Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 51

Thread: I Knew They Were Something Special

  1. #16
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie View Post
    Hi Widget,

    In your view what is the 90%?
    I think that depends on the listener.

    For me it would be having a relatively linear FR, controlled off axis response, somewhat extended frequency range, and certainly dynamic capability. After maximizing all of those aspects of reproduction, I'd like to control phase, group delay, and the other aspects of time.


    Widget

  2. #17
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Ducatista47 View Post
    The promise of fidelity was launched in 1925 with recording's adoption of the electric microphone but that seminal landmark has rarely been fully capitalized on by subsequent developments.
    A bit off topic of this otherwise off topic discussion, but reading early reports from the dawn of high fidelity, it is surprising to read earnest reports of people hearing early recordings through very early examples of what Bell Labs and others were working with and being fooled by the recorded sounds... thinking they were listening to live music. Today, our best examples of recorded music and playback equipment are vastly more accurate and yet we are rarely fooled.

    None of us are old enough to have firsthand experiences of these demonstrations but I do remember the first time I saw 480i video content through a Faroudja line quadrupler and a large CRT projector. I thought that I was seeing magic and that it was so close to watching a true film experience, I couldn't imagine it getting any better. By today's standards that image would make me cringe, but at the time it was magic!


    Widget

  3. #18
    Senior Member Ducatista47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Peoria, Illinois
    Posts
    1,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Widget View Post
    A bit off topic of this otherwise off topic discussion, but reading early reports from the dawn of high fidelity, it is surprising to read earnest reports of people hearing early recordings through very early examples of what Bell Labs and others were working with and being fooled by the recorded sounds... thinking they were listening to live music. Today, our best examples of recorded music and playback equipment are vastly more accurate and yet we are rarely fooled.

    None of us are old enough to have firsthand experiences of these demonstrations but I do remember the first time I saw 480i video content through a Faroudja line quadrupler and a large CRT projector. I thought that I was seeing magic and that it was so close to watching a true film experience, I couldn't imagine it getting any better. By today's standards that image would make me cringe, but at the time it was magic!


    Widget
    Yes, and 4K video was described as like looking through a window. Truth be told, we don't even see in 4K.

    I found the book Perfecting Sound Forever by Greg Milner a meaningful dive into what those early experiences were up to and how they did it. Its subtitle is "An Aural History of Recorded Music". David Byrne's book later covered a lot of the same territory but I find Milner's work to better describe what you are talking about. YMMV...

    PS I reconsidered the post you have quoted and rendered it less rant-like. It now addresses this issue more directly.
    Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
    Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears


  4. #19
    Senior Member Ducatista47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Peoria, Illinois
    Posts
    1,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Widget View Post
    I think that depends on the listener.

    Widget
    Absolutely, or Plus 1 as it is said around here.

    One comparison easy to make is to sample over time a really accomplished personal listening system. Experience perfect time alignment, zero room distortion, off axis response rendered moot, frequency response "In your dreams", phase and group delay issues absent, etc... It makes for a nicely calibrated zero point. No chest thump, a deal breaker for you I know, but for the rest a great yardstick.
    Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
    Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears


  5. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Robh3606 View Post
    I agree as well. Time alignment and phase coherence are greatly overrated. Frequency domain is much more important.

    Rob
    Hi Rob,

    I was reading an article this afternoon (during the big wet season here) on loudspeaker design that stated the human ear (not an apes) is more sensitive to time domain or phase type anomalies at lower frequencies while more sensitive to amplitude anomalies at higher frequencies.

    That could well be true. Although there are long held views that the human ear is most sensitive to time domain anomalies around 2000 hertz based on historical hearing tests. But of course we know that phase cancellation or peaks are what we hear around the crossover region when such anomalies occur.

  6. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Widget View Post
    I think that depends on the listener.

    For me it would be having a relatively linear FR, controlled off axis response, somewhat extended frequency range, and certainly dynamic capability. After maximizing all of those aspects of reproduction, I'd like to control phase, group delay, and the other aspects of time.


    Widget
    When you refer to dynamic capability are to saying more dynamic than a Quad ESL or a Maggie?

    Or are you referring to low power compression?

    One of the problems that l think fools peoples view of time domain distortion is the rise and settling time of a driver diaphragm. Also diffraction related time smear.

    Who recalls John Dunlavy? He did a lot of work in this area of loudspeaker design. His designs were generally well regarded.

    It is perhaps little known that a Ribbon transducer performs poorly compared to a dynamic driver in this measurement parameter. Ribbons do not start or stop nearly as quickly. Some people like the aberrations of a Ribbon driver.

  7. #22
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rocinante
    Posts
    7,794
    Hello Ian

    They did integrate a CD Mantaray horn into the 604. I believe that Great Plains uses a similar of the same horn. Tangerine phase plug and so on so they were keeping "current" but I don't know the timing. If I remember right the time aligned URIE's were the real competition as far as coax's go. They used Altec drivers until they started having quality issues and ended up using all JBL with an E-145 and 2425 coax with a proprietary URIE/JBL horn in the final C versions.

    I think they had lost market share or were in decline by the time the Mantaray and 4430 were introduced but I am not the historian so if you know please chime in.

    1983 First I can find in the Library http://www.lansingheritage.org/html/...s/1983-pro.htm

    Check this out 1993! http://www.lansingheritage.org/html/...akers/9864.htm

    Rob

    http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...th-the-604-8-H

    http://www.lansingheritage.org/html/...s/model-18.htm
    "I could be arguing in my spare time"

  8. #23
    Senior Member srm51555's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Widget View Post

    That said, I think it is obvious that absolute accuracy is not needed for musical enjoyment.


    Widget
    This is a very true and possibly expensive lesson.

  9. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,401
    Hi Rob,


    I found the 604-8K spec sheet and your right. That was the 1992 spec.

    The stock Altec network still has that characteristic bump at 1500 hz that the 4310 mimics.

    The polar response for the 60x40 manta ray HF horn is very narrow. That in itself is obvious when you listen to that version. In comparison the 2307 /2308 is smoother and has a much better off axis response for a non cd design.

    Off axis its awful and goes back to my earlier statement. What ever they were tried to do as a dual concentric idea it had lots of un resolved issues. But they didn't mind if it sucked.Those engineers must have been cloth eared old fucks.

    Those Urei's of yours are way nicer loudspeaker.

    Back in the day this was probably acceptable not in todays consumer market. I have no doubt the GP version is more refined but at US$1700 per driver it would want to be outstanding. Its the bees knee's for the SE triode guys because of the efficiency. But that's almost the waiting room end of the business where every recording sounds nice and engaging.

    In this link is a far superior network ref Jeff Markwart’s Corner
    This networks shifts the phase.

    https://greatplainsaudio.com/gpa-vin...rite-duplexes/

    The Urei / Ed Long network was a multi stage Bessel filter that delayed the woofer for the 5 1/2 in offset.

  10. #25
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Ducatista47 View Post
    Absolutely, or Plus 1 as it is said around here.

    One comparison easy to make is to sample over time a really accomplished personal listening system. Experience perfect time alignment, zero room distortion, off axis response rendered moot, frequency response "In your dreams", phase and group delay issues absent, etc... It makes for a nicely calibrated zero point. No chest thump, a deal breaker for you I know, but for the rest a great yardstick.
    I was thinking of the technical advantages of headphone reproduction as I wrote that... however in addition to the lack of chest thump, real music is created in a room and travels through the air. With headphones, the music appears in the center of your head... an interesting way to experience music, but not for me.

    Intimate jazz and other acoustic music works best in our homes. When listening to a symphonic recording in my living room there are certainly compromises of scale, but for me at least, I find it preferable to the sound being focused in the center of my head. True binaural recordings are a different case of course, but the source material is rather limited.


    Widget

  11. #26
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie View Post
    When you refer to dynamic capability are to saying more dynamic than a Quad ESL or a Maggie?

    Or are you referring to low power compression?
    For many years my main 2 channel speakers were a pair of Soundlabs electrostats. The micro dynamic details were amazing, but the lack of macro dynamics due to power compression killed the "real musicness" for me. I think both micro and macro dynamics are needed. For me a 4" beryllium domed compression driver with appropriate supporting drivers gives the best compromise in the micro/macro dynamics department.


    Widget

  12. #27
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Ducatista47 View Post
    Remembering the vinyl era, we ancient ones often have to explain that we didn't even hear the pops and cracks. We learned to ignore them. Speakers are like that, if we let them be. Our brains know what music sounds like and it does a fine job of filling in the blanks both speakers and listening rooms get wrong, and tweaking towards reality.
    Not sure I could ever completely filter out the ticks and pops, but I get your point and agree completely about our personal onboard computer's ability to recalibrate the aural stimuli we call recoded playback. This is what allows us to hear music instead of analog screeches or dithered 1s and 0s.

    Heck, we can even listen to an old transistor radio with a 3 inch "full range" speaker and still hear the music... pretty remarkable really.


    Widget

  13. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    3,431
    Because I have the ability to move the 2251 and Heil AMT relative to the 2241 and each other, I have found that time alignment can make a big difference in frequency response in the crossover region and based on the 61-band RTA, it could be on the order of several decibels. If one truly values a smooth and flat frequency response, this cannot be ignored.

    Also, based on the RTA, and what I've read, it is not a matter of getting the voice coils in the same plane. Higher frequencies propagate faster and speakers may give a better, smoother response when stepped back a bit from what you would expect to be the plane. Ever looked at the impulse response in the Stereophile magazine for multi-way speakers? The signal from the tweeter, then mid, then woofer hit the mic in that order.

    https://www.stereophile.com/content/...art-two-page-3

  14. #29
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rocinante
    Posts
    7,794
    Quote Originally Posted by toddalin View Post
    Because I have the ability to move the 2251 and Heil AMT relative to the 2241 and each other, I have found that time alignment can make a big difference in frequency response in the crossover region and based on the 61-band RTA, it could be on the order of several decibels. If one truly values a smooth and flat frequency response, this cannot be ignored.

    Also, based on the RTA, and what I've read, it is not a matter of getting the voice coils in the same plane. Higher frequencies propagate faster and speakers may give a better, smoother response when stepped back a bit from what you would expect to be the plane. Ever looked at the impulse response in the Stereophile magazine for multi-way speakers? The signal from the tweeter, then mid, then woofer hit the mic in that order.

    https://www.stereophile.com/content/...art-two-page-3
    Hello Toddalin

    Yes WRT moving the physical location of a driver. When you input driver parameters into LEAP as an example you have to enter the driver offsets. If you don't do that it assumes they are aligned and what you design will not match what you measure. As long as you put in the offsets properly what you design will match what you measure. When you are combining the response of 2 drivers you have to get this right to avoid irregularities through the crossover region as you noted on your RTA.

    Rob
    "I could be arguing in my spare time"

  15. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Ducatista47 View Post
    I could not agree more, I enjoy listening to 1930s recordings if the music is great.

    Even so, I continue to be let down over how few music enthusiasts seek reproduction that attempts to follow as closely as possible what went into the microphone. You know, what the musicians actually did. As I have said before, it seems everyone has their favorite distortion; euphonics is the biggest flavor in high end audio. I have passed the point where speakers can come close enough to the truth to compete with what a modest personal listening system can do, so I have nothing to contribute anymore to speaker discussions. But I still like to hear what you guys have to say and report about it.

    Since we now actually know how to record accurately and create media (streaming included) for home use that reflects that result, I do find it strange how much money and toil one will put into improving speakers, which will still have a couple of orders of magnitude more distortion than the electronics that drive them and at least another order of magnitude worse than the source material. If one is chasing perfection speakers are not a fitting tool to do it with. Playing music euphonically should not cost much. Simply accepting the shortcomings of the tools we enjoy anyway seems a more rewarding path than dwelling on the ways we wish they were better.

    Remembering the vinyl era, we ancient ones often have to explain that we didn't even hear the pops and cracks. We learned to ignore them. Speakers are like that, if we let them be. Our brains know what music sounds like and it does a fine job of filling in the blanks both speakers and listening rooms get wrong, and tweaking towards reality.
    Hi Clark,

    I always find your posts interesting and entertaining.

    But l do not entirely agree on everything you have said.(not to be taken too seriously please by anyone while the world is on the verge of war. Take your mind off it with this long post)

    1. In your first paragraph you have not presented any arguments or evidence to support your sweeping statement concerning what music enthusiasts are seeking.

    It may surprise you that musicians have the highest tolerance for interpretation or filling in the blanks in what reproduction of a recorded event has either missing or added. This is because they are by virtue of their training and understanding of music emotionally involved from the outset. Whereas the non musician listener needs to become emotionally involved and that therefore is the challenge of the equipment. This was explained in a document l read recently written by a trained pianist who has a PHD in material science and who was a senior loudspeaker designer for Linn Sondek before starting his own successful HiFi loudspeaker business. In his time at Linn his designs sold more than anything Linn had previously bought to market. You might ask why? The answer is this designer actually understands what a musical instrument sounds like and also what is actually required from a physics perspective of a loudspeaker driver which is a complex thing to get right. I actually own a pair of monitors designed by this scientist Dr Rod Crawford. He’s exhibited at the Rocky Mountain Audio Show on the past.

    You might go oh l don’t agree with that and some musicians will say Ah that sounds close. But in fact very few hifi loudspeakers can come even remotely close to the live reproduction of a properly tuned piano. On the one hand it’s string instrument but it also has so much percussion to it’s sound.

    Another acquaintance l know learnt the trumpet at high school and was taught by Ken Smith who at the time was one of best trumpet players in world. He has gone on to become the conductor of the Singapore symphony orchestra and has made similar remarks. He can put the recorded sound to one side without a problem because he already he knows exactly what every instrument does sound like.

    Where it goes pear shaped is when the consumer with deep pockets is misled into believing what hifi sound reproduction really is by certain factions of the hifi industry. If you look at the statistics not much hi end bubblegum audio is actually sold because most of us can’t afford it. That’s a good thing. (Leave it to the Dentists). That’s because it’s made and sold by people who are only interested in lining their pockets. There are a stack of them in the USA and you’ll find them in Stereophile Magazine. I call it the HiFi Mafia made up of micro manufacturers with tentacles everywhere.

    https://www.britannica.com/story/is-...ged-instrument

    General speaking the reproduction of the piano is regarded as true test of a hi fidelity sound system.

    2. Secondly, my view is that your second paragraph is a little too broad because frankly we have not yet reached a point of strong consistency in recording standards despite the technological advances. Next to the loudspeaker and a room’s impact on sound reproduction l strongly believe that recordings of the same piece or tune can vary considerably in terms of quality of reproduction across different editions and labels. I find that rather annoying. Imagine if car today were built this way? The Jeep motor company is the exception. They are rubbish.

    I personally believe that relatively low cost consumer hifi loudspeakers have improved considerably over the past 25 years. Distortion levels in modern loudspeaker drivers has come down with advanced technologies in materials, design and manufacturing techniques. Certainly there is a law of diminishing returns but that goes for anything that is categorised as a luxury item. I think cost often relates to the scale or power of a loudspeaker system. The bigger, louder, lower and higher it goes with low distortion the price rockets. Typically into six figures. If you take a Wilson system for example they are recognised standard and they are not cheap.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-28-2018, 07:05 AM
  2. Anything special about these?
    By Boss96 in forum General Audio Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-08-2005, 01:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •