to be faithful to its input. So if that input is for example electric guitar or bass, a sound with which I am very familiar and find very difficult to produce, it can tell me a lot about a speakers quality. OTOH I would never evaluate any product without playing acoustic instruments. The value of a studio recording is there is usually a direct feed of voices without amplification.
I think "largely" may be correct, but I've cringed a time or two in live performances.
Cringing and loathing in the concert hall...
One time in Boston Symphony Hall, the first violinist gets up and starts walking around the violin section, with an amused look on his face. Everything stops. Turns out his copy of the score for the piece that was just about to start had gone missing; turns out it was buried under a pile on someone else's music stand, probably placed there during a rehearsal, but eventually it surfaced, and the show went on.
Speaking of cringing, you may recall that in 1939, von Karajan was conducting Die Meistersinger at Bayreuth from memory, as he usually did, perhaps to show off how smart he was. Well, part way through, he got lost, total confusion reigns, down comes the curtain. The Fuehrer and the royal state guests attending and they were not amused. Somehow von Karajan kept his career going. That the royal guests were the King and Queen of Yugoslavia, and von Karajan was Macedonian, may have added to the insult.
Another von Karajan story. In the late '80s, von Karajan is going to appear in Symphony Hall with the Berlin Philharmoniker. The stage is packed to the gills; it's going to be a terrific night. On to the stage walks... Seiji Ozawa. Everyone took it well, but after months of anticipation (the place was sold out in seconds) it was a bit of a let-down.
von Karajan had apparently a sudden case of stage fright and refused to fly over. He was spooked by the fact that in the case of another famous conductor (was in Furtwangler?), his Boston performance was his last.
One time in Boston Symphony Hall, the first violinist gets up and starts walking around the violin section, with an amused look on his face. Everything stops. Turns out his copy of the score for the piece that was just about to start had gone missing; turns out it was buried under a pile on someone else's music stand, probably placed there during a rehearsal, but eventually it surfaced, and the show went on.
Speaking of cringing, you may recall that in 1939, von Karajan was conducting Die Meistersinger at Bayreuth from memory, as he usually did, perhaps to show off how smart he was. Well, part way through, he got lost, total confusion reigns, down comes the curtain. The Fuehrer and the royal state guests attending and they were not amused. Somehow von Karajan kept his career going. That the royal guests were the King and Queen of Yugoslavia, and von Karajan was Macedonian, may have added to the insult.
Another von Karajan story. In the late '80s, von Karajan is going to appear in Symphony Hall with the Berlin Philharmoniker. The stage is packed to the gills; it's going to be a terrific night. On to the stage walks... Seiji Ozawa. Everyone took it well, but after months of anticipation (the place was sold out in seconds) it was a bit of a let-down.
von Karajan had apparently a sudden case of stage fright and refused to fly over. He was spooked by the fact that in the case of another famous conductor (was in Furtwangler?), his Boston performance was his last.
Terry, watch out, I see you're starting the tail-chasing thing.
Who, ME?? hahaha.
It may help if I sort of explain how and why I nave been led to these type of ponderings. As said earlier, it was not so much directed at you, but more applicable to the general guy we see on audio forums, self labeled as audiophiles I guess.
We had a pretty close knit forum over here once, and the big thing about it was the number of gtg's that happened. Was a real cozy place for a while till, like always, group politics and differences arose....a lot of the original guys have left and formed splinter groups....just sayin ya know? haha.
Anyways, as self proclaimed audiophiles they are informed by (and act upon) the 'accepted knowledge' of what 'should be' in audio. Until recently that was set by the views and agendas etc of the print magazines, stereophile and the like, recently we have TAS and PFO and the rest.
So naturally they all have what could be loosely described as 'audiophiles systems'. All due and proper attention paid to the usual suspects, 'quality ICs and cables', isolation yada yada, you know, all the IMPORTANT things we need in audio. (Me the natural cycnic simply notes that most of these essentials seem to be, coincidentally, the most profitable items in all of audio, so naturally very heavily advertised).
Man, I gotta confess, I hear their systems and honestly, yawn.
You don't need to point out to me how absolutely arrogant that sounds, I am acutely aware of that and ask myself continually to try and evaluate their systems objectively and dispassionately.
Umm, that seems to be drifting a bit, sorry. None-the-less it did start to make me think about these issues, how and why people make their decisions. Now for the most part, these audiophiles switch back and forth hearing other 'equally valid' audiophile systems, very different topologies not withstanding. (To me, there is a certain sameness about audiophiles systems, almost as if they come from the same genetic line if you will. VERY broad brush strokes I admit)
Heck, maybe I am just talking about my system after all.
I have no problem with blunt.
I have, often, heard this from audiophiles. 'My yardstick is real unamplified music. I attend concerts once a week yada yada and I have never heard any other system reproduce the tonal attributes as well as mine' (ie his is the best)
'That's great! What are your speakers'.
'Mine are the fostex single driver with the rispoli treatment'.
You read that and just quietly lower your head into your hands. Accurate tonal reproduction?? +- 8db peaks thruout whatever limited range it has and it accurately reproduces the tone??
Nothing under 60 hz, and what little it has under 100 has no 'weight', means it cannot even reproduce a cello let alone double bass and tympani, and it gives him the closest insight into a full blown orchestral passage??
I mean, I FULLY accept that he loves it and could not bear to listen to any other system, that's not my 'problem', my problem is the claim that it is tonally accurate and true to the unamplified concert.
See why I start to wonder about these things??
Can I not recommend a certain system to someone who will NEVER listen to anything other than hip hop at 120 db? Throw him Bach's chaconne for solo violin and he probably puke. Why does he, and why should he, care for how it reproduces the delicate sounds of a solo violin?
I realise it is your job to determine how well a speaker reproduces the signal fed it, and accept the standard you use (for what it's worth I agree with it totally), and as much as I too love classical, I can't but help notice a tinge of arrogance sometimes in audiophile land regarding musical choices. I know I am conflating two different things (taste with ability to reproduce a known (unamplified music) signal), guess I am simply jumping on the 'no business' bit in your quote.
And in any case, it does tend to push towards that fruitless argument of 'not being there when the recording was made', or 'elevated fifteen feet above the orchestra where the mics were situated'.
Again, for what it's worth, I agree and accept your points about the only way to determine if it sounds real is to use real instruments.
DO you have any thoughts on that?? If we accept that these choices WERE made, and made blind etc etc, ie are true 'average' listener choices, then surely we need to accept that (no matter how much we shake our head in confusion)??
Or, put it another way (and sort of goes back to my question I asked on DIY), how do you KNOW that you too would not have made the same subjective conclusion if you underwent the process?? (I accept that right now you doubt you would, given your comments on it, but again, you don't really KNOW do you).
Ahh, the wacky world of blind testing eh??
I'd love for Sean to give his personal thoughts on this, what he has seen happen in the lab. No need for names, or brands, but again I'd love to get an insight into the personal reactions people go thru, when they see they have picked the 'lesser' speaker over the vaunted, when they see the preferred FR they chose as most preferable. Of course he uses impartial words to do his 'official write ups', but I'd love to hear the human stories behind those deliberate writings.
Here's an interesting thought Tom, IF peoples preference are so diametrically opposed to your own that you scratch your head wondering how they could like it...........
steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
There are also a couple of other significant confounding, variables. The room plays a major role on how a speaker sounds (far more than any electronics being used). This is a very hard variable to control for unless one auditions speakers in a setting similar to one's home or at home.
The second variable is the sub. The reviewer mentions a sub in his system. Now for the moment we can ignore the issues of placement, integration, and eq. If I remember correctly, the SUT were not being listened to with a sub, this places certain constraints on these speakers the Harbeths did not have. E.g. the reproduction of lower octaves, the effects on the amp since it did not have to deal with the bass, the placement of the subs in a better position than the mains for bass reproduction, and so on.
YMMV,
Raul
My stated scenario was an audition at a dealer whose room I'm familiar with. I've auditioned a lot of equipment there over the years and the speaker set up in that room was "standard" for what the dealer uses in that room. I agree that it's not the same as an audition in your own listening room. But another point of this method is to weed out equipment that probably won't sound good at home. Sure, I probably could have gotten a home trial to start out with, but then I'd have to move everything around in my reference system to substitute the speakers under test. And I then still would not be sure without a lot of moving the SUTs around whether the spot I have my Harbeths in is the best spot for the SUTs. And if not, then I'd have to move my room treatment around to make the new spots ideally handled in terms of room treatment.
Life is too short. If an item can't sound very nice to me at a dealer who has sold this line of speakers for ages and should know better than I how to set them up in his demo room, then I am quite willing to forego a home demo and reach a conclusion based on the dealer demo. Of course, if I should hear contrary evidence in the future, I would re-open my consideration. That's happened on occasion, but not often.
Even though I have a pair of JL f113 subs, I do not currently relieve the Harbeths of their bottom end duties. I just operate the subs "under" the Harbeths, rolling the subs off at a frequency which blends as smoothly as possible with the ultimate low-end roll off of the Harbeths in my room. I know what the Harbeths sound like without subs and it is easy to compare how any given recording sounds with or without the subs in action: I just turn off the power switches on the subs and listen to the naked Harbeths.
In any case, I did comment that the SUTs had better bass extension and punch than my unaided Harbeths, but not as good as my Harbeths plus my subs. If I didn't mention it, the SUTs also had less problem in the warmth region (upper bass, lower midrange) than my Harbeths. That is probably a problem with the M40.1s in my room, not a problem inherent to the speakers. The M40s were even more difficult in that region and really needed to be EQed to reduce the midbass in my room. I am more willing to forgive bass excesses I hear in auditions since I know from experience that most of these are room related and if troublesome can be easily EQed away without disastrous side effects.
Problems in the mid-treble, on the other hand, are harder to successfully EQ away, in my experience, and thus I watch out for any problems I hear in that area in a dealer audition.
I left it alone at the time you responded steve as I got the idea my comments were not really welcomed, but now it's opened again I may as well answer no?
Indeed, I agree.
Still, your quote was a direct response to my post prior which I'll quote a little of, at the risk of causing (unintended) offense Here's an interesting thought Tom, IF peoples preference are so diametrically opposed to your own that you scratch your head wondering how they could like it...........
So, if one mans passion is another mans poison, and most would agree with that, what place reviews?
So unless you can find a reviewer where you find yourself nodding your head in agreement as it very much aligns with your own experience, the best you can hope for is an entertaining and diverting read no?
Luckily, Tom's are exactly that (very entertaining with good advice within).
A bit like music reviews really. How many times have we circled a new album to check out in the press, based on the write up, only to think 'how the hell can anyone like THAT' when we finally hear it?? I know I have.
But after a while, you find reviewer Smith seems to have the same tastes, so we lean towards his thoughts and shy away from the other.
So the best any reviewer can do is have a bit of flair, wit and insight. In the end it means nothing.
AND, it was a serious question I posed. On the face of it, the Tom specifically 'raised his eyebrows' at what seems to be the preferred spectrum balance in audio reproduction (assuming we can take at face value what Sean et al have presented as the 'preferred tonal balance'), wondering 'who could like that?'
It may or may not be my own personal taste, but still it begs the question. If a reviewer is 'so out of touch with public taste' then even more specifically, what place HIS reviews?
Tom, just to clarify, not a personal thing at all, nor really directed at you. I just noted that and pondered. I DO enjoy you writeups immensely. And as I am not nor will ever be in the position of auditioning any of the components you review then they are only entertainment for me. And they are entertaining, thank you.
Ahh, looking back I think I conflated two different points in Toms post??...oops!
anyway, I just remembered a post from long ago from a pro guy on another forum, we were talking about 'desired response' from our systems.
An interesting thing he said (which only just came back to me) was that, when in the near field, a flat (ie 20 hz the same spl as 20 khz) response was desirable.
When in the far filed, then the 'drooping' response was desirable.
Even tho I may have misunderstood toms original post, I know he listens in the nearfiled, and the studies from HK show people prefer the drooping response.
So I chased that post down, as it MAY give some sort of resolution to this dichotomy??
thanks Salas
please bear with me, think I'm getting it. And if what I think you're saying is true, then I find it VERY interesting indeed.
So we have two situations.
Situation one: close to what the most of us would have, speakers '''far''' away from us in a normal room, which sounds nice and natural. And in passing we note the 'drooping' FR towards the top end (and we have an assumption that they are good speakers and so have an intrinsic flat anechoic response).
Situation two: probably less encountered than the first in the home, speakers '''close''' to the listener, which sounds nice and natural (and per the quotation, well damped room to remove the room even further) and we note in passing the flat FR, which we know is very close to the anechoic response of the speaker.
And lo and behold, both sound nice and natural ie both '''''sound the same'''''!!
I find that fascinating, spose it's old hat to most of you guys but it's new to me.
Bingo!
Quote:
Originally posted by salas
I am a pro, but that one was for a mate. See his nearfield Dynaudio active monitors corrected at his ear's working location. Here we followed a direct sound dominated approach.
''But if you sit quite close to your speakers in a room that is deadened down satisfactorily
(deader is better!), the closeness and deadness will combine to make the diffuse field a small contributor and the direct sound audibly dominant. At the same time, the direct arrival will dominate the picture to the point that the droop in the top will not be very large when the speaker is set to anechoic flatness.''
Robert E. Green - Audio In Modern Times.
- Our best sounding near field control room calibration ended up agreeing with the above.
Quote:
Originally posted by RobWells
I thought it was a lot more simple than that.
If measuring with an RTA in room, then a flat response would actually have boosted treble in reality. This is due to the beaming of the treble frequencies. The bass and midrange would have all their reflections being measured aswell, whereas the tweeter has fewer reflections.
If a speaker is measured flat groundplane outside, then in room it should show a roll of at the treble frequencies.
This info taken from the Master Handbook of Acoustics, If my dodgy memory serves correct.
Rob.
Exactly Terry. To put it in a nutshell, when in nearfield, flat is valid. When in farfield, drooping is valid, and occurs naturally. (For an originally flat measured speaker at 1m in anechoic conditions). Just don't compensate for the droop.
Transition from nearfield to farfield is different for various sizes and propagation profiles of speakers.
Or maybe not!! As I say, I only recalled this today.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/103978-why-flat-inaccurate-2.html#post1255736
anyway, I just remembered a post from long ago from a pro guy on another forum, we were talking about 'desired response' from our systems.
An interesting thing he said (which only just came back to me) was that, when in the near field, a flat (ie 20 hz the same spl as 20 khz) response was desirable.
When in the far filed, then the 'drooping' response was desirable.
Even tho I may have misunderstood toms original post, I know he listens in the nearfiled, and the studies from HK show people prefer the drooping response.
So I chased that post down, as it MAY give some sort of resolution to this dichotomy??
thanks Salas
please bear with me, think I'm getting it. And if what I think you're saying is true, then I find it VERY interesting indeed.
So we have two situations.
Situation one: close to what the most of us would have, speakers '''far''' away from us in a normal room, which sounds nice and natural. And in passing we note the 'drooping' FR towards the top end (and we have an assumption that they are good speakers and so have an intrinsic flat anechoic response).
Situation two: probably less encountered than the first in the home, speakers '''close''' to the listener, which sounds nice and natural (and per the quotation, well damped room to remove the room even further) and we note in passing the flat FR, which we know is very close to the anechoic response of the speaker.
And lo and behold, both sound nice and natural ie both '''''sound the same'''''!!
I find that fascinating, spose it's old hat to most of you guys but it's new to me.
Bingo!
Quote:
Originally posted by salas
I am a pro, but that one was for a mate. See his nearfield Dynaudio active monitors corrected at his ear's working location. Here we followed a direct sound dominated approach.
''But if you sit quite close to your speakers in a room that is deadened down satisfactorily
(deader is better!), the closeness and deadness will combine to make the diffuse field a small contributor and the direct sound audibly dominant. At the same time, the direct arrival will dominate the picture to the point that the droop in the top will not be very large when the speaker is set to anechoic flatness.''
Robert E. Green - Audio In Modern Times.
- Our best sounding near field control room calibration ended up agreeing with the above.
Quote:
Originally posted by RobWells
I thought it was a lot more simple than that.
If measuring with an RTA in room, then a flat response would actually have boosted treble in reality. This is due to the beaming of the treble frequencies. The bass and midrange would have all their reflections being measured aswell, whereas the tweeter has fewer reflections.
If a speaker is measured flat groundplane outside, then in room it should show a roll of at the treble frequencies.
This info taken from the Master Handbook of Acoustics, If my dodgy memory serves correct.
Rob.
Exactly Terry. To put it in a nutshell, when in nearfield, flat is valid. When in farfield, drooping is valid, and occurs naturally. (For an originally flat measured speaker at 1m in anechoic conditions). Just don't compensate for the droop.
Transition from nearfield to farfield is different for various sizes and propagation profiles of speakers.
Or maybe not!! As I say, I only recalled this today.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/103978-why-flat-inaccurate-2.html#post1255736
I am well aware of REG's statements that the direct arrival of a speaker should measure flat in the high frequencies in the near field in a room on axis. I think he is referring to nearer than even I ever listen, basically close enough so that the microphone is ignoring most all the room sound, say within a foot or two.
But in my experience, in my room, measuring the way I do (either with the TacT or with Liberty's SynRTA, calibrated microphone positioned where the center of my head would be in the listening position, aimed straight ahead between the two speakers), from my "near field" listening position, every speaker I've ever used sounds more realistic with a bit of a high frequency roll off than when corrected to a measured flat response. Some speakers seem to require more of a measured high frequency roll off under those conditions than others to sound natural. The wider the perceived high frequency dispersion of the speakers, the more roll off seems necessary. But all speakers I've measured and listened to seem to require SOME roll off to sound most natural with commercial recordings when live concert hall sound is the reference.
But in my experience, in my room, measuring the way I do (either with the TacT or with Liberty's SynRTA, calibrated microphone positioned where the center of my head would be in the listening position, aimed straight ahead between the two speakers), from my "near field" listening position, every speaker I've ever used sounds more realistic with a bit of a high frequency roll off than when corrected to a measured flat response. Some speakers seem to require more of a measured high frequency roll off under those conditions than others to sound natural. The wider the perceived high frequency dispersion of the speakers, the more roll off seems necessary. But all speakers I've measured and listened to seem to require SOME roll off to sound most natural with commercial recordings when live concert hall sound is the reference.
Similar threads
