Pro Gear vs Audiophile Gear

[Ethan Winer]

^^^ Not sure what you're asking. If you buy new speakers that have different dispersion than what you had before, they may create fewer / softer reflections which of course affects imaging.

It seems to me that in an untreated room, what you get for imaging is mostly hit and miss. And highly dependant on the listening position at that moment.

--Ethan

 

[Gregadd]

What of the other components?

 

[RUR]

LOL, I never claimed that one graph contains everything needed to assess loudspeakers. Indeed, the whole point of that graph is to show that imaging is mainly a function of the room rather than the speaker.....

Ethan, apologies for not being concise. I was referring to your statement here: "I'm speaking about practical measuring and interpretation as well as theoretical. If the average consumer doesn't know how to read a polar plot of frequency response versus angle, or distortion versus SPL and frequency, that's not a fault of measuring proponents.", and not to the subsequent graph.

I think we're talking past one another as regards what's practical, but rather than take this any further in a thread about Pro gear, I think a separate thread to discuss speaker measurements and their use is in order. If I initiate one, as Amir has suggested, will you educate us?

There are standards! The goal of mixing and mastering rooms is a flat response with minimal ringing. Many come close, others maybe not so close. But all competent audio engineers understand they should aim for a flat playback chain and why. The reason is obvious because, as you point out, end-user rooms vary all over the place. So the best audio engineers can aim for is a neutral room to make their decisions. Then whatever deviation the end-user hears is due to their own room, and they're probably used to that coloration anyway and may not even notice.

If a mix room has a 6 dB peak at 100 Hz, mixes made there will be 6 dB softer than intended at 100 Hz. So when the mix is played in a room with a 6 dB null at 100 Hz, what's heard is even worse than usual. This is a simplified example, but it explains why mix and mastering rooms need to aim for a flat response. So there actually is a standard, and that standard is flat....

Believe me, I understand the goals and their necessity - that's why I'm concerned. You say there are standards and I believe you, yet Toole opines "the key in breaking the circle of confusion lies in the hands of the professional audio industry where the art is created. A meaningful standard that defined the quality and calibration of the loudspeaker and room would improve the quality and consistency of recordings." (possibly paraphrased by Sean). And what are we to make of the survey Sean cites, which shows substantial deviation in measured frequency response? It would appear that either the standards or the implementation of those standards is insufficient. Either way, our efforts to provide accuracy in our reproduction chain are apparently compromised by inaccuracy in the recording chain.

 

[JackD201]

Jack, another great post by you. I'm not sure what you meant by this line, though:



If you're writing about the experience of soundstage, e.g., then your point is debateable and falsifiable.

If you're writing about the experience of the enjoyment of music, for lack of better words on my part to describe the emotional or spiritual impact of the system, then this is where you lose me and all other rationalists.

As you know, Dr. Olive's research has shown that when tested under conditions that remove all bias, people tend to prefer a speaker that has certain characteristics. Moreover, his research also has shown that under the same test conditions most people tend to prefer the same speaker. Perhaps I'm going out on a limb here, though I seriously doubt it, but I'm inclined to believe that at this point, with the wealth of knowledge they have gained over at Harman, they believe they could design and sell a speaker without first even affording trained listeners (blind or sighted) an opportunity to comment.

Hi again Ron,

I am only referring to the human component. By that I refer to folks communicating about the as you put it, emotional or spiritual impact of the music, within a specific systems ability to deliver it. I may be very wrong but I do not believe that any piece of equipment has any emotional or spiritual impact to speak of. It is only the music that has that. All a system can do is allow what is in the music to reach us. The better systems allow more to reach us than the lesser. After all of our discussions we may have reached the crux of the matter. I can see how rationalists can be put in a twist when the gear itself appears to be bestowed with musical properties. Now in hindsight it does look pretty strange to read that a box with metal, glass and plastic can be romantic, lush or whatever. It would be more accurate to say that the piece of equipment has tendencies to emphasize or de-emphasize not just certain frequencies but harmonic and dynamic content as well. Yet I still see nothing wrong with two guys shooting the breeze using prose or words lifted off the audiophile glossary if they can understand each other. Like I said, I'm not pitch perfect. Even if I trained myself to be, I'd still have to be talking to somebody similarly trained for us to understand each other using the more accurate descriptors. I'm a people person so I sure wouldn't want to limit my opportunities for interaction.

You know what? I think Harman probably could. God knows many a speaker company have sold lots of speakers without anywhere near Harman's efforts. It is Sean's character however to leave as few stones unturned as possible so I don't see them dumping the panel anytime soon.

The conundrum is that nobody has ever heard the signal. We preserve it as best we can but there is no actual frame of reference. I've been at countless tapings (tv shows) and recording sessions and listened to countless mic feeds. Many would be surprised at how these feeds sound until they've been placed within a mix, massaged a bit and given a bit of reverb. Many would be surprised how much they might hate a non-level matched raw pre-mix straight out of the stereo bus. As such, I am not too convinced the live event should be the reference. Neither am I convinced that I should use the recording or mastering engineer's perspective as a reference. If I really wanted that I could just call Bruce, copy every piece of gear he has, construct a doppelganger of his mastering suite and be done with it. The problem is, I'd get very close to what he hears but probably be way off from what other engineers hear from other houses. I think it was RUR who pointed out the lack of standards within the professional side and he is absolutely correct. At least to the point that two facilities with flat response may and believe me do sound different. Heck even switching between calibrated monitors within the same control room sound different. My personal philosophy is subtractive. The less I hear my gear the better. My efforts start with what I infer as the setting of the piece and subsequently attempt to reduce any distractions. Trying to pursue "better" highs, mids and bass almost made me burn out. It's an on going process that I will share very soon. I'm just waiting for that darned fabric from Guilford. It's taking forever.

HOWEVER, there has got to be a baseline. A piano has to sound like a piano and you should be able to tell Blue Eyes from Bennet. This baseline is much lower than we realize. a portable pocket fm radio has this ability.

If there is a problem with pure subjectivists it is that there is point where a few have tended to rob themselves TOO MUCH of what their gear can offer by limiting their equipment's capability in pursuit of, as you say, their flavor of choice. Like you, I have absolutely no problem with people having a flavor of choice. I absolutely have my own, no doubt about that. It is only when I hear a system handicapped in the sense that emotions like anger and fear can no longer be conveyed that I sigh and say to myself that the person could have saved a lot of dough if only happy and sad was what he was interested in. I am of the belief that a system should have the ability to convey the full range of emotions for the simple reason that many pieces of music convey just that within the same piece and that these emotional counterpoints are exactly what makes these pieces compelling.

So while I am 100% in favor of everybody finding their own flavor, it would come with a gentle warning to not stray too far afield and to always find an anchor or frame of reference to check back with from time to time. What that might be is best left with the individual. I'd just like to point out that my opinion is that the most dangerous thing is to make one's own system that anchor and reference point. There is no quicker way to get lost and eventually lose their way.

Here's an example. A very close friend asked me to come over and help him set up his speaker positioning. I asked him what he wanted and I pushed and nudged and repositioned his movable panels until he said it was to his liking. Listening to a Shelly Mann track, I asked him: Where's his high hat? His preference had the highs so rolled off that it robbed the track of the emotional build up. There was no suspense. I asked him again to direct me until all the instruments were given their due. We repositioned until things came back in scale and focus and he was way happier for it. Unbeknownst to him I took a snapshot of his preference on my toy RTA app on my iphone and again afterwards. He was very surprised at the difference. Again the only instruction I gave him was to listen for each instrument and to tell me when he thought they sounded best when focused on on their own. Later he said that now he knows what people mean by being able to follow different musical threads.

So I guess we come away with two things here and that basically listening and measuring are absolutely not diametrically opposed. My friend was, with a new mindset, able to direct me to give him reasonably flat response in the treble and midband down to around 80Hz without the aid of any measuring device. Below that some suck outs and peaks appeared most probably from modal problems and the speakers inherent lack of capability to go really low in that room. In his desire to remove all edge and harshness, he forgot that edge and harshness is only evil if the music doesn't call for it.

 

[JackD201]

LOL, I never claimed that one graph contains everything needed to assess loudspeakers. Indeed, the whole point of that graph is to show that imaging is mainly a function of the room rather than the speaker. If someone hears better imaging with one speaker versus another, it probably has more to do with how that speaker interacts with their room.

Ethan,

If I may I think that should read imaging is a function of how two or more speakers interact with each other in a room

 

[Ron Party]

Jack, if you keep on comin' up with great posts, well, errr, I don't know what to say! Or add!.

One line I thought I'd quote, solely for purposes of emphasis is the following:

I am only referring to the human component. By that I refer to folks communicating about the as you put it, emotional or spiritual impact of the music, within a specific systems ability to deliver it. I may be very wrong but I do not believe that any piece of equipment has any emotional or spiritual impact to speak of. It is only the music that has that. All a system can do is allow what is in the music to reach us.

This distinction is one that rationalists always keep in mind and, IMO, subjectivists only sometimes (rarely?) do. A system produces sound, and only sound. It produces no emotion. Humans are responsible for that. And, in my ongoing effort to keep this thread at least somewhat related to the OT, IMO it is the failure by some to recognize this distinction that accounts, at least in part, for the lack of acceptance of pro audio products in the consumer market.

 

[JackD201]

I think when it comes to loudspeakers we definitely see a lot of crossing over both ways with companies like PMC, ATC and Westlake entering and becoming well entrenched in the domestic and many more audiophile speakers entering the professional scene via mastering houses. Electronics wise I think the barrier is a little higher and wider given the differences in reference voltages between professional and consumer gear. Converters are available but there exists the audiophile mindset that the less there is in a signal path the better.

It's rare but I have seen all pro systems in homes, mainly I've seen them in rappers homes when watching MTV Cribs Never seen one in the flesh though, just a smattering of small genelecs, krks and haflers used as computer desktop speakers. The pro monitor I would like to have for my desktop is the Tannoy Ellipse. Problem is it is both too large and too expensive.

 

[Ethan Winer]

What of the other components?

Other components don't have anything to do with imaging. Well, maybe if something is broken such that one channel's response deviates from the other channel by more than half a dB. Otherwise, there's nothing a preamp or power amp or CD player etc can do that would affect imaging. An LP record system can probably affect imaging because its crosstalk is poor compared to analog tape and CDs and even cassette tape. But even 20 dB separation is likely good enough for convincing stereo.

Rather than continue to challenge me to explain this or that to you, why don't you educate us and tell us how and why "other components" can affect imaging. Not theoretical pondering, but a logical and compelling explanation as to what specifically inside an amplifier would affect imaging, and why.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

If I initiate one, as Amir has suggested, will you educate us?

I'm not a loudspeaker expert. I certainly know the basics, but Sean Olive would be infinitely better suited to write with authority on that.

It would appear that either the standards or the implementation of those standards is insufficient.

The "standards" are fine, but the implementation leaves a lot to be desired as I explained in Post 182 above. Indeed, most amateur recordists are clueless about the need for acoustic treatment and especially the need for bass traps. Even many pros who should know better either have no clue or just ignore it. Getting people to understand that their room is by far the weakest component in their playback chain is the last frontier. If you look at the list of famous recording engineers on my company's website, consider that before they bought treatment from us they had none. Or had only thin foam or whatever.

Either way, our efforts to provide accuracy in our reproduction chain are apparently compromised by inaccuracy in the recording chain.

Accuracy is not necessarily the goal when recording. At least not with pop music, and likely not with a lot of jazz or classical either. The job of the recording engineers is to make a product that sounds pleasing, whatever that takes. From there forward the goal must be accuracy. And maybe one's own taste on coloration that they like and don't mind being applied to everything they play.

--Ethan

 

[Gregadd]

Other components don't have anything to do with imaging. Well, maybe if something is broken such that one channel's response deviates from the other channel by more than half a dB. Otherwise, there's nothing a preamp or power amp or CD player etc can do that would affect imaging. An LP record system can probably affect imaging because its crosstalk is poor compared to analog tape and CDs and even cassette tape. But even 20 dB separation is likely good enough for convincing stereo.

Rather than continue to challenge me to explain this or that to you, why don't you educate us and tell us how and why "other components" can affect imaging. Not theoretical pondering, but a logical and compelling explanation as to what specifically inside an amplifier would affect imaging, and why.

--Ethan

I don't know how. Remember I postulated that imaging could not be measured. You said it could. I challenged you to do it. Over the years I have primarily owned two speakers. The ML ClS and the Magnepan MG I. Yet imaging has improved dramatically with the the amp and preamps I have substituted.
Don't worry I will not bother you anymore.

 

[Ethan Winer]

I don't know how.

Okay, you can't do it. Which is what you said to me earlier in this thread.

Remember I postulated that imaging could not be measured. You said it could. I challenged you to do it.

Hopefully you realize that what I explained, and showed in that graph, was indeed a way to assess imaging. Not just the severe dips in response when untamed reflections are allowed, but also my explanation that those dips are different at each ear, thus skewing the image and also making it unstable due to further changes with tiny head movements.

What I don't understand is why after all of my explanations, which seem irrefutable to me anyway, you haven't swayed from your position or even acknowledged that it might make sense. I'm trying to be gentle here. But if you can't explain how electronics can affect imaging, and you can't poke holes in my graph or explanations, why do I get the feeling that you haven't changed your opinion even a little? Again, I'm just asking and trying hard to be non-confrontational.

--Ethan

 

[Gregadd]

I would not say imaging could not be measured if I could do it. Nothing you have provided me would allow me to look at a speaker spec and predict its imaging characteristic. Now you asked me stop bothering you please return the favor.

 

[The Smokester]

Ethan, I am a supporter of what you are saying. I have Dunlavy SC-4a speakers which are "known" to be time coherent as measured with an input impulse. When experienced audiophiles come to listen they are usually impressed with the imaging of this system. In fact, my two channel system can trick you into hearing sounds behind your head (on a few recordings) which is something not many people have apparently experienced. I have attributed this little bit extra to the coherence. My only personal empirical evidence for this is that the sweet spot is very small and even a small displacement of the head (which would remove the simultaneity of arrival in each ear) greatly reduces the imaging. Of course, it depends on the recording, too, but I know which ones image great(gr).

So, my question, is in fact "coherence" a contributer to imaging?

 

[Ethan Winer]

^^^ I guess it depends on how you define coherence. I can't see how phase coherence, if that's what you mean, would affect imaging unless - again - the phase shift on one side is not the same as on the other side. Phase shift is inaudible anyway in the typical amount you find in gear unless it's changing over time. Which never happens outside of recording studio effects. I've seen simulations where phase is shifted by many thousands of degrees, and then you can hear it. For the most part, the only way phase shift becomes audible is when the original and shifted versions are combined. Then you get a change in frequency response which is of course audible.

You say your sweet spot is small. Just curious, but do you have any absorption at the reflection points? Or is your room very wide, like more than 25 or 30 feet wide?

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

Nothing you have provided me would allow me to look at a speaker spec and predict its imaging characteristic. Now you asked me stop bothering you please return the favor.

Okay, last time, then I'll leave you alone.

And for the last time, please read this carefully because I have already answered this several times now giving complete and clear answers:

* Speaker imaging is a function of its on- versus off-axis response. This may require a lot of data points, and vendors don't usually give that, but that's the spec that tells you how well a speaker "images."

* Aside from off-axis response, good speaker imaging is just as dependant on the room the speaker is in. So an additional metric you can use to predict imaging is to measure the frequency response in situ at the listening position. You can also do a room sweep and look at the ETC graph instead of frequency response. This type of graph shows energy over time, in particular the arrival time and strength of all reflections.

Now, I'm not really asking you to leave me alone. But it sure would be nice if you'd acknowledge what I'm saying, and make an effort to understand it. If I have not been clear enough in my explanations please let me know and I'll try again. But please, for the love of Pete, stop saying that I haven't answered these questions or, worse, saying "you can't do it."

--Ethan

 

[Randy Bessinger]

I believe Dunlavy actually has a patent on getting the best imaging from a loudspeaker. It involves speaker positioning and measuring sound levels of the speaekers in the room. Doesn't involve subjective listening. I will try to dig it out if anyone has an interest.

 

[FrantzM]

I believe Dunlavy actually has a patent on getting the best imaging from a loudspeaker. It involves speaker positioning and measuring sound levels of the speaekers in the room. Doesn't involve subjective listening. I will try to dig it out if anyone has an interest.

By all means unearth it ..

 

[Gregadd]

Floorstanding Loudspeakers
Dunlavy Audio Labs Signature SC-VI loudspeaker:
Bookmark and Share Page 4
Accuracy
It's snowing outside. Since I live in Colorado, this is not an unusual spring occurrence. A snow day. Perfect weather for kicking back and listening to music. But the Dunlavy Signature VI was not designed for such slothful pursuits as just kicking back and casually listening. This baby is a tool, not a toy. Accuracy and fidelity are its principal attributes.

Pardon me if I harp on this concept of an "accurate" loudspeaker. I believe the ultimate goal of true high-end design must be toward accuracy. Just sounding good—even wondrous, magical, musical, impressive, entrancing, emotionally involving—has little to do with accuracy or true high-end design. If a transducer is accurate, well-recorded music will have all the previously noted properties; a speaker's job is "merely" to pass on this information, not to editorialize upon it.

The Dunlavy did not compel me to listen by the force of its unique personality, but by its fidelity to the music. It editorialized far less than any other speaker I've ever heard. The Signature SC-VI redefined neutrality. After living with the Signature VI, all other transducers I've ever heard sound to me like mere loudspeakers. All of them. I know you've heard such rhetoric before, perhaps even in these pages. But I believe you'll not find a full-range speaker that tests better, or sounds more transparent, regardless of price or technology, than the SC-VI.

I know that in this age of flagships and speaker super-statements, those are "fightin' words." Fine. I dare anyone to show me measured performance better than that of the Dunlavy Signature SC-VI. Yes, I know that there's far more to speaker design than mere specmanship. In the words of Daniel Van Recklinghausen, "If a product tests bad and sounds bad, it is bad. If a product tests well and sounds bad, you're testing for the wrong things."

John Dunlavy has staked his reputation and career on his ability to test for the right things. My ears tell me he's trotting down the right path. In months of intensive listening, I have yet to discover any serious shortcomings in the Dunlavy Signature VI. I have uncovered many situations in which the speakers revealed limitations due to less than ideal physical placement, or less than perfect ancillary equipment. But never, in more than six months of constant testing, probing, and examination, have I found any sonic flaws intrinsic to the Signature VI. It's as close to perfect as any speaker on Earth. I've got the personal experience and the numbers to prove it.

More fightin' words: I don't think I'll be reviewing many other manufacturers' flagship speakers for a very long time. Frankly, my dears, I don't give a damn. I could contentedly live with the Dunlavy Signature VIs for the rest of my life. Unless forced into a domicile with nothing but itty-bitty rooms, I probably will.

A vanishing act
Most large speakers I've heard sound like large speakers—they're incapable of disappearing. Even the much-ballyhooed Wilson X-1/Grand SLAMM has a tough time doing any kind of vanishing act (footnote 3). The Signature SC-VI may be a large speaker, but it sounded like a small speaker with bottom-end extension, dynamics, and "slam." With the right source material, I found that a pair of SC-VIs could totally disappear.

I listened to Clifford Jordan's sax on Live at Ethell's (Mapleshade MHS 512629A). The sound was immediate, palpable, dynamically unconstricted, and originated from a precise point in space—a vanishing act that would make David Copperfield proud.

The first time I ever heard Dunlavy speakers—a pair of SC-IVs—was in the Spectral suite at the Summer 1993 CES. The speakers were spaced farther apart than I'd ever imagined possible, and one particular chair was sitting on top a of a big X on the floor marking the "sweet spot." I soon discovered that the imaging worked only from that particular spot. All the other listening chairs had a similar harmonic balance, but none had the three-dimensional soundstaging offered by Chair X. I was confounded by what appeared to be the largest one-person speakers I'd ever heard.

The Signature SC-VIs are similar. If I didn't sit dead center, the imaging doesn't happen. But when I was in the sweet spot, not only did they disappear, they created a seamless three-dimensional image limited only by the electronics and the source material. While the imaging window was larger than the "head in a vise" required by the Quad ESLs, I could still, with a bit of sideways body-English, easily fling myself out of the SC-VIs' zone of imaging perfection. However, when more than one listener at a time wanted to appreciate their soundstaging, it was "stereo choo-choo" time (footnote 4). J. Gordon Holt observed during one listening session that "the Signature VIs are the largest pair of headphones in the history of audio."

Some listeners might be dismayed by the seating specificity demanded by the Dunlavys. A moment's deliberation and it becomes obvious that if a speaker is critically time-/path-aligned, there will be only a small center-line in space along which all frequencies focus properly. If you want to experience the delights of full-frequency phase coherence, you must sit somewhere on this line. That's just the way it is. Speakers that have large, designed-in listening windows are by definition compromises.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I'm curious Greg. Who was the author?

 

[Gregadd]

So I believe that certain speakers beam. That is they have a narrow dispersion characteristic. And when you talk about imaging you talk one about stereo imaging left to right clues and depth of field. That is front to back imaging. Lateral cues and frequency response can be affected by moving off axis. The stereo image assumes that the listener is sitting in the middle for optimum results. Moreover a speaker that has poor off axis response will have altered frequency response from on axis response. This is mostly if exclusively due the speakers tending to beam and the listeners position more than the room. While moving left can give you a different frequency response. Frequency response indicates spectrum balance not imaging to the left or right. different response. The Dunlavy would seem to fall in that category.