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

[Albrecht]

12 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Despite all the talk, no one has approached the question about how one would actually predict accuracy based on measurements ... I don't mean "you could do this ... handwave" ... I mean the actual distinctions that a person can make within minutes by listening.

 

I didn't mean to drag Stereophile into this, aside from the fact that the measurements given tell us nothing that would actually answer the question.

 

AFAIK, the actual amp designers use a combination of researching parts specs, modeling, building & measuring as well as listening. No one has given me an iota of convincing reason why I shouldn't similarly do research including read reviews and lookup measurements, and then actually listen before purchasing.

 

Without getting into a bunch of prose, I consider the "J2" more accurate and this was apparent after listening for a few minutes and this has been borne out over time. I felt no inclination to do measurements to prove this to myself. Now if I were building one or the other and the sound wasn't identical to the real thing then yes I would do measurements.

Nice....

Of course, it's the anti-audiophile trolls whose goal is to argue on the internet; read about others (poor tests) measuring results. Then, extrapolate that to the/a whole system in the room.

No proof will ever be adequate for them, as they will never, ever, in their life allow themselves to sit down in front of a system or enter the gates of CES or any other "event" or test.  (It becomes a naysaying religion).

And back to Jud's OP; the answer is trolling, and the release of their anger & frustration that they have pent up from their daily life... Chris is correct in that no one will convince anyone of anything, - so they turn to sarcastic, generalized, insults, - as direct ones are not permitted. This becomes a very thin line: as this is 98% of an audiophile site, - a brief glance at the review list, or of the items discussed in the forums reflects questions & reviews about the products and people who want to enhance the recorded event listening experience.

 

[Albrecht]

On 6/29/2017 at 1:32 AM, semente said:

 

I've listened to quite a few Wilsons and my impressions correlated quite well with the measurements.

 

Speaker designers which "take measurements only after they love the sound, and the speaker sounds exactly like they want it to" generally don't take measurements at all and their speakers are not exactly accurate transducers (i. e.  Zu). Some are actually quite bad.

I think Wilson wants you to believe his designs are made by ear but it's probably just marketing. And the poor measurements are the result of his design choices, not his listening impressions. Yes, he went to Vienna and blah, blah, blah, he was struck by lightning and the Gods spoke and he had a vision... Really. 

""I've listened to quite a few Wilsons and my impressions correlated quite well with the measurements.""

Really? I am glad that you have done some listening, and I am pleasantly surprised. But I am also surprised that you found the measurements correlate with your impressions. Have you listened to them with a variety of amps? Have you listened to them in different positions? I do not think that Wilsons are that great of a speaker, and would not be right for me personally. But I did use them as an example of a speaker "character" that does vary with different amplification, (high current vs not; some stereotypical tube sound vs Solid State, etc), & in different rooms, with different positioning variations.

"" And the poor measurements are the result of his design choices""

What YOU may call "poor" is just your subjective, idiosyncratic, & relatively (or possibly) unshared viewpoint. Of course, Wilson speakers sound EXACTLY how Wilson wants them to. Their unique cabinetry is designed to perform a certain way, in a certain context, EXACTLY how they intended: and is an important part of how the speaker sounds. If you or i don't like them, tough, we can go buy something else.

""generally don't take measurements at all""

I would find that assumption to have little veracity: if for nothing else, corroboratory verification for duplication. I know for certain that Bobby of Merlin ran through a pretty extensive "before & after pair" matching routine during the build process.

[Albrecht]

6 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Let's compare the Wilson Sophia 3 with the similarly priced 3-way Revel Ultima Studio 2:

 

Cabinet resonances

 

Listening window frequency response

 

Lateral response

 

Waterfall

 

I won't have to share my "subjective, idiosyncratic, & relatively (or possibly) unshared viewpoint" because the graphs speak for themselves...

Nope...

The conclusions drawn here can mean different things in a different situation. Is a less resonant cabinet "better" than a more resonant one? The answer is, it is contingent on the room. One of these speaker's is going to be much better in a bigger, live, room.

[Albrecht]

15 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Ricardo has heard the Wilsons - Albrecht, have you heard the Revel Ultimas?  Perhaps you will like them.

hi,

 

Of course. I like them much better than the Wilsons. My friend, - who has heard them both, - loves the Sophia and says it's more accurate, - and he's a recording engineer/producer. I think that he's daft. But he also owns the Aerial 20. He agrees that the Aerial 20 is way too bass heavy, - but he owns them to get more bass at extremely low volume. He intentionally purchased a $10,000+ speaker expressly for it's very limited (all-around" capabilities, and this somewhat, 1 dimensional aspect.

[Albrecht]

18 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Of all the measured parameters you picked the only one where the Wilsons performed better...and probably the least important one.

You're not a professional audio reviewer by any chance, are you?

"and probably the least important one."

I don't know: cabinet resonances are very important. I am not sure that it's a good idea to pick apart the various elements of the speaker, - given that the speaker sounds and measures exactly like the designer wants.

"You're not a professional audio reviewer by any chance, are you?"

LOL. You're not a speaker builder by any chance, are you?

 

[Albrecht]

Just now, semente said:

 

If the designer is not interested in accurate reproduction then I don't care about what he wants; to me he isn't even a good designer, just an audio tailor.

I don't buy hi-fi equipment because it sounds the way some designer wants it to.

Designers are engineers, not artists.

The art is in the music.

First, - FWIW, - I am not including you in the "anti-audiophile" group.

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. 

[Albrecht]

Just now, esldude said:

Bzzzzzzzzt!   Wrong!

 

Yes a less resonant cabinet is better.  If one by happenstance results in a happy coincidence of apparent improvement via resonance, it still is a less good design. 

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.

[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.

[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....

[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.

[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...

[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.