Audiophile Jokes and Anecdotes.

[Digi&Analog Fan]

Now with the warm temperatures of summer coming on, it's open  windows weather. The few percent of us audiophiles whose sound can fool people into thinking "there are real musicians playing in there!" It opens up infinite possibilities for not only showing off, but for practical jokes. Anything from taking the garbage out in one hand with drum sticks in the other to "I didn't know you personally know David Lee Roth." What are some things you can think of?" Are groupies possible?

[Digi&Analog Fan]

I heard about one woman back in the 1960s that was a classical music conductor groupie. She dearly wanted to, but was never able to meet Leopold Stokowski. That was her fantasy. She met my uncle one time and he thought it would be good to have a few drinks with her. My uncle had somewhat above average length hair. She had a spray can with her and she kept wanting to mess up his hair and then spray it white. Like Leopold's. He had to leave.

 

 There was guy, that for years and years was advertising in an audio magazine for each and every issue, in the classifieds, looking for a lady who enjoyed classical music. The fact that it ran for so many years probably meant that he was having trouble finding what he was looking for. Classifieds don't usually pull that well. That's what I need. I can entertain someone with anything from Bach to Rock (and roll). Woman do look jaw dropping amazed when they hear a system like one of my systems. They don't even have to be an audiophile or know anything about audio, when something is so instinctively "right," they know it.

[Digi&Analog Fan]

The only equipment I like that's  highly used is vintage audio equipment.

[Digi&Analog Fan]

Remember linear phase and phase aligned speakers? The idea was to place the speakers tweeter further back in or on the cabinet, so their acoustic centers where the sound comes from, would be equidistant to the listeners ears and produce simultaneous arrival times. There was a short guy and a very tall guy  both sitting in chairs auditioning the phase aligned speakers. One of the guys suddenly remarked, "I just thought of something, if you're a foot taller than me, the tweeter on top is way closer to your ears than to mine. My ears are lower down and closer to the midrange driver than yours. I'm hearing the midrange first and then the tweeter and you're hearing the tweeter first and then the midrange."

 

The other guy said.  "Yeah, when the salesman comes back in, lets ask him what size of person these speakers were designed for anyway." 

[Digi&Analog Fan]

It would seem to me that to have truly simultaneous arrival times between the tweeter and midrange, the tweeter would have to be moved back further still, as a 1 inch tweeter obviously has faster response time than a 5 inch midrange. If you looked at phase aligned speakers from the side, the acoustic centers of the drivers were supposed to be in a straight line, up and down, from tweeter to woofer. It doesn't make perfect sense to me, but I think I liked the sound of phase aligned speakers anyway. Even the Japanese at times were phase aligning speakers for a while, as far back as the 1970s. Some Japanese speakers now, are really good, and there were at least some back then to be taken real seriously.  

[Digi&Analog Fan]

I think 1 inch tweeters would generally be faster responding by having less mass than drivers 5 times their size. I know there could be exceptions to the rule. One of the fastest dome tweeters I ever owned with the best transient articulation, was an older model top of the line Scanspeak. It must have had one great magnet in back as it weighad more than some woofers I have encountered, being only a one inch dome tweeter. The old Sony bio-cellulose tweeter made from bacterial matter, from their La Voce series is very fast also.

[Digi&Analog Fan]

I just assume they would be faster because it would be logical that something smaller with less mass would tend to have faster acceleration time and I think that's what I subjectively tend to hear. Also, even though a tweeter is covering different frequencies, there is much overlapping of an instruments harmonic overtone structure (which can span many octaves, between tweeter and midrange), which I always view as a "team". I used to have equipment that got too dark sounding after playing about 3 records in a row. It would lose its crispness and sparkle and even the bass guitar lines, way below in frequency sounded way less articulated over it. Even mid to upper bass transients rely on a bit of crispness for their greatest articulation.

 

 The vintage speaker company EPI always said that they would not ever consider using anything above an 8 inch woofer in their speakers, as they felt it would not be ideal for bass transient response. Although I think they did use a passive radiator "once" that might have been slightly bigger than that. Some modern companies like Totem tend to favor smaller woofers usually also. I like the sound of electric bass guitar, and sounding light, fleet, well articulated, and effortless in what I call the "fancy range" is what I really enjoy, much more than sheer oomph. Speakers with huge woofers usually make the bass guitar sound a little too heavy in my favorite range, and they can also make the midrange sound too dark and murky which works at odds with transparency. As far as my personal sonic listening preferences, there is a fine line between warmth and transparency, that a little too much in either way really destroys it. 

[Digi&Analog Fan]

I think we all do a little "time binding". Time binding is a term used by Alfred Korzybski back in the 1940's in his controversial work and book. He is considered the founder of General Semantics. Time binding means that each new generation of scientists, instead of starting from scratch, they accept presumed assumptions of former generations of the greatest scientists to be so, and build on their work. Every so often a presumed assumption (often from the previous generation of scientists) is found to be wrong. Which requires re-thinking  by the current scientists, with the implication not to use that "wrong" presumed assumption in their work. Because if you start out with an assumption that is wrong, even if your reasoning could be perfect from there, you will end up with a wrong conclusion. Based on generations of experience by other people, many of which were considered the best audio "scientists" of all time, most audiophiles (as myself) are under the impression that generally smaller drivers with way less mass, respond faster than larger mass drivers. I am not an expert on large woofers. Many modern systems with large woofers have been described as "fast" with good transient response. I have no reason to doubt this. I just think that I believe what most serious audiophiles believe, including experts on DIY forums, that smaller drivers are generally faster and more responsive than ones many times their size. That seems to be the general way things work in life, whether it be a speed contest between a bus and a Ferrari, a very fat person and a thin in shape person etc. Most people know where their bets would lie. Notwithstanding the old SNL John Belushi commercial where he is a track champion training on and promoting the eating of large quantities of donuts 

 

 My first speaker I built from scratch (did purchase the drivers) and on my first try I achieved incredibly tuneful and tight bass, by virtually any standard. Don't ask me what the cabinet was shaped like. Being me, I wasun't about to do anything conventional, or miss the opportunity of trying something really unique. I like to think out of the box and challenge presumed assumptions. But only up to a point that's reasonable.

[Digi&Analog Fan]

I wasn't the one to alter the flow, but didn't you like the Jon Belushi analogy? Plus it could be viewed as funny that such a scholarly discussion on transient response should make its way onto here.

[Digi&Analog Fan]

Not that I'm anywhere near out of material, but this kind of correlates with "size" and its expectations.True story by the way.

 

 Many years ago I put an ad in the cities newpaers classified to sell a pair of speakers. Someone called me on the phone and I gave them directions to my house. I left the back door open (remember those days) and a petite youngish woman led a larger middle aged man through the door and into my living room. Her one hand was on his forearm and her other hand was higher up near his shoulder. He was obviously blind. I said would you like a demonstration? I can turn them on. The guy politely shook his head no as the girl uninterruptably led him toward the speaker. He reached over and felt the speaker, sizing it up with his hands from every conceivable angle, and then he stood up and shook his head to the girl "no" and the girl helped him turn around, back toward the door. "Only a hundred bucks" I said, but they kept walking and went out the door. I watched them leave and sat back on my couch. Something bothered me. There was something wrong that I couldn't put my finger on, that I couldn't figure out. Then it dawned on me and hit me like a ton of bricks. She led him into the drivers seat, and she went around to the passenger seat.... Many years later, in another state, I did see a blind man riding a ten speed bike on the sidewalk. His cane was rapidly  going back and forth to beat sixty. 

[Digi&Analog Fan]

There was something called the Levinson HQD System years ago. Ultra expensive for its time. It combined, among other things stacked Quad 57 electrostatics with if I remember correctly, 24 inch Hartley subwoofers. Were the huge subs able to keep up with the fast electrostats? Or were they ridiculously lagging behind? Never heard it, maybe some of you have. The biggest sounding amps I ever heard, all had exceptionally big transformers. That's one I am more sure about. Any exception, equipment wise to that observation?

[Digi&Analog Fan]

Re: Kal.Respectfully, If you go back and read my wording, I said the HQD system combined stacked Quad 57 speakers with 24 inch Hartley subwoofers "among other things." The "among other things" driver wise, being the Decca tweeters, which were meant to increase dispersion, among other things. I am known to have thoroughness like Columbo and Roseanne Rosannadanna combined. There is "at least" one  thread on the internet from long ago where Stereophile actually re-visits and  listens to the HQD system. They mention that the system has a not ideal warmth peak caused by stacking the Quad 57 speakers and they show graphs, 48 inches of woofer probably had something to do with that too. It is not only the Quads though. I have experimented lots with stacking many different dynamic speakers through the years and there has not been one single time that the sound did not suddenly pick up loads of warmth, (and bass), including bass deepness. That's just what the doctor ordered sometimes, but I have at other times wished that the frequency response could just stay the same and just make the predictable gains in instrument and image size, decreased distortion from more drivers sharing the volume and breezing, and increased dynamic range and ease. The soundstage depth always improves also; not just image height. Stacking bookshelf speakers in particular, can be a very good thing.  

 

 Re: the guy with Wilson speakers with adjustable height. I actually thought you were kidding. I always have something under my speakers, and the things have various thickness and produce different heights.

[Digi&Analog Fan]

Lets put it this way. If there was a 15 inch woofer that sounded somewhat fast, and if there was a 7 inch woofer designed by the same person, using the same principles and quality of materials, and if there was a huge odds board like at the Kentucky Derby; the odds board would be lit up in favor of the smaller woofer being faster because of less moving mass...

 

 I guess just how fast of a rise time a driver has, compared to other drivers, should be left up to accurate thinking audiophiles who've listened to and personally compared hundreds of different sized drivers. Those kind of people are out there. Electrostatics and planar speakers are universally considered faster than dynamic drivers because of the very light thin material they use to produce sound. Of course they might do other things not to someone's liking,, but they are faster: mainly because of less moving mass. Its been pretty much universal knowledge "since at least the 1950's". The first electrostatics transducer was invented, well over 100 years ago. They are advanced and they are fast.

[Digi&Analog Fan]

The rocket WOULD be faster than the arrow, but the arrow doesn't have the help of thrust from a BE-3 rocket engine on its behind. A seriously terrible analogy.

[Digi&Analog Fan]

Power has nothing whatsoever to do with it; at all !!   A driver has a rise time capability that's only so fast and if given more power the driver will get louder; but same slow poke or same speedster. Simple as that. Does not affect a thing, in the way of speed. It is what it is. Lowered moving mass somewhere is why we have stats/planers, berrylium, titanium, drivers etc.,ribbon drivers, Walsh drivers, moving coil cartridges, speakers with smaller twin woofers...the list goes on. That lower mass drivers have rise time advantages over higher mass drivers is not a "radical new idea". It was an accepted thing long before we, or any of any of our parents were born. Why in the world "wouldn't" something lighter have "overcoming inertia advantages". I even notice that "people" who have more mass, are usually slower and have more problems overcoming inertia.

 

 So far I have stuck with dynamic speakers. I might like the slight wood coloration that most box speakers have to a more or lesser degree, and I think the best of them are fast enough. But if I ever went to stats, with that kind of instantaneous stop and start capability, would I ever be able to go back if I missed some of the older type speakers quality?