The Noob Linearity factor

[bonzo75]

LOL. Yeah, ask them!

Woodstock Had Some of the Most Legendary Performances in History. But Many Attendees Never Heard a Single Note

"Sound for the concert was engineered by sound engineer Bill Hanley. "It worked very well," he says of the event. "I built special speaker columns on the hills and had 16 loudspeaker arrays in a square platform going up to the hill on 70 feet (21 m) towers. We set it up for 150,000 to 200,000 people. Of course, 500,000 showed up."[29] ALTEC designed marine plywood cabinets that weighed half a ton apiece and stood 6 feet (1.8 m) tall, almost 4 feet (1.2 m) deep, and 3 feet (0.91 m) wide. Each of these enclosures carried four 15-inch (380 mm) JBL D140 loudspeakers. The tweeters consisted of 4×2-Cell & 2×10-Cell Altec Horns. Behind the stage were three transformers providing 2,000 amperes of current to power the amplification setup.[30] For many years this system was collectively referred to as the Woodstock Bins."

"The sound system for The Woodstock Festival was custom designed by Altec and JBL engineers, and utilized three generators delivering 2000 total amps; and was so large it consumed most of the profits of ticket sales."

 

[Lagonda]

LOL. Yeah, ask them!

Woodstock Had Some of the Most Legendary Performances in History. But Many Attendees Never Heard a Single Note

Woodstock Had Some of the Most Legendary Performances in History. But Many Attendees Never Heard a Single Note

A too-small soundsystem, combined with oppressive physical conditions, made it difficult for many at Woodstock to focus on the music

time.com

Quote:

But many people who attended the festival didn’t get to hear the music that brought them there in the first place. While organizers were initially expecting 50,000 attendees, closer to 400,000 arrived. The field on which the audience assembled to hear the music was far too small to contain such a large crowd all at once — so many simply remained in the sprawling campgrounds and found other sources of entertainment.

[...]

But while that technology was cutting-edge for the time, it was just not meant to carry music to such a large and dispersed crowd spread over 600 acres of open farmland. In the New York Times that weekend, Barnard Collier wrote that “most of the hip, swinging youngsters heard the music on stage only as a distant rumble. It was impossible for them to tell who was performing and probably only about half the crowd could hear a note.”

[...]

In an interview for Joel Makower’s Woodstock: The Oral History, Chip Monck, the stage lighting and technical director for Woodstock, said that Hanley was “at that time just about the only contractor available” — and that his sound system was “a really small, nice, cute little system that nobody in their right mind would have used for a gathering of that size.”

You know Ked would have been right up on that stage, making the musicians swap out instruments for comparison purposes !

 

[mtemur]

Some people want to go all the way in this hobby, always try to make changes vertically, try to finish a 3000 piece puzzle by placing the last piece. This kind of people always learn from their mistakes and reach the upper levels of audio enjoyment. They train their ears and brain during audio journey and they change equipment sensibly. This kind of approach requires dedication and it enables people to pass beyond advanced category IMHO.

On the other hand some people easily get bored, not a nerd, always make changes horizontally. He/she starts a 3000 piece puzzle but gets bored after placing 500 pieces and starts another 3000 piece puzzle. They think they’ll be more successful when the problem (puzzle) is changed. That’s why they keep changing equipment. They quit analog disc playback and start again couple of times. One day it’s all tube amplification, other day full transistors. One day panels next day bass reflex cones etc. And eventually they turn to the point where they started. No matter how many years they spent in this hobby they can not pass beyond being novice. IMHO this is the NL situation described by @bonzo75

First kind of audiophile I described above enjoy improvement in SQ and the second kind of audiophile enjoy using more equipment. First one satisfies proficiency second one satisfies ownership. Both are ok in their respective approaches.

 

[Lee]

The excursion style of a cone woofer in a closed cabinet is quite fake compared to the excursion style of a dual FLH, just the impact, weight, etc.

Ask them

View attachment 116285View attachment 116286View attachment 116287

Sorry but I'm not buying that. For a listening room, cones do an amazing job on rock.

 

[bonzo75]

Some people want to go all the way in this hobby, always try to make changes vertically, try to finish a 3000 piece puzzle by placing the last piece. This kind of people always learn from their mistakes and reach the upper levels of audio enjoyment. They train their ears and brain during audio journey and they change equipment sensibly. This kind of approach requires dedication and it enables people to pass beyond advanced category IMHO.

On the other hand some people easily get bored, not a nerd, always make changes horizontally. He/she starts a 3000 piece puzzle but gets bored after placing 500 pieces and starts another 3000 piece puzzle. They think they’ll be more successful when the problem (puzzle) is changed. That’s why they keep changing equipment. They quit analog disc playback and start again couple of times. One day it’s all tube amplification, other day full transistors. One day panels next day bass reflex cones etc. And eventually they turn to the point where they started. No matter how many years they spent in this hobby they can not pass beyond being novice. IMHO this is the NL situation described by @bonz

it is not so much about the style of the hobby. I have nothing against people who want to explore more or explore less. It is some people assume (and vehemently defend) sonic conclusions even though they would have made them in the V inexperienced stage. For example, I often question my system impressions made in the digital stage, Vs analog stage with poor records, Vs analog stage with good records.

recently I compared three amps. I liked two of them, when a digital friend asked me I said for analog I prefer X, but if he wants as digital he should get Y. The X was more transparent to recordings, the Y with stock valve was more coloured

 

[bonzo75]

Sorry but I'm not buying that. For a listening room, cones do an amazing job on rock.

no one asked you to. You don’t even know what a dual FLH is. For you dCS and Wilson.

 

[Lee]

no one asked you to. You don’t even know what a dual FLH is

Lol. You can't respond without an insult.

 

[bonzo75]

Lol. You can't respond without an insult.

well when you say I am not buying that, you can’t respond honestly. What are you not buying? Where are your dual FLH experiences? I have zero respect for your tastes - though to be fair no one he knows what you really like as compared to what you write. You actually defended the MoFi fraud because they were advertising for your magazine.

 

[Lee]

well when you say I am not buying that, you can’t respond honestly. What are you not buying? Where are your dual FLH experiences? I have zero respect for your tastes - though to be fair no one he knows what you really like as compared to what you write. You actually defended the MoFi fraud because they were advertising for your magazine.

I did not defend MoFi. I said what they did was wrong. But I also said that quad DSD was also a valid approach since they could not get the tapes. I doubt anyone can hear the quad DSD transfer and master tape difference in any event.

I am not buying specifically your claim that cones do not work well for rock in a listening room.

 

[bonzo75]

I did not defend MoFi. I said what they did was wrong. But I also said that quad DSD was also a valid approach since they could not get the tapes. I doubt anyone can hear the quad DSD transfer and master tape difference in any event.

That thread is open for all to read. You actually used a phrase there, "for the more thoughtful audiophiles", implying that those who called out MoFi were thoughtless.

So what are your dual FLH experiences. everyone here knows you like the very expensive cones and wish there was a 2m one.

 

[Elliot G.]

Some people want to go all the way in this hobby, always try to make changes vertically, try to finish a 3000 piece puzzle by placing the last piece. This kind of people always learn from their mistakes and reach the upper levels of audio enjoyment. They train their ears and brain during audio journey and they change equipment sensibly. This kind of approach requires dedication and it enables people to pass beyond advanced category IMHO.

On the other hand some people easily get bored, not a nerd, always make changes horizontally. He/she starts a 3000 piece puzzle but gets bored after placing 500 pieces and starts another 3000 piece puzzle. They think they’ll be more successful when the problem (puzzle) is changed. That’s why they keep changing equipment. They quit analog disc playback and start again couple of times. One day it’s all tube amplification, other day full transistors. One day panels next day bass reflex cones etc. And eventually they turn to the point where they started. No matter how many years they spent in this hobby they can not pass beyond being novice. IMHO this is the NL situation described by @bonzo75

First kind of audiophile I described above enjoy improvement in SQ and the second kind of audiophile enjoy using more equipment. First one satisfies proficiency second one satisfies ownership. Both are ok in their respective approaches.

Very well said .I totally agree that many are trying to cure problems they created themselves and never learn. They keep searching to fix the self inflicted wounds.
I think you need to have defined parameters and goals to succeed with an audio system just as you might need in life. If you don't know what you are after how can you ever find it?
I was a deciple of Harry Pearson and the journey at the time was well defined. This may not be everyone's path and thats great but you need to know what road you are taking in order to succeed. When I ask clients what they are trying to achieve most have no idea. If you don't know where you are going how again do you get there.
SOme wnat to learn and do the work and extend the effort. Others take a survey of sources and then pick one or pick the one the group seems to go toward, or wants an ATTABOY form a review or other posters.
Sadly but true audio is a deeply personal journey which doesnt have to be done alone but it has only one master to serve and that is YOU!

 

[Lee]

That thread is open for all to read. You actually used a phrase there, "for the more thoughtful audiophiles", implying that those who called out MoFi were thoughtless.

So what are your dual FLH experiences. everyone here knows you like the very expensive cones and wish there was a 2m one.

Again you mischaracterize my comments about $2 million speakers. The video clearly shows I was wondering what something like that would sound like and that was based on what a near million $ pair sounded like in the M9.

The other good thing about a hypothetical $2 million speaker is the learning that translates into more affordable offerings. A lot of the WAMM and XVX tech is in my Alexia V.

 

[bonzo75]

Again you mischaracterize my comments about $2 million speakers. The video clearly shows I was wondering what something like that would sound like and that was based on what a near million $ pair sounded like in the M9.

The other good thing about a hypothetical $2 million speaker is the learning that translates into more affordable offerings. A lot of the WAMM and XVX tech is in my Alexia V.

what is your experience with dual FLH

 

[Lee]

what is your experience with dual FLH

I don't have experience with dual FLH in a listening room. I believe there was something similar at a Munich show I attended in 2018.

Does the existence of dual front-loaded horns somehow mean that cone speakers are not adequate for producing rock in a listening room?

I can see how outdoor concerts and other large area venues like stadiums would benefit from horns but I don't understand why it would be an argument that cones cannot reproduce rock music.

I was just listening yesterday to my Ludwig pressing of Led Zeppelin II and the dynamics and Bonham's drumming were so visceral.

 

[bonzo75]

I don't have experience with dual FLH in a listening room. I believe there was something similar at a Munich show I attended in 2018.

lolz. It’s fine to not have heard something just don’t comment vehemently on it.

 

[bonzo75]

Does the existence of dual front-loaded horns somehow mean that cone speakers are not adequate for producing rock in a listening room?

No they aren’t above 2k level. The lower model of Vandersteen should suffice for rock for cones, as well as 15 inch tannoy Gold. No need to spend more on cones for rock. Above that just jump into dual FLH. Well restored apogee are very good for rock. Better than cones

 

[Lee]

lolz. It’s fine to not have heard something just don’t comment vehemently on it.

I am not commenting on dual FLH. I am commenting on cones for rock in a listening room.

 

[Lee]

No they aren’t above 2k level. The lower model of Vandersteen should suffice for rock for cones, as well as 15 inch tannoy Gold. No need to spend more on cones for rock. Above that just jump into dual FLH. Well restored apogee are very good for rock

What do you mean above 2k level? 2khz frequency or 2,000 people in attendance?

 

[morricab]

"Sound for the concert was engineered by sound engineer Bill Hanley. "It worked very well," he says of the event. "I built special speaker columns on the hills and had 16 loudspeaker arrays in a square platform going up to the hill on 70 feet (21 m) towers. We set it up for 150,000 to 200,000 people. Of course, 500,000 showed up."[29] ALTEC designed marine plywood cabinets that weighed half a ton apiece and stood 6 feet (1.8 m) tall, almost 4 feet (1.2 m) deep, and 3 feet (0.91 m) wide. Each of these enclosures carried four 15-inch (380 mm) JBL D140 loudspeakers. The tweeters consisted of 4×2-Cell & 2×10-Cell Altec Horns. Behind the stage were three transformers providing 2,000 amperes of current to power the amplification setup.[30] For many years this system was collectively referred to as the Woodstock Bins."

"The sound system for The Woodstock Festival was custom designed by Altec and JBL engineers, and utilized three generators delivering 2000 total amps; and was so large it consumed most of the profits of ticket sales."

Yeah, those guys were pure NL…

 

[andromedaaudio]

Guys isnt there a possibility to give this very important topic another name .
I feel my country is dragged through the dirt as well .

Linear Noob is that something ??