| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Horn-Loaded Speakers» Aporia - Silbatone Acoustics speaker (108 posts, 6 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 3 of 6 (108 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 4 5 » ... Last »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Truth stretched out via Feastrex prism...  Goodbye Chris Witmer...  Audio Discussions  Forum     26  247213  01-21-2006
  »  New  Western Electric reproduces 0Hz + some literature…..  Re-set...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     2  46011  07-24-2006
  »  New  Learn to differentiate between Imaging and Soundstage...  Learn to differentiate between Imaging and Soundstage....  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     0  12604  03-07-2007
  »  New  Klangfilm: actual knowledge is better then fetish imagi..  Klangfilm Kl51...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     18  186057  03-15-2007
  »  New  The unintended consequences of binaural things in Hi-Fi..  Re: Binaural -- or what ever the case was......  Playback Listening  Forum     1  24457  08-04-2009
  »  New  Munich High End 2010..  The retarded open baffle...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     39  296920  05-16-2010
  »  New  The CES's 2011 horns..  Reviewers and table radios...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     21  144951  01-07-2011
  »  New  A Moscow setup with Horns/Lowther..  A new reiteration of the Moscow setup....  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     33  282401  02-27-2011
  »  New  A new kid in the block: Sadurni Acoustics..  Axpona 2015...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     21  108233  08-22-2011
  »  New  Aries Cerat Contendo - the newest "fat" kid i..  It is very unfortunate then...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     5  36733  09-08-2011
01-24-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,734
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 41
Post ID: 9511
Reply to: 9509
The blues would actually do it…
fiogf49gjkf0d

 Joe Roberts wrote:
You have not heard Mangers, Aporia, or Loth-X speakers yet you thought sniffed yourself into an incredibly accurate picture of what they sound like. Great trick!

It is not correct. I did not report the “incredibly accurate picture of what they sound like” but based upon my experiences with single drivers and based upon the level of comment by the people who do appreciate them I do experience the incredibly low interest in those speakers. It would be less applicable to Mangers thsme that might be a good MF driver in right application.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
I admit I do this about, say, plastic cone mini towers. But while at CES I went and heard about ten plastic cone mini towers. They BLEW. But, at least I gave them a listen. Who knows, maybe somebody finally came out with a one that I liked. They didn't.

And I am sure that you will found a zillion people who report multiple orgasms and the sensation of rebirth just after they heard those plastic cone mini towers.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
I point to your discussion about the Aporia diffusor. You denied that it affected the directionality of the speaker, yet I actually heard it with and without, moved across the room while listening to each configuration, and I HEARD the reduction in beaminess with the diffusor.

Of course I did not deny the affected the directionality, looking at the geometry of Manger the radiation directionality is obvious. I said that to fight with this directionality by the means of external diffuser is not what attracts me, not to mention that they used diffuser not to fight directionality but primary to EQ front/back response.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
As for the relation of this metaphor to the ongoing dialogue here, I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. Enlighten me.

This has to do a lot with the “sniffing” that you misunderstood. I have to tell honestly that I was very much disappointed with your general comments about your expectation and your demands from audio. I do not mean to be judgmental, let say that you and I have different gold in sound reproduction. Let juts throw a comment that it hate very deferent audio to render the task if elevator music listening and the other tasks.  I do not what to discuss this subject, you had to discover it long time ago and if you do not them you seem in very shallow audio water. I do not mean to sound offensive and to express the “veiled personal attacks”; it is just how I see the things and I say it openly. I think if you discover “other” interests in audio then what you currently have then you suddenly might realize that some topologies are fundamentally by dealt dead for any more of less “higher” tasks…

 Joe Roberts wrote:
The "absolute sound of unamplified live music (i.e. classical)" as the only valid reference, the transference of objective criteria of musical sound to listening evaluation of musical performance, the notion that the "objective" nature of the evaluation program yields an unassailable platform.

And worst, the idea that if somebody disagrees or has different preferences they are WRONG, not serious, and somehow less evolved. This is total ethnocentricism and outlandish snobbery.

This is corny and discredited stuff to me, but perhaps you missed it the first time around. This kind of rhetoric can be very evil in the way it sets up fake authority and an us vs. them mentality. I saw this first-hand in the 80s. I worked in a high-end store at the peak of this stupidity. You claim to be against the morons, yet practice the very techniques of the shepherds of audio morons.

Laugh all you want, but I see a quasi HP in cat suit.

I do not what to argue this point. I just would mention that it requires different tools to accomplish different goals.  It is very simple to make audio to play well pop music. To seriously play serious classical repertoire is way more complicated task that demands very different means. I told you before that you might try to read my page dedicated to Macondo Acoustic System (on home page’s left nav.) but you ignored it.

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
01-24-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,734
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 42
Post ID: 9512
Reply to: 9510
The misery of peripheral frequencies
fiogf49gjkf0d

Tuga,

I do not think we spoke about the specific problem of the single-driver class and one of the reason why I never brought it up was because I presume that every person with sane knows them and those problems are not even arguable.

However I would like to make a correction, in my view very important. You said that one of the fundamental shortcomings of single-driver class as they do not do wide frequency range. It is true but I would like to inject a twist into it. The problem with single-drivers is not that they can’t do peripheral frequencies – they do it. However they do it very badly and THIS is the problem. Pretend that you have two more complimentary channels above and below and you do the evaluation at which point the MF channel do worth then the peripheral channels. You will eventually lock the single-driver class into a very narrow NF band-pass or exactly where it shell be. Everyone bitch about the Lowther but look how wonderful the Lowther wok in Horings where it sits in MF only range.

Anyhow, my point was not what the single-driver speakers do not do (or as Joe is willing to present it) but rather that while they do what they shall not be doing they poison so much that the only thing that does not lose value with them is to play Patricia Barber with flute, thank Got she can’t blow the flute and to sing at the same time.

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
01-24-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Telus
Posts 10
Joined on 08-05-2006

Post #: 43
Post ID: 9513
Reply to: 9512
Perspective
fiogf49gjkf0d

“I do not what to go there but be advised that touching an elephant’s tail you might have a wrong impression what elephant is all about.”

More accurately this should read as follows: “I do not what to go there but be advised that touching a horse’s ass gives you a pretty good idea about what the horse’s ass is all about.”

Your prose paints a better picture of your vanity than any artist could.

Then there’s this:

JR: “The problem is two or three identifiable frequency-dependent sources has no reference in live music either …”

RTC: “It is true…”

No, it is not true.  You’re both dead wrong.  All instruments are “frequency dependent sources.”  Do you really think that a bass drum and a piccolo produce an equivalent frequency spectrum? 

My takeaway from this thread is that the two main contributors to it enjoy postulating and posturing about what constitutes “proper music reproduction” yet have virtually no interest in actually listening to music itself.  If this were not the case, they’d be doing exactly that this very minute instead of spending every waking hour on this site doing what's really important to them: preening.

01-24-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 512
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 44
Post ID: 9514
Reply to: 9498
Validity of a point source?
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Joe Roberts wrote:
The illusion of a single source is lost.
 Romy the Cat wrote:
The “single source” neither is a fact a byproduct of a specific sound reproduction method but it has no existence in LIVE sound and there is not need for it pursue in sound reproduction.
In a way it is like saying that since most recordings are not done with a strict binaural method with two microphones unmixed, therefore the idea of stereo is meaningless, and stereo does not exist in live sound either. The sounds come from everywhere. Well, I think we all like stereo. And I think we all can clearly hear the low frequencies coming from down by our feet and the high frequencies coming from up by our ears in the standard multi-driver installation. There is absolutely meaningfulness to the idea of the point source (but this meaning may or may not have anything to do with connection with the Sound)!

I would like to hear the opinions from people who have heard good point source/single driver installations (ignoring the shortcomings). What does the point source add to the audio reproduction?

Adrian
01-24-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 512
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 45
Post ID: 9515
Reply to: 9509
What a shame...
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Joe Roberts wrote:
I have had round Edgarhorns and Lowthers so I understand what narrowing radiation as a function of frequency is about. My thought sniff tells me Romy's rig is good enough that even if there is some component of self-delusion, as is usually the case, at least it is not embarrasingly delusional. I could say that I had similar setups in the late 80s and early 90s so I KNOW what it sounds like, but that would be stupid.
It is ironic that we have so many words written by Joe essentially to debate with Romy over attitudes toward audio evaluation, not much about audio itself. This is sad, considering Joe has listened to a lot more audio equipment than anyone else here probably. With all this experience, I would like to be hearing some constructive criticism instead (e.g., with the EdgarHorns, I found that it worked better if... , when I built the 2A3 DHSET for my midrange, I found that.., etc.)

More sharing, less ego.

Adrian
01-24-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
tuga


Posts 174
Joined on 12-26-2007

Post #: 46
Post ID: 9517
Reply to: 9514
Point source test.
fiogf49gjkf0d
 drdna wrote:
I would like to hear the opinions from people who have heard good point source/single driver installations (ignoring the shortcomings). What does the point source add to the audio reproduction?

Adrian


Adrian,

If you have a midrange driver you can try that for yourself.
BTW, do you consider electrostatic speakers to be single point sources?
I am an Audio Neanderthal so I will restrain from commenting on my experience.

Going back to the Silbatones, I wonder whether or not the back-loaded horn should be considered a point source...

Cheers,
Tuga


"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira Pascoaes
01-24-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 512
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 47
Post ID: 9518
Reply to: 9517
Point sources: what are they?
fiogf49gjkf0d
 tuga wrote:
If you have a midrange driver you can try that for yourself.
In this case the lack of "full-range" audio is so glaring it overwhelms any advantage of the point source, I think.

 tuga wrote:
BTW, do you consider electrostatic speakers to be single point sources? Going back to the Silbatones, I wonder whether or not the back-loaded horn should be considered a point source...
In my mind, anything that has a design goal of the point source (e.g., electrostatics, Lowthers, d'Appolito arrays, etc.) all qualify because they are all imperfect approximations but they all have the design goal in mind of the point source. I question whether the benefit outweighs the intrinsic problems. How important is it? What compromise gets us closest to the Sound.

I personally never thought the point source gained more than it lost; I always have felt the unbalanced frequency distribution lost more in the lifelike sound than the vertical integration added. But I have perhaps never heard the ideal expression. Could it be the Silbatone?

Adrian
01-24-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,734
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 48
Post ID: 9519
Reply to: 9513
It is not about the single source but the simple source.
fiogf49gjkf0d

 Telus wrote:

JR: “The problem is two or three identifiable frequency-dependent sources has no reference in live music either …”

RTC: “It is true…”

No, it is not true.  You’re both dead wrong.

Although I do not disagree with you but you need to view Joe’s view about live music from a certain simplistic single-source point of view. Mostly his pop music is single event music and played mostly by a single instrument a time. So, from a certain perspective I do see why he considers that live music has single source radiation nature. (Let forget at this point about reflections).  So, I do not think that Joe would take any consideration about intermodulations, Doppler of exertion desideration seriously – it gives him a “pleasure” and it is all that counts. The definition of complexity for those people is be able to hear a phonogram and be able differentiate Willie Dixon from Patricia Barber and it is about it.

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
01-24-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Joe Roberts
Posts 48
Joined on 01-12-2009

Post #: 49
Post ID: 9520
Reply to: 9511
Spelled out for the cats and other mammals in the audience
fiogf49gjkf0d

would you accept a photograph from a camera if it didn't do "blacks" and "extreme darks"?


CRITICAL POINT 1


VISUAL PERCEPTION AND AESTHETICS ARE NOT VALID MODELING SYSTEMS FOR MUSIC

This is why imaging is a screwed up way to talk about music. The more specific it gets, the more screwed up it becomes.


CRITICAL POINT 2

LANGUAGE IS NOT A VALID MODELING SYSTEM FOR MUSIC

Linguistic semantics are entirely different than musical semantics. Tone in language is entirely different from tone in language. There is no connection in the way they signify. Just because hearing is involved does not imply that meaning works the same way in both domains.

This is why your Asian linguistics theory is bogus (although an interesting amateur attempt), because music is not referential and when it is is is based on iconicity not conventionality. BTW-Japanese and most dialects of Korean are not tone languages in a technical sense, unlike Mandarin.

CRITICAL POINT 3

Objective physics notions of sound (bandwidth, frequency response, dynamic range, etc.) do not exhaust or clearly characterize those features of musical sound that matter for subjective enjoyment of musical sound.

If it did, there could be a LCD readout musical enjoyment meter.

When I was in Nigeria, I had to ask why people like to turn up the music to where the speaker sounded like it was ripped (often it was ripped)...they responed, that the awful (to me) distortion made it sound more powerful. To them, it sounded better. Who am I to argue?


SUMMARY

MUSIC IS ITS OWN THING, NOT REDUCABLE TO OTHER SONIC PRACTICES.

Beyond that, different traditions in music can have radically different coding of meaning via sound characteristics. This is one reason the orchestra-centic view is STUPID, it is not all-inclusive.

DIIFERENT KINDS OF MUSIC ARE THEIR OWN THING.


inability to play loud and intermodulation distortion


Try listening to a WE15A compression driver "full range" with a 8 foot square mouth. It plays so freaking loud you can hear it for blocks. Not full range by modern standards (80-5000) but nearly there when listening.  Yeah, Diatones don't play loud. Try something else if loud is your thing.

In my experience, most single-drivers play loud enough for me.

The Aporia played loud enough to be uncomfortable on 8W in that CES stall. With a more powerful amp, might get much louder--Mangers are rated for high power. I don't need anything louder.

The notion of intermodulation distortion is dependent on a number of factors, the most critical of which is doppler distortion caused by a moving cone. Well, the Manger does not employ in a piston cone. I mentioned that the mids do not shut down in this driver when loud bass passsages occur.

I only had a week with the Aporia/Manger so I am still learning it, but something is very different here.

Also, some of my fave fullranges don't have much cone displacement, eg. 755A, so I think that the intermod is less. Of course, they don't put out much below 60hz. It is all a question of balance and generalization is of limited utility in critique.


This makes it inappropriate for evaluating a system or a component from a technical point of view when compared to jazz band or, even better, to a symphonic orchestra which are far richer in diversity, scale or any other parameter that you can think of.


Or you can listen to circus music on the mighty Wurlizer pipe organ, Planet Drum (hate that fcking record), or the HFN&RR garage door record for bass and dynamics.

But what if like me, you really don't fire up orchestra too much. What if I mostly listen to Washboard Sam?

I can't agree that a system optimized for orchestral is automatically better for all music. Many traditions stress timbre and tonal color over scale. Even chamber music, which I prefer to grand orchestral, is better served by a speaker that does the color, texture, and sparkle right even if it can't do the cannons in 1812.

Frankly, although  technically "easy" by some measures, vocal reproduction is the thing that really captivates me. Here is one area where single drivers can really deliver.

And I am sure that you will found a zillion people who report multiple orgasms and the sensation of rebirth just after they heard those plastic cone mini towers.


Amazingly, yes. I wish life was so easy that I could be happy with  a pair of Totems...but his only goes to illustrate the point that one man's gourmet meal is another man's Pizza Hut 2 for 1 special.

I heard the sales pitch at CES..."Listen to that bass folks, it's clean, it's natural, It's deep, and its precise..."

It was none of the above..it was pure mud... 120hz bump like I never experienced, flabby, and fake as a Thai rolex.  But it was loud and people were like "WOW! THAT'S FANTASTIC!!"

I presume that most of us are on a different island, but I'm somewhat jealous of the mid-fi crowd who can find happiness in a plastic cone mini tower.

I do not mean to sound offensive and to express the “veiled personal attacks”; it is just how I see the things and I say it openly. I think if you discover “other” interests in audio then what you currently have then you suddenly might realize that some topologies are fundamentally by dealt dead for any more of less “higher” tasks…


Of course, I recognize this is a let it rip kind of forum, so I am not witholding my insights either. I like this crazy forum, even though I disagree on many levels with the corny 80s mindset updated with better equipment...but I know what you are saying.

 I mainly object to the idea that this is a "higher" task in any universal way. One or more people might see it as "higher" for them but there is no basis to assume that anyone else should agree.

I totally object to snobbery and advanced evolution as an argument tactic. I spit on the silk tie of all audio snobs. If you're not wearing a tie, then I'll spit a greenie on your shirt where the tie would be.

I believe that there is no point in arguing taste and what other people enjoy. To do so is to be a bore and, put frankly, a real dick. I like to see people happy, whatever it takes for them to get there.

And I really believe that you cant make all these decisions via logical reasoning, prior experience with similar but different equipment, or mathematical calculations. You must hear the item in question before you have anything valid to say. Even then it is only valid from a certain perspective.

In the case at hand, the Aporia, it was VERY DIFFERENT from what I expected and QUITE DIFFERENT from anything else I have heard. How could YOU know what it sounded like? How could you even guess? You can't, bro.

You seem to agree with this "to each his own" philosophy in your last post, but the other 386 posts in this thread you do a lot of the opposite.

Basically, I heard a lot of speaker systems, elaborate multi-horn to 4" single driver. I had a 10x20 foot locker full of gear. OF COURSE, I can recognize performance differences, even very slight differences because I was a picky-ass mega geek too--one of the worst. Nothing is perfect, nothing totally sucks. The question becomes what matters to me. That is the only question that I am left to answer, all that I really care about.

Who cares what matters to Harry Pearson, Romy, Jonathan Scull, or the guy selling the mini-towers? Why should you care what I think makes a valid listening system? And if you recognize that my tastes are different, does that mean that something I like automatically won't meet your standards? That is totally stupid logic.

So, as you can see by a careful reading of my posts, I don't criticize others taste. I criticize the notion that one goal is superior and I criticize the lame, worn-out, misguided rhetoric that is often used to support this reasoning.

I saw it and LIVED it all 1000 times. Remember that I was the first to promote some of these topologies as a full-time effort, so I took a lot of attempted shots. I feel like I have heard every argument on the planet and I am not getting any new intellectual challenges here.

In fact, most of what you are doing, I promoted in 1988. Glad you are taking it to the next level, likely beyond where I went with it, because I moved on to other things. And thanks for buying my PDF CD.

In this thread,  I went into a bit more philosophical/academic detail than I usually do, but I am VERY SECURE in my thinking on this, because I did my fieldwork.


THE JOE-MAN



01-24-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Joe Roberts
Posts 48
Joined on 01-12-2009

Post #: 50
Post ID: 9521
Reply to: 9520
Correction on above post
fiogf49gjkf0d
Tone in language is entirely different from tone in language.


OOPS... should read "Tone in language is entirely different from tone in music."

Where's the edit button on this thing?....

-----------------------------
On single drivers and point sources...I don't think the important thing is point source, I mentioned "single-source" above, which I meant to imply that the noise comes from the same driver, thus avoiding the problems of matching a reflex-loaded cone with a compression driver and similar challenges, big cone with small cone, Manger with piston cone, etc.

These mixes can work but there is no guarantee. In the case of the Manger, I think it would be hard to find a cone that has an identical character. Those who have actually heard Mangers with woofers might agree.

Sinngle drivers do usually have a certain pleasing coherence of character in their range.
01-25-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
tuga


Posts 174
Joined on 12-26-2007

Post #: 51
Post ID: 9522
Reply to: 9520
On taste and...purpose.
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Joe Roberts wrote:
This makes it inappropriate for evaluating a system or a component from a technical point of view when compared to jazz band or, even better, to a symphonic orchestra which are far richer in diversity, scale or any other parameter that you can think of.


Or you can listen to circus music on the mighty Wurlizer pipe organ, Planet Drum (hate that fcking record), or the HFN&RR garage door record for bass and dynamics.

But what if like me, you really don't fire up orchestra too much. What if I mostly listen to Washboard Sam?

I can't agree that a system optimized for orchestral is automatically better for all music. Many traditions stress timbre and tonal color over scale. Even chamber music, which I prefer to grand orchestral, is better served by a speaker that does the color, texture, and sparkle right even if it can't do the cannons in 1812.

Frankly, although  technically "easy" by some measures, vocal reproduction is the thing that really captivates me. Here is one area where single drivers can really deliver.

And I am sure that you will found a zillion people who report multiple orgasms and the sensation of rebirth just after they heard those plastic cone mini towers.


Amazingly, yes. I wish life was so easy that I could be happy with  a pair of Totems...but his only goes to illustrate the point that one man's gourmet meal is another man's Pizza Hut 2 for 1 special.

I heard the sales pitch at CES..."Listen to that bass folks, it's clean, it's natural, It's deep, and its precise..."
Joe, Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy a good pizza. Unfortunately I won't find one in a Pizzahut. "That" man's 2 for 1 pleasure says a lot about his evaluating capabilities... I also enjoy several different kinds of music, mostly acoustic, but enjoying music and evaluating a system's performance are two completely different tasks. Would you hire a marathon athlete for your team after timing him on a 10km run? Cheers, Tuga


"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira Pascoaes
01-25-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,734
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 52
Post ID: 9523
Reply to: 9520
Is Mr. Roberts German, Korean, American or Jew?
fiogf49gjkf0d

 Joe Roberts wrote:
I feel like I have heard every argument on the planet and I am not getting any new intellectual challenges here.

Joe, it is what you think but it is not what I see.  I do not insist that you shall experience any intellectual challenges in this argument but while expressing your audio view you do clearly demonstrate a lack of understanding of some very basic premise of Real Audio. So, I would not mind if you engage some own cerebral help and think about the subject a bit less shallow.

What I am talking about? I am talking about the fact that whatever you practice in audio (at least based upon what you expressed in this thread) I call “External Audio”, or a situation where audio try to create a brainless carbon copy of live sound, using the pointers of live sound properties as evaluation point for “comparing” and contradicting of live sound and reproduced sound. There is nothing prohibitive or anti-constitutional in it, the “hobbyists” are entitled to entertain themselves as they wish. After all, it is better then drinking or collecting baseball cards. Still, it has as much relativity to the tasks of “Another Audio” as the ink squirted by threaten octopuses has a chance to accidently organize itself into Shakespeare’s poems.

Since I recognized that you are not “there” yet I calm down with my interest, as I always do. So you do have in my view some room to grow in your understanding the objectives and methods of audio.  I might refer you to multiple moments at my site but it might not be necessary as I am a firmed believer that the most important things can’t not be taught of “direct delegated” but might be only rediscovered (or as I call it “recomposed”).

Just as the exempla. The simple word “imaging” might have at multiple level of understanding very different definition. For people who practice “External Audio”: Harry Pearson, Jonathan Scull,  Joe Roberts and 99.99999% of your other audio brothers and sisters the word “imaging” means soundstage, or a fandom depicturing of byproduct of phase processing by playback system. At higher level of understanding, the level where awareness of an orchestral conductor operates the “imaging” is an expressive tool of musical intention.  In audio at this level playback is able to demonstrate complex imaging without soundstage. To experience it you would need to go most likely much further then Mirrophonic’s  or Silbatone’s capacity and defiantly much further then juts “gives me pleasure” demands from musicality. At even higher level the “imaging” and “soundstage” merge again but soundstage there become not the soundstage of musical even but a conditional horizon of a listener listening consciousness. There is one even higher level, where the recognition of “imaging” and “soundstage” collapse again and replaced by other things but I do not want to go there now.

The point I am trying to make is that the definition of audio success to a high degree is a properly of level of success understanding.  I do not know what you practice personally but in your public appearances, including the one at my site, you demonstrate that audio objectives have very primitive caliber, the fact that you shot into this target for 30 years makes mater not more respectable but more laughable from my point of view. You need to understand that your audio thinning was limited by the fact that your entire public audio endeavor had objective to convince others.  In the “Mein Kampf” it was brilliantly put: “All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be.”  That was the Harry Pearson, Jonathan Scull and Joe Roberts level of applications but there is so much more in audio then shooting to the lower common denominator. 

Anyhow, I think you do a good job for Silbatone’s folks but only within the leash that you put on yourself. I do not see a need to argue the subject of single-driver potency here I see the leash. It would be like an attempt to teach an alligator to be a vegetarian – equally un-noble and pointless task.  I think if you looking for an intellectual challenges for yourself in audio them you might start from stopping to recognize yourself as the preverbal Jew who fixed own broken watch was and paid himself $20 for doing it.

Rgs, 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
01-25-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Joe Roberts
Posts 48
Joined on 01-12-2009

Post #: 53
Post ID: 9525
Reply to: 9523
Buddhist, dude
fiogf49gjkf0d

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy a good pizza. Unfortunately I won't find one in a Pizzahut. "That" man's 2 for 1 pleasure says a lot about his evaluating capabilities...
I also enjoy several different kinds of music, mostly acoustic, but enjoying music and evaluating a system's performance are two completely different tasks.


Tuga, this notion assumes a universal standard. The Pizza Hut listeners were evaluating performance, only by a different standard than you or I use. I am not even sure what it was, but their amazement at the blue mini-towers seemed genuine.

So, who am I to argue or criticize? In a discussion such as this, of course, my point is obviously dialed for the experienced listener who knows the tricks employed and probably looking for something else,  but if I stood up during that boom boom demo and said "Wait, this bass SUCKS! This man is a charlatan!!" Where is the value in that?

I would deserve to be ignored and rebuked, because I would be criticising them for not achieving something that they were obviously not trying to do, and apparently they were sucessful in their chosen endeavor and reaching the audience which they sought to reach.


the fact that you shot into this target for 30 years makes mater not more respectable but more laughable from my point of view.


Romy, my claim of too long experience, dealing with many listeners and perspectives, does not imply that I know more about audio, only that at this point I have a very good idea of how I think of individual audio goals in the larger picture of possible approaches and perspectives.

I do not believe that I can call myself an expert in any way except in this field of anthropological study. I am only a mid-level electronics hacker and, at this point, not as picky about my sound sources as I used to be. Probably can't hear as well as I used to if my eyesight is any indication. I wasted my youth trying tons of gear, so I have an idea of the basic capabilities of the technology, yet I freely admit that many have taken these possibilites far beyond where I myself have gone.

I think I know a lot about how people use and think about audio systems in the context of various projects in which they use systems to accomplish whatever goals they create. Go ahead and laugh...that is another data point confirming my research.

I can't always know the goals and I certainly can't and don't need to share everyman's goals, but I can recognize that goals and tastes are indeed individual. My point about musical enjoyment as the goal allows for exercise of different perogatives, cultural perspectives, and tastes in music, and makes sense as a general characterization of what people do audio work to achieve.

You might consider this a lowest common denominator, but I argue against the "lowest" label. What makes any particular goal higher, beyond the goal-owners high opinon of himself, his own preferences, and his listening acumen?

This is the old "evolution leads to me" argument, which looks silly when it is recognized that many and perhaps most societies have a similar theory.

Besides, I believe that listening enjoyment in itelf is a high goal. Otherwise, why bother with all this ugly audio junk but for enjoyment?

So, this elaborate "external vs internal audio scheme" which incidentally was addressed to a large extent in the 1980s TAS jibber-jabber about imaging and is nothing new or revolutionary, does not have any claim to universality or a higher realm of achievement.

If you think it does, kneel down to your holy prophet, Harry Pearson and kiss the smelly Bierkenstock.

He is your god and you probably don't know it yet.

Did you actually read 1980s TAS or just thought sniff it? I think I know the answer.

Yeah, he had the "more evolved" thing going too. Conned a lot of people into listening to things they didn't really like, trying to find their place in heaven. That was the sociological downside.

The concepts of imaging and soundstaging have been generalized and bastardized since, but TAS was trying to piece together a phenomenological program not unlike the Romy doctrine. The problem they had is that some of the writers went overboard with literal borrowing from visual metaphor and lost the thread. Then these words became generalized stupid terms without any qualification or specific reference, which led us to where we are today in the terminology.

Maybe you add a few details and some different language, but the core is inherited. For me, it is just one of many strange and obscure things that crazy people demand from audio reproduction.

Now, here's a story relevant to the topic of "internal audio." When I was recording the Phila. Orchestra, EMI came in to do a recording. I tried but can no longer remember the music. This was around 1984-1985. They wanted us (we were the recording division of WFLN-FM) to do some sound tests and place mikes around the hall for ambience tracks that they could mix in.

Well, I decided I would record right along with them so I flew a Neumann stereo mic from the ceiling 20 feet in front of the stage straight into a Studer two track. EMI hooked up a lot of mics. They had omnis sprinked throughout the orchestra, some kind of mic arrangement on a tree at the front of the stage, a giant mixing board, and they monitored on B&W 801s that arrived in huge anvil cases.

I got to compare my recording with EMIs first mix. My technique, which I worked out after numerous recordings, was a mix of event perspective (hall perspective) and stage perspective. it was not super up front nor distant. Worked good for radio broadcast. Made you feel like you were at the Academy.

The EMI did more of what you seem to be highlighting....more movement through the winds, spotlights on different sections. It was more "internal" and less soundstage oriented. In fact, there was not a hall impression very much.

My colleagues and I listened to the tape then compared ours. We liked ours because it sounded like the Orchestra in the Academy of Music, an effect we knew and liked. We thought that the EMi recording was cheap and sensational, although it was quite impressive.

No actual listener could ever achieve either of these perspectives, but the "individual horizon" presented by our single mic was more natural and realistic. The EMI was a technological artifact and an invented perspective.

Which one captured the musical intention of Muti better? It seems you might say EMI. If this is the case, how could Muti's intention forsee this unnatural 12 mic configuration that yielded the "imaging without soundstage" effect? Wouldn't the simple stereo mic configuration represent what Muti would expect listeners in the seats to hear and possibly be closer to what he himself heard?

Just so you know, I like your evaluation program. Seems like you can have a lot of fun with it and it certainly frames your audio experiments in a challenging and potentially fruitful groove, though limited, arbitrary, and incomplete like any other perspective.

As for "higher" level, check your tie for spit. This is a higher order of navel gazing perhaps.

Reminds me of reading Husserl as a student. It is indeed rewarding in a masturbatory way to deconstruct perception, but this can only be achieved outside of the flow of aesthetic experience. To listen to music you have to let this highly unnatural and picayune mode of analysis go and flow with the experience--or at least that's the way I feel about it.

Step back and think how obscure and meaningless for most listeners this concept of "external audio" is. This is not a mark of superiority but a sign that you are so far down in the hole that you are not seeing the larger picture of audio experience only the walls of your tunnel. But it is your tunnel and if are comfortable in it, that is what matters.

As I mentioned, I have come to be in contact with many audiophiles in my career. The distinction I draw among them is happy ones and ones who are neurotic and suffering. Anything that leads to happiness and enjoyment to me is valid and anything that causes tension and pain is evil.

One reason I am "retired" is that I grew weary of the neurotic ones, because I am not cut out to be a shrink. Fortunately, the mindset I tried to promote with Sound Practices allowed me to meet many happy audio pilgrims and these very fulfilling experiences and the joy in working with happy people directly contributed to my philosophy outlined here.

J Rob
01-25-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,257
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 54
Post ID: 9526
Reply to: 9525
When Everything Is Equal
fiogf49gjkf0d
The things I like best about a good wide-range drivers are coherence and immediacy; like nothing else I know of.

But awareness of the limited range (certainly not FR), dynamics (certainly not natural on most music) and any response anomalies (over the top, in most cases) quickly come to the fore, IMO.

Meanwhile, it has come to the point for me that in order to really enjoy "reproduced" music I need many or even most of the informational cues I get from live music, albeit they wind up "arranged" somewhat differently via "playback".

Yes, people should certainly get what they want/deserve out of music, but since Real Music is Art, it does not simply yield itself up, just like that, but it must be met in dialog.

And IMO there is simply more to the musical dialog than can be successfully gotten via any single driver I have heard or, based on experince, heard of.  They are so limited by genre.

This is not to say I begrudge anyone his happiness vis-a-vis a single driver, but rather I admit that I tend to take that person's recommendations under advisement.

This is to say that I did from the outset of this thread take the references to the Silbatone as a sort of fraternal recommendation, a la Feastrex, etc.,  (so, please correct me if I'm wrong).

Best regards,
Paul S
01-25-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 512
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 55
Post ID: 9527
Reply to: 9525
Recalling a different focus on audio
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Tuga wrote:
Joe, Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy a good pizza. Unfortunately I won't find one in a Pizzahut. "That" man's 2 for 1 pleasure says a lot about his evaluating capabilities... I also enjoy several different kinds of music, mostly acoustic, but enjoying music and evaluating a system's performance are two completely different tasks.
I absolutely disagree. First of all, I enjoy Pizza Hut Pizza quite a bit. Secondly, the idea that certain music like classical music is more evolved is a TRAP. A stereo is only useful if it can play the music we enjoy well. Each type of music presents different challenges to the audio system. A stereo that plays only classical music well necessarily has distortions that favor classical music. There is nothing wrong with this, but we must recognize that these are euphonic distortions. ALL forms of music should be used to evaluate an audio system; this will be tempered by an understanding of what aspects of audio we prefer to focus on.
 Joe Roberts wrote:
This notion assumes a universal standard. The Pizza Hut listeners were evaluating performance, only by a different standard than you or I use. I am not even sure what it was, but their amazement at the blue mini-towers seemed genuine. I can't always know the goals and I certainly can't and don't need to share everyman's goals, but I can recognize that goals and tastes are indeed individual.
Joe, I would recommend you look at my old thread: http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=8773#8773
 Joe Roberts wrote:
Harry Pearson had the "more evolved" thing going too. Conned a lot of people into listening to things they didn't really like, trying to find their place in heaven.
Do not let our individual beliefs in music get in the way of sharing information about audio. It is more like a religious debate. I prefer to remain agnostic. Wink Adrian
01-25-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 512
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 56
Post ID: 9528
Reply to: 9523
Imaging and soundstage
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
At even higher level the “imaging” and “soundstage” merge again but soundstage there become not the soundstage of musical even but a conditional horizon of a listener listening consciousness. There is one even higher level, where the recognition of “imaging” and “soundstage” collapse again and replaced by other things but I do not want to go there now.
Romy, I think above you said "soundstage of musical" when I think you meant to say "audio soundstage." Is this correct? If not, then perhaps I did not follow what you were saying; can you please clarify?

Adrian
01-25-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,734
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 57
Post ID: 9529
Reply to: 9525
Was the Lucy from Ethiopian a first Silbatone listener?
fiogf49gjkf0d

 Joe Roberts wrote:
What makes any particular goal higher, beyond the goal-owners high opinon of himself, his own preferences, and his listening acumen?

A valid comment, I have nothing against it. There is however “lower goals”, or the goals that are below the available goals.

This is the old "evolution leads to me" argument, which looks silly when it is recognized that many and perhaps most societies have a similar theory.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
Did you actually read 1980s TAS or just thought sniff it? I think I know the answer.

Nope, I did not. I arrived in US in 1992, spoke no English and was able to read cognitively after 1994-95.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
Which one captured the musical intention of Muti better? It seems you might say EMI. If this is the case, how could Muti's intention forsee this unnatural 12 mic configuration that yielded the "imaging without soundstage" effect? Wouldn't the simple stereo mic configuration represent what Muti would expect listeners in the seats to hear and possibly be closer to what he himself heard?

It is not accurate example; there are quite a few reasons why. However, the evaluation of what microphoning techniques was better does not lie in audio domain….

 Joe Roberts wrote:
Step back and think how obscure and meaningless for most listeners this concept of "external audio" is. This is not a mark of superiority but a sign that you are so far down in the hole that you are not seeing the larger picture of audio experience only the walls of your tunnel. But it is your tunnel and if are comfortable in it, that is what matters.

It is incorrect. I exceptionally well recognize the boundaries of my cave and I also set very precise margins for the content of this site. I for instance do not propose that one cable elevator is better than another just because according to Kurt Gödel’s theory of incompleteness there are “other considerations” that set the value of the first cable elevator to the astronomic heights.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
As I mentioned, I have come to be in contact with many audiophiles in my career. The distinction I draw among them is happy ones and ones who are neurotic and suffering. Anything that leads to happiness and enjoyment to me is valid and anything that causes tension and pain is evil. One reason I am "retired" is that I grew weary of the neurotic ones, because I am not cut out to be a shrink. Fortunately, the mindset I tried to promote with Sound Practices allowed me to meet many happy audio pilgrims and these very fulfilling experiences and the joy in working with happy people directly contributed to my philosophy outlined here.

I think you mistyped here. Let me to correct your writing. I think you meant to write the following.

"As I mentioned, I have come to be in contact with many audiophiles in my career. The distinction I draw among them is happy ones and ones who are neurotic and suffering. Anything that leads to happiness and enjoyment to me is valid and anything that causes tension and pain is evil. One reason I am "retired" is that I grew weary of the neurotic ones, because I am not cut out to be a shrink. Fortunately, the mindset I tried to promote with Sound Practices and these very fulfilling experiences and the joy in working with happy people directly contributed to my philosophy.  I returned from my retirement last year after I had my small Aporia orgasm. Before of my Silbatone revelation I was so full with my happiness and enjoyment that I was about to send Anthrax-loaded letters of all subscribes of my Sound Practices. But then the earthshaking Silbatonisation hit me and the Universe flipped upside down in front of my eyes. I never heard anything quite like the Aporia. I shocked me more than the very first set of Ginsu Knives I bought - which is why Aporia interested me. After one week, I was still trying to deconstruct some of the illusions it presented. I could not identify deadly anomalies that ruined the fun in Silbatone’s Sound and my philosophy of sucking-in an enjoyment from a loudspeaker was demonstrating itself with Aporia at its full glory.  I was so impressed that I cut my “Stereo Sound” magazines for toilet papers, sold my Anthrax to Michele Framer, my crossed out from my will my beloved single-legged 12 foot giant lizard and put in there the Josef Manger’s children. The Aporia is an ultimate path to happiness, plus, they look good with oriental rugs. The Aporia is even better then Barrack Obama celebration coin! The sound of Magners is an ultimate remedy from neurotic tendencies and those Korean speakers are  anybody’s ultimate  way to observe the width of cosmos right from the whole of own suffering. Do you know that the Manger’s was discovered in a 12.000-year-old Egyptian tomb? Those prehistoric Egyptian knew that if to connect a Manger driver to a sheep and to rob the sheep's fur then the Manger will produce sound that allowed the listeners to meet many happy pilgrims…."

I can go on but what is the point? BTW, there is an interesting point that you and your Korean friends might get interest in.  It turned out that a friend of my read this thread and informed me that a few years back he invented a driver that has “some” similarity with Manger but it has some very fundamental differences.  According to him his driver is free from any existing Manger design limitation.  It is 100Hz to 20kHz and my it’s nature it is liberated from all know Manger’s issues.

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
01-25-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 512
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 58
Post ID: 9530
Reply to: 9526
Full range drivers
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Paul S wrote:
The things I like best about a good wide-range driver are coherence and immediacy: like nothing else I know of, but awareness of the limited range quickly come to the fore.
Paul, my experience with wide range drivers is limited. I agree that it is unrivaled in its limited range. I think if I only listened to the midrange: vocals and such, the good might outweigh the bad. The problem for me is that badly reproduced highs and lows often make the reproduced audio unpleasant to hear.

Adrian
01-25-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,734
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 59
Post ID: 9531
Reply to: 9528
Always think what might be there…
fiogf49gjkf0d
 drdna wrote:
 Romy the Cat wrote:
At even higher level the “imaging” and “soundstage” merge again but soundstage there become not the soundstage of musical even but a conditional horizon of a listener listening consciousness. There is one even higher level, where the recognition of “imaging” and “soundstage” collapse again and replaced by other things but I do not want to go there now.
Romy, I think above you said "soundstage of musical" when I think you meant to say "audio soundstage." Is this correct? If not, then perhaps I did not follow what you were saying; can you please clarify?


Nope, this is what shall be there: "At even higher level the “imaging” and “soundstage” merge again but soundstage then become not the soundstage of musical event but a conditional horizon of a listener’s listening consciousness. There is one even higher level, where the recognition of “imaging” and “soundstage” collapse again and replaced by other things, but I do not want to go there now."

REF: http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=3823

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
01-25-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Joe Roberts
Posts 48
Joined on 01-12-2009

Post #: 60
Post ID: 9533
Reply to: 9529
Daddy Cat and Baby Cat
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Joe Roberts wrote:
Did you actually read 1980s TAS or just thought sniff it? I think I know the answer.

Nope, I did not. I arrived in US in 1992, spoke no English and was able to read cognitively after 1994-95.

Well check it out before you go slagging on HP, because you might discover that he is, in fact, your DADDY.

The original formulation was a bit tedious but had more thought behind it than what "imaging" and "soundstage" developed into as we know it today in the streets. It sounds very similar in intent to your theory outlined in this thread and as I mentioned the overall evaluation program appears related in very many respects.

In general principles, Real Music = The Absolute Sound. Even those labels are similar.

Nothing new under the sun.


I think you mistyped here. Let me to correct your writing. I meant to write the following.

Keep your day job, Hoss.


It turned out that a friend of my read this thread and informed me that a few years back he invented a driver that has “some” similarity with Manger but it has some very fundamental differences.  According to him his driver is free from any existing Manger design limitation.  It is 100Hz to 20kHz and my it’s nature it is liberated from all know Manger’s issues.

Interesting! The Manger specs are 150-30k so that is not a great improvement, but in the Aporia, the backwave characteristics become important. The Manger backwave is not optimal. If this invention is as flat out the back as out the front, that could be an improvement. Does he have any drivers?


J Rob




Page 3 of 6 (108 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 4 5 » ... Last »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Truth stretched out via Feastrex prism...  Goodbye Chris Witmer...  Audio Discussions  Forum     26  247213  01-21-2006
  »  New  Western Electric reproduces 0Hz + some literature…..  Re-set...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     2  46011  07-24-2006
  »  New  Learn to differentiate between Imaging and Soundstage...  Learn to differentiate between Imaging and Soundstage....  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     0  12604  03-07-2007
  »  New  Klangfilm: actual knowledge is better then fetish imagi..  Klangfilm Kl51...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     18  186057  03-15-2007
  »  New  The unintended consequences of binaural things in Hi-Fi..  Re: Binaural -- or what ever the case was......  Playback Listening  Forum     1  24457  08-04-2009
  »  New  Munich High End 2010..  The retarded open baffle...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     39  296920  05-16-2010
  »  New  The CES's 2011 horns..  Reviewers and table radios...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     21  144951  01-07-2011
  »  New  A Moscow setup with Horns/Lowther..  A new reiteration of the Moscow setup....  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     33  282401  02-27-2011
  »  New  A new kid in the block: Sadurni Acoustics..  Axpona 2015...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     21  108233  08-22-2011
  »  New  Aries Cerat Contendo - the newest "fat" kid i..  It is very unfortunate then...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     5  36733  09-08-2011
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