KeithR's "Dream Speaker" Search

[morricab]

Yes but an SET is already higher distortion, so there's no real purpose in talking about that. IMO all distortion is fairly negligible. We can't really identify distortion itself until it gets pretty darn high (well past 1%). We can however engage the signature of the distortion at almost any level.

What you say here is not really true about distortion audibility and there are studies demonstrating that even very low levels of high order harmonics are audible and detrimental... This was known over 70 years ago by BBC engineers such as D.E.L Shorter who tried to quantify the impact and much more recently by Cheever.

High order harmonics add “edge” to the sound and also screw with depth perception because they are perceived as loudness indicators and thus bring sound perceptually forward. I think noise is having a similar effect because the removal often results in people reporting hearing more space and depth.

 

[Folsom]

I think the main problem with such description is how non horn listeners will try to visualize how a horn sounds like from a Magico or Wilson or ML layering perspective. That does not work. It reminds me of how people back in India who have never had sushi think of Indian fried fish, take away the savory spice, and wonder how you can eat that Indian fish raw. It is not the right way to view nor describe it

TBH I give a lot of horns a benefit of the doubt that they can sound more pleasant than I've heard them. I've heard a strong mix of horrid to great. I don't have expectations for them to sound like Magico/Wilson (or for Magico to sound like Wilson). IMO it's 100% fine that they have their own strengths and differences.

 

[morricab]

TBH I give a lot of horns a benefit of the doubt that they can sound more pleasant than I've heard them. I've heard a strong mix of horrid to great. I don't have expectations for them to sound like Magico/Wilson (or for Magico to sound like Wilson). IMO it's 100% fine that they have their own strengths and differences.

I only expect a system to sound realistic...as in like the real live thing ...easy, right?

 

[bonzo75]

I am not saying they sound like that, I meant using the backward layering lens

 

[Folsom]

What you say here is not really true about distortion audibility and there are studies demonstrating that even very low levels of high order harmonics are audible and detrimental... This was known over 70 years ago by BBC engineers such as D.E.L Shorter who tried to quantify the impact and much more recently by Cheever.

High order harmonics add “edge” to the sound and also screw with depth perception because they are perceived as loudness indicators and thus bring sound perceptually forward. I think noise is having a similar effect because the removal often results in people reporting hearing more space and depth.

For. Fuck. Sake. Is your idol the idea of a bell that never stops ringing? GOOD GOD.

What I said is 100% true and agrees with everything you post. The only difference is you think SS amps are all littered with higher order harmonics today. That's the past, that's decades ago. But because Stereophile only gets people paying for ads that release ANCIENT AMPLIFIER TECHNOLOGY that they can measure, you pound on about these fossils.

 

[morricab]

For. Fuck. Sake. Is your idol the idea of a bell that never stops ringing? GOOD GOD.

What I said is 100% true and agrees with everything you post. The only difference is you think SS amps are all littered with higher order harmonics today. That's the past, that's decades ago. But because Stereophile only gets people paying for ads that release ANCIENT AMPLIFIER TECHNOLOGY that they can measure, you pound on about these fossils.

I can only assume your hostility derives from some strange insecurity because otherwise it makes no sense in a discussion about amplifiers. And if your cryptic analogy means the same as beating a dead horse, I can show plenty of modern and expensive examples of amps that are doing, and sounding like I am talking about. Some are even favorites around these here parts...

 

[Folsom]

I am not saying they sound like that, I meant using the backward layering lens

I guess it begs the question what sounds real to you? I think it's very clear that for a lot of people depth and soundstage is realness to them. I think it's a fun trick, but have no desire to base my listening habits around it. If something sounds real, you should be able to walk into another room and be fooled without any of the spatial cues, totally oblivious to layering.

IMO I think Keith has teetered a little bit on that sort of idea. He likes musical sounding stuff, stuff that literally sounds like music, but he also enjoys electronica and things that do tend to layer/depth/soundstage etc etc in fun ways. But is a horn speaker that can do everything but a lot of depth, big popping bass and all, and has other more positive attributes... Why not? I guess we'll find out shortly how he feels one vs the other.

 

[microstrip]

What you say here is not really true about distortion audibility and there are studies demonstrating that even very low levels of high order harmonics are audible and detrimental... This was known over 70 years ago by BBC engineers such as D.E.L Shorter who tried to quantify the impact and much more recently by Cheever (...)

Can you tell us which of these Shorter studies from this list https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/people/d-e-l-shorter you are referring? We should not mix Shorter with Cheever, which only contribution is just an obscure amateurish master thesis never validated by anyone in the business.

 

[morricab]

Can you tell us which of these Shorter studies from this list https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/people/d-e-l-shorter you are referring? We should not mix Shorter with Cheever, which only contribution is just an obscure amateurish master thesis never validated by anyone in the business.

Your opinion...

 

[bonzo75]

I guess it begs the question what sounds real to you? I think it's very clear that for a lot of people depth and soundstage is realness to them. I think it's a fun trick, but have no desire to base my listening habits around it. If something sounds real, you should be able to walk into another room and be fooled without any of the spatial cues, totally oblivious to layering.

IMO I think Keith has teetered a little bit on that sort of idea. He likes musical sounding stuff, stuff that literally sounds like music, but he also enjoys electronica and things that do tend to layer/depth/soundstage etc etc in fun ways. But is a horn speaker that can do everything but a lot of depth, big popping bass and all, and has other more positive attributes... Why not? I guess we'll find out shortly how he feels one vs the other.

I think you miss my point. Attributes of both are required as part of a whole for realism, with other different balancing factors. I just don't look for one in the other. That was my example, you cannot eat sushi looking for Indian spice, yet enjoy well made examples of both separately

 

[KeithR]

IMO I think Keith has teetered a little bit on that sort of idea. He likes musical sounding stuff, stuff that literally sounds like music, but he also enjoys electronica and things that do tend to layer/depth/soundstage etc etc in fun ways. But is a horn speaker that can do everything but a lot of depth, big popping bass and all, and has other more positive attributes... Why not? I guess we'll find out shortly how he feels one vs the other.

This is a good question - I would say soundstage to me is more height/width than depth. But as I noted from my audition, the dynamics made depth layering much less an issue.

I'll also say that after 6 months of demos, no speaker i've heard "does it all." Period.

 

[microstrip]

Your opinion...

Not just my opinion - others and me have detailed the reasons that support such opinion in previous WBF threads and you never objected to any of my arguments before. This does not mean that I disagree with the points you refer - it means just that his thesis is NOT a reference of anything in audio. An apparently promising work, but it had too many fundamental flaws to prove anything, as also pointed by several people in the net.

 

[morricab]

Not just my opinion - others and me have detailed the reasons that support such opinion in previous WBF threads and you never objected to any of my arguments before. This does not mean that I disagree with the points you refer - it means just that his thesis is NOT a reference of anything in audio. An apparently promising work, but it had too many fundamental flaws to prove anything, as also pointed by several people in the net.

Fundamental flaws? Such as?
Btw, the Shorter reference is : “ The influence of high order products in non-linear distortion “
Electrical Engineering April 1950

Shorter recommended multiplying increasing orders by n^2/4 where n is the order of the harmonic...there was also implicit recognition that an amp with high order harmonics on a single test tone will make complex IMD when fed complex signals.

Cheever found that this weighting of harmonics was still not severe enough to account for the non-linearity in perception and that it would also be SPL dependent.

Also, Alan Bloch and Norman Criwhearst had a fair amount to say.

 

[Folsom]

I'll also say that after 6 months of demos, no speaker i've heard "does it all." Period.

And probably never will! At least not until someone invents analog quality processing that transformers all of the information into stuff that can be used with extra drivers places in weird places, and, and, and, and... unlikely in our life time. And realistically this should start in the recording studio, but it doesn't, they don't give a snail's sneeze about most of this stuff.

 

[microstrip]

Fundamental flaws? Such as?

Just put Cheever in the search box of WBF - KeithR, 853Guy, Amir , myself, we all explained what KeithR said briefly in post https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/stereophile-january-2017-issue.22040/post-439171

His experimental data is not statistically valid. It kills any conclusive value of his work.

 

[microstrip]

This is a good question - I would say soundstage to me is more height/width than depth. But as I noted from my audition, the dynamics made depth layering much less an issue.

I'll also say that after 6 months of demos, no speaker i've heard "does it all." Period.

In fact, no listener will "do it all" - as someone famous referred, stereo is not even a system, it is a framework for individual experimentation. Most of it aspects are intrinsically self contradictory , all you get are compromises.

Interesting you refer to height - are you addressing just global height or the relative height of instruments in the soundstage?

 

[Al M.]

I'll also say that after 6 months of demos, no speaker i've heard "does it all." Period.

In a recent thread I got some pushback when I contended as much, but of course I agree with you.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I would say there's almost zero horns we can fit in our rooms that have zero sound radiating behind them. It might be 10-20dB lower than the sound on axis, but not zero. The placement with respect to the front wall still greatly impacts the midbass region. While you can definitely still get subjective depth of soundstage from horns, that range of placement won't hover entirely behind the speakers as you might get with a pair of panel speakers. The presentation relative to the speaker is shifted toward the listener to a varying degree in most listening spaces. Of course there are always some exceptions.

Thank you, Mark, for this very understandable information. This makes sense, and I think it is consistent with what I have experienced with horns in general.

 

[Ron Resnick]

There is no doubt that dynamics and jump factor are two of horn speakers’ wonderful and realistic-sounding characteristics. Their high sensitivity provides an alternative path to successful suspension of disbelief.

 

[bonzo75]

There is no doubt that dynamics and jump factor are two of horn speakers’ wonderful and realistic-sounding characteristics. Their high sensitivity provides an alternative path to successful suspension of disbelief.

Horns are best for flow and continuity of music (similar to between good vinyl and bad digital), inflections on vocals, micro nuance and micro details, high dynamic range due to ease of drive. The soundstage is large for big horns spaced out well. The macro dynamics are great and tone is best

While small speakers might disappear easier in the average room as compared to horns, in most rooms the non-horn speaker will be oversized and interact too much with the room. Almost no one except for a handful have their speaker room interaction sorted. with horns this is less of an issue so they work better.