Perception, science, engineering and high-end audio

[microstrip]

(...) I find interesting that many whose only contributions to the Science and Arts of Audio Reproduction, are a few posts, babbles and opinions on Audio Fora are not too far from disparaging the work of people like Sean Olive ... No respectable Scientist would claim they know everything but to simply disparage his research findings and body of work, framing them this way is at least unfortunate, some would term it, sad .. Then again, I have rarely seen Science attacked with such vigor, maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

FrantzM,

Just to please my curiosity, how do you deal with the fact that the methodology that Sean Olive uses for his studies prove that your (better to say our ) loved Burmester equipment sounds indistinguishable form many electronics costing one tenth the price? F. Toole also firmly believes this.

 

[JackD201]

Who was it that said headphones do 20Hz too?

You won't hear it much but with a big rig ya sure can feel it

A misconception about passives is that just because the bass drivers are underneath that they can't be time/phase aligned as they are. I'm 100% sure there are a whole lot of passives out there that aren't. In fact I'm pretty sure most aren't. There are passives that are and not all of them are sedan priced.

I like the concept of stacking to be honest. I remember my Uncle's friend who stacked his Advents. I was too young to even see how he wired them though. All I remember was I liked 4 better than 2. Concentric arrays like the big Montanas, Dunlaveys with their W-M-T-M-W arrangements can be considered stacked. The Dynaudio Evidence line more so actually having two tweeters per side. Heck the VR-11s and MBL X-tremes are stacked too. I don't see why you couldn't garner a lot of fun listening and good objective results out of 4 AVIs if you put in the work to get them singing together properly. There is an advantage to having dedicated mid bass drivers too of course. Too bad these are given a bad impression by mass market loudspeaker manufacturers that put on extra woofers so they sell better even if a good two way can actually go lower AND with better pitch than a lot of them.

 

[FrantzM]

FrantzM,

Just to please my curiosity, how do you deal with the fact that the methodology that Sean Olive uses for his studies prove that your (better to say our ) loved Burmester equipment sounds indistinguishable form many electronics costing one tenth the price? F. Toole also firmly believes this.

microstrip

You can call me Frantz ... I am of the opinion that there exist subtle (a subjective non quantitative term) differences between electronics. I believe on those terms terms that Burmester provide for me and many listeners a more satisfactory experience. Those things I believe.. Those are my opinions... Are they fact, quantifiable facts? I don't know but also believe that much needs to be learned to find a way to quantify the differences, if they truly exist, I find between amplifiers and electronics in general. I am not right now convinced that a Krell sounds like a Spectral or a Lamm SS like a Plinius .. As for electronics that could provide the results of Burmester at 1/10th the price ... That would be a dream come true . I think Maggies are that kind of answers and in a slightly lesser proportion Soundlab. I would like to see more research in finding what truly separates what many of us , myself included see as great components from the others. Beoyond the usual IM,THD, FR and others ..


@everybody

There is more to sound reproduction than simple SPL and FR .. To me there has to be other reasons why big speakers sound ..well .. big.. The better ones big when it is called for. The notion of ease of reproduction, relaxed presentation and soundstaging are not figments of imagination. They are real and easily experienced. Could it be power compression? Regularity or Uniformity or smoothness of dispersion ? I don't know... There needs to be careful research on the subjects and much need to be learned. It won't be by rejecting Science .. Quite the contrary. And we need more people like those at Harman.. Heck we need more of the Harman attitude toward Science in High End Audio.. It is what will bring better reproduction in our homes... We are not there yet and won't be with a medieval attitude toward Science, like what some display from time to time here.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Who was it that said headphones do 20Hz too?

You won't hear it much but with a big rig ya sure can feel it

A misconception about passives is that just because the bass drivers are underneath that they can't be time/phase aligned as they are. I'm 100% sure there are a whole lot of passives out there that aren't. In fact I'm pretty sure most aren't. There are passives that are and not all of them are sedan priced.

I like the concept of stacking to be honest. I remember my Uncle's friend who stacked his Advents. I was too young to even see how he wired them though. All I remember was I liked 4 better than 2. Concentric arrays like the big Montanas, Dunlaveys with their W-M-T-M-W arrangements can be considered stacked. The Dynaudio Evidence line more so actually having two tweeters per side. Heck the VR-11s and MBL X-tremes are stacked too. I don't see why you couldn't garner a lot of fun listening and good objective results out of 4 AVIs if you put in the work to get them singing together properly. There is an advantage to having dedicated mid bass drivers too of course. Too bad these are given a bad impression by mass market loudspeaker manufacturers that put on extra woofers so they sell better even if a good two way can actually go lower AND with better pitch than a lot of them.

I don't pay much attention to mass market, or high-end niche market, for that matter, loudspeaker manufacturers who put in extra woofers for the sake of impression, and there's a pretty decent argument for the competitiveness if not inherent advantages of 2-ways with subs on the side. It's ot an argument that goes over well in the high end crowd, though. Suffice it to say that bass placement flexibility, fewer crossovers - even active ones, and the closest thing to a point source you can get are all good things; with sufficient range and power, 1-ways would be even better.

Lots of entry-level "high end" floor-standers aren't much different than a mid-sized two-way sitting on top of a passive sub. Lots of upmarket "high end" floor-standers aren't much different than two mid-sized two ways stacked on top of a passive sub. And damned few are fully active and powered as effectively as a fully active system. Why it is so hard for high-enders to imagine that such a configuration could actually perform as well as the "high end" floor-standers has always been a mystery to me, but the idea seems to be almost violently rejected out of hand.

I had a roommate in college for awhile who had a pair of large Advents to match mine and a Pioneer integrated to slave off of my HK integrated. It was glorious Japanese midfi. I wish we had tried some other configurations besides the simple stack, but we were too busy rocking out and the room wasn't big enough to do much with anyway.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

microstrip

You can call me Frantz ... I am of the opinion that there exist subtle (a subjective non quantitative term) differences between electronics. I believe on those terms terms that Burmester provide for me and many listeners a more satisfactory experience. Those things I believe.. Those are my opinions... Are they fact, quantifiable facts? I don't know but also believe that much needs to be learned to find a way to quantify the differences, if they truly exist, I find between amplifiers and electronics in general. I am not right now convinced that a Krell sounds like a Spectral or a Lamm SS like a Plinius .. As for electronics that could provide the results of Burmester at 1/10th the price ... That would be a dream come true . I think Maggies are that kind of answers and in a slightly lesser proportion Soundlab. I would like to see more research in finding what truly separates what many of us , myself included see as great components from the others. Beoyond the usual IM,THD, FR and others ..


@everybody

IThere is more to sound reproduction than simple SPL and FR .. To me there has to be other reasons why big speakers sound ..well .. big.. The better ones big when it is called for. THe notion of ease of reproduction, relaxed presentation and soundstaging are not figments of imagination. They are real and easily experienced. Could it be power compression? Regularity or Uniformity or smoothness of dispersion ? I don't know... There need to be careful research on the subjects and much need to be learned. It won't be by rejecting Science .. Quite the contrary. And we need more people like those at Harman.. Heck we need more of the Harman attitude toward Science in High End Audio.. It is what will bring better reproduction in our homes... We are not there yet and won't be with a medieval attitude toward Science, like what i displayed from time to time here.

Frantz,

Thanks for such an honest answer.

However when you accept the subtle differences you are questioning the basics of all the scientific audio research carried by the Harman speaker people - IMHO it is why some posters are so rigid and strict in their defense. All their research relies on establishing which measurable entities are responsible for a more satisfactory experience and using them for development of better products. And a key point is completely discarding the subtle differences in this process - otherwise their interactions with the measurable entities had to be considered and studied.

People can pragmatically use some of their results - as most high-end speaker manufacturers silently do nowadays. But taking only half the package does not make them better scientists in audio.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

FrantzM,

Just to please my curiosity, how do you deal with the fact that the methodology that Sean Olive uses for his studies prove that your (better to say our ) loved Burmester equipment sounds indistinguishable form many electronics costing one tenth the price? F. Toole also firmly believes this.

I see a small logical flaw here. The methodology is not the test. The Stereophile test in the 80s in which some golden-eared audiophiles couldn't hear the difference between high end amps and a Pioneer receiver, even if that test has been inarguably debunked (I don't think it has, but...), says almost nothing about blind listening methodology, and all it proved is that those listeners couldn't hear the differences between those amps in that test. And I don't think there were any Burmester's in the mix .

And has Toole really said there is no audible difference between amplifiers? How does he justify working for a company that sells HK AV receivers, big-iron HK integrateds and massive-iron Mark Levinsons? How does he face himself in the mirror in the morning?

Perhaps you overstated?

Tim

 

[FrantzM]

Frantz,

Thanks for such an honest answer.

However when you accept the subtle differences you are questioning the basics of all the scientific audio research carried by the Harman speaker people - IMHO it is why some posters are so rigid and strict in their defense. All their research relies on establishing which measurable entities are responsible for a more satisfactory experience and using them for development of better products. And a key point is completely discarding the subtle differences in this process - otherwise their interactions with the measurable entities had to be considered and studied.

People can pragmatically use some of their results - as most high-end speaker manufacturers silently do nowadays. But taking only half the package does not make them better scientists in audio.

microstrip

You sated the obvious: " their research relies (with success I must add) on establishing which measurable quantities are responsible for a more satisfactory experience " then a non sequitur ..it doesn't follow they have to discard subtle or that it is a key point .. Why would that be? Correct premises wrong conclusions

 

[microstrip]

microstrip

You sated the obvious: " their research relies (with success I must add) on establishing which measurable quantities are responsible for a more satisfactory experience " then a non sequitur ..it doesn't follow they have to discard subtle or that it is a key point .. Why would that be? Correct premises wrong conclusions

Frantz,

It follows. Otherwise they would have to consider the effects of the electronics in the analysis, that would become impossible. It is explained in the F. Toole book with more detail. As I have said before he considers that "electronic devices in general (...) exhibit small to non existent differences" . And the Physical Variables, as he calls them, include Electronic Imperfections just to consider that the maturity of this technology can allow us to discard them (except for checking for overload and impedance matching of loads) .

 

[microstrip]

Perhaps you overstated?

Tim

Tim,
No, he agrees with you on this one. But as his references on the subject are Clark 1981 and 1991, Lipshitz 1990, Lipshitz and Vanderkooy 1981 , Self 1988, Meyer and Moran 2007, it does not affect my sleep.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,
No, he agrees with you on this one. But as his references on the subject are Clark 1981 and 1991, Lipshitz 1990, Lipshitz and Vanderkooy 1981 , Self 1988, Meyer and Moran 2007, it does not affect my sleep.

That all amplifiers sound the same? I don't agree, actually. And I was worried about his sleep, not yours.

He sites Meyer and Moran as evidence that all amplifiers sound the same? Gotta get that book.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

That all amplifiers sound the same? I don't agree, actually. And I was worried about his sleep, not yours.

He sites Meyer and Moran as evidence that all amplifiers sound the same? Gotta get that book.

Tim

Tim,
No , he does not state it that way. You have to conclude by yourself after reading his views. And the comment is on electronics in general - Meyer and Moran apply to digital, not amplifiers, elsewhere in the book.
BTW, more than one speaker designers will tell the same for free - I can not advise you to buy the book, as some of his considerations about your listening methods will affect your sleep. I am joking, buy it - it is great reading.

 

[kevinh]

I'm not sure what you consider a "moderately sized room". Assuming it's something like Bruce B.'s studio (about 23' x 13' x 10'), I think you'd have trouble doing it for $30k. 2 "good" subs alone would likely run at least $4k.

You could build system that could drive that sort of room for maybe half of that.

PC based server w/Burwen Bobcat software (program source and program eq software) ~1.5k
Gedlee Abbey Kits ~3.6k
Ncore mono amp kits ~1.5k
Deqx express ~2k
3 Polk powered SW ~ .7k

~6k room treatment & consulting

Total ~15k + some simple assembly.

 

[NorthStar]

Science, Engineering, Conception, Audio Reproduction ....

...Just an interesting link on Loudspeaker Design - Interesting Concept

 

[kevinh]

...Just an interesting link on Loudspeaker Design - Interesting Concept

Kit abailable for the Keele design for 2k

http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=301-980

 

[NorthStar]

Any good Kevin?

 

[kevinh]

Any good Kevin?

Haven't heard it, wish I had.


Keele has a pdf woth measurement vs B&W 801 Series 3:

http://audioartistry.com/brochures/B&W 801 vs. CBT36 Ground-Plane Measurements v8.1.pdf

Rick Craig is building a CBT using the Raal Ribbons:

http://www.selahaudio.com/id279.html

 

[rbbert]

You could build system that could drive that sort of room for maybe half of that.

PC based server w/Burwen Bobcat software (program source and program eq software) ~1.5k
Gedlee Abbey Kits ~3.6k
Ncore mono amp kits ~1.5k
Deqx express ~2k
3 Polk powered SW ~ .7k

~6k room treatment & consulting

Total ~15k + some simple assembly.

Whatever one thinks of the Gedlees as main speakers (and there are plenty who don't care for them at all), those Polk subs aren't going to do much below 28-30 Hz, even if you ignore their so-so musical quality. But in any case you're still over twice as much as the original posted assertion, and I don't think kits really qualify either.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Whatever one thinks of the Gedlees as main speakers (and there are plenty who don't care for them at all), those Polk subs aren't going to do much below 28-30 Hz, even if you ignore their so-so musical quality. But in any case you're still over twice as much as the original posted assertion, and I don't think kits really qualify either.

I'm not sure I would expect much from Polk subs you could get at 3 for $700, but musical quality? Have you ever heard subs playing by themselves? Even really good subs just playing music at nowhere near 20hz? There is driver control - good attack and rapid decay -- precision to prevent spraying flub (another technical term) all over the lower mids, but I'm not sure there's much musical quality down there. Semantics, perhaps.

Tim

 

[kevinh]

Geddes actually mentioned the polk subs the point being that the 3 subs in a small room will be better thant 1 say 2k sub
in optimizing the bass response in a small room. Of course if you went to say 2 rhythmic subs it would provide a lower response.

The point of the post was the ability to havea full range system for music for a lot less than 30k.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Geddes actually mentioned the polk subs the point being that the 3 subs in a small room will be better thant 1 say 2k sub
in optimizing the bass response in a small room. Of course if you went to say 2 rhythmic subs it would provide a lower response.

The point of the post was the ability to havea full range system for music for a lot less than 30k.

Which is easy, depending on your attitude toward "full range." While understand that the documented range of human hearing is 20 to 20k, I personally feel that 20 cycles is wasted on music reproduction. Home theater? Sure, if reproducing explosions in your home is your thing. And I suppose there are some subtle overtones below 30hz if you listen to pipe organs. I don't. If I'm getting below 30hz, the music I listen to is covered. And I don't think I'm the exception. YMMV.

I've heard quite a few "affordable" Polk subs. I think they're pretty good at their price point, but I'm a little surprised that's what Geddes recommends. You can do audibly better for a few hundred dollars more. Above that, for real music, the cost benefit ratio starts to get dicey.

Tim