Measuring Up

tmallin

WBF Technical Expert
May 19, 2010
968
375
1,625
71
Chicagoland
Do Measurements Matter?

Perhaps I shouldn't be writing this. There are obviously others writing elsewhere on What's Best who have far more sophisticated measuring systems, who know just how to use every function of them to measure whatever it is they want to measure, and can make their software display the results in lots of very impressive multicolored graphs, some in "three dimensions."

Then there are others here who solidly stick with the audiophile line that measurements mean nothing--that what counts--all that counts--is what your ears tell you about sound quality. To this group, measurements are meaningless, if not downright counterproductive since they sometimes take product design, recordings, and audio set ups in directions which may "measure well" but sound worse than just letting the ears be the guide.

Take electronics for example. There are devices, many of which are not expensive at all, which have vanishingly low measurable distortion of most kinds. Those who set great stock by measurements find such devices "essentially perfect" or just "ruthlessly revealing" of problems elsewhere in the audio chain. Other careful listeners may reject that equipment as sounding somehow sterile or lifeless despite the "essentially perfect" measurements. On the other hand, some devices which even the manufacturers' specifications indicate have quite high types of measurable distortion, low power, limited bandwidth, low damping factor, high output impedance, etc., garner all kinds of kudos from some perceptive audiophiles. These folks seem to say that traditionally measured quantities don't matter, or even that pursuing "goodness" in such measurements is even counterproductive to sonics, and that what really matters either can't be measured or is not measured by commonly used measurement tools.

The situation is even worse as to loudspeakers. As Robert E. Greene has noted on his own forum, audio experts really haven't agreed on just how a speaker should measure for best sound in terms of some very basic parameters. Take power response or directivity as an example. The fragmentation of the loudspeaker market into designers who believe omnidirectionality, constant directivity (CD), narrow dispersion, wide dispersion, point source, dipole, bipole, adjustable rear ambiance drivers, etc. is THE correct paradigm shows the lack of agreement. And the fact that serious listeners support each of these product types suggests that listeners can't agree, either.

Frequency Response Does Matter

I currently take a somewhat middle-of-the-road approach on all this. I firmly believe that frequency response measurements account for a lot of the sound quality differences we hear. Scientific research has firmly established through double blind testing the audibility of frequency response variations on the order of 0.2 dB if the variation occurs over a significant bandwidth. And Jorma Salmi's (Salmi is the designer of Gradient loudspeakers) "The Absolute Listening Test" seems to firmly establish the primacy of frequency response as the determinant of perceived sonic quality once room reflectivity issues are dealt with.

I thus think that audiophiles ought to be able to measure the frequency response of their systems in some meaningful way. By this I mean the frequency response produced by their loudspeakers at their ears in the listening position. Other measurements may also prove meaningful, but frequency response is the most important thing to measure.

Now some will object that no particular means of measuring frequency response is "authoritative" in terms of being able to provide an absolute reference point for system response. Move the microphone a few inches and the measured response will change. Average measurements from several points near the listening position and the measured response will change.

I grant all that. But if you pick one method and use that method consistently, you can measure the relative response of your system as you make changes in speaker or listening positions, room treatment, electronics, equalization, or even (especially) different speakers. Comparing what you measure with what you hear can, with time and experience, give you a pretty good idea of how a given change in measured response translates to increased or decreased perceived accuracy or musicality. And that's what counts in the listening room.

What Tools Do You Really Need?

Here's a list of the basic equipment I think you need to do the job right enough:

  • Real-time frequency response measuring software
  • Calibrated microphone
  • Microphone boom stand with mike stand adaptor compatible with your microphone
  • Computer
  • Sound card
  • Microphone preamp (this may be part of your sound card)
  • Various cables
  • Equalizer
For years I used a trusty Radio Shack analog SPL meter. I even modified the meter for flat bass response and improved treble response. But even after such modifications, one basic problem remains: using it is tedious. It takes a long time to make a single measurement of response over the audio range, at least one you can record or graph.

Computer assisted measurements can be much faster. Once the measuring microphone is set up, as a TacT RCS 2.2XP AAA owner, I can use the TacT's test tones to generate a nicely graphed response on a computer screen in just the few minutes. Even this method is a bit tedious, however, since every time you make a change you have to run a new set of test tones and graphs. The TacT works like many other computer-based measuring systems which use pink noise or other signals as a test tone and then average of a number of test tone samples to derive the "real" response. With those, you have to wait until the tone sequence is complete to see the results. Not bad, but it takes awhile to see the results of any change you make.

What you really want is a computerized measuring tool which allows real-time display of frequency response as you make changes in your system and which allows you to capture, if you like, the "before and after" response. Fortunately, such systems are available for not much money. The software I use is actually freeware, but you'll still need to spend a few dollars for a microphone, microphone stand, etc.

The most potentially expensive part is the equalization. Now, you don't NEED to use equalization to enjoy your system. But given the extreme sensitivity of our ears to frequency response changes, many audiophiles will want to have it available to make well-defined changes in frequency response, changes which cannot usually be made just by moving things around, changing room treatments, or substituting different cables or electronics. The TacT RCS 2.2XP is a unit which can apply such well-defined changes. There are certainly others ranging in cost from $200 or so for an analog 31-band graphic equalizer to $5,000 or more for something like the TacT unit. For computer-based systems, I'm sure there are probably some free or relatively low-cost programs out there which can fill the bill, as well, and at the high end of such programs there is Acourate.

Sound cards with reliably flat response usually don't come standard with cheap computers and even up-market desktops may not contain such sound cards. You may need an upgrade to make sure your sound card is giving you reliably flat response.

I also think you need a microphone preamp. While a good soundcard can work without one, you will need to run your test tones at volumes exceeding 80 dB at the measuring position if you don't use one. Listening to pink noise at that volume for extended periods is annoying and probably not good for hearing acuity once you want to test the effect of what you've done with music.

I like to use a laptop computer for such measurements. I have an old Dell laptop which has the RS 232 port which is ideal for communicating with the TacT. I can measure the raw response at the listening position with the TacT. Once that is done, I can use my real-time frequency response measuring program to measure the effects of changes in the TacT target curve, crossover, or parametric EQ on the measured response of the system, going back and forth between the TacT program and the real-time measuring software display.

Of course, if I'm just measuring the effect of physical changes in the system on frequency response, there is no need to use the TacT program. And if I didn't or you don't have a TacT, but just have a simple graphic or parametric equalizer, you can just adjust equalizer controls and watch the effect in real time on the computer screen with the real-time frequency response measuring software.

Specific Equipment I Use

I'm using SynRTA from Liberty Instruments. Liberty is one of the most respected "old timers" in the audio measurement equipment business. I also have the full Liberty Praxis suite, but other than the AudPod device which is the primary hardware part of the Praxis system, I find it not really needed for audio system frequency response measurements.

SynRTA is "free," matches pretty closely with the RTA measurements Praxis yields, and, unlike Praxis, gives you a real-time readout so you can easily watch the effects of changes you make to EQ devices, speaker placement, listening spot, etc. It has 1/6, 1/12, 1/24, and 1/48th octave measurement band options, all with the "free" download. The measurements refresh more quickly the less resolution you use. I usually use 1/6- or 1/12-octave. You can input the test signal to your system from your computer, or you can burn the test signals to CDs, which is what I've done.

I put "free" in quotes because unless you want to subject yourself and your speakers to pink noise test signals at 80+ dB or more SPL, you will need a microphone preamp or a sound card with a built in mike preamp. I use the AudPod box from Liberty as the preamp and it provides at least 20 dB of gain. I run the test signals from CDs at a volume of 39 on my PS Audio PWD. To put that in context, I listen to music at 60 to 80+ on that volume control, so you can tell that the test signals don't have to be obnoxiously loud. Using the AudPod is a very expensive way to get microphone preamplification since Praxis costs about $1,000. I'm sure there are solutions for 1/10 that or less.

My chain for measuring is:

1. Girardin calibrated microphone used with the calibration file. This is available from Liberty for $150 or so. It is based on a Panasonic capsule, is quite long and thin, and comes with a very well made mike stand adaptor (unlike the cheap plastic, loose fitting, non-threaded, easy to break [I'm on my third] mike stand adaptor which comes with the LinearX M31 which I use with the TacT) which fits standard microphone stand threads. The mike output is an RCA jack, so it mates well with inexpensive sound cards.

2. On-Stage-Stands mike stand with adjustable boom. Get a model with a tripod base and of such height that the boom can be arranged to angle down away from the microphone when the mike is in the measuring position. Such an arrangement minimizes the reflections from the mike stand itself. For a low listening position (say 36" above the floor), you may find that models aimed at miking drums work best.

3. Five meters of Joseph Grado Signature cable with RCA plugs at each end.

4. RCA jack to mini-plug adaptor cable (came with Praxis).

5. Liberty AudPod (the primary Praxis hardware piece) used as a microphone preamp.

6. Mono Miniplug cables (came with Praxis).

7. M-Audio Transit sound card.

8. 1-foot USB cable from sound card to computer (came with Praxis).

The microphone and sound card are two of Liberty's recommendations for use with the Praxis system and are sold by Liberty.

My Measurement Technique

Microphone Positioning

For many years I have been following a consistent practice. I always position my measuring microphone aimed straight ahead with mike capsule at a point which would be midway between my left and right ear when I'm sitting in the listening position. I level the microphone so it is horizontal facing forward.

Since I usually listen in the very near field with the speakers aimed directly at my ears, I capture primarily direct sound from the speakers above the bass range. I'm sure that another way of measuring things would yield different results, but this is the way I've been measuring things all along even for the years I used the Radio Shack meter. (I have tried making separate measurements at the positions of my left and right ears, but have not found that method to yield as consistent results as this method.)

As mentioned above, I adjust the mike stand so that the boom angles down to the back, away from the mike. This puts the mike capsule maximally in the clear and minimizes reflections from the boom stand and the mike cable. I use a Stanley Fat Max tape measure and/or Leica D3 laser measuring tool to position the mike capsule with respect to the room walls.

I mark the floor with masking tape surrounding the ends of the three legs of the mike stand once I have the mike positioned just so. That enables quick movement of the microphone out of and back into position when I want to check the subjective results of a change I've made with music while I'm sitting in the listening position.

Using my technique, my measurements with the Liberty SynRTA software are very consistent from day to day and month to month--assuming I haven't changed anything about the set up. I think most of this consistency results from getting the microphone in the same position each time.

I was once experimenting with subwoofer settings and noticed that, from low bass on up to 20 kHz, the 1/12 octave bands on the live graph matched the archived screen shots I made months before to within a small fraction of a dB; most were so close I could see no difference at all even at a graph resolution which makes each vertical division a half a dB.

SynRTA

SynRTA allows you to burn the special test tones it uses onto a CD. You can then play back the test tone without your computer generating it. You capture what you pick up acoustically from your speakers with your microphone and feed the mike signal through a sound card and mike preamp into your computer. Alternatively, SynRTA generates the test tone and you feed that out of a sound card into your audio system for playback. The results look about the same either way. I usually use the CD method because it seems easier to me with my system.

Liberty's SynRTA seems to give high frequency results which track very well with both the TacT measurements and Liberty's Praxis system, regardless of whether Praxis is using RTA, MLSSA, or Chirp test tones. I don't have any problem with my calibrated Girardin microphone with SynRTA, but that's logical since that mike was the one recommended and sold by Liberty for use with Praxis and SynRTA.

You need to use the special SynRTA test signals--they really aren't pink noise, even though they sound similar to pink noise except for a periodic "thumping" noise, which is most audible at the lower resolutions of the program. Also, make sure you are using the test signal which corresponds with the bandwidth of the measurement you are doing. There are separate test signals for 1/6, 1/12, 1/24, and 1/48 octave resolution. They will all play and give results on the screen regardless of how you have the program's resolution set, but the "correct" results will only be shown on the graph if the test signal you use corresponds with the resolution you have chosen through the program--there is no failsafe for this in the program.

The advantage to using the "synthetic" pink noise tracks with a program meant to use them, such as Liberty's SynRTA, is that the results on your screen are more stable over time, even in the deepest bass. You can watch the measurement results in close to real-time, with at most a 1/2 second refreshing of results at resolutions up to and including 1/12 octave. At 20 Hz the measurement moves around within at most plus or minus 1/4 dB; above that frequency, the measurement is increasingly stable with position over time. Thus, with such a program, you can move the speaker or mike around and watch the response without waiting a significant time for the averaging to catch up with your movement.

I usually use 1/6- or 1/12-octave resolution to make measurements. I have not found the higher resolution settings to add significantly to the graphic information displayed and the screen refresh rate gets slower as resolution is advanced. The 1/6-octave resolution is probably plenty since research shows that our ears average frequency response over roughly 1/3-octave bands.

Note that measurement curves made via the TacT RCS 2.2XP and the TacT software look prettier and it's easier to show the separate response of both subwoofer and main speaker with the TacT. On the other hand, it is easier to see the combined response of subs and mains near the crossover on SynRTA. SynRTA also instantly shows you the effect of moving a speaker, mike position, or applying EQ since the test signal is constant and the graph refreshes automatically in a fraction of a second at the resolutions I use.

It is amazing how different the same information can appear visually depending on the amount of smoothing applied, and how you adjust the vertical scale of the graph. I suspect that many speakers will look visually pretty flat in response with 1/3-octave averaging and a vertical scale set to 10 dB per major division. I've seen such graphs published in audiophile magazines recently. Change that to 1/12-octave resolution and 2 dB per major division and the picture looks much different.

With SynRTA, and given the human ear's extreme sensitivity to frequency response variations, I believe that graphs made using 2 dB major divisions are about right in terms of visually conveying the importance of measured frequency response variations when viewing the entire 20 Hz to 20 kHz audio range. A click of the mouse changes the graph to another resolution, however, as well as allowing you to focus in on a narrower frequency range.

Measurements can also be stored and then compared with others using different color schemes for each. This is very helpful if you want to quickly compare the measured effect of a change you just made.

Another useful feature is auto centering of the measured response at the 0 dB reference at any chosen frequency. Usually I use 1 kHz as the reference frequency. This is the standard practice for most audio frequency response measurements.

Microphones

I have not tried to use the LinearX M31 mike I use to make measurements with the TacT to make measurements with SynRTA. The Girardin microphone is handier to use into the input of an inexpensive sound card or the Liberty Audpod than a microphone with a balanced output like the LinearX calibrated mike I use for TacT measurements. My M-Audio Transit external soundcard and the Liberty Audpod both have unbalanced inputs on stereo mini-plugs. The Girardin microphone has unbalanced output on an RCA jack.

Neither Praxis nor SynRTA will recognize the file formats of either of the calibration files which came with the LinearX microphone. Thus, while I could use the LinearX mic with Praxis or SynRTA, I could not use it with its calibration file. The LinearX comes with a .mic file for the TacT and another version for more general use. The Girardin microphone uses a calibration file with a .dat format. Once I saw the error message, I gave up using the LinearX with the Liberty programs for the time being. I have seen discussion of conversion of one microphone calibration file format to another but it involved running a "simple routine" which I'd have to study before attempting.

Another nice thing about the Girardin mike for use outside a TacT system is that, unlike the LinearX mike, the Girardin mike comes as a unit with a mike stand adaptor which is adjustable for angling tension, is threaded and actually fits snugly on standard US microphone stand threads, and is thick enough to be sturdy and last for awhile. The special adaptor that LinearX sells for its microphone is separate from the mike, is very thin and fragile (I broke my first two), has no threading, and will require electrical tape to get a snug fit on US mike stands. Definitely NOT user friendly.

The LinearX is THE mike for measuring with the TacT, however, with many users hearing improvements in results over the mike which comes with the TacT. Both the LinearX and TacT mikes use the same capsule (the Panasonic), but users complain about individual TacT mikes having inaccurate calibration files and having the connections soldered in such a way as to compromise the microphone's accuracy. Supposedly in TacT's early days the LinearX M31 was supplied by TacT with each TacT unit. The TacT microphone input is balanced. It also uses 9-volt phantom power,
instead of more common voltages, which is odd. The TacT uses a .mic calibration file protocol, which the LinearX makers cater to. The LinearX is suited to these oddities.

TacT vs. SynRTA

How closely do the results obtained by measuring the system via the TacT or using the TacT software's calculated response compare with the results of applying a TacT target curve and measuring the actual resulting frequency response with Liberty SynRTA? Well, the trend line of the graphed SynRTA results certainly follow the shape of the TacT's target curve and calculated response very well, but are usually plus or minus 2 to 3 dB of target below about 1 kHz, while they are very close to the target curve above that frequency.

Which do I think is more "correct" in terms of measuring the response? Well, it really doesn't matter. I use SynRTA to measure the effect of changes applied by the TacT since that is, as explained, easier because of SynRTA's real-time measurement display. The two systems seem quite consistent, however, in reflecting the nature and amount of any applied change in EQ.

What Should the System's Measured Response Look Like?

I will make no bones about it. I use my ears as the primary means of determining when my stereo system's frequency response is appropriate. As I've discussed in other threads, I'm primarily looking for natural, concert hall sound on a reasonably wide variety of good recordings. The combination of measurements, equalization, and system set up are used as tools to achieve this goal. Measurements of the type discussed allow me to get to that goal much more quickly than if I had to rely on my ears alone or my ears plus some more primitive measuring system.

With the methods and tools I use, what sounds best to me is a measured response that is a bit up at the low end and a bit rolled off at the top end with a flat middle and perhaps a bit of a dip in the 2 - 6 kHz region. What sounds natural to me can have as little as 4 dB total variation from low bass to high treble to as much as 10 dB. The amount or degree of the overall downward slope from bottom to top, and whether I choose to insert the presence region dip, depend on the speakers, the room treatment, and the speaker/listener set up, among other factors. But speakers which actually sound concert-hall natural with a ruler-flat listening room frequency response using the measurement techniques I've described are rarer than the proverbial hen's teeth. Perhaps they exist, but I've never measured any.

Users of the TacT RCS 2.2XP will note that what I've described is basically the shape of many of the standard target curves which come prepackaged with the TacT software. I think that most people who seriously attempt frequency response manipulation of their systems and have ears attuned to the sound of real music will end up in this ballpark.

This fact makes me wonder why so few speakers are designed to measure that way in real listening rooms without equalization. Take a look at the in-room responses measured by Stereophile. Most of them don't have anything like this combination of features.

Then look at the anechoic measurements published by SoundStage. You'll find only one, the Harbeth M30, which has this basic shape. Now, granted, listening rooms tend to emphasize the bass compared to an anechoic measurement, but if you want to EQ the sound a bit anyway, it is MUCH better to start out with too much bass and then pull the bass response down with EQ than to have to boost the response at any frequency, especially the bass. Boosting bass response strains everything from amps and drivers to your listening room (inducing more spurious buzzes from structural components and furniture at high SPLs, for example), while cutting the response allows everything to "coast," relatively speaking.
 

Paul Spencer

Well-Known Member
Oct 4, 2010
48
0
296
Interesting topic. It's hard to really talk about frequency response and power response too much without also considering the room.

I think the problem is with knowing what you are looking for, and where people find something measures well but doesn't sound good, they aren't paying attention to the right things.

I also tend to see the response as more of an accuracy issue rather than a sound quality issue. Recently a small group measured a number of compression drivers with different waveguides. We found that sound quality didn't necessarily correlate with the response. We had a titanium compression driver that measured well on it's waveguide, but it was quite harsh with dynamic material. We suspected it was the driver. We measured directivity sonograms and they didn't tell us which sounded better, but they did tell us something about how they will interact with the room as well as how "tonally accurate" they were. So I think that we can see measurements two ways. One is as a design tool where we are looking for something specific. The other is as a sound quality indicator, and this is much more difficult. If we want the measurements to tell us what sounds better, then we will have to do a lot of measurements and be well versed in psychoacoustics. I think I'll stick to using them as a design tool!

Results shown here for those that are interested:
http://redspade-audio.blogspot.com/2011/01/waveguide-shootout.html

Sound cards with reliably flat response usually don't come standard with cheap computers and even up-market desktops may not contain such sound cards. You may need an upgrade to make sure your sound card is giving you reliably flat response.

Even cheap sound cards should be perfectly adequate with a ruler flat response. I expect those that aren't would be the exception to the rule. This is easy to determine with Room EQ Wizard, another free program.
 

DonH50

Member Sponsor & WBF Technical Expert
Jun 22, 2010
3,947
306
1,670
Monument, CO
Most concert halls roll off the high end a bit when populated with people. A flat system in a relatively small room (comparatively) with listeners fairly close to the speakers (again compared to that concert venue) will always sound bright IMO. I have noticed that virtually all the current crop of room EQ systems tend to default to a slight high-end roll-off. Coincidence? I think not...

I also think we have been trained by marketing to desire flat response from every component. While I prefer that as a starting point so I can tweak from a known reference, it's certainly not a huge requirement to those who go by the sound they like (which is often fairly inaccurate, FR-wise). Nothing wrong with that, just an observation.

FWIWFM, I use a calibrated Earthworks measurement mic (M30, I think, around $600), cheap m-audio preamp (FastTrack-Pro), cheap outboard sound card (Creative X-Fi), and RPlusD running on my laptop. Not the system I use for live recording, but more than adequate for room acoustic evaluation.

Interesting thread, juxtaposing high-end measurements and what we really like to hear. - Don
 

c1ferrari

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
May 15, 2010
2,162
51
1,770
Thanks, Tom,

I'm very interested in these endeavors and have been sequestering $$ to secure a pre-owned Audio Precision.

I have an ancient, by current criterion, ThinkPad T42p. I don't know if I have confidence in its resident sound card to achieve reliable results of high standard.

Good...no, great stuff!!

Best regards,

Sam
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
I find strange that many people agree that the listening room acoustics is one the most important part of a sound system, agree that loudspeakers should have a flat or at least smooth response and controlled directionality and completely disagree on small/medium room acoustics measurements and treatments.

Since the perceived sound quality of a loudspeaker depends a lot on the environment, how can you extrapolate opinions built from measurements ?
 

audioguy

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
2,794
73
1,635
Near Atlanta, GA but not too near!
TacT measurements versus other tools

Tom:

I have been spending most of my time in the last few months getting my HT system optimized so have not used my TacT for a while. But as an experiment, I used Audyssey on my old SSP to get the bass flat and then measured it with the TacT and with REW. REW showed the resultant bass as reasonably flat but the TacT (I have the 2.2XP) shows as upward tilting curve. Boz had no answer (at least not one that made any sense) so maybe you know.

The following is the before and after of Audyssey.



And the one below is the TacT run through the Audssey correction.



I am using the mic that came with the TacT if that could make any difference.

Have you tried using the TacT to measure through any other measuring system to see if the results made sense?
 

Ethan Winer

Banned
Jul 8, 2010
1,231
3
0
75
New Milford, CT
[but]completely disagree on small/medium room acoustics measurements and treatments.

The ideal treatment depends greatly on the size (and shape) of the room, so what works great in one room may not be so great in another. Another factor is cost. For example, good diffusors cost much more than good absorbers, whether you buy commercial products or make your own. So someone with only $1,000 total to invest will probably not be able to employ diffusion no matter how good it would sound.

--Ethan
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
The ideal treatment depends greatly on the size (and shape) of the room, so what works great in one room may not be so great in another. Another factor is cost. For example, good diffusors cost much more than good absorbers, whether you buy commercial products or make your own. So someone with only $1,000 total to invest will probably not be able to employ diffusion no matter how good it would sound.

--Ethan

Even with unlimited budget the ideal room treatment does not exist - I have read only the opinions from about a dozen of the most often referred acoustic designers and they disagree on fundamental aspects and even optimum listening conditions.

BTW, you can also have very cheap diffusion using DIY techniques.
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
Have you tried using the TacT to measure through any other measuring system to see if the results made sense?
I just did a quick test of our Wisdom system which includes Audessey Pro. I could not get TacT software to recognize my mic calibration file :(. Despite that though, the response looked reasonable and did not have the strange tilt yours has. That said, this was a quick test. When I get more time, I will run it again.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
REW showed the resultant bass as reasonably flat but the TacT (I have the 2.2XP) shows as upward tilting curve. Boz had no answer (at least not one that made any sense) so maybe you know.

Apologies if my suggestion is too naive, but are your sure you are not using white noise to test it?
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing