Pro Gear vs Audiophile Gear
- Thread starter marty
- Start date
Greg, I think that is a pretty fair review of the SC-IVa's as well.
Ethan, The SC's are time coherent, not just phase. The metrics that John Dunlavy used was an impulse response, transfer function (SPL vs volt), step response and load impedance. Each set of SC's that he released was comprised of pairs matched acoustically using an anechoic chamber. The final measurements were shipped with each pair and I still have them for my pair.
One of the problems Dunlavy had was getting others to agree with his measurements. He apparently had a huge public argument with John Atkinson (I believe, please correct me if I am wrong) when Atkinson did his own measurements and disagreed with Dunlavy's, thereby relegating the IVa's to Stereophile Classe B. JD claimed that Atkinson's measurements were done in the near field because Atkinson's anechoic chamber was too small. Judging from what I hear from mine, Dunlavy was right...The sound doesn't fully combine 'til 8 or 10 ft from the speakers.
My speakers are set up in my living room and the sound treatments are currently not ideal. I am following the room measurement thread with great interest because that is the next thing for me to work on. However, the imaging can still be amazing. Listening to them in the near field, with them pointed nearly towards each other, is indeed like listening with a giant pair of headphones.
Post Script: One of the great things about the Dunlavy's besides the sound, is that you can tell what the designer was trying to do and how well he did it be cause he told you in plain, engineering terms. You get the relevant engineering specs delivered along with the great performance. Maybe some of the current offerings are time coherent, but there is so much advertising mysticism surounding them that you just can't tell. I like that my speakers got served "straight up".
Ethan, The SC's are time coherent, not just phase. The metrics that John Dunlavy used was an impulse response, transfer function (SPL vs volt), step response and load impedance. Each set of SC's that he released was comprised of pairs matched acoustically using an anechoic chamber. The final measurements were shipped with each pair and I still have them for my pair.
One of the problems Dunlavy had was getting others to agree with his measurements. He apparently had a huge public argument with John Atkinson (I believe, please correct me if I am wrong) when Atkinson did his own measurements and disagreed with Dunlavy's, thereby relegating the IVa's to Stereophile Classe B. JD claimed that Atkinson's measurements were done in the near field because Atkinson's anechoic chamber was too small. Judging from what I hear from mine, Dunlavy was right...The sound doesn't fully combine 'til 8 or 10 ft from the speakers.
My speakers are set up in my living room and the sound treatments are currently not ideal. I am following the room measurement thread with great interest because that is the next thing for me to work on. However, the imaging can still be amazing. Listening to them in the near field, with them pointed nearly towards each other, is indeed like listening with a giant pair of headphones.
Post Script: One of the great things about the Dunlavy's besides the sound, is that you can tell what the designer was trying to do and how well he did it be cause he told you in plain, engineering terms. You get the relevant engineering specs delivered along with the great performance. Maybe some of the current offerings are time coherent, but there is so much advertising mysticism surounding them that you just can't tell. I like that my speakers got served "straight up".
Last edited:
I don't think I agree with that quote. Sound can be filled with emotion and speakers reproduce sound. If you hear a person crying, is that not emotion? If a speaker reproduces someone crying, is that not emotion? I know you want to say that emotion is a human characteristic (and it is), but if a speaker is reproducing sounds that cause emotional responses, I don't know how you can divorce the two. Or maybe we can say that speakers can reproduce and induce human emotion.
A transducer produce only what it can transduce .. Physical phenomenon. That we react to these with emotion is a different realm.. The lens in a PJ or in a camera do nothing but transmit and/or bend light... We react to what those light rays with our emotions .. The better the transducer, the more acute the experience may be but this is not a requirement ... We can react with great emotion to shortwave radio .. or mp3 at 32 Kbps
Our gears are dumb and soulless ..let's not get ourselves too anthropomorphic here ..
Our gears are dumb and soulless ..let's not get ourselves too anthropomorphic here ..
You're answering your own question every time you use the appropriate word, reproduce, mep. A perfect audio system produces nothing. An imperfect one produces as little as it is capable of. The emotion is in the performance, and in the people responding to it. The best thing a system can do is get out of the way. An audio system produces emotion like a window produces light.
P
I believe imaging (depth of field and image localization) derives from the source and is conveyed by the music reproduction system and can't be measured. Improper room placement can destroy (but not create) that imaging. Yes, including room reflections.
I believe imaging (depth of field and image localization) derives from the source and is conveyed by the music reproduction system and can't be measured. Improper room placement can destroy (but not create) that imaging. Yes, including room reflections.
I am pretty sure this is measurable, just not measurable using today's methodologies. The fact that measurements are made using just one loudspeaker doesn't help matters.
Actually that's not exactly true Greg. We actually discovered that there were more artifacts eg. problems caused by sample prep say with Osmium tetroxide, than facts
What happened was that these artifacts led to erroneous conclusions, maybe the most famous of those being the cell membrane's bilayer structure.http://books.google.com/books?id=Gj...microscope osmium tetroxide artifacts&f=false
Last edited:
Let's keep the thread on topic, so I'll start a separate "Imaging" thread in General Audio.
Lee
Lee
I agree, I theorized a couple of ways to do it in an earlier thread but neither can be performed in the here and now because there are a few pieces of equipment needed that just isn't here yet. Imaging is much more complex than just differences of arrival time. It does indeed deserve it's own thread.
Chu Gai is actually the one that dug this up.
http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&NR=5778087&KC=&FT=E
Yeah, I don't personally find the emotional content of music diminished by fidelity issues anymore than I find a blu ray of Transformers on my plasma more emotionally satisfying than Citizen Kane on an old tube TV. To me, the art and the reproduction fidelity are very separate things unless the fidelity is so bad that the message cannot get through (ie: can't tell the difference between Bogart and Bacall, I can't hear the difference between Sinatra and Bennett). YMMV, and for many of you, I suspect it varies a lot.
P
Yes it is. I just dropped by my dad's a couple of hours ago (Dad is 92). One of the internet radio stations I set up for him was playing Birth of the Cool through the little Cambridge Soundworks computer speakers I gave him. It sounded just like Miles.
It sounded great.P
Thanks. If I can brag on him for a moment. Dad is not just 92, Dad survived colon surgery and a hip replacement last winter to be back on his feet (no walker, no cane) in his own "independent living" apartment, walking his dog and driving the little old ladies to their medical appointments. Dad is made of stern stuff.
P
Similar threads
