Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy? - Page 52 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1531 of 3048 Old 03-02-2013, 06:33 PM
Member
 
kodi41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
depends- what are the masters?- you see you arguing for the sake of such- validate the original question, then we can proceed.

ATi 1805/Odyssey Stratos/NAD T785, LG BR, Tosh HD, Integra RDC-7& RDA-7, Thorens TD-318, Shure Ultra 400s, AQ cable's. 2 JBL 2241 18" subs/ JBLTi/L series Mains and surround (2 centers), 2 MK MX-250's, MK 1250Thx rear For HT, 60" Pany Plasma- APC power protection and stablizer. 110" projetion soon.
kodi41 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1532 of 3048 Old 03-02-2013, 06:46 PM
 
diomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by kodi41 View Post

depends- what are the masters?-
Which recording engineer uses cassette tape to work on an album to be sold to consumers? Unless you know someone who dose, why is that even a question?
Quote:
you see you arguing for the sake of such- validate the original question, then we can proceed.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by asking some specifics. Now it's your turn to answer:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kodi41 View Post

Ironically, much of audio is still recorded on tape and then transfered to disc.
What kind of audio and what year was that survey taken?
diomania is offline  
post #1533 of 3048 Old 03-02-2013, 06:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
kiwi2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,629
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

I will but I want to make sure I know where you are coming from so let me ask you another question before I do. Are you asking because you don't know?

I have no idea what you think is the most important criteria for measuring the accuracy of sound reproducing equipment.


Quote:
Then why not just ask for measurements? Asking someone to show their room is a very nosy question unless you are very close to him.

Because measurements won't tell the whole story. A picture is worth a 1000 words. He could have some Polk monitors sitting up on a bookshelf and on top of a clothes dryer either side of his TV for all we know and yet still be able to produce a reasonably flat frequency response graph for us. It wouldn't hardly represent "the accurate reproduction of a CD" though would it.


Here's my room with my favourite speakers to date. Newform Research R630's A 30" tall ribbon that takes care of 1k and up and behaves like a line source. With ribbons, very little mass. Also being out of the cabinet like that and narrow, there is little diffraction off a baffle as with more conventional speakers. There is also no back wave introduced into the room. Below 1k to 60hz is handled by their ScanSpeak drivers. Below 60hz is offloaded to subs. I love what they do with vocals, jazz, folk etc.

..
kiwi2 is offline  
post #1534 of 3048 Old 03-02-2013, 07:06 PM
 
diomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

I have no idea what you think is the most important criteria for measuring the accuracy of sound reproducing equipment.
kiwi2, the question was, "do you know what the main criteria for judging the quality of sound reproducing equipment is?". I'll take it that you don't. Am I right?
Quote:
Because measurements won't tell the whole story. A picture is worth a 1000 words.
Measurement in this context that we are talking about is a picture you know. A picture of how someone's system performs.
Quote:
He could have some Polk monitors sitting up on a bookshelf and on top of a clothes dryer either side of his TV for all we know and yet still be able to produce a reasonably flat frequency response graph for us. It wouldn't hardly represent "the accurate reproduction of a CD" though would it.
How do you know if a reasonably flat frequency response wouldn't represent the "accurate" reproduction of a CD? Also, anything other than frequency response? Or is that all the measurement you think is relevant for describing how someone's audio system sounds? Picture of someone's setup won't tell as much about how it performs in that room.
Quote:
Here's my room with my favourite speakers to date. Newform Research R630's A 30" tall ribbon that takes care of 1k and up and behaves like a line source. With ribbons, very little mass. Also being out of the cabinet like that and narrow, there is little diffraction off a baffle as with more conventional speakers. There is also no back wave introduced into the room. Below 1k to 60hz is handled by their ScanSpeak drivers. Below 60hz is offloaded to subs. I love what they do with vocals, jazz, folk etc.
One measurement picture would be worth 1000 of your words and you haven't even reached half of that. frown.gif
diomania is offline  
post #1535 of 3048 Old 03-02-2013, 07:10 PM
Senior Member
 
kraut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 378
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 60
x
kraut is offline  
post #1536 of 3048 Old 03-02-2013, 07:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
kiwi2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,629
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

kiwi2, the question was, "do you know what the main criteria for judging the quality of sound reproducing equipment is?". I'll take it that you don't. Am I right?

Enlighten us. What do you think is the main criteria for measuring the accuracy of sound reproduction equipment?

Quote:
One measurement picture would be worth 1000 of your words and you haven't even reached half of that.

Here's one I had up a while ago. My room certainly has some issues as it is quite small and I have a long-wall setup. The wall behind my listening position is pretty well covered in 6" thick broadband absorption panels plus two doors on that back wall stay permanently open into a bedroom and spear room. It all helps to reduce the sound waves reflecting back to the LP. I am currently saving in order to purchase a new house with a decent size lounge.

And you?
kiwi2 is offline  
post #1537 of 3048 Old 03-02-2013, 07:39 PM
 
diomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

Enlighten us.
What do you mean us? Wouldn't it be just you?
Quote:
What do you think is the main criteria for measuring the accuracy of sound reproduction equipment?
Reread post #1534. That's not what I brought up.
I'm not sure what's causing such difficulty for you. confused.gif
diomania is offline  
post #1538 of 3048 Old 03-02-2013, 08:02 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1162
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUR View Post


What FR response was the engineer hearing when he mixed/mastered the music?

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html

In the absence of standards for music reproduction, we simply don't know, and "accuracy" becomes a vexed proposition.

Accuracy is something that we currently can enjoy with things like amplifiers and DACs, but when acoustics are involved as they are in recording and loudspeakers, not so much. Not at all!
arnyk is offline  
post #1539 of 3048 Old 03-02-2013, 08:05 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1162
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

kiwi2, the question was, "do you know what the main criteria for judging the quality of sound reproducing equipment is?". I'll take it that you don't. Am I right?

Enlighten us. What do you think is the main criteria for measuring the accuracy of sound reproduction equipment?

Frequency response. Note that I stipulate that we don't really know what this even means in the acoustical domain. But we can know what it means for amps, dacs, cables and the like.

I say frequency response because the only other alternative which is nonlinear distortion, inherently varies with signal level. Therefore we are nol nearly as cognizant of it at low levels.
arnyk is offline  
post #1540 of 3048 Old 03-02-2013, 08:13 PM
Advanced Member
 
josh6113's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Columbus,Ohio
Posts: 708
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

What do you mean us? Wouldn't it be just you?


You responding to kiwi like that is how I responded to you in a previous thread...and you got bent out of shape...smile.gif...just pointing this out....smile.gif

Doing what I do best...LIVIN!
josh6113 is offline  
post #1541 of 3048 Old 03-02-2013, 09:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
kiwi2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,629
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Frequency response. Note that I stipulate that we don't really know what this even means in the acoustical domain. But we can know what it means for amps, dacs, cables and the like.

I say frequency response because the only other alternative which is nonlinear distortion, inherently varies with signal level. Therefore we are nol nearly as cognizant of it at low levels.

So diomania, is this the same as you thought? And if so, your point?
kiwi2 is offline  
post #1542 of 3048 Old 03-02-2013, 11:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,225
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 735 Post(s)
Liked: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

Also it would be nice to see and compare markus767's room who also believes in "faithful reproduction of the CD".

I've said that accurate reproduction is a moving target. Nothing more, nothing less.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is online now  
post #1543 of 3048 Old 03-03-2013, 12:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kiwi2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,629
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

I've said that accurate reproduction is a moving target. Nothing more, nothing less.

This is what you have said over the last few days...


"But make no mistake there's only one correct way of reproducing a recording. Just like there's only one correct way of calibrating a TV or projector. Whether you like how it looks or sounds is an entirely different topic."

"First, this is not a belief but a fact. The original is what was heard in mixing/mastering."

"Nevertheless there's only one true way which was defined by mixing/mastering."

"And you don't get to decide what the preference of the person mixing/mastering a recording has to be."

"Then why do you argue against accurate sound reproduction?"


...I'm curious, if you believe all that, then what practical applications has this resulted in with your system? Have you particularly chosen certain speakers that you think better suit your criteria? Do you have a dedicated 2ch audio room or do you listen to music on a HT system in the family lounge?
kiwi2 is offline  
post #1544 of 3048 Old 03-03-2013, 01:06 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1162
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

I will but I want to make sure I know where you are coming from so let me ask you another question before I do. Are you asking because you don't know?

I have no idea what you think is the most important criteria for measuring the accuracy of sound reproducing equipment.


Quote:
Then why not just ask for measurements? Asking someone to show their room is a very nosy question unless you are very close to him.

Because measurements won't tell the whole story.

Please name what specific part of the story they don't tell.

Quote:
A picture is worth a 1000 words. He could have some Polk monitors sitting up on a bookshelf and on top of a clothes dryer either side of his TV for all we know and yet still be able to produce a reasonably flat frequency response graph for us. It wouldn't hardly represent "the accurate reproduction of a CD" though would it.

The above continues to erroneously conflate areas where technology has advanced and provides relatively easy accuracy (CD) and areas where it has not (acoustics)
arnyk is offline  
post #1545 of 3048 Old 03-03-2013, 01:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,225
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 735 Post(s)
Liked: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

...I'm curious, if you believe all that, then what practical applications has this resulted in with your system? Have you particularly chosen certain speakers that you think better suit your criteria? Do you have a dedicated 2ch audio room or do you listen to music on a HT system in the family lounge?

Fully damped front wall, constant and high directivity speakers, near field subs, 5.1 configuration.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is online now  
post #1546 of 3048 Old 03-03-2013, 01:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kiwi2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,629
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Please name what specific part of the story they don't tell.

Okay, I like upmixing 2ch into 5.1. What measurement would I take with REW that shows the difference in what I hear between the two?

..
kiwi2 is offline  
post #1547 of 3048 Old 03-03-2013, 01:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kiwi2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,629
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

constant and high directivity speakers,

I'm picturing some kind of horn wave guide speakers..???

Quote:
5.1 configuration.

I presume you play 2ch music in straight 2ch though?
kiwi2 is offline  
post #1548 of 3048 Old 03-03-2013, 02:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,225
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 735 Post(s)
Liked: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

I'm picturing some kind of horn wave guide speakers..???

Gedlee Nathan
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

I presume you play 2ch music in straight 2ch though?

That and 2.x and matrix decoded and upmixed and other unusual stuff. I try a lot.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is online now  
post #1549 of 3048 Old 03-03-2013, 08:34 AM
 
diomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

So diomania, is this the same as you thought? And if so, your point?
Lets get couple things taken care before getting to that. You asked me to enlighten (you) because you don't know what the main criteria for judging the quality of sound reproducing equipment is, right? I just want to get a direct answer from you before going further. So your answer is...?
diomania is offline  
post #1550 of 3048 Old 03-03-2013, 05:51 PM
Member
 
kodi41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

Lets get couple things taken care before getting to that. You asked me to enlighten (you) because you don't know what the main criteria for judging the quality of sound reproducing equipment is, right? I just want to get a direct answer from you before going further. So your answer is...?
As I previously requested from you via my original question, you simply prefer to answer my question with a question of your own- sorry, not gonna go there, save the straw man arguement for some political debate. You were Originally asked a fair question.........first, now if you want a conversation that I feel requires a certain level of integrity, then be adult about it and answer with directed comments so that we can all comprehend your opinion.

And yes, ALL of audio is about opinions, facts cant not be provided about what a person prefers.
Quote:
Which recording engineer uses cassette tape to work on an album to be sold to consumers? Unless you know someone who dose, why is that even a question?

If you would like I could link you into oblivion about recording practices of today and yester year, but none of this matters, if you are a recording EE then state such, other wise look for yourself, go visit a local studio, ect. Even film of today is just breaking into full use of digital, and ironically, most people do not like it. While when used for animated topologies, it works well, digital film or audio is not the preference of most recording/film engineers. BTW, what cassette tape did I personally ever make mention to?

I made this statement, now if you disagree, then YOU must provide the proof that I am some how incorrect and w/o any clue of what we are speaking of.

ATi 1805/Odyssey Stratos/NAD T785, LG BR, Tosh HD, Integra RDC-7& RDA-7, Thorens TD-318, Shure Ultra 400s, AQ cable's. 2 JBL 2241 18" subs/ JBLTi/L series Mains and surround (2 centers), 2 MK MX-250's, MK 1250Thx rear For HT, 60" Pany Plasma- APC power protection and stablizer. 110" projetion soon.
kodi41 is offline  
post #1551 of 3048 Old 03-03-2013, 06:49 PM
Senior Member
 
kraut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 378
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 60
x
kraut is offline  
post #1552 of 3048 Old 03-03-2013, 10:21 PM
Member
 
EmotivaKeith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
OK, let's be reasonable here.....

Audio companies are no more involved in some *HUGE* conspiracy than restaurants or car manufacturers. Instead, each vendor is doing their best to promote their products. Therefore, each is trying to *prove* to you that theirs is better. Unfortunately, in some cases their perceived difference is a real difference, and, in others, it is not. Remember that, when you get down to it, most differences are "in the eye of the beholder" anyway. Is a real Rembrandt really worth 95 million dollars? How about if you had a "Rembrandt" sitting in a museum, valued at $20 million, and then found out it was a forgery? Why should the value change? After all, it's the same painting, and no better or worse than when you thought it was a real Rembrandt.....

Some audio equipment has real differences. That $100,000 turntable is a mechanical engineering marvel; lots of precision ground stainless steel and other wondrous technology. Does it work better (by which I mean lower wow and flutter, or lower rumble, or lower noise)? Maybe or maybe not. Does it sound better (which is a completely different issue)? I used to own an AR-Xb turntable, which had very low wow and flutter, and very low rumble. Does the $100,000 model have lower w&F or rumble? Who knows? Oddly, the reviews I've seen entirely neglect to take even those simple measurements.

Some listeners want accurate sound reproduction - which is something that you can sometimes measure. (More THD is less accurate than less THD.) Other listeners aren't looking for accurate reproduction at all; they're simply looking for something that they "like". Now, all bets are off, because we have no idea what numbers will correlate to what they like - if any.

My personal peeve is with things where no listener seems able to hear the difference with a blindfold on - like fancy cables. From every report I've seen, fancy interconnects or speaker cables *never* seem to win blind listening tests. This *strongly* suggests that they don't sound different - and are just snake oil. With other things like speakers, whenever you move a driver 1/2", something does change... which makes it difficult to say, in that case, precisely how much that 1/2" is worth.
SoundsDif likes this.

EmotivaKeith is offline  
post #1553 of 3048 Old 03-03-2013, 10:29 PM
Member
 
EmotivaKeith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I would disagree with some of the statements you've made here... but only some.

Some $50,000 amplifiers DO have lower noise or distortion than some $500 amplifiers, so they MIGHT actually be better.

When used with most equipment, most interconnects are electrically equivalent, but some equipment is sensitive to the differences in some of them.
From an engineering standpoint this suggests that the sensitive equipment is at fault and, once that "problem" is eliminated, then most interconnects should be equivalent.

Some speaker cables have such odd electrical properties that they actually do make measurable differences in sound.
Other than those (which should be avoided), speaker cables routinely fail to be discernible in double-blind tests (which are scientifically the ONLY valid kind).

Virtually every speaker is different. Move a driver a half inch and the frequency response and radiating pattern change.
Likewise, move it a half inch in the room and lots of things change.
This suggests that there could be differences (even if the same exact components were used).
How much you want to pay the guy who decided how to put them together is a judgement call.
(If you can build that exact same $100,000 speaker for $3000, then you would be silly not to do so.

It's pretty obvious that the placebo effect accounts for a lot of the "perceived differences"......
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComputerTech0903 View Post

Ok, just from my observations, this is what I've seen.

Scientifically speaking, among the scientific side of people who have talked about audio, $50,000 amplifiers are the same as $500 amplifiers, speaker interconnects scientifically cannot explain perceived audible differences, and speakers like the Anat Reference II Professional $107,000 speakers really only use a couple thousand dollars worth of 3rd party components and cabinetry while marking vastly marking up the price and $20,000 speakers doing similar practices. Considering most audio companies are buying massive bulk and saving 50% off msrp, it's even cheaper to build.




Now, I'm really not here to start an argument so no one get mad.

But isn't this sort of like a conspiracy? That if you even dug deeper like a 20/20 or 60 minutes research team, they'd find even more bizarre things?

I mean if you think about it, all the wiring in speakers, audio processors and amplifiers are generic non-expensive wiring so even if you used expensive wiring, this wiring would be a break in the chain.

It's like if you have water pipes and 10 feet of the water pipe is crystal clean piping while 2 feet of the pipe is groggy, disgusting piping means your water is now contaminated.

I mean, many people who buy in to this stuff could buy $40,000 speaker wiring RCAs and battery cable, $50,000 monoblock amplifiers, $15,000 processor, $5,000 CD player and $100,000 speakers and spend $250,000 total.


Many people who feel that audio decoding components, interconnects and processors are very, very similar could spend $75 on interconnects, $1,000 on amplifiers $1,000 on processor/cd player and build similar YG acoustic knock offs with active crossovers for $5,000 or hire someone and spend an extra $1,000.

That'd be $250,000 vs $10,000 for very similar sound.

Factoring in how much companies spend on buying 3rd party audio components and actually cost to build these things even interconnects, it seems pretty crazy.

The cost to building $20,000 wiring can't be any more then a hundred dollars.

Just curious what you guys think like maybe 20/20 or 60 minutes should do an episode on this.







I thought it'd be interesting to add this scientific look at the placebo effect and the power of suggestion proven in several different trials in this multi-page article:

http://socyberty.com/psychology/the-power-of-the-placebo-effect/
SoundsDif likes this.

EmotivaKeith is offline  
post #1554 of 3048 Old 03-03-2013, 11:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,412
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1048 Post(s)
Liked: 885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

I do think there are decent objective measures of accurate for individual components... certainly I would agree with the accepted measures for amps, dacs, etc. And for speakers there are many measures that are undeniable (distortion products, bandwidth...) and others that have a strong correlation with preference (smoothed frequency response, polar response...).
Agreed, the definition gets tricky when it comes to speakers. Harman's approach was interesting: they researched which speakers scored highest and lowest in preference tests, measured those speakers to see what to emulate and what to avoid with their own designs, labelled those designs as "accurate", tested their speakers against the competition, confirmed that their speakers scored well, which then allowed them to claim that listeners prefer "accurate" speakers.

The definition in this case had to do with preference. It's kinda circular to label the most preferred speakers as accurate and then claim listeners prefer accurate speakers. They never mention what those speaker designs are accurate to. It would be like saying their speakers "compare well", without saying what they're comparing them to. If you've read Toole's "Circle of Confusion" article, then you know that they're not holding up studio monitors as a reference standard, so Harman's speakers aren't designed to be accurate to production tools, just their own definition of accurate.

The problem with using the most preferred qualities as a definition of "accuracy" is that you end up with aspects that don't have a reference to be accurate to. Their definition includes extended response. Does that mean bookshelf speakers can't be accurate (because their response doesn't extend low enough)? Their definition also includes wide dispersion. Does that mean that narrow dispersion speakers that measure anechoically flat on-axis can't be accurate (because they don't spray the sound widely enough)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

For rooms, I think it opens up such that there are extremes that probably should be excluded to match what the vast majority of the population finds acceptable. For things such as intentional surround processing, omni vs dipoles (stark opposites trying to achieve a common goal), etc I think in the end preference is about all we have.
Yup, by the time you get to speakers and rooms, different notions of "accuracy" start getting tossed around. Even if you assemble individual electronic components that are considered accurate, influences of the room can play havoc with attempts at "accurate reproduction".

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #1555 of 3048 Old 03-03-2013, 11:58 PM
 
diomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by kodi41 View Post

As I previously requested from you via my original question, you simply prefer to answer my question with a question of your own- sorry, not gonna go there, save the straw man arguement for some political debate. You were Originally asked a fair question.........first, now if you want a conversation that I feel requires a certain level of integrity, then be adult about it and answer with directed comments so that we can all comprehend your opinion.
Just what were you asking (see below) about? Can you be specific?:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kodi41 View Post

Quote:
CD allows the distribution of music files to consumers with a great accuracy to its mastered version, unlike tape and vinyl. Audio cables, DACs and pre/amplifiers all do such excellent job at that even at low price now. Sadly for some listeners, that shrinks the number of topics to talk about.
Might I ask where you got this "factual" information from?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kodi41 View Post

And yes, ALL of audio is about opinions, facts cant not be provided about what a person prefers.
If you would like I could link you into oblivion about recording practices of today and yester year, but none of this matters, if you are a recording EE then state such, other wise look for yourself, go visit a local studio, ect. Even film of today is just breaking into full use of digital, and ironically, most people do not like it. While when used for animated topologies, it works well, digital film or audio is not the preference of most recording/film engineers. BTW, what cassette tape did I personally ever make mention to?

I made this statement,
You mean that's the opinion you posted?
Quote:
now if you disagree, then YOU must provide the proof that I am some how incorrect and w/o any clue of what we are speaking of.
If you presented proof and if I happened to know contrasting proof then perhaps it would be interesting to see both. When you present your opinion and if my opinion happens to be different, then I don't think it's fruitful to present both opinions. I see those often on internet audio forums but just because many people do, doesn't mean it's a good thing.
diomania is offline  
post #1556 of 3048 Old 03-04-2013, 01:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kiwi2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,629
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

Lets get couple things taken care before getting to that. You asked me to enlighten (you) because you don't know what the main criteria for judging the quality of sound reproducing equipment is, right? I just want to get a direct answer from you before going further. So your answer is...?

No, I don't know what you think is the main criteria for judging the quality of sound reproducing equipment.
kiwi2 is offline  
post #1557 of 3048 Old 03-04-2013, 09:06 AM
 
diomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

No, I don't know what you think is the main criteria for judging the quality of sound reproducing equipment.
Unbelievable... rolleyes.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

I've asked you this before but didn't see any answer so let me ask you again, do you know what the main criteria for judging the quality of sound reproducing equipment is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

The main criteria for judging the quality of sound reproducing equipment...???

Enlighten us then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

I will but I want to make sure I know where you are coming from so let me ask you another question before I do. Are you asking because you don't know?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

I have no idea what you think is the most important criteria for measuring the accuracy of sound reproducing equipment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

kiwi2, the question was, "do you know what the main criteria for judging the quality of sound reproducing equipment is?".
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

What do you think is the main criteria for measuring the accuracy of sound reproduction equipment?

kiwi2, I'll simplify it once more, do you know what the main criteria for judging the quality of sound reproducing equipment is? I'm not asking if you know what I think, I'm asking about your view on this. Do you have a view on this, yes or no?
diomania is offline  
post #1558 of 3048 Old 03-04-2013, 12:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: New Milford, CT, USA
Posts: 5,748
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmotivaKeith View Post

Some $50,000 amplifiers DO have lower noise or distortion than some $500 amplifiers, so they MIGHT actually be better.

Sure, but in my experience a lot of high-end gear is actually worse than normal professional quality stuff. I've seen amps costing $5k and even $15k that are simply incompetent. I'm not saying all expensive stuff is lame, but a lot of it is.

--Ethan

RealTraps - The acoustic treatment experts

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Ethan Winer is offline  
post #1559 of 3048 Old 03-04-2013, 12:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
A9X-308's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Australia; now run by adults.
Posts: 5,285
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Liked: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmotivaKeith View Post

Some $50,000 amplifiers DO have lower noise or distortion than some $500 amplifiers, so they MIGHT actually be better.
But it's trivially easy to get better than 100dB SNR and THD and has been for a couple of decades so whilst you can easily measure the difference, audible artifacts in typical use from these effects is not going to be a differentiator between two amplifiers.
A9X-308 is offline  
post #1560 of 3048 Old 03-04-2013, 04:20 PM
Member
 
kodi41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I think what is happening here is not science, but rather, opinion. We simply can not prove what sounds better.

As I previously stated, and I stand by this, take for example an AB International 900A, 370 at 8ohms, 2 channels driven from 20 to 20k. Now compare that same amplifier to say a Cinenova Grand used in 2 channel mode (365x5 @ 8ohms 20-20k). IS there a difference in sound when using these amplfiers on the exact same pre-amp, disc player, speaker and cabling ect. I will say yes there is- but not a huge difference, and for several reasons. Which if you read from the previous link I provided for you, it will help explain why this is. This link is from QSC, a premire profesional amplifier designer.

As well, let's lower the bar here using the same senario from above, and use say an Audio Source amp 200 (100 wpc 20-20k) and compare this amp to say a Krell KSA-100A, also 100 wpc, however, this amplifier is pure class A. I promise you, unless you are deaf, you WILL hear the difference, and it will be HUGE.

So please, let's compare apples to apples - there are very large differences in percived sound quality when build quaility and amplifier type are considered. No sane person plops down 20k for an amplifier that sounds lesser then the previous amp they had. After all, If there were no differneces in sound quality then one design would bear this out and it would be the prefered amplifier of choice. There-fore, it becomes a thing not of just preference but of "how much would you like to spend".

Stating that 100wpc from amp A sounds the same as amp B is akin to saying a Kraco system sounds as good as a Parasound system of equal power rating- not a chance. Even at 1 watt- the Parasound will blow the Kraco out of the water. This is known as build quailty fellas, and it makes for big differences. We could go further and state that all elecronics be it audio or video perform the same, they in fact do not.

However, and I strees this point, at a certain price point and build quality it becomes a mute point, rather, it then becomes a thing of personal preference.

ATi 1805/Odyssey Stratos/NAD T785, LG BR, Tosh HD, Integra RDC-7& RDA-7, Thorens TD-318, Shure Ultra 400s, AQ cable's. 2 JBL 2241 18" subs/ JBLTi/L series Mains and surround (2 centers), 2 MK MX-250's, MK 1250Thx rear For HT, 60" Pany Plasma- APC power protection and stablizer. 110" projetion soon.
kodi41 is offline  
Reply Audio theory, Setup and Chat

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off