My Journey to find the "perfect" speaker... - Page 8

Ummm, no. I was stating that reviewers often don't. Are you a reviewer that writes stupid, nonsensical reviews? I was simply explaining that what the reviewer didn't make sense and *he* would realize that if he'd just do a little reading.

True, but at least I study the things I don't understand. It amazes me how reviewers can do this for ten or 15 years and still not understand basic speaker design.

No.
I think everyone is reading too much into this. Many reviewers are famously dumb when it comes to correlating subjective sound with speaker design or measurements. So are some consumers. And yet some novice consumers are incredibly adept at explaining, even in layman's terms, what is wrong with a speaker. Better than me even (which is both humbling and awe inspiring at the same time). In fact, I've generally found that women are far more adept than men, and yet men run the industry. Reviewers, Kal excluded, can be pretty arrogant people, and yet they make some just hilarious statements.

One reviewer said that the previous version of a speaker was so analytical and resolving, it made 90% of his CD collection sound bad. The new version "somehow" made all of his bad CDs sound good again and he came to the conclusion that it had a magical "filtering" effect on bad artifacts in a recording. What really happened? They got rid of some cone resonances and put in a better tweeter. IOW, the earlier version was simply harsh and aggressive, to the point of making good recordings sound bad. The new one was smoother. This is a reviewer. A medical doctor, clearly not an engineer.

BTW, no one pays me just for my opinions. They only pay when they agree with me and not always then

And many other people think that they can do this when they have rarely done a fair assesment of their skills. Take 5 speakers behind acoustically transparent fabric , in a properly treated room, sit yourself down and draw the FR graphs of each speaker and number them, then put those graphs aside and pick up the real measured FR graphs and match them to the speakers you hear. How good do you think you'd do?
Try it and be prepared to be very surprised.

I think you'd be surprised. I do this regularly when I listen to a speaker for the first time. When the Stereophile review comes out, I'm pretty darned close. I know you don't believe that, but I don't much care. I'm also pretty darn sure I could tell you what the midrange and tweeter are made from, at least most of the time.

One time I did a crossover swap on an NHT speaker and reported very good results to engineering. They thought it was impossible, that you just can't swap a crossover like that. I swore there were no audible anomalies, just a warmer, more refined, more detailed sound. They finally measured the mod and said I was right and the only obvious difference in the FR was a slightly tilted down response, much to their surprise.

I'm not golden eared by any means. I just listen harder than most and am more interested in finding out what a speaker does badly than what it does well. And I can tell you I'm a whole lot more astute at it than the typical reviewer.

" I'm also pretty darn sure I could tell you what the midrange and tweeter are made from, at least most of the time. "


Are you for real ? That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. So you mean to tell me that your ears can differentiate between aluminum, berylium, titanium, mylar, silk, polypropelene, pulp, carbon fiber, kevlar, magnesium, and unobtanium ? Nothing personal but that is BS.

Okay.

OK, I'll bite. What does say, an anluminum midrange driver, sound like compared to one made from Kevlar or paper? Seriously, I'm not being confrontational. Just curious.

Kevlar and carbon fiber typically have sort of bite in the upper midrange, as can metal, but the difference is that metal has an ultra clean sound with just a hint of "steeliness" or ringing, but it's a narrow resonance typically. The Kevlar/carbon fiber has more of a light on its feet sound but with a harmonic edge that is spread over a wider area and lends a bright, lively sound that seems more detailed than it is. Almost like a shhhhh sound a bit, whereas metal/ceramic is more sharply defined on instruments. Poly has a warmer sound typically that is very well controlled and damped. Paper literally sounds like a bit of cardboard with a more muted sound. Soft dome tweeters definitely have a "shhhh" sound rather than a "diiiing" on cymbals.

I'm not saying I can't be fooled or even fool myself and I'm sure I'd do better if I were switching out with a known reference to keep me focused. I also don't think I could differentiate between different metals or different woven fabrics. They're too similar with too many variables in the design to know that for sure.

I bet most speaker designers would tell you they can tell the difference in most materials just by listening too.

I just picked up my first all metal driver speaker-set (Monitor Audio GS's) and I do have to say that they are certainly some of the cleanest sounding speakers I have heard, though I'm not totally convinced that is solely due to the driver material. I was under the impression that the clean sound came from their fast decay time.

MA GS10 cumulative spectral decay plot:

Actually, that decay time isn't nearly as good as it looks. See that treble peak? That's up about 12dB or so over the rest of the sound. That pushes the decay spectrum down by 12dB over a very accurate speaker. That's one of the things about graphs, you have to know how to interpret them properly. In the case of a Stereophile spectral decay plot, the more erratic the FR, the better the speaker looks!

But, the clean sound you get from Monitor Audio is, indeed, because of their metal drivers. In theory, the more rigid the driver, the more resolution it will have, with less added harshness *as long as* you excise the ringing that will inevitably hover not too far above the crossover frequency. Steep, and relatively low, crossovers are critical for proper use of metal drivers.

That's because, all too often, a reviewer's choice of words is influenced by the amount of advertising the manufacturer has purchased from the publisher. Or other considerations ("gifts").

Like some others, I pay MUCH more attention to the objective measurements in a review than to the prose (or fiction) that goes along with those measurements.

Not sure what that has to do with anything. Indulge me, please.

I respectfully disagree. That treble peak is at 27KHz. The last time I had my hearing checked, I was struggling to hear 16KHz. Besides, there is no music up there, and even a human with perfect hearing is not going to hear a 27KHz tone even if it is a 20dB peak.

With all due respect, I think it is you that doesn't know how to read a CSD plot. The CSD plot has very little to do with FR, yet you reference FR a couple of times in your response to me. While a nasty resonance will manifest its self as a peak or dip in the FR, that's not the point of the graph. It is meant to show the persistence of sound over time and you read it from back to front, not side to side like an FR graph. Other than the resonance at 27KHz in the MA GS10, look at how the sound "stops" almost immediately after the input signal all throughout the treble and even into the midrange. I challenge you to find a cleaner CSD plot than the MA GS line.

Heres a couple of examples for the sake of comparison:

NHT Classic 3:


See that small ridge of delayed energy between 7-10KHz? That is a resonance within the range of human hearing. (Ignore the dark ridge above 10KHz, it is a measurement error found in many of the Stereophile measurements) Also, see all of those ripples starting from 400Hz (the lower limit of the graph) on up through 3Kz? That's more delayed energy. If you look to the very far right edge of the graph you can also see the tweeter's high frequency resonace peak, it is just a bit higher than the graph allows (probably around 30KHz). Now granted, all of the resonances / delayed energy in this speaker are low in level, so they may be just barely audible, but you can now see just how remarkable clean and "fast" the Monitor Audio's are in comparison.

B&W 802D

The treble on this speaker is pretty clean, though there is a little low-level hash in the mid-treble. But look at how the midrange driver likes to play well after the input signal has stopped.

Here is the MA GS10 again for visual reference:

There's really not much for me to comment on here. The results within the audible band speak for themselves.

hifi, I am in total agreeemnt....excellent examples.

The GS10's CSD measurement looks excellent.

I see your big ol' smiley there. But let us not get carried away with even a joke at willy-waving. There are plenty of other threads that easily decay into such, and I'm pretty sure Brandon wouldn't like this one to go the way of the tiger.

I know certain individuals have a way of stirring the pot and riling up the natives with ill-stated turns of phrases. I'm sure he didn't mean to demean you. (At least I hope not.)

Well, keep in mind, I listen to a lot more different speakers than most any normal person and I look for correlations in the sound.

You *seriously* don't get it? Seriously? Because the treble peak in the Monitors is in the measurable range whereas the B&W/NHT aren't, that peak causes the computer to drop the graph "below the water" by a good 5dB. That means you're actually seeing more of the resonance in the picture with the others than the Monitor. The B&W/NHT graphs are flatter, so the image of the resonances isn't pushed down as much. Do you get it yet?

I expected more from you!

Classic Fours are $2060/pr, the center is extremely well matched and sounds great - $690.

Now, the sound of the Fours is somewhat lean and with very little cone resonance, more similar to the Monitor Audios than the typical poly equipped speakers. The bass is very powerful and full, more so than most towers and equivalent to a good <$1000 sub. It's a different sound from the Vandies, to be sure. But it is very accurate with a great sweetspot, big soundstage and, in a good room, very precise imaging and top notch resolution. They play loud too!

John...you need to look at the time scale to the right, not the dB scale to the left.

Decay is a measurement of time......the time it takes for resonance to dissipate or stop. The GS10 does that faster than any of the other of the graphed speakers.

Well, that makes two of you that can't read a graph. Wrong dimension of three dimensions.

We don't know if the MAs stop faster because there's much less data that can be seen in the graph. About 5dB worth.

You are making the assumption that there is data below -12dB. You can also make the assumption that there is no relevent data below that point and that is why they do not show it. Judging by the slopes, I would say the later.