So Marty, what speakers do you have now, and are you still using digital room calibration and equalization? :b
In search of my last great loudspeaker
- Thread starter marty
- Start date
Yeah, I'm scratching my head over all those glowing reports on cable substitutions too. Must really be "perceived FR changes", as you say.
I'm going to analyse rhodium plugs versus gold plated plugs with the same Furutech I/C. I'm not saying it will be soon, but I will do it sometime.
I will post the results, graphs and all. I had this challenge a while back with an engineer stating he saw no mechanism by which tube rolling could affect FR. I proved him wrong.
Why? Because I know I can hear a difference. If I can hear it, I can measure it. If I can't measure that, I am insane and mistaken. I can live with proving myself insane
Do they measure instrument measuring tools?
And, can they measure everything better than the human ear?
And, if the measurements are better does it automatically mean that it sounds better to our ears?
Audio Science is the exploration of theories and questions in a constant evolving development of sounds in a real world with real humans listening to music sound reproduction.
Facts are always constant moving targets. The audio science from yesterday is not the same as today and tomorrow. The studies of neuroscience keep evolving each day.
Sure, we don't go anal with that stuff, we never do, we respect the basic audio laws and we remain open to newer/better ones.
If all sets of ears are hearing differently, and they do, because of geometry and space; which loudspeaker's pair is best for each one of us?
Do they custom tailor speakers for each set of ears? Adjustable speakers with sophisticated controls to adapt to each set of ears are the way of tomorrow.
Methinks that the new BeoLab 90 speaker system is going in the right direction. ...Room acoustic treatments too. ...And digital room correction and EQ as well.
For analog music reproduction the sky is wide open. There are no limits.
And, can they measure everything better than the human ear?
And, if the measurements are better does it automatically mean that it sounds better to our ears?
Audio Science is the exploration of theories and questions in a constant evolving development of sounds in a real world with real humans listening to music sound reproduction.
Facts are always constant moving targets. The audio science from yesterday is not the same as today and tomorrow. The studies of neuroscience keep evolving each day.
Sure, we don't go anal with that stuff, we never do, we respect the basic audio laws and we remain open to newer/better ones.
If all sets of ears are hearing differently, and they do, because of geometry and space; which loudspeaker's pair is best for each one of us?
Do they custom tailor speakers for each set of ears? Adjustable speakers with sophisticated controls to adapt to each set of ears are the way of tomorrow.
Methinks that the new BeoLab 90 speaker system is going in the right direction. ...Room acoustic treatments too. ...And digital room correction and EQ as well.
For analog music reproduction the sky is wide open. There are no limits.
Last edited:
Makes me think: is it possible that transient frequency response can be different from steady-state frequency response? In other words, if two components are indistinguishable on the latter, can they measure differently on the former?
DACs (or CD players) are all supposed to measure flatly in their steady-state response from 20 Hz to 20 kHz. Yet in a direct comparison of some DACs a few years ago I had to change the actual subwoofer settings in my system by a few notches, depending on DAC, to get subjectively the same bass output from them. And even then one DAC (where I had to reduce the subwoofer volume setting compared to others) still sounded 'blacker' in the bass than others (that DAC was my current model).
steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Have you not read the title of this thread and Marty's first post or are you late to the game Bob
Have you not read the title of this thread and Marty's first post or are you late to the game Bob
Yes Steve, I did read Marty's thread title and his first post in its entirety. And I've also read every single post following.
"So, what did I finally wind up with? I hate pull a Harry Pearson here and ask for your patience until the next installment, but I’m afraid I must. This post is already way too lengthy. It was only meant to share the thought process and path to making my final decision. In fact, the speakers I am contemplating may require some work before I can report back on whether the journey concluded successfully. So please be patient. At the minimum, it promises to be entertaining and my hope is that it will be informative as well. (To the 1 or 2 folks that already know where I’m going, please do not provide any spoilers.)"
If I miss/ed something please be my guest.
Last edited:
steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
I am not Marty but will answer for him. Simply put it is a big timing issue as in the last week he has been in Stockholm, Paris, then home Friday for a wedding yesterday and a flight out today for London. I also know that Marty has a project up his sleeve with these speakers so I would say all in good time
steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Steve, my question was simply in good humor.
I know that in due time Marty will share with us; he's working on it, and as he mentioned previously...with the final touches...making sure.
I know that in due time Marty will share with us; he's working on it, and as he mentioned previously...with the final touches...making sure.
Last edited:
Thanks, interesting. Lots of metal at the first reflection point behind the speakers in that room, wonder how that sounds. Perhaps it doesn't matter that much since the speakers are relatively close to the wall anyway.
I'm going to analyse rhodium plugs versus gold plated plugs with the same Furutech I/C. I'm not saying it will be soon, but I will do it sometime.
I will post the results, graphs and all. I had this challenge a while back with an engineer stating he saw no mechanism by which tube rolling could affect FR. I proved him wrong.
Why? Because I know I can hear a difference. If I can hear it, I can measure it. If I can't measure that, I am insane and mistaken. I can live with proving myself insane
211, first of all, its no embarrassment to be insane in this hobby. Most of are and its sort of a badge of honor. OK, seriously, nobody ever said that the sound of one's system does not change with rhodium vs gold, vs bronze plugs. That's not in question as this has been discussed extensively in this forum. (and as usual, without consensus; some prefer one and some prefer the other). What I am suggesting is that I find it difficult to believe that one can find a quantitative change when measuring FR to pink noise at the listening position that is dependent on the metal surface of the contacts in an AC outlet. Nobody disputes that there are surely qualitative changes that can be heard with these various outlets. Microstrip phrased it well when he suggested the better term is a difference in "perceived" response, which most likely has a qualitative rather than quantitative basis. However even that assumption may be wrong and opens up another can of words entirely. If there is a qualitative change rather than a quantitative change, shouldn't it be measurable? My science hat says yes, probably. However not every aspect of perception is yet measurable and what to measure to explain these perceptual differences may elude us for years to come. Another way of saying this, is that this has been a topic of great debate and discussion in the forum for years and probably will be for years to come without that the data that any empirical thinker would like to have to prove or disprove the hypotheses such as you have thoughtfully raised. I look forward to the data you anticipate obtaining nonetheless.
As we have to fill the thread with OT subjects, while we wait for the revelation, I will refer to the interesting work of Charles E. Zeilig and Jay Clawson, published in the last issue of HifiCritic, that can be downloaded at the HifiCritic site http://www.hificritic.com/flac-wav-sound-quality-research.html. The authors have developed a method to quantify small differences in sound reproduction "Height Method for Quantifying Subjective Sound Quality", and published it in several articles in TheAbsoluteSound. I have only looked superficially, and have no firm opinion on this technique, but it looks quite interesting. If the method was sensitive enough to show the differences due to computer activity in playback of files, probably it could also show differences due to power plug metals.
Although this work was presented more than a year ago, I could not find any discussion on it in the net.
I will refer to the interesting work of Charles E. Zeilig and Jay Clawson, published in the last issue of HifiCritic, that can be downloaded at the HifiCritic site http://www.hificritic.com/flac-wav-sound-quality-research.html. The authors have developed a method to quantify small differences in sound reproduction "Height Method for Quantifying Subjective Sound Quality", and published it in several articles in TheAbsoluteSound. I have only looked superficially, and have no firm opinion on this technique, but it looks quite interesting. If the method was sensitive enough to show the differences due to computer activity in playback of files, probably it could also show differences due to power plug metals.Although this work was presented more than a year ago, I could not find any discussion on it in the net.
Similar threads
