or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › SE WI Tower speaker GTG
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SE WI Tower speaker GTG - Page 44

post #1291 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Swerdlow View Post

Nuance & TJ
It's worth repeating that you both have our respect and admiration for taking the time and effort to put together this GTG. If it was easy, people would be doing it more often.

But the aftermath sure is something else. The first time I ever made a talk at a big scientific meeting, I was dismayed at all the irrational comments and stupid-sounding questions I heard and had to at least try to answer. At some point the next day, a very nice older scientist found me and told me something I'll never forget. He said "in this business 95% of the people don't care what you have to say. And of the others, 4% think you're all wrong. Learn to focus on the remaining 1% and you'll stay happy."

There are quite a few of us following this thread that are part of that 1%.

I have one more thing to say for the benefit of Solid-State and @jeffc1


Thank you sir. I really appreciate the sentiment.

Even if this GTG was a total disaster, meeting all of the great people that attended was well worth it. I got to spend a lot of time personally with 3 of the out of state attendees and Mark Seaton. Every minute was a blast, and Mark really displayed his knowledge and passion. I wish I had more time to spend with more of the attendees, as well as Jim Salk and Jeff Permanian. I can't thank the manufacturer's enough for bringing their speakers and attending themselves.
post #1292 of 1777
I just got off the phone with Klaus at Odyssey Audio. We spoke regarding the issue I have with my left mono-block.

Klaus stated that the weak/failing transistor can affect the sound, clarity, and power output of the amp. I of course have no way of really knowing how much of an issue this is or isn't.

Again, I haven't heard it, and no one prior to this GTG has ever heard it either. I never would have offered to host the GTG if I felt my system was compromised in any way. As a matter of fact, I put in a tremendous amount of time making certain everything was a perfect as I could. I spent many hours with 3 attendees on Friday night, and at no time did anyone hear anything that caused any concern.

Klaus confirmed that my monos put out 180 wrms @ 8 ohms, and between 300-350 wrms @ 4 ohms.
post #1293 of 1777
TJHUB opened up his beautiful home and let people enjoy some great speakers. Please lay-off Solid-State. Perhaps you want to take a moment and read what you are posting? First and foremost, this GTG was about enjoying speakers in a tremendous living room. I was jealous of the size and layout of his room - just fantastic!
post #1294 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by TJHUB View Post

One thing that has been questioned is the volume at the GTG. I've always disliked the volume at our GTG's because it is a lot higher than I like to listen at normally. I'm not saying I don't occasionally let things go, but it's not where I listen. However, it seems many other do, so I figured leave well enough alone. I suppose that was a mistake.

I set my speakers to full range, set the volume at the listening position to the same 80db we used at the GTG. The loudest measurement I saw was 96db during some of the largest bass transients. Most of the loudest bass was about 91-92db, and only 2 vocals tipped 90-92db: "Hallelujah" by Brandi Carlile, and "Just Like Love" by Steve Strauss. Everything else held around 88db or lower at the highest levels. Most vocal stuff was around the low 80's.

What do you all think of those numbers?

Hi TJHUB,

Thanks again for being such a gracious host of this event which really was a lot of fun to attend. Thank you again Nuance for the invite.

The problem we see here is all too common, where those behind the keyboards are lusting for a simplified and clear numeric breakdown by which they can validate their expectations or try to make a purchase decision 100% certain. This gets worse when numeric scores are involved, where consolidation to a final "score" caters to what onlookers want, but generally make for gross over-simplifications. Observations, impressions and relative descriptions between the speakers compared can be quite helpful and interesting to read. Unfortunately many forget that such comparisons only compare one given condition and use, and may or may not hold true with other variables.

Getting back to the level question, first, I hope readers realize that the "80dB calibration" was simply a pink noise track at some recorded level. Music is recorded at all sorts of relative levels, where this just provided a common base line, where some cuts could peak well above this, and others could play well below. After we played the JTR's followed by your HT2's, it was clear that the wide band pink noise left a potential variance where the low frequency extension of the speaker would skew the level set with the noise, where a very deep reaching speaker will be set slightly lower than a speaker with very little low frequency energy. The reality is that there is no "correct" method to match the speakers, as the frequency balance and extension of each is different, and some metric must be used.

I would suggest going back to the examples you just noted, and look at 4 different measurements.
1) C weighted slow, noting averages during vocals or similar.
2) C weighted fast, noting higher peaks.
3) A weighted slow, noting averages during vocals or other high frequency content.
4) A weighted fast, noting peaks during cymbal and vocal peaks.

While the C weighted number does correlate with overall loudness and perceived intensity including the lower frequencies, the A weighted measurement will have better correlation to what generally drives our descriptions of playback being "too loud."

When you asked me later in the evening how loud Archea, pennynike1 and I were playing the system during a few HT demo tracks, I had guessed 110-115dB, mostly at very low frequencies. After you asked I grabbed the meter, and in fact the C weighting fast peaks were just approaching 110dB, where C weighting slow never got over 100dB. The A weighting slow range was even less, only reaching past ~90dB when things were quite loud.

With the wide range of music cuts played, some would have been very boring or not loud enough to demonstrate much, or you would have had to adjust the volume for each, as some tracks were much more dynamic with low average levels, and more popular songs were recorded much louder. Again, there really is no perfect solution without endless planning and multiple dry runs with the speakers being compared.

Personally I thought some of the most interesting and useful exchanges were after the comparison when some others were giving thoughts on what they were hearing from your system and many there were able to compare with their own observations. More of this sort of exercise with lots of discussion and cycling of seats is what I think would be much more interesting, fun and beneficial to the community in the future.

The comparisons on Saturday were quite interesting, but they really were a comparison of how the various speakers interacted with this room in the location used, with the electronics used, for the given locations people listened from, at the playback levels chosen, and with the music selected. This was a straight-up 2ch comparison where we should expect the particular out of the box voicing and radiation of sound in the room makes for audible signatures for which preferences will vary.

I would recommend that readers and attendees remember that demonstrations in fixed settings are great for affirming a speaker is capable of great sound when it performs well, but one bad showing should not write off a product, other than from that exact system and use.

Hopefully I can find some more time through the week to comment on a few past posts regarding different speakers as well as the Catalyst 12C's.

Cheers,
post #1295 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by TJHUB View Post

I just got off the phone with Klaus at Odyssey Audio. We spoke regarding the issue I have with my left mono-block.

Klaus stated that the weak/failing transistor can affect the sound, clarity, and power output of the amp. I of course have no way of really knowing how much of an issue this is or isn't.

Again, I haven't heard it, and no one prior to this GTG has ever heard it either. I never would have offered to host the GTG if I felt my system was compromised in any way. As a matter of fact, I put in a tremendous amount of time making certain everything was a perfect as I could. I spent many hours with 3 attendees on Friday night, and at no time did anyone hear anything that caused any concern.

Klaus confirmed that my monos put out 180 wrms @ 8 ohms, and between 300-350 wrms @ 4 ohms.


You have my total understanding. I've hosted several of these events. Although I think a good time was had by all, something always went wrong, or was second-guessed by someone. I don't do it anymore, because (1) it's waaaaay more work than people realize, and (2) Murphy's law seems to operate with a vengeance. The same seems to hold for audio fests, only worse--even if you manage to get everything set up without a system failure, chances are the room sucks. I'm sure the latter wasn't the case for you, but there were still an awful lot of variables at play. Thanks for all your efforts, and I'm sure I will get a lot of useful information from having participated.
post #1296 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by TJHUB View Post

I just got off the phone with Klaus at Odyssey Audio. We spoke regarding the issue I have with my left mono-block.

Klaus stated that the weak/failing transistor can affect the sound, clarity, and power output of the amp. I of course have no way of really knowing how much of an issue this is or isn't.

Again, I haven't heard it, and no one prior to this GTG has ever heard it either. I never would have offered to host the GTG if I felt my system was compromised in any way. As a matter of fact, I put in a tremendous amount of time making certain everything was a perfect as I could. I spent many hours with 3 attendees on Friday night, and at no time did anyone hear anything that caused any concern.

Klaus confirmed that my monos put out 180 wrms @ 8 ohms, and between 300-350 wrms @ 4 ohms.

TJHUB - the event was awesome and well worth it. It's unfortunate this came up but at the end of the day I bet nobody regrets attending.

David
post #1297 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by TJHUB View Post

I just got off the phone with Klaus at Odyssey Audio. We spoke regarding the issue I have with my left mono-block.

Klaus stated that the weak/failing transistor can affect the sound, clarity, and power output of the amp. I of course have no way of really knowing how much of an issue this is or isn't.

Again, I haven't heard it, and no one prior to this GTG has ever heard it either. I never would have offered to host the GTG if I felt my system was compromised in any way. As a matter of fact, I put in a tremendous amount of time making certain everything was a perfect as I could. I spent many hours with 3 attendees on Friday night, and at no time did anyone hear anything that caused any concern.

Klaus confirmed that my monos put out 180 wrms @ 8 ohms, and between 300-350 wrms @ 4 ohms.


You should put together a testing rig then TJHUB. You can do it really cheap these days with the Dayton kit. It's a USB test mic and reasonably priced and comes with decent software. You can always get TrueRTA or other software that will work with it.

http://www.parts-express.com/pe/show...number=390-792

It's 300 bucks at PE and a GREAT INVESTMENT and LEARNING TOOL!
post #1298 of 1777
It is so ironic that the person I had in mind when I used the term 1% er's is now using that term to describe someone else. It reminds me of the people that get interviewed on The Daily Show and have no clue how they're being portrayed. Clueless!

I may have to switch my gear from solid state to all tube.
post #1299 of 1777
TJHUB uses REW to setup his own equipment, and I got the feeling he knows the product and how to measure his room pretty well.

I had my omnimic on site, and played with it a bit during the first speaker demo, to watch frequencies played and SPL levels - - -but my intent was not to measure each speaker nor the room, nor did we even attempt to do so. As I've found in the subwoofer meets people will argue, complain, fight, and armchair quarterback no matter what you do. So after I got a generic (the mic was sitting on the floor which was certaintly not ideal) feel for the room and frequencies and spls of the tracks being auditioned I promptly put the omnimic away.

I enjoyed the opportunity to visit and hear these speakers and spend some time getting to know some of the other enthusiasts! Despite anything that happens - - - Thanks for hosting Terry! Like dlbeck, I felt it was my trip and I enjoyed the experience!

Some connections were made as well. dlbeck has pm'ed me to come by and visit on his next visit to KC in May and had we not been at this meet together that connection would not have been made. Getting enthusiasts together in this hobby is most always a boon!
post #1300 of 1777
I sure hope you guys are right. I was so fearful that the attendees would disappointed in some way about the GTG. So many drove long distances, and I didn't want anyone to feel like they wasted their time and money.

Our core group gets together often enough to just share our gear and audio in general. We don't always agree, and we like different things, but at the end of the day we are always civil to one another. I guess I should appreciate these guys more than I already do. If we didn't get together, I'd miss it. I guess we felt that this was just a bigger version of what we normally do, and I suppose we thought that it was a rare opportunity to hear all of these speakers in the same room with the same electronics. I hope most of the attendees feel the same way I do.
post #1301 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Nuance View Post

Just a question to the guys at the GTG. Which was your favorite wood finish of the speakers and Why? Also say you hear a speaker that sounds great, and measures well, but is UGLY would you still buy it?

I was not at the GTG, but this has been brought up a few times in this thread so I thought that I would answer it. As I said before I am an HT guy. When doing HT, you do not want the speakers to be seen. If placing behind an AT (woven) screen, you want black non-reflective speakers, so why would you want to pay for a finish that could never be seen? If you are placing the mains on each side of the screen, you still want black non-reflective speakers. This is so that when you look at the screen (front projector setup) you see nothing but image. My flat black mains are on each side of my AT screen (changing shortly to behind curved AT screen) and I still cover the side of my mains (toward the screen) with black velvet so that the speakers can't be seen even in bright movie scenes. So to a lot of HT guys a bright shinny well finished speaker is a big negative, not a positive.

Added
Just pointing out that a lot of HT guys have different priorities than 2 channel guys.
Reply
Reply
post #1302 of 1777
Hey Terry,

Can you delete some of your messages in your inbox - I tried to send you a message but it kicked back saying it's too full.

Thanks
post #1303 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seaton View Post

Hi TJHUB,

Thanks again for being such a gracious host of this event which really was a lot of fun to attend. Thank you again Nuance for the invite.

The problem we see here is all too common, where those behind the keyboards are lusting for a simplified and clear numeric breakdown by which they can validate their expectations or try to make a purchase decision 100% certain. This gets worse when numeric scores are involved, where consolidation to a final "score" caters to what onlookers want, but generally make for gross over-simplifications. Observations, impressions and relative descriptions between the speakers compared can be quite helpful and interesting to read. Unfortunately many forget that such comparisons only compare one given condition and use, and may or may not hold true with other variables.

Getting back to the level question, first, I hope readers realize that the "80dB calibration" was simply a pink noise track at some recorded level. Music is recorded at all sorts of relative levels, where this just provided a common base line, where some cuts could peak well above this, and others could play well below. After we played the JTR's followed by your HT2's, it was clear that the wide band pink noise left a potential variance where the low frequency extension of the speaker would skew the level set with the noise, where a very deep reaching speaker will be set slightly lower than a speaker with very little low frequency energy. The reality is that there is no "correct" method to match the speakers, as the frequency balance and extension of each is different, and some metric must be used.

I would suggest going back to the examples you just noted, and look at 4 different measurements.
1) C weighted slow, noting averages during vocals or similar.
2) C weighted fast, noting higher peaks.
3) A weighted slow, noting averages during vocals or other high frequency content.
4) A weighted fast, noting peaks during cymbal and vocal peaks.

While the C weighted number does correlate with overall loudness and perceived intensity including the lower frequencies, the A weighted measurement will have better correlation to what generally drives our descriptions of playback being "too loud."

When you asked me later in the evening how loud Archea, pennynike1 and I were playing the system during a few HT demo tracks, I had guessed 110-115dB, mostly at very low frequencies. After you asked I grabbed the meter, and in fact the C weighting fast peaks were just approaching 110dB, where C weighting slow never got over 100dB. The A weighting slow range was even less, only reaching past ~90dB when things were quite loud.

With the wide range of music cuts played, some would have been very boring or not loud enough to demonstrate much, or you would have had to adjust the volume for each, as some tracks were much more dynamic with low average levels, and more popular songs were recorded much louder. Again, there really is no perfect solution without endless planning and multiple dry runs with the speakers being compared.

Personally I thought some of the most interesting and useful exchanges were after the comparison when some others were giving thoughts on what they were hearing from your system and many there were able to compare with their own observations. More of this sort of exercise with lots of discussion and cycling of seats is what I think would be much more interesting, fun and beneficial to the community in the future.

The comparisons on Saturday were quite interesting, but they really were a comparison of how the various speakers interacted with this room in the location used, with the electronics used, for the given locations people listened from, at the playback levels chosen, and with the music selected. This was a straight-up 2ch comparison where we should expect the particular out of the box voicing and radiation of sound in the room makes for audible signatures for which preferences will vary.

I would recommend that readers and attendees remember that demonstrations in fixed settings are great for affirming a speaker is capable of great sound when it performs well, but one bad showing should not write off a product, other than from that exact system and use.

Hopefully I can find some more time through the week to comment on a few past posts regarding different speakers as well as the Catalyst 12C's.

Cheers,


Mark,

I really appreciate your help and attitude with this stuff. I really enjoyed you sharing your knowledge and expertise with audio with us after the GTG wrapped up.

I did a lot of what you talk about above. Unfortunately, I was mostly doing the db measurements for myself. I did do some slow response measurements, but they were so low I didn't feel they meant anything. The A weighted numbers were obviously much lower, so again, I didn't feel they meant much. Seems I may have been wrong.

And I think you are full of crap. When you guys were trying to destroy my subs making the tiny things try to keep up with your Catalysts, you had to be closer to 120db. I couldn't even stand being in the room! The volume made the GTG volume seem soft by comparison.

I'm looking forward to being with you guys at Warpdrv's place in the future. But you can be assured I'll be the moron with the earplugs in. And I'm VERY serious about that.
post #1304 of 1777
GTG hosts and attendees:

I suspect that there are a lot of members who, like me, have really enjoyed reading about the event and reading your reviews, opinions, and information. If I recall the early posts correctly, the group always couched this as an opportunity to have fun and hear some fantastic speakers, not as tightly controlled listening test.

It's easy to Monday Morning QB anything and a few vocal members have chosen to do so. Don't let that ruin your experience or create the impression that your work isn't being appreciated by the majority of the audience here.
post #1305 of 1777
bfreedma,

Well said.

This was a fantastic event.
post #1306 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma View Post

GTG hosts and attendees:

I suspect that there are a lot of members who, like me, have really enjoyed reading about the event and reading your reviews, opinions, and information. If I recall the early posts correctly, the group always couched this as an opportunity to have fun and hear some fantastic speakers, not as tightly controlled listening test.

It's easy to Monday Morning QB anything and a few vocal members have chosen to do so. Don't let that ruin your experience or create the impression that your work isn't being appreciated by the majority of the audience here.

Agree 100%!
post #1307 of 1777
Oops, Sorry Terry I didn't read the few posts above about your mailbox being full. Anyhoo, the drive is on it's way and I put something on it for you to have if you don't already have it.

Thanks for a great GTG!
post #1308 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

It reminds me of a guy who continues to tell me I'd be surprised if I heard a certain speaker, but then when I heard it and didn't care for it he chalked it up to a non-blind shootout and biases.

You and MKtheater can hold the next event.

To tell you the truth, I keep thinking what a nice guy and class act Jeff is. His speakers were shown off using a method that would put them at a severe disadvantage and he politely did not say anything. I guess the same goes some what for Mark, but since his speakers have built in DSP he was able to adjust (change them to have a f3 of 20hz) to help level the playing field. If Mark's speakers were showing signs of power compression, that is because he had to set them up in a way (f3 20hz) that they would never be used in real life.
Reply
Reply
post #1309 of 1777
I have held many GTG's but all local people and yes I am just passing on what I was told to do. I learn every time I have one or even when I change speakers and subs for comparisons. I would love to host a GTG but not many are near me so a drive is too far!

As for the levels of around 92 dBs or so that amp should be able to do it with every speaker. The amp has to be having trouble or it is in your source. This is assuming you don't lose more spl's than outside as you double the distance. Did the Seaton distort or compress too? If this is the case it has to be a null within the response which is the same for every speaker or the recording had clipping in it already. I would not worry about the guests being upset because I am sure if your amp melted everyone would be happy anyways.

Nuance when I did my speaker shootout I had only 6 people with me and people asked me to do everything I mentioned because they told me i have to be fair. I have swapped out so much gear before I even knew how to measure equipment. I am nit saying this was a waste I was just telling the guys that this is not the final word in speaker performance because I think that is what happens from these GTG's on the forums.
post #1310 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by merrymaid520 View Post

Ascends. They are mine so I feel it's pointless to offer my review on them. Instead I would like to address some of the comments made in regards to them though. Some folks mentioned some anomalies in the upper midrange or lower highs. It seems as if some folks tend to feel they sound too forward in this area maybe? I tend to think its something else and I have a theory, ha! I admit I prefer a very detailed mid-range and top end. I don't necessarily think I call it forward but very accurate without anything at all missing. Anyway, I am wondering if for example one of the salk owners felt this because of the smooth sound of their salks? To me the salks present their mid-range in a very fluid smooth manner possibly due to the two way design over the ascends 3 way design. I have to believe the crossover has the mid drivers crossed over higher to the RAAL to compensate for the lack of a separate mid driver. If this is the case, the mid drivers in the salks would be producing all of the bass, mid range, and maybe very low top end resulting in that smooth sound that may lack just a touch of detail. This potential lack of detail could result in my Ascends sounding more forward perhaps? I know my hypothesis may sound a bit confusing being its tough for me to explain in words. Theoretically the mid drivers in the salks are asked to produce a larger range of frequencies all at once versus a dedicated 3 way in which the frequency ranges are handed off to specific drivers dedicated and designed for this task. As a result, some detail could potentially be lost giving the salks there mid range sound? Again, I am not saying one is right or wrong, better or worse. I am just trying to decipher the great feedback that has been presented thus far. As for the Ascends top end, they sounded nearly identical to all the other brands with the RAAL. I think someone mentioned they didn't, which seems odd but again we all hear differently.

Thanks,
Brandon

That is an interesting theory. The 3-way design may possibly account for some of the differences. It may due to the different style of crossover. Good thoughts.

I like to constantly compare my speakers run full-range in Direct Mode versus Stereo with a sub. I've generally notice that the vocals become clearer, the bass has less warmth with more extension, and the soundstage increases. The midrange generally seems louder in Stereo mode. I tested this months ago and the RS meter shows about a 1 dB difference. Even when I add a total of 3 dB to direct mode (so it's louder), Stereo mode still seems to make the vocals seem cleaner, the bass is less warm with more extension, and the soundstage is bigger. When switching to Direct mode, it seems the soundstage becomes narrow. I don't believe it is the mode since Direct Mode and Stereo Mode with speakers full range and no sub sounds the same (to my ears). I've always thought these benefits were only due to my Rythmik sub.

I was switching between modes last week and noted the same thing. After about three songs, I noticed that I forgot to turn my sub back on earlier from messing with REW . So, I have been comparing the difference from Direct mode to Stereo mode with the sub turned off.

I first tried this with a 150 Hz crossover (I believe it is 2nd order LR for the speakers in AVRs). Direct Mode was increased by 1 dB compared to Stereo. Here are my thoughts of the advantages of Stereo.
- soundstage is usually bigger and more diffused. I notice it more on complex songs. Example of a simpler song but an awesome recording - Rebecca Pigeon Spanish Harlem. Example of a more complex song with more instruments - Kings of Leon Arizonia
- harder to tell if vocals become cleaner since some of the voices gets rolled off; especially with males

Next with a 80 Hz crossover
- soundstage is larger and more diffused.
- the vocals seem slightly more pronounced but cleaner
- there is a ton of information between 80 Hz and 150 Hz

With the sub on
- the soundstage is the biggest by far.
- note earlier comments from paragraph one

The most notable things from this quick uncontrolled experiment besides some of the bass missing is:
1) Soundstage varied the most (it is easier for me to tell if the AVR is in Direct Mode (full-range) versus Stereo Mode with a Sub by the size of the soundstage than by only listening for extension).
2) Cleaner presentation (the increase in clarity and lack of warmth was more apparent in some songs more than others).

I used Ascend Acoustics CMT-340SE and a DIY Rythmik sub for these sessions over the last week. I did not listen near as loud as those at the GTG. When I saw the video of the HT2-TL's cones moving, I thought wow you must be listening loud. I have a hard enough time to get an Omnipolar speaker I am borrowing with one 6.5" woofer in each cabinet to move any. Maybe it is the extra 16 Hz of extension of the HT2s. I wonder if my observations above would be even more pronounced at louder volumes with the cones moving further. Maybe I hear this since my speakers are cheaper. Maybe I am nuts. Would this be due to IM distortion?

Here are graphs - I used 1 M sweeps to improve the S/N ratio since my neighbors were home.

Figure 1 - Shows Background Noise, Direct Mode, Stereo Mode Full Range, Stereo Mode with 80 Hz crossover (no sub), Stereo Mode with 150 Hz Crossover (no sub).


Figure 2 - Shows a zoomed in version with 1/48th smoothing. Note the change in the vertical and horizontal axis. Direct Mode and Stereo Full Range overlap strongly while Stereo Mode 80 and 150 are about 1 dB louder.



Figure 3 - Shows a zoomed in version with 1/3 smoothing for those with bad eyes or that find it difficult to read charts. Note the change in the vertical and horizontal axis. Direct Mode and Stereo Full Range overlap strongly while Stereo Mode 80 and 150 are about 1 dB louder.

post #1311 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

To tell you the truth, I keep thinking what a nice guy and class act Jeff is. His speakers were shown off using a method that would put them at a severe disadvantage and he politely did not say anything. I guess the same goes some what for Mark, but since his speakers have built in DSP he was able to adjust (change them to have a f3 of 20hz) to help level the playing field. If Mark's speakers were showing signs of power compression, that is because he had to set them up in a way (f3 20hz) that they would never be used in real life.

+1 on that
post #1312 of 1777
Thread Starter 
Terry, Nuance,
I wanted to say no matter the outcome of ampgate, I had a great time and could careless about all the other banter. I truly don't mind if someone preferred one speaker over another, that's what makes this hobby so much fun!

Lets not stop our gatherings in the future because of this In fact you boys have to come down and check out the new pad...... so I can immerse you in full 5.1 Ascend surround sound

Good night gents, oh and nuance, I'll get the name of those pants to you tomorrow.
post #1313 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma View Post

GTG hosts and attendees:

I suspect that there are a lot of members who, like me, have really enjoyed reading about the event and reading your reviews, opinions, and information. If I recall the early posts correctly, the group always couched this as an opportunity to have fun and hear some fantastic speakers, not as tightly controlled listening test.

It's easy to Monday Morning QB anything and a few vocal members have chosen to do so. Don't let that ruin your experience or create the impression that your work isn't being appreciated by the majority of the audience here.

Very well said good sir. I was about to declare blasphemy on its being a disaster, you did so better than I could. I don't recall any expectations being set other than to have a good time with peers, and by all accounts that goal was met. From the bleachers I've found the event and various descriptions both fascinating and educational, and I hope they keep coming. It's been a rare privilege.
post #1314 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea View Post

but as to the article I most noticed the distortion on with most of the speakers --- it wasn't the vocals that I heard the worst 'distortion' on - - it was the big dynamic swings in the orchestra or dynamics in the music with heavy bass or lots of voices (choruses and such).

I don't particuarly recall any of the vocals sounding off kelter to me outside of the dynamic heavy full band frequency moments. The cymbals would sound distorted/wierd, the sounds out of the mids would lack clarity. It was if the bass swelled, but the mids and highs were sucked back in -- to varying degrees with each speaker audition.

I think the best way to describe it woud be moments of busy orchestra music on an mp3 recorded at 128kb/s. Like the bit rate would drop at these dynamic peaks and the track would blur and get messy. That difference is bit rate is audible on mp3's and is about the closes analogy I can give?!?. I've never really thought the difference between flaq and 192 or 256kb/s mp3's was much of an audible difference (song dependant of course), but certaintly 128 to 256kb/s is a noticable difference on busy tracks. NOTE: At the meet all tracks played were flaq files not mp3s - I only use the mp3 anaology in attempt to convey what I heard as distortion in the most relatable way I know how to communicate it.

Thanks for confirming that the tracks were flac. While I wouldn't really have expected low bitrate mp3 to be used at this event, my first thoughts when reviews started being posted were of the source material. What you describe (and others have echoed) are precisely the characteristics we should expect from 128 and 192 kbps mp3 (although 240+ vbr should be cleaner). The bit rate doesn't drop - the more complex the music the more bits are lost. This is particularly apparent, and very easy to hear, during transitions.
post #1315 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Nuance View Post

Just a question to the guys at the GTG. Which was your favorite wood finish of the speakers and Why? Also say you hear a speaker that sounds great, and measures well, but is UGLY would you still buy it?

I wasn't at the GTG but I'll answer the second question with """That's tricky"" - It really IMO depends which room it will be in.

I mean something like:



would have no place in the family room or living room. But in the "Game Room" it's "livable" where you can dim the lighting near the front of the room and put it out of sight.

In the family room aesthetics most definitely matters, and I would be looking at something like this:


Except in a different choice of wood/finish (closer to this: )

FWIW, I really do prefer the aesthetics of" box" speakers - one of my favorite finishes is this right here:



The real moral of the story is that I want a different pair of speakers for every room - some pretty, some "performance first". No room in the house should suffer from bad sound!!!!
post #1316 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

No room in the house should suffer from bad sound!!!!

+9999999999999 (I did my CSS power move ;D)
post #1317 of 1777
Eternal Velocity if you like that finish you'd really love the stranded bamboo from Teragren in Brindle or Java.





I'm sure Salk Sound could custom make a cab using that material for anyone interested. I just GAWK at their cabinet builds and the workmanship. They sure have a nice namebadge as well.
post #1318 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea View Post

true, I was front center left. On page 32 you can see my seating position with every audition. I was the guy on the floor in every picture. The movies I took with my Sony Bloggie also reveal my seating position relative to each channel.



but as to the article I most noticed the distortion on with most of the speakers --- it wasn't the vocals that I heard the worst 'distortion' on - - it was the big dynamic swings in the orchestra or dynamics in the music with heavy bass or lots of voices (choruses and such). He though some might use the word compression where I used the word distortion, but I don't really know if it sounded like compression because I'm not 100% certain I know what that sounds like - so I'll use the word distortion - because the clarity was gone in these moments.

I probably will not be of help here, but it sounds like it could have been a few things:

1) If it was the recording, every speaker would have had this distortion present. If even one or more speakers did not have the distortion during a song that others did, then it is not the recording. So say you go back to your list and you marked X songs where the distortion was there, but you did not mark all the speakers as having distortion, it was not the recording. If you go back and you see that ever speaker was marked as having the distortion, it's the recording.

2) My bet is on the recording give the above. However, it could be that the signal was distorting. The signal can "easily" distort especially during dynamic passages. It doesn't matter what speakers you have, the equipment could be distorting/congesting that signal. It really sounds like a software/recording/equipment type of situation because something wrong in the equipment=big time issues with transients/dynamic range/etc. Signal wants and should be spitting out as clean of a signal possible so the speakers can show their faults/compromises/etc.

3) If the speakers were at fault, granted a few or many even, were able to produce the sound without that distortion/congestion, then it's the speakers showing their flaws, being clipped or not matched carefully=distorting the signal-impedance-etc. With the speakers at fault, it can be a ton of things. Some speakers literally cannot handle certain pieces. I've never heard, for example, a speaker capable of producing a low bass information track, with the exception of one that is. This particular track is a great one to play because you can toss it at mega buck speakers and the speaker fails miserably)

Last thing, distortion would be where something in the signal is clipping or something somewhere with the equipment/speakers/etc. is clipping. This leads to strain and to some break up, distortion, etc. Congestion is basically the same thing, and often has to do with the signal what, yes, clipping...signal clips and the speakers start to sound all messed up in certain areas, or all-together. Congestion and distortion are really a hand in hand kind of thing IMHO, though some speakers plainly sound congested because they are poorly designed whereas to get them to distort, you usually need to clip the signal or they are also poorly designed and showing off their issues that the designer did not deal with in the crossover network.

There's so many things it can be, but me thinks it has something to do with the signal not being effortless, where once it is, the speaker should then show its flaws/issues/virtues/compromises, all of which can include congestion (speaker poorly designed and faulty or cabinets resonating, room issues, list goes on and on)...

It's very late so take whatever I wrote with a mega grain of salt since I did not have enough time to truly dissect and provide as adequate an answer as I could have....
post #1319 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsalk View Post

Well, after quite a bit of testing, it turns out that there were no damaged drivers in the SoundScapes. I am fairly certain I know what the problem was and just posted my theory here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post21918693

- Jim

Just answered another person's words though you seemed to sum it up. Just as a little addition to what I had to say, I brought my preamp w/dac in one unit to a manufacture's home, and it had distortion on the right channel, sounded like it was clipping or had that high end distortion type sound another I responded to spoke of, and we pulled it out and I got a nice sheet of paper telling me the mids-highs needed attention along with the distortion issue. I inserted this into my system and also the designer of this component's system and it was dead quiet and loads of mids/highs. Anyhoo, speakers can have issues, but whenever I hear distortion/congestion/etc. terms used as what another mentioned, I immediately think "signal", since there's something going on there. I never cared to figure out what happened that day but was just happy my pre-dac was safe and sound much the same as learning your drivers are safe and sound since these are not exactly cheap items, nor are they things we need falling apart with no backup around.
post #1320 of 1777
I think we missed what was really going on throughout the event and that included thoughts we held to oursleves or perhaps shared outright:

There were distortions in the female vocals - many said this about several speakers
The midrange sounded overdriven - Philharmonics
Strained voices - several speakers
Overdriven midrange - SongTowers

When you consider just these few observations made by participants we were in the forest and did not see the trees, so to speak.

No one even suspected an electronics issue.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › SE WI Tower speaker GTG