Why don't we use Pro Monitors in our Homes? - Page 7 - AVS Forum
First ... 5  6  7 8  9  ... Last
Speakers > Why don't we use Pro Monitors in our Homes?
penngray's Avatar penngray 10:25 AM 06-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

I don't want too get OT here, but this requires a response.

C'mon Penn, you know that Audyssey, (etc.) is *ROOM CORRECTION*, not speaker correction per se, which is how you've portrayed it. You also know that you could take a speaker that is "ruler flat" from 20 to 20K anechoic, and place it in a room..... any room... and it will measure anything but "ruler flat". Buying "accurate" speakers does not ensure accurate *in room* response!
(End of OT Discussion)

Back on topic, I have a friend who uses 3 powered Mackie studio monitors for his front soundstage. They sound fantastic, they're anything but ugly and they're a terrific deal with the self-contained amplification.
http://www.mackie.com/products/hrmk2series/
Oh, and they're pretty accurate too:



Craig

Craig, you are absolute correct, no speakers measure in room flat but speakers with better polar responses will have a better in room response to start with (I just assume this is known). Pro audio designs tend to care about this more!

But we all know Audyssey takes a speaker in a specific room and makes many, many corrections on it to create a flat response. Those speakers that some people like as warm (rolled off high) will not not have rolled off highs any more hence they are not the warm speakers they purchased. Those speakers that people like more bass from do not have more bass. Hmmm...why buy them for a specific sound if you are changing the sound in room

Anyways, the reasons people buy these "Bright,Warm, Detailed" more or less inaccurate speakers are thrown out the window because they used auto EQing. I keep thinking why don't people just buy more accurate speakers period since the end result in room is a flat response or a specific "curve" Just do it the right way!! All the subjectivity of all this will end someday when everyone realizes what they do in their room with their systems is more important that the type of speaker they buy, meaning they just need to buy accurate, well built speakers with the right looks..."Warm", "Bright" , blah, blah will be dead some day

Tonmeister2008's Avatar Tonmeister2008 10:31 AM 06-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Teller View Post

OP Here:

Wow - I never expecting this thread to take off the way that it has! I'm not c

By starting this thread, I wanted to know:

1) if professional studio monitors could deliver these same sound characteristic design goals in my home, and

2) if they can, then why don't more people use them at home?

In both video and audio, I want to experience accuracy. I want to see and hear what I am supposed to see and hear. I'm well aware that I can do all sorts of things to the images and sound to make them more "pleasing", but that is not my goal. If I am not supposed to see something in a very dark portion of a movie's image, then I do not want to see it! Similarly, if I am not supposed to hear some minute detail in the soundtrack, then I do not want to hear it. Conversely, if I am supposed to see or hear a certain detail, then I darn well want to see or hear it! Even if it is "unpleasant"

I used logic alone to say, "if they use a certain type of speaker in the recording studio, then doesn't it make sense to use that same type of speaker at home?"

But I am also well aware that the speakers are only half of the audio equation and that the room (including the listening position) are the other half.

The "typical" recording studio is not traditionally like a "typical" room at home, so I am open to the idea that there could be a genuine difference between a "studio" speaker and a "home" speaker.

But I need technical reasons as to why they are different in order to be convinced that there is a difference. Simply saying "there is a difference" is not convincing unless it can be explained what that difference is.

And simply saying "one is near-field, the other is for listening at greater distances" is likewise not convincing. What is it about a speaker that can be used in the near-field that makes it inappropriate for listening further away?

On the flip side, it has been explained why a physically large, 3-way speaker will likely not work well for near-field listening. The reason given is that the sounds from all 3 (or more) drivers need to "sum" so that they appear to the ear as a point source. That is a technical reason - one that makes sense and explains why that type of speaker may work fine when the listener is a good distance away, but will not work well if the listener is seated to close to allow this summation.

Bottom Line - How do I get accurate sound in my home?

Can I use professional audio monitors? If I can - are they a good choice for getting accurate audio? If I do not care about looks, I am fine with using XLR or RCA connections and a pre/pro and I am careful to choose pro monitors that are specified for my room size and listening distance, is it reasonable to expect that I will be closer to having accurate sound?

Jon

Jon,

[1] There is no reason why you can't get accurate sound in your home using professional or consumer loudspeakers. What matters is their technical performance, and well designed loudspeakers, whether consumer or professional models, both aim for the same targets. A "near-field" professional monitor may have boundary-correction to compensate for the placing the speakers on mixing console or against a wall. However, that can usually be removed with a switch.

[2] Once you have accurate loudspeakers the only remaining issue is setting them up properly and calibrating them to minimize acoustical interaction effects between the loudspeakers and room. This includes room mode/boundary effects and excessively live or reflective rooms.
penngray's Avatar penngray 10:32 AM 06-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

that's interesting. how does audyssey determine the difference?

penn is suggesting that if you have a speaker with a frequency response that is not matched to its power response, there is nothing that can be done and that most folks don't understand that, so they think audyssey, et al, can fix the problems. he is right.



the image of the flat frequency response that you posted for the mackies is typical of one dimensional thinking that leads to bad sound. i suspect that you understand that, but such images along with descriptions such as "accurate" confuse folks.

Thanks, Im trying to explain that but as always you help me out
craig john's Avatar craig john 10:50 AM 06-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

that's interesting. how does audyssey determine the difference?

It doesn't. It corrects the speaker/room combination. Penn portrayed it as speaker correction only.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

penn is suggesting that if you have a speaker with a frequency response that is not matched to its power response, there is nothing that can be done and that most folks don't understand that, so they think audyssey, et al, can fix the problems. he is right.

Penn's comment suggested that people (especially the "uneducated" with "untrained taste" ) generally buy lousy speakers and then simply use Audyssey to "fix" them. That is clearly not the intent of Audyssey, whether people use it that way or not.

The intent of Audyssey is to look at the room and the speaker as a system, and to correct that system to a target curve over an area of the listening room. Is it perfect? NO. It is usually a benefit? IME, Yes. Also, the better the speakers and the room are to start with, the less Audyssey has to do, and the better the job it *can* do.

Have you ever used Audyssey?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

the image of the flat frequency response that you posted for the mackies is typical of one dimensional thinking that leads to bad sound. i suspect that you understand that, but such images along with descriptions such as "accurate" confuse folks.

I agree that on-axis FR is just a single measurement and doesn't tell the whole story. However, if you looked at the Mackie's, you would see that they use a waveguide to control directivity. They should have a well-controlled power response, as well as a flat on-axis FR. "...one dimensional thinking" is not an "accurate" description (PI) of the Mackie's, for sure. Nor is "bad sound". Why would you make such a generalization? Have you ever heard the Mackie's?

Craig
syswei's Avatar syswei 11:02 AM 06-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

I have been through the Be research and there is a question about audible differences in using different metals. No doubt using Be isnt going to hurt but I have read many, many design opinions from many speaker builders and SQ has more to do with design (box, crossovers) then driver selection...a metal like beryllium might help, its properties say it does but its not a garuntee.

Granted that tweeter material doesn't by itself make for a great speaker, and I wasn't suggesting that. But there are reasons for the Focal Solo6 costing more than an equivalent-sized JBL monitor...namely Be and a nicer-looking cabinet. Just look at Harman's product lines and see what you'd have to spend to get Be, and a nicer cabinet than an LSRxxxx.
craig john's Avatar craig john 11:03 AM 06-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

Craig, you are absolute correct, no speakers measure in room flat but speakers with better polar responses will have a better in room response to start with (I just assume this is known). Pro audio designs tend to care about this more!

Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

But we all know Audyssey takes a speaker in a specific room and makes many, many corrections on it to create a flat response. Those speakers that some people like as warm (rolled off high) will not not have rolled off highs any more hence they are not the warm speakers they purchased. Those speakers that people like more bass from do not have more bass. Hmmm...why buy them for a specific sound if you are changing the sound in room

Anyways, the reasons people buy these "Bright,Warm, Detailed" more or less inaccurate speakers are thrown out the window because they used auto EQing. I keep thinking why don't people just buy more accurate speakers period since the end result in room is a flat response or a specific "curve" Just do it the right way!! All the subjectivity of all this will end someday when everyone realizes what they do in their room with their systems is more important that the type of speaker they buy, meaning they just need to buy accurate, well built speakers with the right looks..."Warm", "Bright" , blah, blah will be dead some day

Actually Audyssey's "target curve" is slightly rolled off highs. IIRC, it's -1 dB @10kHz and -3 dB @ 20 kHz. They said they found this to provide the sound "most similar" to the studio environment. THX's Re-EQ uses a similar curve.

As I said above, if the system presented to Audyssey is optimized, (accurate speakers, (whatever they are), and good room acoustics), Audyssey will have a much easier time "correcting" it.

Craig
LTD02's Avatar LTD02 11:59 AM 06-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post


I agree that on-axis FR is just a single measurement and doesn't tell the whole story. However, if you looked at the Mackie's, you would see that they use a waveguide to control directivity. They should have a well-controlled power response...

use of a waveguide alone is insufficient for a smooth power response. maybe the mackie's have the rest of the secret sauce, maybe they don't. we'd need to see measurements.

Quote:


"...one dimensional thinking" is not an "accurate" description (PI) of the Mackie's, for sure. Nor is "bad sound". Why would you make such a generalization? Have you ever heard the Mackie's?

i was suggesting that the picture that you presented, frequency response, is representative of one dimensional thinking that can lead to bad sound and that such pictures along with statements related to accuracy may confuse folks. flat frequency response is a good first step, but smooth power response is even better. no biggee. i was not saying that the mackie's sound bad. in fact, while i have not heard them, my guess would be that they sound quite good.

i thought the parent of mackie, loud, went bankrupt as a result of the downturn in the global economy combined with massive disruptions in its chinese supply chain. do you happen to know if it was a reorg vs. liquidation?
Jay1's Avatar Jay1 12:07 PM 06-28-2009
craig john, I haven't looked into Audyssey yet, so I have a question. Does it take a close miced response of the speakers first before the room response is corrected? If not then it is EQing every speaker flat regardless of the intended sound the speaker was designed with.

edit: we all know most hifi speakers are "voiced" for a characteristic sound.
LTD02's Avatar LTD02 12:08 PM 06-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

Thanks, Im trying to explain that but as always you help me out

i pulled that picture from jbl literature a long time ago. i think they pulled it from an aes article, so i am not sure who gets credit for it originally. regardless, it is a great picture that should be well understood by anybody who uses speakers in a home environment.

for many of us, pictures make concepts so much more intuitive. i can't remember any text from any post where folks talked about power response, but ten years from now i will still be able to draw that picture.
LTD02's Avatar LTD02 12:16 PM 06-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

Actually Audyssey's "target curve" is slightly rolled off highs. IIRC, it's -1 dB @10kHz and -3 dB @ 20 kHz. They said they found this to provide the sound "most similar" to the studio environment.

a little rolloff above 10khz is consistent with the survey data of recording studios performed by (genelec?) that was reported in the toole article in audio critic to which i linked.

one thing that has me a little confused is that audyssey seems to shoot for flat bass response, when the recording studio data suggest a little bump in the bass (roughly 3db around 50hz or so). jbl's auto eq system provides for a pretty large rise in the bass region (about 5db around 40hz) with an overall slightly downward-sloping frequency response...and they do their (our) homework. given that a little boost in the bass is preferred by lots of folks, why does audyssey force a flat response?
LTD02's Avatar LTD02 12:22 PM 06-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay1 View Post

edit: we all know most hifi speakers are "voiced" for a characteristic sound.

argh! while true, this is one of the old myths that we need to blow up as fast as possible. speakers should impart as little as possible of their own character to the reproduced sound. perhaps it would be easier to kill this one if we could recognize that voice = distortion.
Jay1's Avatar Jay1 12:24 PM 06-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

argh! while true, this is one of the old myths that we need to blow up as fast as possible. speakers should impart as little as possible of their own character to the reproduced sound. perhaps it would be easier to kill this one if we could recognize that voice = distortion.

Very true, but audiophools don't let science get in the way of what they like
craig john's Avatar craig john 12:30 PM 06-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay1 View Post

craig john, I haven't looked into Audyssey yet, so I have a question. Does it take a close miced response of the speakers first before the room response is corrected? If not then it is EQing every speaker flat regardless of the intended sound the speaker was designed with.

edit: we all know most hifi speakers are "voiced" for a characteristic sound.

The first measurement is taken from the primary LP. This measurement is used to set the levels and distances. Then, depending on the version of Audyssey, it will take at least two, and up to 32, more measurements over the listening area. These are used to set Finite Impulse Response filters to correct the frequency and time domain response over that listening area.

There is no close-mic'd measurement taken. Audyssey has a specific target curve they use irrespective of the speakers used.

Off to watch USA - Brazil.

Craig
Soundood's Avatar Soundood 12:59 PM 06-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Teller View Post


In particular, I would like to pick your brain about one thing in particular. You mentioned that most near-field monitors will only be suitable for smaller rooms with close seating distances because of their limited output capabilities (smaller amps, smaller drivers and cabinets, etc.) This makes perfect sense to me. As does your description that a mid-field monitor or dubbing stage main monitor will be perfectly fine in medium and large rooms respectively as they are, after all, intended for larger rooms and farther seating distances!

In regards to near-field monitors though - is there a technical reason why a near-field monitor would not be appropriate for, say, a 6 foot listening distance or maybe 8 feet? Assuming that it has enough power and distortion free output purely to handle the distance? What I am getting at: is there some technical reason other than output capabilities why a near-field monitor could not work from somewhat farther away?

As a more clear example, a small recording studio may have room dimensions of, say, around 12'x 14', yes? But in a studio, the monitors would likely be a mere 2-3 feet from the mixer's head with his station setup more or less in the middle of the room. If we were to keep that same size of room, but set things up more like a traditional home theatre, we could expect the seat to be about 4' from the back wall and the front baffle of the speakers to be about 3' from the front wall, effectively giving a listening distance of about 7 feet or so.

If a near-field monitor can deliver, say, about 110 dB of peak, undistorted output at 3 feet, it ought to be able to deliver the reference peaks of 105dB in such a setup, no? If the output is adequate, is there any other technical aspect of the sound that would make this setup undesirable?

Thank you for your input!

As long as the monitor in question can deliver reference levels at the listening position without going into compression, rising distortion or amp clipping (in the case of an active monitor), there is no technical reason you can't use them. There ARE active NFM's which have higher output levels and dynamic capabilities, but they tend to be expensive (take the PMC AML-1, a ridiculously good NFM that will do a solid 116 db and gets down to about 35 hz in a bookshelf size speaker. It costs $9000 a pair. What you'll need to determine is whether the monitor will deliver adequate power response at the distances involved in your situation. I'd probably go to a local pro music shop and see what they offer for NFM's and arrange to take home a pair to try. One other thing to keep in mind, most NFM's are voiced for a studio which is acoustically treated. If you have an untreated room you may find the tonal balance off. Fortunately, most NFM's do have level controls to help compensate and you can always run some room correction or equalization to help compensate.

And LDT-02, lighten up dude. Have a beer, listen to some music. Not only did I mention a product I don't sell (the Seaton), but did you ever stop to think that I might just have more experience in selling pro speakers into home theater setups than you or many of the people in the thread? I did read the thread and thought my analysis presented points of view from a perspective that few of the people in the thread come from (the dealer side of things).

I also presented a perspective of where I see the market going which is not towards the studio oriented product, but more towards a high end LIVE speaker, and the technical reasons behind that. If that helps people take a look at an alternative (this thread IS about an alternative to the traditional consumer speaker system) then it is valuable. They don't have to buy anything from me, the evil capitalist dealer [/Darth Vader Breathing Sound Effect].
sivadselim's Avatar sivadselim 02:14 PM 06-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

argh! while true, this is one of the old myths that we need to blow up as fast as possible. speakers should impart as little as possible of their own character to the reproduced sound. perhaps it would be easier to kill this one if we could recognize that voice = distortion.

Well, regardless of how you feel about how speakers SHOULD be designed, that most in-home speakers have a characteristic sound is not a "myth". That's, basically, why there are so many speaker manufacturers. Even if there WAS a perfect speaker, do you think everyone would line up to buy it? Doubtful.


And don't get me wrong. A perfect speaker is a perfectly reasonable and honorable platitude. It's just not going to happen for any number of reasons. It's funny how manufacturers market their speakers as "accurate". But we all know that they are not all equally "accurate".
sivadselim's Avatar sivadselim 02:30 PM 06-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

Actually Audyssey's "target curve" is slightly rolled off highs. IIRC, it's -1 dB @10kHz and -3 dB @ 20 kHz. They said they found this to provide the sound "most similar" to the studio environment.

But isn't there a way to prevent Audyssey from altering your speakers' response above a certain point? There was some discussion of this in the "My journey to find the "perfect" speaker........." thread and several people, myself included, agreed that we didn't want Audyssey mucking with our speakers' "characteristic sound".
LTD02's Avatar LTD02 03:09 PM 06-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

Well, regardless of how you feel about how speakers SHOULD be designed, that most in-home speakers have a characteristic sound is not a "myth".

it's not about me. it's the objective of the entire scientific audio community.

Quote:


That's, basically, why there are so many speaker manufacturers.

incorrect. there are so many speaker manufacturers because the barriers to entry are next to zero and consumers are confused as to what constitutes performance.

Quote:


Even if there WAS a perfect speaker, do you think everyone would line up to buy it? Doubtful.

incorrect. everywhere where performance vs. price is clear, consumers choose to maximize performance for a given price. sure, it may take a while, but eventually people get it. the strong performers survive, the weak performers die off. sony killed sylvania. bmw killed pontiac. wendy's killed hardee's. capitalism killed communism. and so on.

Quote:


And don't get me wrong. A perfect speaker is a perfectly reasonable and honorable platitude.

what is an "honorable platitude"?

Quote:


It's funny how manufacturers market their speakers as "accurate". But we all know that they are not all equally "accurate".

the real companies in the business provide lots of measurements in order to prove their accuracy. they don't just make a bunch of baseless claims.
LTD02's Avatar LTD02 03:30 PM 06-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundood View Post


And LDT-02, lighten up dude. Have a beer, listen to some music. Not only did I mention a product I don't sell (the Seaton), but did you ever stop to think that I might just have more experience in selling pro speakers into home theater setups than you or many of the people in the thread? I did read the thread and thought my analysis presented points of view from a perspective that few of the people in the thread come from (the dealer side of things).

I also presented a perspective of where I see the market going which is not towards the studio oriented product, but more towards a high end LIVE speaker, and the technical reasons behind that. If that helps people take a look at an alternative (this thread IS about an alternative to the traditional consumer speaker system) then it is valuable. They don't have to buy anything from me, the evil capitalist dealer [/Darth Vader Breathing Sound Effect].

i over shot the mark. my bad. my apologies.

i've just become too sensitive to people who are trying to sell stuff by filling the boards up with their horsesh!t.

you see, there are two dimensions to profitability for companies. the first, is to create something of value. in that case, marketing simply becomes letting people know that there product exists. i'm all for this!

the second case is to "trick" the consumer into thinking that the product is better than it really is. i was sensing a _little_ of the second case in your post, which is why i blew up at you. it was not personal in any way. in hindsight, as i said, i overshot.

a good example of the former is john j. he has a good product. i beat him up a little bit and then he comes back with good points. we all learn from him. so, ok.

mark seaton is in between. sometimes his points are strong and clear, sometimes a little obfuscated. the line between education and selling blurs, if even just a bit. overall, ok.

there are some, however, who just try to trick us into believing their crap is worth our money. i won't point out any individuals. i can't stand these folks and wish we had a mechanism to force their exit from the boards.

our purpose is to learn and share our learning. their purpose is to confuse for profit.

venting concluded.
craig john's Avatar craig john 03:37 PM 06-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

But isn't there a way to prevent Audyssey from altering your speakers' response above a certain point? There was some discussion of this in the "My journey to find the "perfect" speaker........." thread and several people, myself included, agreed that we didn't want Audyssey mucking with our speakers' "characteristic sound".

In some implementations, one has a choice of curves, Audyssey, Front and Flat. You can also shut it off.

Quote:


What target curves does MultEQ use?
Contrary to popular belief, a target curve that is flat from 20 Hz to 20 kHz is not always the one that will produce the correct sound. There are several reasons for this including the fact that loudspeakers are much more directional at high frequencies than they are at low frequencies. This means that the balance of direct and room sound is very different at the high and low ends of the frequency spectrum.

The Audyssey target curve setting makes the appropriate correction at high frequencies to alleviate this problem. A slight roll-off is introduced that restores the balance between direct and reflected sound.

The Flat setting uses the MultEQ filters in the same way as the Audyssey curve, but it does not apply a high frequency roll-off. This setting is appropriate for very small or highly treated rooms in which the listener is seated quite close to the loudspeakers. It is also recommended for all rooms when the receiver is in THX processing mode. This allows THX re-equalization to operate exactly as it was intended.

The Front setting uses the MultEQ filters that were calculated for the entire listening area, but it does not apply any filtering to the front left and right loudspeakers. The average measured response from the front left and right loudspeakers is used as the target curve for the remaining loudspeakers in the system. The subwoofer in this case is equalized to flat as is the case for all the settings described above.

In some products, there is a Manual setting. This is a traditional parametric equalizer that does not use the MultEQ filters or measurement process at all.

http://www.audyssey.com/faq/index.html#multEQcurve

Craig
sivadselim's Avatar sivadselim 03:40 PM 06-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

it's not about me. it's the objective of the entire scientific audio community.

I think you misunderstood my post. What Jay1 said is not a "myth". It's true. That's all I was saying. Speakers DO have a characteristic sound.

Unless you are saying that the idea that speakers are voiced for a characteristic sound is a "myth". But that's not really a "myth" either.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

incorrect. everywhere where performance vs. price is clear, consumers choose to maximize performance for a given price. sure, it may take a while, but eventually people get it. the strong performers survive, the weak performers die off. sony killed sylvania. bmw killed pontiac. wendy's killed hardee's. capitalism killed communism. and so on.

BMW didn't kill Pontiac. Sony didn't kill Sylvania. And Wendy's didn't kill Hardees (aren't they still around?). Those companies killed themselves. But, that's irrelevant. I understand the point you are trying to make. But I do not think it applies to speakers. It is easy to see how a Sony outperforms a Sylvania. Not just the picture, but other things like reliability, too. If you asked 100 people which speakers they preferred, how many different answers would you get? Wonder why?


Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

what is an "honorable platitude"?

OK, forget I said that if you don't like its tone.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

the real companies in the business provide lots of measurements in order to prove their accuracy. they don't just make a bunch of baseless claims.

No matter how many graphs and measurements you can present, right or wrong, ignorant or not, people ultimately buy speakers based upon a preference. I'll always try to listen to a pair of speakers before I buy them. And I think that most people would say the same.
4DHD's Avatar 4DHD 04:13 PM 06-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

Well, regardless of how you feel about how speakers SHOULD be designed, that most in-home speakers have a characteristic sound is not a "myth". That's, basically, why there are so many speaker manufacturers. Even if there WAS a perfect speaker, do you think everyone would line up to buy it? Doubtful.

Most wouldn't, b/c most could not afford it.

These are all JBL, the first three I could afford. Is there a sonic difference as you move up the ladder, YES


This is also JBL, JBL's best, Everest II @ $30K/ea no way I have the cash for these. Maybe the closest there is to perfect, at this time.

LTD02's Avatar LTD02 04:19 PM 06-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonmeister2008 View Post

I am trying to convince Harman Consumer marketing and sales to publish more comprehensive measurements of their loudspeakers like JBL Professional does for their loudspeakers. We'll see how successful I am. One of the concerns is that consumers will be confused by the amount of data and how to interpret it, but that is where I could help out.

encourage harman to do it just as with the pro gear--a spec sheet and a brochure.

for most of the public, the brochure is fine. however, the spec sheet will get circulated on the boards, discussed, and ultimately influence lots of purchase decisions even if the "deciders" don't read or fully understand the points made in the spec sheet.

i might even be an infinity customer (or influence my friends and family who are not as much of audio junkies as i am), but the lack of measurements as with the jbl pro gear holds me back.

the key idea is that if you can deliver the goods, why not let us know? the jbl-infinity-revel brands all deliver.
LTD02's Avatar LTD02 04:23 PM 06-28-2009
4dhd, maybe you would like the jbl s4600. not quite an everest, but may be within your price range.

http://www.harman-japan.co.jp/produc...ome/s4600.html

may have to move to japan in order to get them though. ;-)


sivadselim's Avatar sivadselim 04:28 PM 06-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4DHD View Post

Most wouldn't, b/c most could not afford it.

These are all JBL, the first three I could afford. Is there a sonic difference as you move up the ladder, YES.

What is that difference? Is the improved performance proportional to what it the costs to move up the ladder? Some might say no. Some might say yes. That's a bit ethereal.

But I think we would all agree that as you move up the ladder the price increase is not proportional to what it costs (including R&D) to produce the speaker.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 4DHD View Post

Maybe the closest there is to perfect.............

I don't know what that means.
4DHD's Avatar 4DHD 04:31 PM 06-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

4dhd, maybe you would like the jbl s4600. not quite an everest, but may be within your price range.

http://www.harman-japan.co.jp/produc...ome/s4600.html

may have to move to japan in order to get them though. ;-)


Well, at this time, I'm quite happy with the PT800s, which was the middle photo. If this economy ever gets turned around...
sivadselim's Avatar sivadselim 04:33 PM 06-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4DHD View Post

Well, at this time, I'm quite happy with the PT800s............

Ewww, I don't like the way those sound.

J/K
craig john's Avatar craig john 04:34 PM 06-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4DHD View Post

This is also JBL, JBL's best, Everest II @ $30K/ea no way I have the cash for these. Maybe the closest there is to perfect, at this time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

I don't know what that means.

I don't know what it means either, but I heard them at CEDIA last fall, and they're as close to perfect as I've heard.

Craig
LTD02's Avatar LTD02 04:43 PM 06-28-2009
4dhd,

a diy is possible. you could get the le14h-4 driver used in the s4600. in a sealed 1 cubic footer, it has a -3bd of 80hz, which is right on thx spec. the driver is +/-1 up to about 1khz. find a hice horn that works down to about 1khz and you will be all set. if you don't have the time, inclination, or skill to diy, go for the s4600.


LL
sivadselim's Avatar sivadselim 04:47 PM 06-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

..............and they're as close to perfect as I've heard.

Put 100 engineers (and whatever) in a room for a year and tell them to make the perfect pair of speakers, money no object. Now put 100 more in another room tasked with the same. Take the 2 speakers home and listen to them with some of your favorite material. Not only will they sound different but that they do will be apparent to you fairly quickly.
markwriter's Avatar markwriter 04:49 PM 06-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

Yes! That is better then buy inaccurate speakers then use Audyssey to EQ them, then want a "house" curve.

You are right to say "less Accurate" because we both know any curve other then a flat one is defined as "Less Accurate".

I just find it so funny that all these people search for speakers based on personal taste (uneducated, untrained taste), they put them in their rooms because the sounded great in a store somewhere (NOTE: They will not sound teh same in the room to start). They then use Audyssey, MCACC, YPAO or whatever to Flatten the FR....

I don't use those types of circuits. Reading the Harman white papers on their site, one reads that the attempted EQ "cure" can be worse than the disease. Toole says not just any equalization will do, particularly when talking about frequencies above 400hz. The only eq I've used is the single band parametric eq provided on Infinity's subs.
First ... 5  6  7 8  9  ... Last

Up
Mobile  Desktop