ASR Audio Science Review forum YouTube Channel

[Summit]

15 hours ago, sphinxsix said:

  

 

 

No need to, he lists it openly: 

 

Mark Levinson amplifiers and DAC.

Revel Salon 2 Speakers

Berkeley Alpha USB->AES/EBU converter

Windows 10, silent, custom PC music server

Roon Music Management

Tidal Music Streaming   

 

(it's a pretty serious gear, I'm quite surprised the guy can't hear eg differences between cables on this system..)

 

I don't know the ASR site, just been checking Amir's speakers review list. This is nonsense. Not only for me - for him as well, although he probably doesn't know it yet.

I'm taking into account the KRK Rokit 5 which review I posted to here, JBL 305 and Adam Audio T5V which I prefered out of these three. 

BTW Amir also liked them a lot and wrote in their review: 'Really, I live for days like this. Discovering a budget speaker that exceeds your expectations and produces great sound with almost no faults.' IMO he is right - these are really good speakers in their very low price range. They are also quite forgiving as far the quality of of components connected to them is regarded and even for such 'killer' formats like mp3 which on my main system is simply unlistenable. They do everything I expected my 'desktop' speakers to do. 

And to KRKs, JBLs and AAs I will add ...Kef Ls50 which I and I believe also many here as well know quite well. Still very good in their price range (4-5 x more expensive than the earlier mentioned transducers) - IMO of course but I'm sure many will agree.

Here comes the nonsense part.

The KRK's get the score of 3.6 according to Amir and I'm ok with that - they were IMO the worst of the three active speakers I compared with each other. Adam Audios which  both me and Amir preferred to JBLs get 4.2 points. I might be ok with that if it wasn't for the fact that the JBLs get 4.6 points... This is the moment in which he clearly shows he prefers speakers with the lower score - AAs..

But we are only half way into the nonsense at this point, cause..

..Kef LS50 which are absolutely and definitely speakers offering much higher sound quality than any of the three mentioned earlier... also get 4.6 points - just like JBLs... 

In addition Kali LP6 (which I haven't heard and Amir prefered much more AAs to them - check the review and his comparisons also with JBLs) costing ..$150 get ...5.2 Audio Science Review points which means they should sound even better than Kefs..

What does it prove.? It proves clearly there is absolutely no correlation between Amir's measurements and sound quality, even sound quality subjectively perceived by Amir.

I think it also shows why in my very first post here I wrote:

 

 

Thank you, for me the topics of both Audio Science and their 'Reviews' are closed 

 

 

 

 

Yep I have a bit of a hard time believing in people who owns TOTL gear themselves but who have as a "motto" that there is no SQ difference if it can't also be measured. Same with the boss at Volvo who owns a BMW. It gets worse if we add motto number 2, which stipulate that if something still measures better than a certain measurement level (which is said to correspond to human hearing), it doesn't matter any way. A classic moment 22.

[Summit]

I like the Genelec 8341A and think they are hard to beat for what they cost. 

[Summit]

8 hours ago, asdf1000 said:

 

 

By going into subjective territory can you see the silly path you've taken this discussion 😃

 

The resonant peak of metal dome tweeters outside audible band makes patches come off your teeth.

 

But the metal driver Sennheiser HD800 with known resonance peak inside audible band , which you use for development work you've said, does not bother you at all? 🤔

I can't stand the HD800 for this (again inside audible band where there is a lot of musical energy...).

 

Like a dentist drill ... and this is a metal driver milli meters from the ear !

 

So many people made mods to fix this flaw.

 

You should have left it at this comment yesterday 😃:

 

Going into subjectives about what we like and dislike is just non-sense. For example, in my opinion Dynaudio's garbage vertical directivity make it sub-optimal for nearfield, compared to well done coaxial (like Genelec 8341A's). For nearfield I'm not interested in hold my head in a vice...

 

But who cares what I think and like? Nobody should. Just listen to what you enjoy. I don't want to read about what others like and don't like subjectively when I can decide with my own ears.

 

Then you have people with conflicts of interests chiming in, people that are paid by manufacturers and write reviews, which just distorts discussions.

 

The coaxial KEF LS50 Meta (metal dome! 😲) that you're interested in getting will make great nearfields 😉

 

 

HD800 measured with state of the art GRAS45BC

 

 

You should have left it at your comment yesterday:

 

 

 

We are all different I like subjective impressions of audio. That means that if someone  for example states that KEF LS/LSX 50 sounds better than Genelec 8341A' I know that we don't share the same idea about how good sound should sounds like. That' perfectly fine to like different speakers, but also good to know when other audio gear are debated.  Knowing what a person think about a few key products is fundamental for me to see if we share the same image of high fidelity.

 

Yes of course we should just listen to what we enjoy. That's not up to debate🤪. The thing is which gear could suite me and me listning room, because I don't want and can't borrow home every speaker/amp/DAC and test for myself. 

 

Can't I use measurement as a guide instead? For some gear, if they are correct made and by the same person/equipment. But even then it will tell me only some things I want to know IME/IMO.

 

Final I agree on the significant difference between inside and far outside audible band, when debating measurement of speakers. 

 

 

[Summit]

17 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

You’re missing the point. It’s not that it’s not possible to not hear the replay chain. It’s that you have no idea what the recording is supposed to sound like with a fully transparent system, because it is a hybrid composite of many processing steps, from multi-mic digitization to compression to spatialization to frequency and phase EQ and whatever other things the mastering engineer decides to apply to produce the sound they like or the sound the artist requested.

 

If you think you know what the original recording should sound like — you’re wrong, unless you were there when the recording was produced.

 

This argument comes up often, and no you don’t need to be there when the recording was produced to know if by replacing one piece in a system makes it sound more lifelike and real or not.

 

When evaluating audio you should of course use many different recordings that you are familiar with how the sound in other quality systems. The more references the better.

 

This not limited to audio. The same is true for TV. It is not necessary to have been there when the recording the nature program for example to see if one TV has a more lifelike picture than another, when it comes to accurate skin tone, blackness level, color depth and so on.  

[Summit]

6 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

No, never :) I grew up around a musical family, Peter. I play the piano, my father was a trained opera singer, my mother an accomplished pianist. My wife is a singer with a wonderful voice. I live around live music and go to concerts and have live performances at my house every chance I get. Measurements don't rule, and I never said that. Measurements are the necessary basis for proper sound reproduction because sound is Physics, as is electronics. Without measurements (or a proper reference) you're guessing, and your guess, while possibly completely different, is no better than mine. That was my point to Frank, and the same to you.

 

 

Say what!

[Summit]

8 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I definitely hear what you're saying, but the issue is that we have no clue what it's supposed to sound like. This may be vastly different from what you believe it sounds like in a "real" environment. If we are to reproduce audio as close to the original recording as possible, then we can't really rely on what we think something sounds like in real life unless we were at the recording and we know what was done to it for the final release. 

 

For video, many creators saturate the colors purposely. Our TVs should reproduce that saturation as released by the creators, not try to turn the saturation down in order to reproduce a more realistic picture. 

 

I disagree 100%. You may have no clue but I have how a trumpet, guitar, voice and so on should sound like in a concert hall, in a living room, crowded pub etc etc. 

[Summit]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I'll disagree all day long. The biggest instrument is the room. You may know how a violin sounds, but without being in the room, you don't. In addition, which violin was being played? Ask a violinist if they all sound the say.

 

Of course you will all day long. Yes instruments sounds different in different rooms, but I can hear if it is a real instrument that is playing or if it's playback. And like I said before one should not use only one recording. 

[Summit]

7 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

But not on a processed recording.

 

Why use "processed" recording? Of course the recording should be as natural as possible. 

[Summit]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Perhaps I misunderstood the goal. If the goal is to tell if an instrument is real or not, that's a different story and I have no skills in that area. I'm guessing a computer generated instrument can fool many people, but again, it's out of my area. 

 

 

You don't know the goal of high fidelity. Why am I not surprised :) 

[Summit]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Can you help me understand the goal of wanting a recording as natural as possible? I just want to make sure I understand what's going on, rather than comment about apples when oranges are the topic. 

 

Lifelike sound is the goal because otherwise we would have made our instrument sound different. They are tuned to our liking as is the concert halls etc. 

[Summit]

8 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

My goal in HiFi is to reproduce what's on the recording as accurately as possible. I have no interest in changing the recording to sound like what I think it should sound like. That's just me though. 

 

Round and round we go. We don't know exactly how one recording sounds like. What we know is how musicians on stage sounds like. That's my reference. 

[Summit]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Which stage? Which musicians? What about vocals?

 

Round and round we go.

[Summit]

6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That's a serious question. 

 

how do you know what Frank Sinatra's voice is supposed to sound like while recording in Capitol Studios?

 

I don't know that and I don't need to know how it sounded like at one specific studio. That's my point. My reference is not a specific sound of a specific studio or hall, it is the lifelike sound of a group musicians singing and playing real instrument in a real room.

[Summit]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Which room? 

 

A real room with walls and all'.

[Summit]

4 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

I have been fortunate to discuss recording with some fine recording engineers. They all have different techniques in mic placement, the types of mics and mic pre amps they use, the mediums they record to, the type of sound they want to capture. Seems to me that the best we can hope for at home is to reproduce the actual recording as true to to the recording as possible. 

 

Tell me how you would know how if its as true to to the recording as possible by listning? 

[Summit]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

There is no way of knowing. You can measure, you can listen, but without knowing what's possible one can never know if "its as true to to the recording as possible by listning (sic)."

 

Bingo!  Its why we have to relay on how voices and instrument normally sound like in a pub, a classic concert hall etc. aka absolute sound.  

[Summit]

14 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Which room? 

 

I have told you many times. It can be a pub, studio, hall etc.

[Summit]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

How would you determine the accuracy of Minnie Riperton's voice?

 

No you tell me how you know if it is more accurate to the record with gear A than with gear B?

[Summit]

6 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

Sorry, there is no absolute sound. Place the same set of musicians in different recording venues even with the same mics and the resultant sound will be different. Mic a violin a foot away will yield a different sound than several feet away. There are no absolutes in sound. Too many variables.

 

Real instruments, played by real people, in real spaces — that was ever the the referent, and the aim. That's “the absolute sound”.

[Summit]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

That's a myth. People need to be OK with ambiguity. 

 

My voice is a real instrument that I record in real space. How are you going to know your playback is accurate? You can't know. You can only hope to reproduce what I deliver as accurately as possible. 

 

To get it to sound like real instruments, played by real people, in real spaces is my aim and what I pay big bucks to get as close to as I can with respect to imperfect recordings and all. 

[Summit]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I certainly hear you, but how do you go around the desire of the artist who releases it to sound how they think it should sound? 

 

I don't have to. I listen to many artist and records. Not all aim for unprocessed sound. That doesn't mean that my audio system has to add its own flaver on top of that. By have a transparent and uncolored system I probable have better chance to get closer to what the artist desired it to sound like, than with a tuned system. 

[Summit]

29 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

what sounds natural and transparent to you with your system and room may not to someone else with a different processor between his or her ears. But, that being said, as long as you are satisfied and happy, that is all that really matters.

 

Yes we have preference in sound, color intense, food the list can be long. I get the gear that I think sounds natural, transparent and lifelike. It is not doubt that others can chose differently.  

[Summit]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

 

Going by Summit's way of thinking, one should use a calibrated monitor but then change the colors to show something more accurately rather than what's on the released video. 

 

Really that is not what I have said at all. I want it to sound like on the record, BUT have no way of knowing exactly how a particular record should sound like, so am left with the universal keys. Does it sound real and lifelike or do I want to stop listning after just 1/2 hour? Does a bunch of good recordings sound more like real instruments, played by real people, in real spaces with this or that gear? You have said that your goal is accurate to the source, but one can't hear accurate to the source by listning to a specific record. 

 

[Summit]

14 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

That’s why we have vanilla, chocolate and strawberry, even rocky road. Choices are good.

 

Yes as long as you know which has which flavor :)

[Summit]

CC can move the last 3-4 pages to his new thread.