Why Do People Come To Computer Audiophile To Display Their Contempt For Audiophiles?

[Albrecht]

Just now, esldude said:

Poor design. 

 

If want an extreme example of resonant cabinets to tune the sound listen to a Zu. 

 

A speaker may of course have a resonant cabinet within reason and sound wonderful.  A better speaker with lesser resonance will sound better.  Using cabinet resonance as a tune to taste measure is poor design methodology.  The resonance must in principle obscure some detail vs one with less resonance even if you like the resulting apparent balance. 

Another might argue Great Design

 

I don't know the Zu speaker: haven't heard it.

""A speaker may of course have a resonant cabinet within reason and sound wonderful.""

Thank you

 

""A better speaker with lesser resonance will sound better."

Of course not, and we can point to this exact discussion because many assert that the very damped Wilson speakers sounds WORSE.

 

"Using cabinet resonance as a tune to taste measure is poor design"

A speaker is designed with the interplay of several components, - including the cabinet materials. Wilson uses several elements in the design of the speaker to get the exact sound that Wilson wants. I am certain that any one person's speculation on whether or not their design is great or poor has no bearing whatsoever on their designs. (Read: they are NOT using cabinet resonance as "tune to taste," - but an important part of working with the driver types, crossovers, etc, to achieve the exact sound they want). B&W experimented with concrete cabinets.

 

Wilson have plenty of owners, (and fans), of their speakers. Many music listening fans are extremely happy with the performance of their systems; in which they regard the Wilsons an important component that have a great design.

Although no Wilson speaker was/is ever "right" for me, - I was pleasantly surprised after hearing them in a large, (hardwood floor space), undamped, with little toe-in, along with a great, high-current, amp: great accuracy.

[christopher3393]

31 minutes ago, esldude said:

One millionth of a watt.  Yes, ONE MILLIONTH of one WATT!

 

The link to the rant about low power.  I think the fellow stated it poorly, but in context of his rant, I believe (perhaps incorrectly) he was referring to listening levels of about 80 db and the low level details some 60 db lower than that. 

 

So we have the 90 db at 1 watt at 1 meter speaker.  Someone noted he needed 4 watts at a distance of 4 meters to get 90 db.  True, if one were outdoors or in an anechoic chamber.  Indoors with reflections it would be somewhat less than that.  Also at 80 db one only needs about 1/3 of a watt.  So yes it is quite likely that in room at 3 or 4 meters one will get about 80 db with a watt or maybe 2 watts or maybe not quite a watt. 

 

So what about 60 db lower?  This is where you have low level air, ambience, and fine detail.  It is these details which can give sense of size, and space and dimensionality of sound.  If amplifiers differ in how this is handled vs high level signals these aspects of listening to good recordings could sound very different. 60 db lower is 1/1000th the voltage and will result in 1/1000th the current which both combine for 1/1,000,000th the power.  So with the above speaker depending on room details we would have 1 millionth of one watt or two watts or perhaps a touch less than a watt. 

 

I also would note I once posted some music clips with noise added at various levels.  I think I put up files that had noise at -40 to -90 db in 10 db steps.  I asked people leave their volume in its usual position and listen to see at which level they could hear the noise.  Most answers were for -70db with some at -60 and one at -80 db.  So those levels which would be something like a millionth or few millionths of a watt are audible.  60 db down is near the surface noise of LPs, it isn't far from the noise floor of some tubed gear if of fairly high power.  I think the near audibility of it is part of the reason these have a bit more air, space and 3D quality for some music. 

 

So yes, really, one millionth of a watt is no hyperbole.  You can hear that level of power over many speakers. 

 

Dennis, what I was boggled by is where Arthur goes from there. Quoting again:

 

"Which audio "tech/guru" or scientist measures what is happening in an amplifier from 100th to 1,000,000th of one watt?

The Answer: Not even one.

This same basic principle holds true for measuring preamplifiers, speakers and everything else. (It is also a very plausible explanation why some components appear to sound better after some "break-in".) Until it is possible to scientifically measure low-level musical information, we will have to trust our imperfect and unscientific ears and let them choose what component has the most 'magic'. "

 

[Ralf11]

Sal, not all guesses are equal

 

an educated guess is usually more valuable than others

 

OTOH, if one has a lot of knowledge of different circuit designs in A & B, then confirmation bias could affect the guess (!)

 

a suitable blind test is always preferable, but not always worth the effort

[semente]

1 hour ago, Albrecht said:

On Accuracy: undefined, - it becomes a moving target. My friend the producer had a very valid argument as to why the Sophia was more accurate. And maybe it is more accurate. Beyond coming to an agreement on the definition of accuracy: the speaker and its measurements don't exist in a vacuum of accuracy or not. The amplification, source, & room also can play a role in making a speaker more accurate. And, that's not even mentioning the recording.

It is why several, and certain speaker and amp manufacturers very strongly advocate certain brands of gear that "perform best" with their components....

And who we are is not static. Accuracy is not static. We LEARN that a recording featuring a Stradivarius is more accurate by hearing and comparing those violins live, and knowing the difference between a Stradivarius  and a Yamaha. And whether or not the recording & the playback gear make the instruments sound right. We don't have "golden ears," - but we do know when a Stradivarius sounds "right."  The best way to know this is to pile up listening experiences....

""Designers are engineers, not artists."

Designers are engineers who build ARTISAN PRODUCTs. Properly combining synergistic components enhances the art.

""The art is in the music."

and the recording. 

 

Accuracy means that what comes out is as close as possible to what comes in, not what your producer friend believes it could be.

The set measurements performed by JA and by the NRC for Soundstage quantify the amount of accuracy for specific parameters.

Since the Wilsons perform worse in most parameters they are objectively less accurate than the Revels.

This is a fact.

If you wish to understand what those measurements mean try one of these links:

 

How We Test Loudspeakers... | Soundstage

http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/test_loudspeakers.htm

 

Measuring Loudspeakers | Stereophile

https://www.stereophile.com/features/99/index.html

 

Loudspeaker Measurements Explained, John Atkinson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j77VKw9Kx6U

 

The Art and Science of High Performance Loudspeaker Design

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLGQnxIP2gE

 

The room plays an important part; you can antecipate to a point how the speaker perform in different rooms by looking at the FR and polar response plots.

 

Cabinet resonance may or may not be audible depending on the frequency, on the amplitude  and width of the peak or peaks, on how fast it decays.

And if we go beyond accuracy, some resonant frequencies are perceived as more unpleasant than others.

The more rigid the cabinet walls, the higher the resonance.

Which one do you find more annoying?

300Hz - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUZ4hUdZ2e8

1000Hz - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yQcXlvccCI

 

 

Cabinet resonance has no effect whatsoever on how a speaker performs in different rooms, except if you listen very far from the speakers and need to increase the volume considerably.

[jabbr]

9 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

OTOH, if one has a lot of knowledge of different circuit designs in A & B, then confirmation bias could affect the guess (!)

 

everything and everyone is biased  

 

I try not to give listening impressions of things I work on for this reason -- that's why third parties are best to confirm. an issue is you need to get a third party interested enough to spend the time to do the confirmation. I think lots of people give a friend or someone else two black boxes with a mark on them to do their own listening. pretty much what @Jud described with the new Regen. I don't know anyone who does formal blinded listening testing in the design phase.

 

diyaudio is great because other people can listen for themselves ... it takes a good amount of work to get a design to the point where someone else can build it and listen.

 

I also think that longer term listening tends to drain confirmation bias (at least for me) ... also one of the reasons to do more advanced measurement is that when you have say 15 variables, then everything starts to sound the same, particularly when different combinations of variables get switched on and off. ... but the sound of the J2 vs the M2 is very apparent ( the J2 uses a Semisouth power JFET, and negative feedback,  the M2 uses a transformer voltage amplification followed by a MOSFET current and no global feedback)

[Foggie]

2 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

Good try Foggie, but no cigar. The facts and logic is clear, your attempt to add veils fails in the light of day.

 

Sure, absolutely.

 

Maybe, maybe not. It will for sure "inferior" technically. Whether that failing is audible falls back to bias controlled listening to deduce.

 

Now your talking about a attempt to correct the speaker-room interface and maybe induce some personal preferences, a different kettle O fish.

Ahem, OK.  I wasn't trying to be clever, make you defensive or trying to change your viewpoint, I could give a rip. 

 

Really was a genuine question out of curiosity since there is no right or wrong viewpoint per se. There can't be, regardless if one thinks so.  No one is going to change people's minds and it would be silly to think so. 

[semente]

49 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

Another might argue Great Design

 

I don't know the Zu speaker: haven't heard it.

""A speaker may of course have a resonant cabinet within reason and sound wonderful.""

Thank you

 

""A better speaker with lesser resonance will sound better."

Of course not, and we can point to this exact discussion because many assert that the very damped Wilson speakers sounds WORSE.

 

"Using cabinet resonance as a tune to taste measure is poor design"

A speaker is designed with the interplay of several components, - including the cabinet materials. Wilson uses several elements in the design of the speaker to get the exact sound that Wilson wants. I am certain that any one person's speculation on whether or not their design is great or poor has no bearing whatsoever on their designs. (Read: they are NOT using cabinet resonance as "tune to taste," - but an important part of working with the driver types, crossovers, etc, to achieve the exact sound they want). B&W experimented with concrete cabinets.

 

Wilson have plenty of owners, (and fans), of their speakers. Many music listening fans are extremely happy with the performance of their systems; in which they regard the Wilsons an important component that have a great design.

Although no Wilson speaker was/is ever "right" for me, - I was pleasantly surprised after hearing them in a large, (hardwood floor space), undamped, with little toe-in, along with a great, high-current, amp: great accuracy.

 

There is nothing to argue; accuracy is well defined, even in speakers.

Of course different topologies have distinct advantages and shortcomings and there is no perfect speaker but for every topology there are better performing speakers and worse performing speakers.

From that perspective, Zu are rubbish.

But of course some people may enjoy them.

 

Accuracy can be measured and the Wilsons don't perform very well in all but one lesser aspect; if this sounds like accuracy then the ears need calibration.

[Foggie]

30 minutes ago, semente said:

Measuring Loudspeakers | Stereophile

https://www.stereophile.com/features/99/index.html

Interesting John says the best speakers in HIS room were the Salon2's (50.05).  Would love a pair of those and no different than me saying "speaker X are the best in my room". 

 

Albrecht was kinda on this line of thinking many pages back which I thought was really spot on.

[semente]

Just now, Foggie said:

Interesting John says the best speakers in HIS room were the Salon2's (50.05).  Would love a pair of those and no different than me saying "speaker X are the best in my room". 

 

It's been a while since I last watched this...

Good for understanding his measurements but beware of his attempt to play down the importance of measurements,  just as one should be sceptic of his conclusions in the measurements page of the magazine where he says that despite it's average measured performance X produced a pleasurable listening experience.

It's the "Audio Relativism" in action. 

[semente]

2 hours ago, Albrecht said:

no right.....

There are speakers that have a more resonant cabinet, - such as many of the fine  Audio Physic speakers that can sound wonderful..... (in the right context). 

What's "right" for one context, - can be wrong in another.

 

Unfortunately "sounding wonderful" is personal and non-transmissible sensation; what is true to you may or may not be valid for someone/anyone else.

It has no relation with accuracy.

 

Recordings should sound wonderful, equipment should not sound at all.

[Albrecht]

39 minutes ago, semente said:

 

There is nothing to argue; accuracy is well defined, even in speakers.

Of course different topologies have distinct advantages and shortcomings and there is no perfect speaker but for every topology there are better performing speakers and worse performing speakers.

From that perspective, Zu are rubbish.

But of course some people may enjoy them.

 

Accuracy can be measured and the Wilsons don't perform very well in all but one lesser aspect; if this sounds like accuracy then the ears need calibration.

""There is nothing to argue; accuracy is well defined, even in speakers.""

NEVER, there is no definition of accuracy. This is proven in that, (as the example we're talking about), Wilson and the Revel are both asserted to be accurate, but they sound totally different, - and then again when placed in certain rooms, with certain amplification and sources.

"Wilsons don't perform very well in all but one lesser aspect"

Your idiosyncratic definition/opinion of performance is not shared... it's cool to speak for yourself here, - but you fall down when you speak for others....

[semente]

6 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

""There is nothing to argue; accuracy is well defined, even in speakers.""

NEVER, there is no definition of accuracy. This is proven in that, (as the example we're talking about), Wilson and the Revel are both asserted to be accurate, but they sound totally different, - and then again when placed in certain rooms, with certain amplification and sources.

 

Both speakers may be perceived as accurate, depending on who is listening, but measurements show otherwise.

This is in the context of accuracy as respect for the recorded signal.

What each audiophile believes to be accuracy, what accuracy sounds like to him, that is a different matter, and one that would make any kind of dialogue impossible; I call it taste.

 

6 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

"Wilsons don't perform very well in all but one lesser aspect"

Your idiosyncratic definition/opinion of performance is not shared... it's cool to speak for yourself here, - but you fall down when you speak for others....

 

I am not speaking for myself, but merely conveying what is expressed in the measurements I posted earlier which show that the Wilsons perform worse than the Revels in all but one parameter.

And the Sophia 2s are some of the best performing or most accurate speakers measurements wise.

[Albrecht]

19 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Unfortunately "sounding wonderful" is personal and non-transmissible sensation; what is true to you may or may not be valid for someone/anyone else.

It has no relation with accuracy.

 

Recordings should sound wonderful, equipment should not sound at all.

Wilson, and my friend, made very valid arguments that the sound of the cymbals was more "true" and "accurate" than the Revels. Recordings and even some genri may sound "right" with different equipment. Some people are only interested in owning, and listening to systems designed around faithfully reproducing a small chamber orchestra. They don't care, "Jadis audio," - for rock or jazz music. If you like a drum kit, - Jadis is the wrong gear for you. It is more accurate AND likely, (maybe even therefore), more pleasing for that particular type of music. Jadis recommends that one should go somewhere else if they want amps that do well with rock.

[semente]

3 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

Wilson, and my friend, made very valid arguments that the sound of the cymbals was more "true" and "accurate" than the Revels. Recordings and even some genri may sound "right" with different equipment. Some people are only interested in owning, and listening to systems designed around faithfully reproducing a small chamber orchestra. They don't care, "Jadis audio," - for rock or jazz music. If you like a drum kit, - Jadis is the wrong gear for you. It is more accurate AND likely, (maybe even therefore), more pleasing for that particular type of music. Jadis recommends that one should go somewhere else if they want amps that do well with rock.

 

I listened to a Jadis integrated once and found its sound noticeably coloured.

Pleasing perhaps, to some, but not accurate.

[Foggie]

On 6/21/2017 at 10:44 AM, Albrecht said:

The act of writing, recording, & playing back music is A SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE. There is no certainty, no right, no wrong. There's no universalizable objective argument that a Yamaha Violin is worse sounding than a Stradivarius. There's no objective argument that a tubed Manley Stingray sounds better than a Mark Levinson 383, or even any different through a pair of NHT stand-mount speakers. There's no objective argument that Frank Zappa is any "better" than Barry Manilow. 

Even the individual choices of parts are subjective choices, do Vishay resistors with a much tighter tolerance rate allow the overall amplifier or speaker to "sound better?" Why does Gilbert of Blue Circle pour his own capacitors?

We all have differing opinions & perspectives on what is "good." What is the only way to tell if the sound of a Stradivarius is better than a Yamaha?  What is the best way to tell if two different speaker cables cause the same speaker to sound "different?"

 

Jabbr put it quite well when he said that measurements help us explain what we heard during the listening experience/tests.

Chris also wrote something really important that I took to heart, - you are not going to change anyone's mind about anything here.

This is what I was referring to and thought it was spot on.  Brilliant actually.  Its not a audiophile/objective/subjective thing.  For sure a lot at play and is/can be very complex, but....its happy hr now:)

[Albrecht]

1 minute ago, semente said:

 

Both speakers may be perceived as accurate, depending on who is listening, but measurements show otherwise.

This is in the context of accuracy as respect for the recorded signal.

What each audiophile believes to be accuracy, what accuracy sounds like to him, that is a different matter, and one that would make any kind of dialogue impossible.

 

 

I am not speaking for myself, but merely conveying what is expressed in the measurements I posted earlier which show that the Wilsons perform worse than the Revels in all but one parameter.

And the Sophia 2s are some of the best performing or most accurate speakers measurements wise.

 

1 minute ago, semente said:

 

Both speakers may be perceived as accurate, depending on who is listening, but measurements show otherwise.

This is in the context of accuracy as respect for the recorded signal.

What each audiophile believes to be accuracy, what accuracy sounds like to him, that is a different matter, and one that would make any kind of dialogue impossible.

 

 

I am not speaking for myself, but merely conveying what is expressed in the measurements I posted earlier which show that the Wilsons perform worse than the Revels in all but one parameter.

And the Sophia 2s are some of the best performing or most accurate speakers measurements wise.

""I am not speaking for myself, but merely conveying what is expressed in the measurements"

I am afraid that you are. The measurements are not a good reflection (performance) of the sound of the entire system. Taking into account the room, the amps, etc.. Performance is measured by the listener's judgement. No measurement can tell you if a Stradivarius sounds true, or even elucidates the recognizable difference between it and a Yamaha. Obviously, Wilson lovers the sound of their speakers, and are happy with the measurements. If someone has an OPINION that a certain measurement is poor, - then they assert that it is not relevant to the overall great quality of the sound of the system.

 

""What each audiophile believes to be accuracy, what accuracy sounds like to him, that is a different matter, and one that would make any kind of dialogue impossible.""

It makes it more challenging, certainly: because of what i wrote earlier when I said that our notion of accuracy is not static, and changes over time, and it changes in light of experience. There is enough of a basis of a dialogue that will yield a certain consensus through shared experiences. Such is the case and basis when you sit down with your friend and listen and say that those cymbals sound more true, and more like live.

 

 

 

[Albrecht]

7 minutes ago, semente said:

 

I listened to a Jadis integrated once and found its sound noticeably coloured.

Pleasing perhaps, to some, but not accurate.

I hear you, respect, & understand.

My thoughts were that these are designed well for what they were intended. I was told that they were designed for Tchaikovsky concertos. It made great sense. They sounded accurate and dead on for violin concertos. While I was listening, - I thought to myself, - (this combo of amps and speakers), - {Giant BIG HORNS}, - would SUCK for the Clash and Topper Headon's drum kit. I thought that they would SUCK for the driving, fast, super-low-bass of Orbital.

But damn, Tchaikovsky sounded AWESOME...

[semente]

25 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

 

""I am not speaking for myself, but merely conveying what is expressed in the measurements"

I am afraid that you are. The measurements are not a good reflection (performance) of the sound of the entire system. Taking into account the room, the amps, etc.. Performance is measured by the listener's judgement. No measurement can tell you if a Stradivarius sounds true, or even elucidates the recognizable difference between it and a Yamaha. Obviously, Wilson lovers the sound of their speakers, and are happy with the measurements. If someone has an OPINION that a certain measurement is poor, - then they assert that it is not relevant to the overall great quality of the sound of the system.

 

You are listening to and measuring a recording of a Stradivarius, not to a Stradivarius.

The measurements will tell you if the system or the speakers are reproducing the recording accurately, your ears may be able to tell if it sounds realistic but not really assess how accurate is the reproduction of the recording.

 

Wilson lovers love Wilsons more than accuracy.

For me hi-fi is just a tool to reproduce music; I love my stereo equipment as much as I love a screwdriver or a saucepan.

I don't get hung up on gear, brands, designers, gurus; I don't even feel any kind of  owner's pride...

 

25 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

""What each audiophile believes to be accuracy, what accuracy sounds like to him, that is a different matter, and one that would make any kind of dialogue impossible.""

 

It makes it more challenging, certainly: because of what i wrote earlier when I said that our notion of accuracy is not static, and changes over time, and it changes in light of experience. There is enough of a basis of a dialogue that will yield a certain consensus through shared experiences. Such is the case and basis when you sit down with your friend and listen and say that those cymbals sound more true, and more like live.

 

My point exactly: our notion of accuracy is not static, it's biased and changes with time.

 

Measurements are unbiased and repeatable.

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

I hear you, respect, & understand.

My thoughts were that these are designed well for what they were intended. I was told that they were designed for Tchaikovsky concertos. It made great sense. They sounded accurate and dead on for violin concertos. While I was listening, - I thought to myself, - (this combo of amps and speakers), - {Giant BIG HORNS}, - would SUCK for the Clash and Topper Headon's drum kit. I thought that they would SUCK for the driving, fast, super-low-bass of Orbital.

But damn, Tchaikovsky sounded AWESOME...

Optimising for violins could reasonably come at the expense of accuracy at frequencies not produced by violins, such as deep bass. In the extreme, an actual violin is superb at reproducing violin music but terrible at just about everything else.

[Albrecht]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

Optimising for violins could reasonably come at the expense of accuracy at frequencies not produced by violins, such as deep bass. In the extreme, an actual violin is superb at reproducing violin music but terrible at just about everything else.

Makes sense.

[Albrecht]

15 minutes ago, semente said:

 

You are listening to and measuring a recording of a Stradivarius, not to a Stradivarius.

The measurements will tell you if the system or the speakers are reproducing the recording accurately, your ears may be able to tell if it sounds realistic but not assess accuracy.

 

Wilson lovers love Wilsons more than accuracy.

For me hi-fi is just a tool to reproduce music; I love my stereo equipment as much as I love a screwdriver or a saucepan.

I don't get hung up on gear, brands, designers, gurus; I don't even feel any kind of  owner's pride...

 

 

My point exactly: our notion of accuracy is not static, it's biased and changes with time.

 

Measurements are unbiased and repeatable.

"You are listening to and measuring a recording of a Stradivarius, not to a Stradivarius."

Of course, I don't understand the point, - People are judging the sound and making a judgement to whether or not that instrument sounds "true." As listeners to recordings, we are forced to listen to the recordings. Sure, - there can be bad recordings where the Stradivarius doesn't sound any different than a Yamaha: a given.

"The measurements will tell you if the system or the speakers are reproducing the recording accurately,""

NEVER EVER.. not the speakers alone...  and that is what I am saying. The measurements are bad at that, - because they in no way reflect the sum total of the combination of the room, associated gear, etc. The overall "accuracy" of the recording and true-ness of the instruments is a result of the sum-total of all of the gear and the room, and the learned expertise of the listener.

The speaker that has a slight volume drop in the upper mids, sounds much different with an amp that has a little boost in the upper mids. (Such a pairing will in no way be reflected in the, {as you might call poor}, measurements of the speaker).

 

I am a musician/songwriter, and I have pretty good idea of what a 1968 Rickenbacker 4001 bass sounds like. But that doesn't mean that I'm not surprised by some EQ, or some effect.

 

"Measurements are unbiased and repeatable."

But not reflective of the overall "big picture." Plus, - measurements CAN BE biased, - as we've seen with Trolls like Archimago, - who does non-detailed & cursory measurements on cheap and inaccurate measuring equipment, non comparative measurements, with a limited sampling that are designed to achieve a certain biased conclusion.

""For me hi-fi is just a tool to reproduce music; I love my stereo equipment as much as I love a screwdriver or a saucepan.""

That makes me sad. I think that it's possible to appreciate the art, and the equipment that enhances it. Clearly to you, some playback gear is better than others. It's unfortunate that you do not appreciate the "tools" that make what is hoped a highly emotional experience, even more emotional! I really like Peter Gabriel's music. I really like that he cares about enhancing it by making great quality recordings. I really appreciate the equipment that enhances it even further. I also really like Peter Gabriel in the car, on my iPhone, in the kitchen, and in the bedroom system..... But I enjoy it more on the big, main, system.

[mmerrill99]

3 hours ago, semente said:

 

Unfortunately "sounding wonderful" is personal and non-transmissible sensation; what is true to you may or may not be valid for someone/anyone else.

It has no relation with accuracy.

 

Recordings should sound wonderful, equipment should not sound at all.

Toole's test of loudspeaker preferences showed that "better" is pretty much universal & they correlated this "better" with speaker measurements (I'm not saying that this is the last word on speakers, btw - it's just one data point that  correlates to better sound)

 

I don't think your generalization of impressions being "individualized" is necessarily correct.

Why wouldn't accuracy result in "sounding wonderful"?

 

Yes, equipment should not sound at all (or not interfere with our perception of the sound) but unfortunately this rarely happens.

[mmerrill99]

2 hours ago, Albrecht said:

"What each audiophile believes to be accuracy, what accuracy sounds like to him, that is a different matter, and one that would make any kind of dialogue impossible.""

It makes it more challenging, certainly: because of what i wrote earlier when I said that our notion of accuracy is not static, and changes over time, and it changes in light of experience. There is enough of a basis of a dialogue that will yield a certain consensus through shared experiences. Such is the case and basis when you sit down with your friend and listen and say that those cymbals sound more true, and more like live.

I think what is being confused here is how we describe & judge the degrees of inaccuracy. If we hear a live sound we don't judge it's accuracy - it's not a notion that changes over time.

 

The issue with audio reproduction is that we are judging a facsimile in reference to our internal patterns of real sounds. Again we may find some playback systems get some parts of this correct but other not & other systems get a different mixture of elements correct - I think this is what you mean by our notion of accuracy changes over time - the more good systems we hear the more we can begin to identify what parts are right & when we hear a new system that gets more of these elements correct, we say it's more accurate. I guess our 'notion' of accuracy is changing by this exposure & education to different systems but we are still always comparing it to our model of "real sounds"    

[mmerrill99]

Quote

Quote

"Measurements are unbiased and repeatable."

 

This is a great myth unfortunately propagated by many

 

What measurements to perform, how they are executed, what measurement equipment used, what test signals are used & how the results are interpreted are just some of the subjective aspects of 'measurements'

[fas42]

15 hours ago, semente said:

 

If you are looking for a wide sweet spot the answer is:

 

 

Nope. A wide sweet spot happens automatically if the sound exiting the speaker drivers is sufficiently low in distortion - this has been my area of interest in audio for decades. Gimmicks like those speakers are just an aid for getting the brain to slip into registering a certain "illusion"; the most satisfactory approach is getting the raw sound being projected into the room to be of sufficient quality.