Jump to content
sphinxsix

Audiophile Jokes and Anecdotes.

Recommended Posts

On 5/29/2020 at 1:26 AM, Digi&Analog Fan said:

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


Well, in the case of my Wilson Audio Sasha II’s, they’re set for someone sitting 9’6” away whose ears are 40 1/2 inches above the floor. 😬

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Digi&Analog Fan said:

as a 1 inch tweeter obviously has faster response time than a 5 inch midrange

Why do you think that?


Kal Rubinson

Music in the Round

Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2020 at 7:26 AM, Digi&Analog Fan said:

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." 

 

As strange as it may sound, different speakers change the way they sound to a different degree in correlation with the change of the listener's ears height. With the ones I use the effect is among the strongest ones I've ever heard. Maybe the reason is that their time/phase alignment is simply top notch. Their maker used to pay lots of attention to this aspect of performance, he even used the term 'point source' in this regard (despite the fact that mine are 4-way speakers). Even more interesting is the fact that they sound best when the listener's ears are on the midrange driver level (usually it's the tweeter height). They are quite tall so they were clearly designed to be listened to in that way, cause in case of an average man height of 180cm it would be even very difficult to find the right armchair. Now the part that qualifies somewhere between the 'Audiophile anecdotes' and 'Tweaks' threads. Since my ears were much to low while sitting in my 'listening armchair' (the most comfortable one from about 50 I tried back in the 90's!) and since the difference in SQ was so distinct depending on my ears height, I had taken my beloved armchair to a carpenter and asked him to make a mechanism allowing for a quick, simple change of its height of a little less than 10cm for which I paid almost as much as for the armchair itself. Anyway I still rank the tweak's SQ improvement to cost ratio very (nomen omen) high x-D


What’s true of all the evils in the world is true of plague as well.
It helps men to rise above themselves.
 
  ―  Albert Camus, The Plague.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Digi&Analog Fan said:

I think 1 inch tweeters would generally be faster responding by having less mass than drivers 5 times their size.

But they are likely to be handling different frequencies and have different magnet assemblies, so the mass should not be a relevant factor.

 


Kal Rubinson

Music in the Round

Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Digi&Analog Fan said:

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. 

 

There are some 12 and 13 in woofers that are really very fast. The application (electronic and acoustic design) also matters.

 


What’s true of all the evils in the world is true of plague as well.
It helps men to rise above themselves.
 
  ―  Albert Camus, The Plague.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Superdad said:

I come to this thread for the jokes and anecdotes.  What happened? :o:P

 

As the OP I'm ok with derailing this thread in every possible way B|

The only guarantee of finding new jokes and anecdotes is posting them first :P

 


What’s true of all the evils in the world is true of plague as well.
It helps men to rise above themselves.
 
  ―  Albert Camus, The Plague.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Digi&Analog Fan said:

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

You got the H and the Q but left out the D for the Decca-Kelly Ribbon tweeter. 😎


Kal Rubinson

Music in the Round

Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Superdad said:

I come to this thread for the jokes and anecdotes.  What happened? :o:P


I might be the one who derailed the thread. Digi&Analog Fan told a joke where the punchline was what size listener the speakers were designed for and I responded with the size of the listener my adjustable Wilson speakers are set for. The thread went off topic from there. Sorry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2020 at 6:21 AM, Kal Rubinson said:

My daughter's MB S95 is faster than my Audi A4. 

And the rocket is faster than an arrow.🤣

I agree that size does not matter.


MetalNuts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Digi&Analog Fan said:

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.

Yes, only if you are assuming that the tweeter, mid and bass consume the same power then, the analogy is wrong but what is the fact?  Do the tweeter, mid and bass have different power requirement?


MetalNuts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...