IWalker
Well-known member
This thread is to continue the discussion of ego in high end audio, and measurements vs subjective impressions, etc...to prevent further hijacking of joey's LCD vs Chair thread.
Ego in high end audio...cont.
- Thread starter IWalker
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
IWalker
Well-known member
What I love looking at is which speakers perform up to the hype (and you're paying for the performance) and which ones are all hype. One of my favorite tests to analyze is http://zaphaudio.com/6.5test/ - with the test results shown on the "Comparison application" link.
The $525 driver in the test has REMARKABLY similar performance up to about 1000 Hz as the $33 RS180. Above that it's more usable, but you don't generally want to use a 7 inch driver up a whole lot higher than that (maybe 2k or 2.5k) <<Hype>> Then you look at the Scan Speak revelator ($205) and the results are pretty impressive across the board. <<Get what you pay for>>
then you start looking at the Usher 8945 drivers ($110) and Vifa XG18 drivers ($62) and Dayton RS180 ($33) and you see drivers that perform well above drivers with similar cost.
Measurements are not everything, however, as certain cones will impart different sonic signatures...but that comes down to preference as opposed to good vs bad.
I guarantee you a speaker with that $525 driver in it is not going to be cheap, yet it would be handily outperformed by a number of alternatives that could be much cheaper.
At the end of the day, it does come down to preference. If someone likes the sound of something better...that's their preference. Another quote from Zaph's site
"I often hear people babble on about the shimmer, sparkle and air of ribbon tweeters. These tests show where these "special effects" are coming from - distortion. Ribbons do have a unique distortion profile that many will find enjoyable with some music. That's OK, and it does not have to relfect badly on your "golden ear" status. However, if accuracy to the original signal is what you are after, one of these ribbons may not be the best solution"
Joey_V
Well-known member
The $205 ScanSpeak driver that they use in the Wilson Sophia and Sonus Faber Cremonas measures out to be amazing... wow....
In the 30 years I've been in this hobby I have discovered their are two types of audiophile. On the one hand the guy who is into the hardware, owns 100 or so "demo records", a similar number of CD/SACD's/DVD-A's, $20k to $50k in a system that is the "best" in terms of parts but doesn't come close to sounding like real instruments playing in real spaces.
On the other hand, the guy with a boatload of music of various sources who may have also spent 20k to 50k on his system but instead of buying the latest and greatest has put together a system that plays music. The audiophile system may do any number of things better than this system but never sounds as much like music.
Both of these people have an ego investment in their systems!
As to measurements they have their place but I would never buy a component just because it measured better or cost more. A perfect case is the SET amps and a properly matched speaker. SET's measure horribly yet to this listener can sound so much more like the real thing that comparisons with equivalent conventional designs on the same speaker are laughable. Others would find the comparison to produce just the opposite effect. Preference in sound is as subjective as type of music enjoyed.
Speakers and cartridges (the transducers) are measurably the most subjective components and as such will engender the greatest arguments among audiophiles of both camps. The hardware guy wants the most expensive with the deepest bass and the most extended treble. The music guys gives up some of those things for the midrange magic of real instruments playing in real spaces.
My personal ego preference is for systems that play music as opposed to audio hijinks that impress but in the end fall short of capturing the listener into the essence of the music. YMMV
On the other hand, the guy with a boatload of music of various sources who may have also spent 20k to 50k on his system but instead of buying the latest and greatest has put together a system that plays music. The audiophile system may do any number of things better than this system but never sounds as much like music.
Both of these people have an ego investment in their systems!
As to measurements they have their place but I would never buy a component just because it measured better or cost more. A perfect case is the SET amps and a properly matched speaker. SET's measure horribly yet to this listener can sound so much more like the real thing that comparisons with equivalent conventional designs on the same speaker are laughable. Others would find the comparison to produce just the opposite effect. Preference in sound is as subjective as type of music enjoyed.
Speakers and cartridges (the transducers) are measurably the most subjective components and as such will engender the greatest arguments among audiophiles of both camps. The hardware guy wants the most expensive with the deepest bass and the most extended treble. The music guys gives up some of those things for the midrange magic of real instruments playing in real spaces.
My personal ego preference is for systems that play music as opposed to audio hijinks that impress but in the end fall short of capturing the listener into the essence of the music. YMMV
IWalker
Well-known member
Yeah, I'm drooling all over that one. Maybe that'll be my birthday present to myself
I eventually want to build a line array with them...THAT would be sick.IWalker
Well-known member
I think that you're grouping that into 2 extremes, and not everyone falls into that. You also have the middle set, who wants to build things themselves because of the value proposition...to get the best possible speaker for the money...because we value the time dedicated to a hobby as free. They generally look at measurements first, to ensure that they're getting a good quality product...and then do what they can with the top quality products, to produce the best, most natural sounding speaker they can. They/we do this, so that we can create something that just blows us away in terms of the quality of sound, and accuracy of reproduction....for our enjoyment of music. I have 2 seperate hobbies...speaker design/building...and music enjoyment. It just happens that the goal of one is to enhance the other.
Also, to make the overused car analogy...(and I'm sure jason will ream me for butchering this) ... you can have horsepower ratings, and measure all sorts of things having to do with handling and acceleration, etc...but that doesn't mean that person A is going to like Car 1 over Car 2....just because it measures better on the test equipment. Maybe they like a softer ride, etc. That also doesn't mean that you can't say that car 1 is a better car. It is better...just not for all people.
In speakers...it is measurable whether or not something is closer to the original signal or not, but there is no measure for what you like...except preference itself. My course of action is to find those drivers that perform the best in tests, and buy a sample, and build a 2 way with it...and see what I think of the sound. I know it measures well, or I wouldn't have bought it...after that...it's preference. So it's a nice middle ground between the two, with very little ego involved whatsoever. I don't need my speakers to measure "the best" nor do I need a brand name. I want a high quality product that performs well and sounds good to my ears.
An audiophile of the 2nd variety who sits down and says "WOW, this sounds GREAT", when they listen to a speaker with horrible frequency response and/or high distortion, is fine to like that speaker...it's his/her taste. But that doesn't change the fact that it has high distortion or horrible frequency response...which are NOT part of an accurate reproduction of the recording. Distortion artifacts are induced noise. Some people like hamburgers better than filet mignon...but it is generally understood that filet is the better piece of beef. If that noise existed in the original recording...it would have been recorded as such...and would already be present...not needing to be simulated through the speaker.
IWalker
Well-known member
Agreed. Measurements have their place, but are not the end-all by any means. SET amps measure horribly in some ways, but very very well in others...for example, they have high overall distortion (tubes do in general, for the most part) but most of that is even order, which is much more pleasing to the ear than odd order, while most of SS amps' distortion is odd order (even though it has less overall)...creating a much more sterile sound, generally. (that's a gross generalization) So...evaluating results without full data is certainly harmful as well(but that does happen a lot).
(as a side note, the pair of speakers I want to build, I'm planning on trying to pair with a SET amp on the ribbons...since the ribbons should be around 106db/watt efficient.)
But you do agree that the two are not mutually exclusive, and that if you're working from scratch as a DIYer, you're more likely to get better results from quality compoents than from low performing ones, right? Especially since impressions are often hard to come by on raw drivers.
As it turns out, a lot of the same drivers used in high end speakers are also available to the DIY community...so there's no reason that a similar level of performance can't be reached with a "clone".
Beat_Dominator
Well-known member
I'll tell you my personal views on what I see in subjective/measured performance. I feel I am not in the majority with my views but I doubt I'm alone with them either I won't be afraid to offend anyone because people seem to pass over my posts all the time anyway
I am a very scientifically minded person and thus, place quite a bit of faith in measured performance. That being said, I still do not think the full set of tools exist to turn measured results into 100% predictable subjective results.
I am a Solid-state kind of guy. SETs CAN measure well, but I could not live with a poor-measuring component because I would feel that I would just be lying to myself if I said it sounded terrific.
The other consideration I have with audio is of course cost. Diminishing returns is a real thing, and paying 3x more for what I perceive as some minuscule change is crazy...... if I had unlimited funds however......
Then there is the placebo effect. If anyone doubts its existence in audiophile-land is just kidding themselves. Quite often I find things sounding better....because they are supposed to..... or because they look awesome.
To sum up, when dealing with audio and the quest for The Absolute Sound, we are dealing with the Human brain. When it comes to the brain, even though we have learned a lot about how it works..... we still have no idea what's REALLY going on up there
I won't be afraid to offend anyone because people seem to pass over my posts all the time anyway I am a very scientifically minded person and thus, place quite a bit of faith in measured performance. That being said, I still do not think the full set of tools exist to turn measured results into 100% predictable subjective results.
I am a Solid-state kind of guy. SETs CAN measure well, but I could not live with a poor-measuring component because I would feel that I would just be lying to myself if I said it sounded terrific.
The other consideration I have with audio is of course cost. Diminishing returns is a real thing, and paying 3x more for what I perceive as some minuscule change is crazy...... if I had unlimited funds however......
Then there is the placebo effect. If anyone doubts its existence in audiophile-land is just kidding themselves. Quite often I find things sounding better....because they are supposed to..... or because they look awesome.
To sum up, when dealing with audio and the quest for The Absolute Sound, we are dealing with the Human brain. When it comes to the brain, even though we have learned a lot about how it works..... we still have no idea what's REALLY going on up there
The DIYer is in a different category all together and is one that I have had very few dealings with. I would still group them with the 2nd group as having the ne plus ultra of commercially available speakers is not their goal, but musical enjoyment at a great value is.
Better is a subjective qualification, a Funny Car can have 3000HP on tap but that doesn't make it better than a Rolls Royce for driving around town. The use of an item determines its fitness IMO.
Absolutely, but have you ever built a speaker with great measuring drivers that just didn't sound good? Measurements are a starting point for good sound but not the end point necessarily. There seems to be things in this field that we cannot measure or more correctly, correlate with sound quality.
Ah!, the argument between accuracy and musicality. Can you have both? Yeah, but in my experience it isn't cheap, nor is it always so clear cut. I'm not referring to grossly distorted products but those that are within the realm of acceptable objective performance. Again, subjectively we agree that products need to meet a certain level of performance but for me I will always err on the side of musical magic over accuracy. Both would be nice but as in any complex system, compromises must be made.
IWalker
Well-known member
I'll tell you my personal views on what I see in subjective/measured performance. I feel I am not in the majority with my views but I doubt I'm alone with them either
I am a very scientifically minded person and thus, place quite a bit of faith in measured performance. That being said, I still do not think the full set of tools exist to turn measured results into 100% predictable subjective results.
I am a Solid-state kind of guy. SETs CAN measure well, but I could not live with a poor-measuring component because I would feel that I would just be lying to myself if I said it sounded terrific.
The other consideration I have with audio is of course cost. Diminishing returns is a real thing, and paying 3x more for what I perceive as some minuscule change is crazy...... if I had unlimited funds however......
Then there is the placebo effect. If anyone doubts its existence in audiophile-land is just kidding themselves. Quite often I find things sounding better....because they are supposed to..... or because they look awesome.
To sum up, when dealing with audio and the quest for The Absolute Sound, we are dealing with the Human brain. When it comes to the brain, even though we have learned a lot about how it works..... we still have no idea what's REALLY going on up there
I agree, both that we can't (or don't usually) fully measure things to the point where it can explain subjective impressions...and also that I'm loathe to leave things that don't measure well the way they are...but I've been known to overrule my measurements with my ears from time to time, if I AB, and really prefer the sound. The DIYer is generally after the best of both worlds, methinks.
IWalker
Well-known member
Ok, well that's where I consider myself, so I'm happy to agree
Though, you have the varying ranges of DIYers...those who have $200 to spend and want something decent, and those who have $5000 to spend and want something unbelievable. I started as the first, but as funds allow, will develop into the second. I doubt I will ever buy another speaker, once I have a little more speaker building experience under my belt....even if the money allows. The key is "value." Some expensive things have a lot of value, as they are top notch. Paying double for dealer markup + double for manufacterer profit + ??? for R&D and "luxury tax" ... just hurts me too much. Yes, you are right...different cars for different purposes. Just as often you would be better served having a different set of speakers for rap than for jazz... When comparing within the same role, however...I think the analogy makes a bit more sense...there are still people that buy Cadillac CTS' even though for the most part there are other cars that are "better" for the same price. But it's a bad analogy anyway...I'm rather hit or miss on them
Not yet...but I haven't built a TON of stuff yet, so I might yet. The few things I've built thus far have far exceeded my expectations.
Yep...talking about tradeoffs, though accuracy and musicality aren't tradeoffs as I'd consider it...it's more, extension, vs efficiency, vs distortion,etc... Getting something with limited tradeoffs is definitely not cheap...but it's a LOT cheaper than "statement" speaker systems' price tags would lead you to believe.
I have no idea why people believe that measured performance has anything to do with how a product sounds. Only your ears can tell you how a product sounds, and they will rarely lie to you. Measurements give you an ability to compare aspects of various products, but really tell you very little about how those products will sound.
This is the point where each of us has to decide what we are truly trying to achieve with our audio system. If absolutely accurate recreation of the source material is what we are trying to achieve, then certain products will stand out as very neutral and transparent to the source. But these will not necessarily "sound" better to our ears. In fact, they may recreate the source exactly, but also sound very lifeless and uninvolving.
For many people, the euphony and distortion of some tube gear (although it is crap according to objective measurements), sounds beautiful and draws them into the music like nothing else. Are their ears lying to them? No. It is just that we aren't always as keen on the accurate reproduction of the source material as we like to think we are. There are other aspects to reproducing a musical signal and the ways our brains interpret sound waves that make some things sound better, even though they are less accurate.
Personally, I listen to my music. I don't take a whole lot of measurements. So give me a musical and involving piece of gear that measures for crap any day of the week over something that measures perfectly but is completely uninvolving.
IWalker
Well-known member
Measurements do tell you a lot about how a driver will sound. It may not be the final word on it...but there are a lot of measurements that aren't just frequency response measurements. For example, a CSD graph will give you an idea of how "fast" a driver's transient response is. Higher harmonic distortion will give a brighter sound, etc.
Also, if I have a speaker that's exciting to listen to, because it measures badly...I obviously don't like the way the music sounded initially, because I'd rather hear it another way. That's a preference...but I don't think most people would stand up and say "my system sound great because it accentuates the highs and has a serious midbass null" they say "wow, this sounds just like I'm THERE!" And if it really does sound like you're there, it first and foremost needs to measure well. Otherwise you're hearing a lot of stuff that isn't, and never was "there."
IWalker
Well-known member
Good to know they use nice drivers in their equipment, huh?
Beat_Dominator
Well-known member
My reasoning is that we know certain distortion levels and types add information to the analog signal, and rarely subtract anything. I just have a personal belief that I want my equipment to add as little as possible to the signal it is fed. When someone says "even order harmonic distortion is pleasing to the ear" I think to myself; that's fine, if the recording is heavy in even order distortion, which I doubt is very common.
All of this is personal preference of course
You’ve hit one of the key issues on the head, is a system additive or subtractive. If adding even order distortion’ is pleasing, then fine. But I wouldn’t qualify it as accurate.
Likewise, missing information (mid-bass suckout for instance) is not accurate, but depending on source content, not as objectionable.
In any case, what I hope most audiophiles would be looking for is accuracy, since that’s what everyone supposedly is gunning for.
But just like in cars, there are so many factors to balance, that one persons accurate is another persons messy, bloated honky horn.
So when we look at the ego associated with the various types of equipment, we see colorations of personal tastes and levels of education (in audio that is). Or as noted elsewhere, as part of a ‘mine is bigger than yours’ inevitable masculine compensation.
Me, I admit I am wrapped up in wanting a very accurate system, as I grew up listening to live Steinway grand piano in the living room as my primary ‘audio’ reference.
But I also admit that I like owning great, and unique audio systems for the sheer elegance of design, and high performance envelope. But like IWalker, I also go towards the DIY as I want max performance for the $’s and am willing to invest personal sweat equity in achieving unique solutions like my center channel or Infinite baffle.
I have other audio buddies with mega-buck systems who openly question my sanity when I describe the process of designing and building these. But they shut up when they hear my rig, as they would have to be deaf to not like the results. Not that they are about to go do anything like what I’ve done, but they have been exposed to the possibility of non-commercial results being better than imagined.
However, they still believe I’m weird. And I refuse to disagree
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
Great Thread !!!!
This thread reminds me of the days when I was a "young buck" reading the very early issues of TAS.
HP and the other writers at that time, had very compelling / thought provoking editorial pieces regarding the subjective judgement (what our ears hear) versus the objective criteria (how the particular hardware piece measured) and how these two very different ways of determining the "musicality" of a particular piece of hardware were / are oftentimes in conflict with each other. The premise of this discussion was inherently centered about the sound of reproduced music and how it compared to the sound of live / unamplified music, read "The Absolute Sound".
I will provide further personal insights / experiences to this thread in the near future. I wish to thank IWalker, Risabet, Beat Dominator, and Rich (whom I find provides comments that are very consistent with my personal perspectives) for your insights to what I consider to be the "nexus" of what we are all trying to achieve in our personal listening environments.
I'm going to end at this time with the following personal observation. Within the context of the TAS standard stated above, I've had the opportunity to listen to the CSO in Chicago, concerts at Davies Hall in San Francisco, and our concert summer series in Jackson, Wyoming. They were all sonically compelling but each venue has their own unique sonic signature.
Thank you gentlemen. I am glad that this forum affords us the opportunity to discuss what I consider to be the "core" issue of our wonderful hobby.
And a closing note to Beat Dominator. I've also felt that my posts have been somewhat ignored but I have personally found your perspective / comments to be very insightful. Thank you.
GG
This thread reminds me of the days when I was a "young buck" reading the very early issues of TAS.
HP and the other writers at that time, had very compelling / thought provoking editorial pieces regarding the subjective judgement (what our ears hear) versus the objective criteria (how the particular hardware piece measured) and how these two very different ways of determining the "musicality" of a particular piece of hardware were / are oftentimes in conflict with each other. The premise of this discussion was inherently centered about the sound of reproduced music and how it compared to the sound of live / unamplified music, read "The Absolute Sound".
I will provide further personal insights / experiences to this thread in the near future. I wish to thank IWalker, Risabet, Beat Dominator, and Rich (whom I find provides comments that are very consistent with my personal perspectives) for your insights to what I consider to be the "nexus" of what we are all trying to achieve in our personal listening environments.
I'm going to end at this time with the following personal observation. Within the context of the TAS standard stated above, I've had the opportunity to listen to the CSO in Chicago, concerts at Davies Hall in San Francisco, and our concert summer series in Jackson, Wyoming. They were all sonically compelling but each venue has their own unique sonic signature.
Thank you gentlemen. I am glad that this forum affords us the opportunity to discuss what I consider to be the "core" issue of our wonderful hobby.
And a closing note to Beat Dominator. I've also felt that my posts have been somewhat ignored but I have personally found your perspective / comments to be very insightful. Thank you.
GG
My reasoning is that we know certain distortion levels and types add information to the analog signal, and rarely subtract anything. I just have a personal belief that I want my equipment to add as little as possible to the signal it is fed. When someone says "even order harmonic distortion is pleasing to the ear" I think to myself; that's fine, if the recording is heavy in even order distortion, which I doubt is very common.
All of this is personal preference of course
I think the point is that any system will add distortion and since that is the case the even order second is preferable to the odd order third. Look back to the distortion spec wars of the late 70's and 80's. Distortion figures were going lower and lower (.0001 THD vs .000001 THD) but the gear sounded like s&%t. This was a case of a false measurement. On paper it was more accurate but in real life it sounded worse. Just listen to a Phase Linear versus an ARC or CJ tube amp from that time and I think you'll agree that measurements don't tell the entire tale.
Pcar928fan
Well-known member
This is a little off the thread topic, but I have a question for you guys that have been around a long time.
One of the first pieces of equipment that got my motor runnin' was the Technics reciever that had both an analog dial and a digital read out. I always like it. I remember it had a logo on the front that said, "New Class A" and they reported REALLY low distortion levels.
You guys already touched on the "on paper" distortion levels but what did they/do they mean about "New Class A"? I think it is pretty clear these bit were NOT TRUE class A powered integrated amp/receivers...
One of the first pieces of equipment that got my motor runnin' was the Technics reciever that had both an analog dial and a digital read out. I always like it. I remember it had a logo on the front that said, "New Class A" and they reported REALLY low distortion levels.
You guys already touched on the "on paper" distortion levels but what did they/do they mean about "New Class A"? I think it is pretty clear these bit were NOT TRUE class A powered integrated amp/receivers...
IWalker
Well-known member
My reasoning is that we know certain distortion levels and types add information to the analog signal, and rarely subtract anything. I just have a personal belief that I want my equipment to add as little as possible to the signal it is fed. When someone says "even order harmonic distortion is pleasing to the ear" I think to myself; that's fine, if the recording is heavy in even order distortion, which I doubt is very common.
All of this is personal preference of course
Any distortion that's added by a speaker or amplifier/component, etc. isn't part of the original recording....because if it was, it'd be part of the F1, not a higher order fundamental. I think the only reason "even order" tends to sound better, is that F2 is generally the only even order we here (cause unless the speaker is terrible, F4 is generally pretty low) and F2 is only 1 octave above F1...which wouldn't skew the "flavor" as much as something 2 octaves up (f3). I could be wrong on that point though. I think all high order distortion (above f2) is considered pretty bad to have, though low F2 is desirable as well.
