| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Horn-Loaded Speakers» A single worst thing in today’s acoustic systems. (29 posts, 2 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 1 of 2 (29 items) Select Pages:  1 2 »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Beware of "Higher Frequencies Syndrome"...  Beware of "Higher Frequencies Syndrome"....  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     0  12834  09-04-2005
11-15-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,540
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 1
Post ID: 12276
Reply to: 12276
A single worst thing in today’s acoustic systems.
fiogf49gjkf0d

A few days ago a guy from Western Europe visited me. It was a typical audio visit:  a couple hours of listening session, a dinner and a long talk. The guy was interested buy the fact that he was not a product of Hi-Fi Americana (he was more closed to North European semi-Pro audio world) and we did not have a lot of commonalties in our stupid hi-fi slang, I for instance hardly ever heard about a number or large and reportedly evolved acoustic systems he owned. He knew speakers however very well, and was able to talk about them very competently from the idiosyncratic standpoint of my understanding of loudspeakers. He was very positively commented about certain aspects of Macondo performance and actually was able to explain what he was listening and how he understood what he heard (very rare quality among my visitors). This appreciation elevated me in his eyes to the state where he begins to ask me my views about general tendency of industry acoustic system sound. My native feline feeling of  “hate of others” multiplied by my sick ego made me to make many very critical and very negative comments to which his reaction was something like this: “ that is all might be true  but I would never write about it”. It turned out that he was an occasional contributor to European audio publications… Anyhow, to make the long story short let me give you an idea why I am writing about this thing.

One of the questions he asked did stumble me. I was surprised with the question’s restrictiveness from one side and with inclusiveness of the answer that I gave to him. He asked: what was in my view (the view of listener not a designer) was the SINGLE and THE MOST APPALLING quality of today’s high-end audio loudspeakers?  The answers lead to a long and stimulating discussion. I have my well-formed position about SINGLE and THE MOST APPALLING quality, the position that I partially have expressed across my site, but I never formed it into the “single worst” format, the format that I find to be stupid but interesting, or at least entertaining. I will submit later on my take about the single worst quality of today’s acoustic systems but meanwhile I would propose you to express your take.

So, what do YOU feel is a SINGLE and THE MOST APPALLING quality of today’s high-end audio loudspeakers?

Rgs, Romy the Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
11-15-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
RonyWeissman
Lyon, France
Posts 138
Joined on 05-29-2004

Post #: 2
Post ID: 12277
Reply to: 12276
The Hype (most appalling)
fiogf49gjkf0d
The Reference, then the Reference Signature, then comes the Ultimate Reference, then the whole thing sucks and you start again with a new, completely different Reference...That is of course just complaining about the business, not the actual speakers themselves.  If you meant the single most appalling technical aspect of today's high-end loudspeakers (other than the price, but that is also marketing) would have to be the lack of speakers designed without specific amplification (active or otherwise). Why spend a gizillion bucks on a loudspeaker when you can't possible find a suitable amplifier for the monster.R weissman
11-15-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
montepilot


Boston, MA.
Posts 42
Joined on 12-13-2007

Post #: 3
Post ID: 12278
Reply to: 12276
Lack of clarity!
fiogf49gjkf0d
The single most appalling quality for me is lack of clarity in high-end speakers.  It is the first thing I notice when listening to speakers. I have heard many expensive high-end speakers that lack this quality.  The music seems to struggle to get out of the speakers to a greater or lesser extent.  There is something that exist between the listener and music that prohibits a connection with the music. I have seen the quality remain after amplifiers had been swithched clearly indicating it was the speakers themselves.  When clarity is there you do not need to have "audiophile" demo disc to connect with the music.  I have only heard two systems in my life that held this quality to the extreme. In both cases the speakers were custom built.

Rgs, montepilot


"It's like an act of murder; you play with the intent to commit something"--Duke Ellington
11-15-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
haralanov


Bulgaria
Posts 130
Joined on 05-20-2008

Post #: 4
Post ID: 12279
Reply to: 12276
The TONE
fiogf49gjkf0d
In my view the most appaling sound feature of nearly all "high end" loudspeakers is the lack of any tonal qualities. Over 90% of them sound completely artificial with no tone. All those ceramic, kevlar, magnesium, polypropylene, titanium, carbon nanotubes, berylium and diamond cones in speker drivers are completely disabled to reproduce the true color of sound.



"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." -A.E.
11-16-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,540
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 5
Post ID: 12283
Reply to: 12278
Can you define “clarity”?
fiogf49gjkf0d
 montepilot wrote:
The single most appalling quality for me is lack of clarity in high-end speakers.  It is the first thing I notice when listening to speakers. I have heard many expensive high-end speakers that lack this quality.  The music seems to struggle to get out of the speakers to a greater or lesser extent.  There is something that exist between the listener and music that prohibits a connection with the music. I have seen the quality remain after amplifiers had been swithched clearly indicating it was the speakers themselves.  When clarity is there you do not need to have "audiophile" demo disc to connect with the music.  I have only heard two systems in my life that held this quality to the extreme. In both cases the speakers were custom built.

Montepilot, clarity was not the moment that I meant in my assessment of the “the worst” but since you mentioned “clarity” I am willing to follow up your comment and propose you to elaborate on what clarity is. The “music seems to struggle to get out of the speakers” – the definition you offered is very far from what clarity might mean. In fact I think your definition was about nothing, in fact I do not see that any speakers can change the rate in witch “music ejects itself out of speakers”. So, if you feel that clarity is the problem in today Hi-Fi that you need to assign to it some kind of other meaningful behavior.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
11-16-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
tuga


Posts 174
Joined on 12-26-2007

Post #: 6
Post ID: 12285
Reply to: 12276
Glare
fiogf49gjkf0d
Our milage varies and in my case it's still quite short.

In any case, I would place glare on top of my list of appalling qualities of modern high-end loudspeakers.
This glare (unlike clarity) results from an exaggerated high frequency response that produces an apparent sense of audiophile "air" and resolution when in fact it's actually destroying tonal balance and smoothness or "naturalness", a bit like an over-exposed photograph.
It also disturbs me that the majority of these speakers are unable to play smoothly at high SPL levels but I am unqualified to comment on the technical cause of such inability.

Cheers,
Ric


"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira Pascoaes
11-16-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Stitch


Behind The Sun
Posts 226
Joined on 01-15-2009

Post #: 7
Post ID: 12286
Reply to: 12285
Lousy and cheap Chassis
fiogf49gjkf0d
Even when you go for a 30K Speaker and you have knowledge about chassis and their pricing, you will discover, they are rarely more than 160 $/piece.
And they sound like that. But they eye is cheated with an excellent high gloss paint or expensive wood etc.


Kind Regards
Stitch
11-16-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,540
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 8
Post ID: 12287
Reply to: 12286
The slavery of self-delusions.
fiogf49gjkf0d
 tuga wrote:
Our milage varies and in my case it's still quite short.
In any case, I would place glare on top of my list of appalling qualities of modern high-end loudspeakers.
This glare (unlike clarity) results from an exaggerated high frequency response that produces an apparent sense of audiophile "air" and resolution when in fact it's actually destroying tonal balance and smoothness or "naturalness", a bit like an over-exposed photograph.
It also disturbs me that the majority of these speakers are unable to play smoothly at high SPL levels but I am unqualified to comment on the technical cause of such inability.
Yep, Ric, you described pretty much what I was explaining to my German guy. Later on, when I have time I will elaborate on this subject in more details.
 Stitch wrote:
Even when you go for a 30K Speaker and you have knowledge about chassis and their pricing, you will discover, they are rarely more than 160 $/piece.
And they sound like that. But they eye is cheated with an excellent high gloss paint or expensive wood etc.

Stitch, yes, partially it is true – the mega-price loudspeakers do not necessary sound better then ridiculously inexpensive loudspeakers, the same is with amplifiers and cables. The problem is that price has absolutely no relevancy to sound of loudspeakers. I know it is hard to understand for many audio people. In the fields of the audio vomitorum the notion that an expensive loudspeaker is by default is an assurance of a some kind of notion of advantage, so even questioning of this "notion" recognized by many idiots as some kind of sacrilege. Try to visit TAS forum and make any critical comment about any of the above $30K loudspeakers. Those people would feel that you at least just raped their daughters and will attack you accordingly.  This subject always was very fascinating to me. Those people might not be idiots in other then audio areas, even in different fields of audio they might understand and agree with thee concept of cost/benefits stratification. In fact, we do see in many other audio fields the more or less rational cost/benefits stratification, to a degree. In the loudspeakers is it like all sane are bets off and the people are absolutely in the slavery of self-delusions.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
11-16-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Stitch


Behind The Sun
Posts 226
Joined on 01-15-2009

Post #: 9
Post ID: 12288
Reply to: 12287
Mark up is the background
fiogf49gjkf0d
I am afraid, I have problems with that forum. Beside that I agree with your judgement, I read it only – and rarely – only with sunglasses. I am absolutely sure, reading that “forum” creates eye cancer.

Most wealthy audiophiles have an absolute horror from understanding that stuff. They don't want it. The on/off button + a remote is the best for them. For all other things they look for “Statements”. Magazines, personal contact to “reviewers”, “Tests” etc. I think, you know what I mean. When you write "But..." even when you would do it friendly :-), they would hate you. You destroy their dreams.

They don't buy something, because it is good (whatever it means), they buy it, because it is respected, well-known, hip, expensive, rare, big or whatever. But NOT based on its real qualities. They have no idea about it. I don't want to be mean, but this is simple fact. I have no problems with that.  Or an other example, you can always read, that Wilsons (just for example) are easy to drive with low power amps....whenever I will find a picture from a Wilson owner, I have never seen an 4-6k$ amp (or cheaper), I remember, when I was in a Demo room, a young couple came in, and after 2 seconds he said to his girl friend “AAAhhhhh, THAT's Wilson with Krell” (There was no music playing)

Anyway, speakers have with cables the biggest mark up in High end Products. I know why.




Kind Regards
Stitch
11-16-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
misnacat
Ontario Canada
Posts 12
Joined on 09-10-2009

Post #: 10
Post ID: 12289
Reply to: 12288
Let marketing guide the way
fiogf49gjkf0d

Marketing have done there job well if said consumer product or service become's a house hold name, or in this case brand names with a golden stamp of approval within this hobby. Every crowd has a silver lining....

I think there are more brands of speakers available then anything else , a seam-ally endless parade of them.

Word got out long ago, no matter what they sound like there is money to be made from the typical consumer in this hobby.

Mark

11-17-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
unicon


Posts 72
Joined on 10-14-2009

Post #: 11
Post ID: 12292
Reply to: 12276
They TRY to do more than sound
fiogf49gjkf0d
high-end self named industries always claim that they serve more than a sound... ye read magazines again they clarify the sound
using the words: MAGIC , GENTLE , HIGH LEVEL , PRESTIGE , more than 20khz clarity ? , ye now go on and measure how MAGIC is the Wilson
and try to put light on it .
i wonder why when the price of component rises they justify it using the words not concerning to Audio but MORE than it.
the funny sentence : LOOK AT THE FINISH is annoying me.

i rather pay for root of audio and no more

the SINGLE is they just dont do any success to root of sound and making it better they claim that already have passed this level and
giving you more. and more means pay us more.


 
11-17-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
JLH
Indianapolis, IN U.S.A.
Posts 42
Joined on 07-20-2004

Post #: 12
Post ID: 12294
Reply to: 12276
Low Sensitivity
fiogf49gjkf0d
The principal problem with today’s speakers is low sensitivity. I cannot consider any speaker remotely serious unless it has a 1W/1M sensitivity of at least 98dB. There are so many problems created by low sensitivity speakers it could fill a book. Of course sensitivity alone does not mean a speaker will be good, far from it. However, high sensitivity is the starting point.

Different discussion points to explore about low sensitivity speakers:

Conversion efficiency: How much information is lost due to it being converted into heat inside the voice coil instead of making sound?

Materials of construction: Is the cone made so over dampened and heavy it cannot resolve differences in tone?

Magnetic circuit strength: Does the driver have enough motor strength to accelerate the cone fast enough to accurately reproduce the higher order harmonic textures of the fundamental tone?

Voice coil inductance: Does the driver have so much inductance that it experiences large phase rotations through it bandwidth. Large phase rotations can shift the harmonics of separate instruments such that they are no longer in harmony.

It goes on and on…

11-17-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,540
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 13
Post ID: 12296
Reply to: 12287
My nominee for the “single worst”…. one sock away.
fiogf49gjkf0d

 Romy the Cat wrote:

tuga wrote:
Our milage varies and in my case it's still quite short.
In any case, I would place glare on top of my list of appalling qualities of modern high-end loudspeakers.
This glare (unlike clarity) results from an exaggerated high frequency response that produces an apparent sense of audiophile "air" and resolution when in fact it's actually destroying tonal balance and smoothness or "naturalness", a bit like an over-exposed photograph.
It also disturbs me that the majority of these speakers are unable to play smoothly at high SPL levels but I am unqualified to comment on the technical cause of such inability.  

Yep, Ric, you described pretty much what I was explaining to my German guy. Later on, when I have time I will elaborate on this subject in more details. 

I promised to elaborate about my nominee for the single worst thing in today’s acoustic systems, so here it comes…

I feel that irrationally-exaggerated high frequency response is the worst and unfortunately is the most characteristic quality for most contemporary acoustic systems.

It started with me year back when I was play with many imaginable tweeters for my AG Trio. Regardless what kind topology, type or quality of tweeter I use I never was able to get sound that like if I had a more or less flat response at 20Hz.  Listening, measuring, listening, measuring, again and again I concluded that the whole notion to have flat HF response at listening position is absolutely ridicules.  So, when I see a loudspeaker with flat (or -3dB) frequency response up to 20 HF from a reasonable, let say 9 feet distance, then I discard that loudspeaker as I have a very clear vision what kind sonic defecation a given acoustic system is capable of.

Do not anticipate that I would give you some kind of recipe of a quantifiable advised “how HF shall be”. The proper amount of HF has many dependencies:  type of HF transducers, type of crossovers, type or amplification, type of room, personal hearing or listener, integration model with MF and many others.  However, generally the proper amount of HF is “one sock away“. Under the “one sock away“ I imply that an average contemporary high-end loudspeaker need to have a sock taped over a tweeter to have the HF to be “enough”.  I can see the Morons with Kharmas, Magicos, Dynaudio, small Wilsons, Avalons, Veritys, Schwerkerts, JMLabs, Hales, Vandersteens, Aerials, Burmestesr, Thiels, Revels, Krells and many others, reading this post. Are pulling a sock from own leg, attaching it to their beloved tweeters and listening what happen. The reaction will be: “it sounds like crap – what that idiot was taking about”?  Well, there is something to talk about but from beginning put your sock back to you leg, get a large condom and stretch it over your head – in your head is the source of your HF problem.

The very HF reproduction is tricky in audio, BTW, no less tricky then the very LF. In past at my site I advocated that very few people in audio heard  any more or less properly reproduced LF. People are so not accustom to it that when they hear it they truly are loosing understanding what they hear and in many instances if they have a chance to get it then it takes for them months to get any sense of bass understanding. The very same with HF. The distortion of crossovers, distortion in drivers, distortion in electronics, phase anomalies, electricity problems, devastations by feedback time-misalignment at HF and zillion other problems makes HF very vulnerable to corruption. In the end what we hear is a residual surrogate that has acoustic press but no cultural musical potency. Here is where the Industry comes to “help”, dictating to the ignorant audio folks how good hi-fi shall sound.

Sit with a real-time spectral analyzer and good calibrated microphone in the front rows of your favorite concert hall and measure how response of HF instruments decays at your distance.  In the front rows you will have somewhere -3B at 8kHz and 15 rows behind it will be 5kHz. Interesting that listening sound from row 15 at -3dB at 5kHz you will hardly feel any problem with HF. Try to do the same with playback. At -3dB at 5kHz you playback will sound like bad AM radio or like a good telephone.  Here is where the “Industry Help” come to the picture the industry teaches: add HF and you will add “quality”. It is like in morgue: add more makes up to a dead body and it will look lore alive…  So, as the result we have two consequences:

1)   High-End audio providers furnish market with midrange-dead acoustic systems where impotency of MF compensated by inundating sound field with HF surrogate.
2)   High-End audio consumers more and more loosing acquaintance with might of the proper MF and recognize “quality” ONLY as the present of the excessive HF pressure.

The stupid industry, saturated with partially-uninformed and partially terminally-idiotic market-makers, go over itself propelling more and more they extreme HF pressure, inventing the BS meanings like “audio resolution”. Thankfully the “audio resolution” is demonstrable and generations of audio sales pimps buy boats juts by treading the “audio resolution”. Still, the original question remind open – why in live sound 7kHz is enough but during a reproduction 40kHz is not enough.

Well the MF in audio mostly is garbage, particularly within the cotemporary speakers. Let cross our playback at 8kHz with first order and listen what we have left. With most of the today 100K loudspeakers you will lose 75% of sound. Ironically making the same experiment with SOME (not all, we are talking about the very best, highly selected models) of the acoustic systems that were made let say 50 years old you will discover that sound was practically not changed. Pay attention that the band-pas is the same with differently made TTH characteristic in MF made all differences and makes very different amount of MF to indicate that “quality” is in presence.

Anyhow, as a very broad observation and with many dependencies I feel a playback need to have somewhere around 10-12 kHz at -3dB and then a different rate of decaying – contingent upon many circumstances.  If you feel that you need more HF then… trash your MF Chennai as it underperforms.

I think that this inflated high frequency response is the worst and unfortunately is the most characteristic quality for most contemporary acoustic systems but the biggest problem not even with the pump up HF response itself but the very false and very firmed expectations that most of audio hoodlums are managed to obtain: the feeling that the absence of the excessive high frequency is an indication of “poor” audio sound. At this point I do not know what leads: supply or demand. I think that this “high-endish” HF have passed the level when it was identifiable and nowadays it is not about teaching a cow to be carnivore but about milking the cow. Well, unfortunately very many audio Morons insist that to drink milk they need to wear a condom on own head…

Romy The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
11-17-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
montepilot


Boston, MA.
Posts 42
Joined on 12-13-2007

Post #: 14
Post ID: 12297
Reply to: 12296
That's exactly what I meant by clarity
fiogf49gjkf0d
You said it brother.  That's exactly what I meant by clarity.

Rgs, montepilot



"It's like an act of murder; you play with the intent to commit something"--Duke Ellington
11-18-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
unicon


Posts 72
Joined on 10-14-2009

Post #: 15
Post ID: 12298
Reply to: 12296
Light on High Res-HF
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
Still, the original question remind open – why in live sound 7kHz is enough but during a reproduction 40kHz is not enough.
Romy The Cat

Thanks alot romy. thats the phrase i really needed to hear

I have the same problem with audio folks they insist the clarity is high when HF is entended to more than 20k and has high resolution there.

The funny part is they dont have any idea a 16khz hf will sound like. I ran a sine wave generator on for 5khz and asked the guy(brain washed reseller)what HZ is the sine wave and he comply it is: 15khz. Thats the point, the high-end industrials are aware that 95% buyers cant distinguish when it comes to HF. so they use this trap and label their products with High Resolution HF.

I dont know why i dont hear the phrase high resolution or linear MF band >?(100-500hz for sure).
Our ears cant easily distinguish diff between 15khz to 16khz( and we hardly can hear more than 16k )
And yes we can distinguish 1hz FQ shift when it comes to 300hz so why no high resolution MF ?


 unicon
11-18-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Markus
Posts 68
Joined on 03-07-2007

Post #: 16
Post ID: 12299
Reply to: 12286
Low price needn't mean low quality
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Stitch wrote:
Even when you go for a 30K Speaker and you have knowledge about chassis and their pricing, you will discover, they are rarely more than 160 $/piece.
And they sound like that. But they eye is cheated with an excellent high gloss paint or expensive wood etc.


Thanks to Klippel et al., combined with Chinese production,  reasonably-priced chassis can be extremely good these days. Price is not an indicator of quality in drivers anymore, if it ever was.
11-18-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Stitch


Behind The Sun
Posts 226
Joined on 01-15-2009

Post #: 17
Post ID: 12300
Reply to: 12299
Who is interested in chinese products
fiogf49gjkf0d
I wrote, "When you have knowledge about chassis and their pricing..."when you have no knowledge, then nothing is an indicator of quality in drivers anymore etc. Or when you are a buddy from a manufacturer or even worse, a writer.And what I meant is not, that this 160 USD driver is the top of the line, in the same category you will find better ones with much better specs for more, but these are not used.No matter in which direction this discussion will go, the real idiot is the customer, he gets cheated from the very first moment.What is better than before is the Equipment for measurements, but this does not change our Sales-System. Very helpful for cross-overs.


Kind Regards
Stitch
11-18-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,540
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 18
Post ID: 12301
Reply to: 12298
Again, do not get the things wrong.
fiogf49gjkf0d

I think my complaining against HF might be understood as my position in opposition to HF in generals. There is nothing could be further from truth. I am a strong supporter of excessive bandwidth of electronics and acoustic systems. I do not min if a playback has 100kHz or higher bandwidth, in fact I do appreciate is very much. I feel that we need 10x times bandwidth over out listening threshold, that would make 200kHz, to render auditable HF transients properly. The higher bandwidth the lower phase anomalies - no one against it. Still, there is a difference about the capacity of playback to do the things and the playback that plays 35kHz at 0dB. It is about moderation, balance and how the capacities are used and here is what most of the today loudspeakers/people are senseless.

 unicon wrote:
I dont know why i dont hear the phrase high resolution or linear MF band >?(100-500hz for sure).Our ears cant easily distinguish diff between 15khz to 16khz( and we hardly can hear more than 16k )
And yes we can distinguish 1hz FQ shift when it comes to 300hz so why no high resolution MF ?

Yes, our perception has kind of reversed logarithmic scale for tone resolution, so what. Do not forget that a Hertz is an abstract mathematical measurement that has to do with length of wave and a number of complete cycles per a time measurements, a second. We define artificially what second is and what a full number is. Those definitions not bind to our perception. I can give you a dozen examples when Hertz very much loops own identity. I would not even need to go into the Special Relativity examples…

 unicon wrote:
And yes we can distinguish 1hz FQ shift when it comes to 300hz ….

It is a bit off the topic but if to look deeper then it is not. Pay attention that we can distinguish 1Hz of frequency shift at 300hz… but ONLY in context of relevancy of those 300Hz to a something else. We cannot differentiate 1Hz as an absolute value. Can we differentiate “A” between 440Hz and 441Hz? Yes we can but can we identify a tone as 441Hz without hearing it referenced to 440Hz? Absolutely not!  A Hertz as an abstract mathematical measurement has no fundamental presence in our perception. When we operate by Hertz-scale we operate by just a conventional description of Reality, not by the Reality itself.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
11-18-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
perrew
Posts 30
Joined on 10-06-2009

Post #: 19
Post ID: 12303
Reply to: 12277
Performance to cost
fiogf49gjkf0d
My Biggest problem is the performance to cost ratio. Twenty years ago I got a pair of Onkyo DM-3 speakers as a present, I think they cost around 200USD at the time. A couple of years ago I could afford a pair of Wilson WP7s, they sounded more "clear" or whatever but not good. I quickly dispossed of the Wilsons. Im not saying the Onkyos are suprior to the Wilsons but the cost at 100 times is a JOKE!

Romy can you elaborate on that speakers should be down 3dB @10-12kHz and then decay? You also say that if a speaker measure flat up to 20kHz you discount them as bad speakers?

/P

Ps. I still own the Onkyos
11-18-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
twogoodears


Italy
Posts 116
Joined on 03-26-2008

Post #: 20
Post ID: 12304
Reply to: 12298
Resolution, transparency, definition, clarity... whatever?
fiogf49gjkf0d
Great referring to musical instruments pitch, Roman... the Real Thing. 

I find the Wikipedia suggestion about "resolution", music-wise to be quite inspiring -i.e. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_(music)

Sentences like this: "A dissonance has its resolution when it moves to a consonance. When a resolution is delayed or is accomplished in surprising ways--when the composer play with our sense of expectation--a feeling of drama or suspense is created." or "... lacks a tonal center to which to resolve. The concept of "resolution", and the degree to which resolution is "expected", is contextual as to culture and historical period."

Audio-wise, the above seems to hint about the enhanced level of attention through the sense of surprise after timing/chordal/melodic changes in music.

To a broader extent LF MF or HF better resolution - not exageration, boosting, tilting up or the like - or transparency augment the sense of understanding, of proximity to the music and its meaning.

Interesting would be better learning about the difference, audio-wise, among "transparency", "definition" "clarity" and "resolution"...  all from a sane, contructive point-of-view, leave alone the industry hypes.

Being "resolution" a multi-faceted, multi-meaning term, I found this sort-of "dark side of resolution" intriguing and worth reporting, to be added to the SUPERB conversation of the above posts, for which I'm grateful. 




"Use your ears as your eyes" - Gertrude Stein

Stefano
Page 1 of 2 (29 items) Select Pages:  1 2 »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Beware of "Higher Frequencies Syndrome"...  Beware of "Higher Frequencies Syndrome"....  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     0  12834  09-04-2005
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts