Like

Best standmount ever and the biggest breakthrough in the history of speaker development?

 

New member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 1
Registered: Jun-09
"The world's only known full-range mini-monitor, this two-way, vented-port design boasts accurate bass all the way into the bottom octave - and is flat down to 30 Hz. Yes, we know: the putative laws of physics state that one can't possibly achieve such low-frequency response in a ten cubic liter enclosure (about 12" x 9" x 9"). But Ingvar's done it"
[url]http://www.sjofnhifi.com/products.html[/url]

But its not only the unimaginable low bass response up to 30hz (flat) from a speaker measuring approx. 12" x 9" x 9". Nor is it the 6 feet high, simply enormous soundstage leaving even the most critical "audiophiles" puzzled. No, its not the fact that it does all these things while positioned right up against, preferably two inches from, the rear wall.

"In a blind listening test by the Stockholm Audiophile Society of thirty loudspeakers ( including the $30,000 Wilson Watt Puppys) the INO Audio PiP (the GURU QM10, in different clothing) came out on top and it was the least expensive product on test, by a wide margin."
[url]http://www.sjofnhifi.com/products.html[/url]

The thing is that this little wonder has been able to pull this off while costing around US2000$. Guru GM10 is neither british nor american. Its not from Asia either. Guru GM10 is a swedish loudspeaker designed and built in Sweden. It looks darn cool for a standmount loudspeaker as well. What more could 1 ask for?
 

Gold Member
Username: My_rantz

Australia

Post Number: 2230
Registered: Nov-05
Nice advertisement.

And it cost you nothing!
 

New member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 2
Registered: Jun-09
Thats your contribution? Man, you must be bored.

This is not an ad. If you read the title carefully you can find a question mark at the end of the "claim". I havent heard these speakers as they are not available here in Candada.

Considering the size of the speaker, being able to reproduce 30hz is a remarkable achievement as it is but doing it with a more or less "balanced" response while positioned right up against a wall must be a work of a genious or just someone who is much more advanced in the science of acoustics / psychoacoustics. The reviews, whether british or US, have been outstanding themselves so theres no need for me to blow the horn here.

I'd like to get response from someone who has audiotioned these little monitors and also have an intelligent conversation conserning the design of the model and what it is that the monitor does so different cojmpared to the rest of the competion. If GM10 doesnt do anything new, why isnt every other speaker manufactures doing 10l standmounts with a "balanced" bass response down to 30hz?
 

New member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 3
Registered: Jun-09
I mean really bored...
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 12611
Registered: Dec-04
And ladies, did you know that your hearing is better than the average males?

Try listening to the woman long enough and you will be deaf too!
 

Gold Member
Username: My_rantz

Australia

Post Number: 2231
Registered: Nov-05
Then you should have just posted the link asked for a response Raheem!

I think maybe you are the bored one. Just wax it!
 

New member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 4
Registered: Jun-09
LOL What link are you talking about? This one?

http://guruproaudio.com/category/reviews-and-quotes/
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 9856
Registered: Feb-05
He's bored and so am I...just not bored enough to read this ad in any detail...btw I've seen this speaker before...on Audiogon. It may very well be good but damn it's unsightly.
 

New member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 5
Registered: Jun-09
if it looks that bad you can always put a hood on top of it, no?
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 9861
Registered: Feb-05
Guess so...is it acoustically transparent...the hood that is?
 

New member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 6
Registered: Jun-09
Well it would be all the better.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 9864
Registered: Feb-05
Actually I know someone who may be buying them...I am waiting for a response from him.
 

Gold Member
Username: Frank_abela

Berkshire UK

Post Number: 3662
Registered: Sep-04
First of all it's the QM10, not the GM10.

2ndly, the Guru has been causing quite a stir in the UK for the last year or so. It's been getting a big name for itself in naim circles, probably because the importer is also a Naim dealer.

It's been reviewed in a couple of places. In order to reproduce the claimed 30hz, the speaker needs to be placed close to a rear wall otherwise it can't do it, but once placed correctly, it is meant to have a well balanced output. The only complaint I've read has been by one reviewer who thought the speaker might have a bit too much output in the treble, but even he admitted that after checking this with other valued listeners, they could not detect the problem so he was prepared to consider it his issue, not the speakers. The reviewer praised the speakers even so - and even though he tends to prefer large speakers.

So there's something to these speakers, but bear in mind they do prefer close to the wall positioning for that bass extension. They also prefer a medium/heavy stand I believe.

Regards,
Frank.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 9868
Registered: Feb-05
The person I know that I thoght was buying them is going to audition them but is doubtful if he will buy as he just bought another pair. Not sure if I will get his impressions or not.
 

New member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 7
Registered: Jun-09
Thanks for your input Frank. For some strange reason, it seems like most people are having a hard time when it comes to these monitors. Must be the down sides of our shared passion.

"First of all it's the QM10, not the GM10."

Correct, my bad.

"So there's something to these speakers, but bear in mind they do prefer close to the wall positioning for that bass extension. They also prefer a medium/heavy stand I believe."

It would be all the better, for me at least. I have no reason insisting my speakers to be placed 3 to 5 feet from the rear after mounting more than half a dozen panels and bass traps in my listening room (yes Gurussuggest using a panel in the rear wall for best results as well but thats only one panel and no bass traps) only to achieve their maximum potential. And honestly, I find it hard to understand why would anyone else want to either unless it means loosing quality in the sound. Obviously its a compromise when placing speakers close to the rear wall but if the speakers are designed this way WITHOUT loosing significantly in imaging, tonal balance etc (like these speakers are claimed while being said to have considerably larger soundstage than most standmounts) I think it is a huge and significant step in speaker design and should be adressed with the attention it deserves. Could be that Im missing some info here but at least I havent heard of a speaker (not talking about Bose or Allisons model 1 which I practically know nothing about), with this kind of a technology, which is capable of competing with speakers much more higher up the in the price range.

Likewise, what caught my interest as well was the blind test, even though Swedish, where 30 000$ Wilson Watt Puppies lost to Guru's. It would be interesting to get some more information concerning this test; acoustic environment, placement etc...In Scandinavia we are more used to blind test which Ive noticed most of the British and US magzines are reluctant to do. While they are not necessarily in the best interest of the industry itself, thay are the only real way to measure our capabilities in distinguising between "quality sound" and "expensive sound".
Personally I dont give much value to reviewers who are reluctant to do blind test. I think that pretty much reveals their level of credibility. The thing here is that these monitors have been regarded highly whether in blind test or not. Whether reviewed by british or american. More over they are a design dating more than twenty years back (how much more developed than their first version Im not too sure either but I read that they can be traced close to thirty years back). So there seems to be a huge mist surrounding these speakers and their history. Obviously they sould be just auditioned, preferably in a blind test. Sterophile or Hifi+ would be willing? I doubt it.
 

New member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 8
Registered: Jun-09
"The person I know that I thoght was buying them is going to audition them but is doubtful if he will buy as he just bought another pair. Not sure if I will get his impressions or not."

Sure, I will give you my impressions after I get my ears on them.
 

Gold Member
Username: T_bomb25

Dayton, Ohio United States

Post Number: 2094
Registered: Jun-05
I dont like the driver selection on them that tweeter isnt even a 3/4 inch dome,its like a 5/8th inch some serious filtering would have to be going on so those driver can intergrate properly without sound like all highs and lows like (bose) and it looks like a cheap dome that came in the kenwood home theater in a box unit back when dolby digital 1st hit comercial use.
Not saying that it doesent sound good,im just looking at the parts and in my eyes they just dont add up to all the hyped up some,but i could be wrong,people are raving about it.If it was me and i wanted a close to the wall design it would be the Audio Notes and Allison.Very small speakers like the Guru with 4 inch drivers should'nt be asked to play down to 30 htz,you cant cheat physics you can manipulate them but not without some reprocusions,it seems like they would be bloated in the midrange with boomy bass and have limited dynamics,im just speculating by looking at the design,but Allison and Audio Notes and even the relatively inexpenive Era D10 would at the top of my list for this kind of application,im about to make a call so i can see where i can hear this little hyped up speaker.
 

New member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 9
Registered: Jun-09
"I dont like the driver selection on them that tweeter isnt even a 3/4 inch dome,its like a 5/8th inch some serious filtering would have to be going on so those driver can intergrate properly without sound like all highs and lows like (bose) and it looks like a cheap dome that came in the kenwood home theater in a box unit back when dolby digital 1st hit comercial use.
Not saying that it doesent sound good,im just looking at the parts and in my eyes they just dont add up to all the hyped up some,but i could be wrong,people are raving about it."

I agree what appears to be "intelligently" designed speaker isnt so intelligently manufactured commercial wise. It is hard to justify the price considering the german tweeter. Im not too sure of its cost but Im sure its not comparable to the likes of scanspeak for instance. Altough it should be mentioned that the 4inch driver is designed and manufactured in Sweden and we are talking about a small young company here. Sweden isn't also the cheapes place on earth to manufacture drivers. That must be taken into consideration even more considering whats been happening to the dollar lately.

"Very small speakers like the Guru with 4 inch drivers should'nt be asked to play down to 30 htz,you cant cheat physics you can manipulate them but not without some reprocusions,it seems like they would be bloated in the midrange with boomy bass and have limited dynamics,im just speculating by looking at the design,but Allison and Audio Notes and even the relatively inexpenive Era D10 would at the top of my list for this kind of application"

Just something interesting about the 4inch driver, it also comes "back" in to action somewhere around 6000hz (if I remember the frequency correct). "CROSSOVER FUNCTION 2-7kHz. Non-textbook function" as they mention in their website. Makes you wonder even more, eh? This speeker seems to be doing everything wrong spec-wise, and regarding the reviews, almost everything right soundwise.

I'd die to see this in a blind test similiar to what they had in Sweden.
 

Gold Member
Username: T_bomb25

Dayton, Ohio United States

Post Number: 2098
Registered: Jun-05
I cant wait hear to them,i will go into it with a open mind,but honestly im not expecting to much,but we will see,and hear.
 

New member
Username: Mattias

Post Number: 1
Registered: Jul-09
I have listen to them (or rather the original version, Ino audio pip) and they are really good. I have not heard any monitors that are better and I prefer it over most floor-standing speakers too (within its SPL limit).
It is not for people that care about how the drivers looks like (what do that have anything to do with it?) but rather to people that want good reproduction at home.

I would rec all to try to listen to them, rightly placed and with some absorption behind them, and see what you like them. I have a much bigger system that the same guy makes, because I need very high SPL, but if I wanted a more normal system, this speaker was be the one I would get (or its bigger brother QM60).
 

Gold Member
Username: Frank_abela

Berkshire UK

Post Number: 3690
Registered: Sep-04
My understanding is that the QM10 does indeed have a fairly nondescript driver complement but the design of the cabinet is rather peculiar which gives rise to the performance. They don't claim to be cheating physics, just using the standard technologies in unusual ways. Because of this you must ensure you setup the speakers as they were designed to be used otherwise your results will be of little use.

There has been loads of discussion and speculation about these speakers for a year or two. Anybody who's heard them has been gobsmacked. I'd love to hear them but I suspect this is very unlikely to happen any time soon.

As for the QM60s I was surprised at how expensive they are. Of course, if they are a similar value for money proposition then they could be an absolute steal, even if they are £10k.

As for blind testing, there are some strong reasons as to why blind testing is of limited value. Here are a few:

1. The method for blind testing usually takes the form of short snippets of music switched between one candidate and the next. Many musicologists believe this does not allow humans to engage with muscal pieces when this is done, so tonality becomes the only criterion for differentiation.

2. The testing is usually done with more than one item being tested in close proximity to the next. In the case of speakers, this is unfair since the unconnected units will radiate passively and unsympathetically, causing time smear. What is heard is not what the unit is actually capable of.

3. Recent research (can't remember the source, sorry) indicates that the mind changes the perception of a piece of music every time it hears it, bringing up the previous listenings and creating a composite. Therefore, every time you hear a piece of music you still get the emotional hit, albeit in a slightly different way. There are two ramifications to this - a) music remains entertaining after many listenings (not so true of visual media) and b) what you hear is not what you interpret.

In the latter case, this means that even straight A/B comparisons are flawed. This is why you should always - if possible - listen to comparisons as A/B/A or A/B/A/B in order to give you the chance to assimilate enough listening to evaluate which presentation is more to your taste (ie.e which option you genuinely prefer most of the time).

I hope this interests...

Frank.
 

New member
Username: Mattias

Post Number: 2
Registered: Jul-09
I have not heard the QM60, just the original version (Ino pi60) and the even better pi60s and they are the best fullrange speakers I have ever heard. Within their SPL limits, they are the best I have listen to.
 

New member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 10
Registered: Jun-09
"As for blind testing, there are some strong reasons as to why blind testing is of limited value. Here are a few:

1. The method for blind testing usually takes the form of short snippets of music switched between one candidate and the next. Many musicologists believe this does not allow humans to engage with muscal pieces when this is done, so tonality becomes the only criterion for differentiation.

2. The testing is usually done with more than one item being tested in close proximity to the next. In the case of speakers, this is unfair since the unconnected units will radiate passively and unsympathetically, causing time smear. What is heard is not what the unit is actually capable of.

3. Recent research (can't remember the source, sorry) indicates that the mind changes the perception of a piece of music every time it hears it, bringing up the previous listenings and creating a composite. Therefore, every time you hear a piece of music you still get the emotional hit, albeit in a slightly different way. There are two ramifications to this - a) music remains entertaining after many listenings (not so true of visual media) and b) what you hear is not what you interpret.

In the latter case, this means that even straight A/B comparisons are flawed. This is why you should always - if possible - listen to comparisons as A/B/A or A/B/A/B in order to give you the chance to assimilate enough listening to evaluate which presentation is more to your taste (ie.e which option you genuinely prefer most of the time)."

---> Thanks for your thoughts Frank. uch appreciated.

It must be said though that not one of those reasons you mention ultimately proove blind tests being less credible than what we call "normal" listening test, at best they proove that blind tests are not in most cases being carried out in a proper manner and that listening tests as a whole have issues which should be taken in to concern when valuing their ultimate credibility. Also most of those factors can be easily adressed by executing listening tests properly.

1."he method for blind testing usually takes the form of short snippets of music switched between one candidate and the next... ...so tonality becomes the only criterion for differentiation."

---> First and foremost the length of a certain sample can be easily adressed. Also, If this is true (tonality being the only criterion for diffrentiation) it doesnt explain how normal tests are better than blind tests in this regard, on the countrary, only that "normal" tests have more factors distorting how individuals perceive sound "quality". Also there are people who are researching this subject and have come to a different conclusion; that it is the accuracy of sound which ultimately dictates how listener perceives sound quality (Though, it should be stated that in this science you usually get what you measure or on the other hand do not):

"The folks at Harman International, who are big believers in blind tests, recognized this limitation of speaker testing years ago (Canada's National Research Council (NRC) deals with it by using multiple trials in which the speakers' positions are changed; they end up being listened to from different points in the room. Listeners rate the speakers' sound in each position, and the results are then usually averaged) and took it into consideration in the design of their current listening room. Harman built what they refer to as a "speaker shuffler": a fully automated system that, with the flick of a switch, moves one speaker out of a certain spot and the next speaker into that same spot. Therefore, all speakers are listened to in the exact same position. Smart -- but also expensive, and difficult to build. To my knowledge, Harman is the only company that has such a thing, although as far as I can tell, it's the best solution so far."

http://www.goodsound.com/editorial/200906.htm

Couple of links relating to this:

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12794

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12847

2. "The testing is usually done with"...

---> Again this doesnt explain how blind tests are less credible. Also as the previous links refer, this factor can be easily adressed by simply arranging the tests properly.

3. "Recent research (can't remember the source, sorry) indicates that the mind changes the perception of a piece of music every time it hears it, bringing up the previous listenings and creating a composite. Therefore, every time you hear a piece of music you still get the emotional hit, albeit in a slightly different way."

Altough I understand what you are refering here, If this was true, speakers would sound different to each individual which obviously isnt ultimately the case. Human ear is capable differentiating bad sound quality from less worse (or more accurate: less distorted etc..) and even there are different individual preferences there are ultimate factors which contribute regardless of the individual. It exactly these factors which should be emphasized.

"(ie.e which option you genuinely prefer most of the time)."

This is the interesting factor, as it seems Harmans studies at least seem to suggest that eventually ones preference leans towards to what can be measured as accurate sound reproduction.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 11
Registered: Jun-09
Im having an audition this week. Will post my conclusions after.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 12924
Registered: Dec-04
Looking forward to your observations RS.
 

Gold Member
Username: Frank_abela

Berkshire UK

Post Number: 3713
Registered: Sep-04
RS

And yet even the Harman solution is wrong since different speakers need to be placed in different places for optimal results!

As for your other objections:

On the sample length issue, what I said was how these tests tend to be run. Sure, you could try to engage with the music on a longer run but that's not how many of these blind tests are run and that's the rub. In my view, there's just no point in listening to a snippet since context has so much to do with any piece of music. Actually, it used to be a method used in the 70s by sales people to point out differences without taking into account musical values - a very effective method of selling the kit the salesman wants to sell as opposed to the kit the customer actually likes.

Quality - Milind Kunchur is one of those researching the subject of what we perceive as good or not. One of his results is that both old and young perceive changes easily enough and in statistically similar amounts even though old people usually have listening curtailed to between 13 and 15khz. On the typical quality scale a system delivering just 13 - 15khz is not of high quality. Yet, people who hear only that much are just as capable of discerning qualitative changes in a system. So the question then becomes 'what is quality and how should we measure it?' In Kunchur's case he seems to think that it's much more to do with the system's reaction time. His tests indicate that our hearing system can discriminate changes to within 6us (microseconds, that's not a typo) . On a tangential note, Kunchur found that because of this, the typical 16/44.1 CD signal simply doesn't have a low enough rise time to accommodate this, and his calculations suggest that you need a minimum 24/192 stream to get close, but in the end he had to develop an analogue system to get significantly below 6us to prove the 6us threshold.

On the hearing issue, well, I only have my own hearing to go by. I have noted that sometimes I hear things that others miss and sometimes I miss things others hear. They're the same speakers so yes, it is possible for different people to be hearing different things and therefore different people like different speakers (and electronics) on the basis of what they've heard. Thank you for proving the point.

Finally, please note I said 'of limited value', not valueless. Yes, you can learn things from blind testing. My problem with most blind tests is with how they're run most of the time. Oh, and of course, the visual aspect of any HiFi has to work in your home. After all, if they look pig ugly the chances of you actually wanting to live with them are pretty slim, no matter how angelic they sound. Now you can get away with ugly looking electronics because you can hide that in a cabinet, but speakers can only be hidden behind acoustically transparent material and I don't know many people who live with acoustically transparent curtains in their room. The visual is part of the product. To have it missing from your testing is to deny part of the product.

I, too, will be very interested in your results.

Frank.
 

New member
Username: Mattias

Post Number: 3
Registered: Jul-09
Raheem Stream, Test many different music and try, if you have, Yello - Planet dada (track 14, remix) on the record The Eye.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13753
Registered: May-04
.

"On a tangential note, Kunchur found that because of this, the typical 16/44.1 CD signal simply doesn't have a low enough rise time to accommodate this, and his calculations suggest that you need a minimum 24/192 stream to get close, but in the end he had to develop an analogue system to get significantly below 6us to prove the 6us threshold."


http://www.physics.sc.edu/kunchur/Acoustics-papers.htm


Kunchur's work invokes fierce on line "debates" that always resolve themself into epic bouts of name calling and grandstanding whenever the subjectivists embrace his work while the objectivists revile his existence as someone not of their "professional" ilk. Like any highly partisan spat these wars go on and on forever without resolution (no pun intended) and with tricks played on every level to support the position of any one combatant.

Needless to say, Kunchur's work suggests Nyquist Theory is insufficient to describe what can be perceived in real life situations. If you haven't been involved in any of the on line battles between objectivists and subjectivists, once you introduce the word "perceive" or "perception" into the discussion all He!! breaks loose.


"On the sample length issue, what I said was how these tests tend to be run. Sure, you could try to engage with the music on a longer run but that's not how many of these blind tests are run and that's the rub. In my view, there's just no point in listening to a snippet since context has so much to do with any piece of music. Actually, it used to be a method used in the 70s by sales people to point out differences without taking into account musical values - a very effective method of selling the kit the salesman wants to sell as opposed to the kit the customer actually likes."


Careful where you point that finger, Frank. Those of us who sold audio in the 1970's were doing the best we knew how and there were far less agenda driven sales back then than exist today.

The early 1970's saw the introduction of the first A/B comparators that allowed volume compensation between speakers of varying electrical sensitivity. Before that sales people switched between AR's, KLH's or Advents and JBL's, Altec's and some pure garbage speakers and the volume difference in the JBL type ported designs sold quite a few less than stellar loudspeakers. So, guess who came up with the idea of volume compensation on a switched comparator? If that's selling the kit you want to sell, then I guess I'm guilty of trying to be fair as best I knew how at the time.



DBT's also are hot topics on line with quite a few adherents to the unfailing success of such tests or to the utter futility of such BS. More than any other single term "double blind test" has been either moderated out of most audio forums, limited to use in certain cases or embraced as the be all and end all of any discussion regarding why "audiophools" fall for anything they are told and the smart objectivists can't be snake oiled into thinking amplifiers can have different personalities.

It is a game killer when any dedicated and up for gamesmanship objectivist begins challenging any assumption of what can be perceived - say, differences resulting from the insertion of a different cable (wire is wire and can only affect sound quality when it is defective) - with the ultimate test of a DBT, ABX or some other form of proof that is virtually impossible to assemble, all too often begins with drawn conclusions and invariably ignores too many factors in audio and particularly in music. DBT battles are legendary with one particular combatant being banned from numerous forums over the past two decades and taken to court for his off the subject remarks about other debaters.

And, yes, the objectivists love Sean Olive and his papers that come out of the Harman Group. If I hadn't met them on line I would have said no one is more convinced of their position on DBT's than Olive. If a forum is invaded by the DBT'ers, it usualy spells the end of a productive forum. That, unfortunately, is all too often their very aim when the objectivism uber alles ranters move into new territory.


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 12945
Registered: Dec-04
As proven here many times as well. The object is division, derision andabject mayhem, which often ensues.
Amuses these objectivists to death, as the subjectivists attempt to put into words what is clearly (and erroniously) printed by a machine.
 

Gold Member
Username: Frank_abela

Berkshire UK

Post Number: 3719
Registered: Sep-04
Very interesting - I wasn't aware of Kunchur's online presence, many thanks for that. In fact I hadn't been aware of his work at all until I read the article in HiFiCritic. For many years I have been concerned about how FFT analysis is applied to holding music in a digital space since FFTs are really applicable for steady-state sine waves. However, CD players work (to a greater or lesser extent) so I always simply thought my lay-person thoughts weren't taking into account some mystical mathematical point. Now it turns out, my gut feeling may not have been completely incorrect, but I still don't see how Kunchur's discoveries explain how CD players work as well as they do!

So, I'm not a Kunchur convert yet, but I am intrigued and feel he has hit upon something that may be true...
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13757
Registered: May-04
.

... I still don't see how Kunchur's discoveries explain how CD players work as well as they do!"

As I see it, Kunchur's work doesn't do anything to prove CD players work well. That really wasn't his point nor his area of expertise.

"In our group's research -- which lies at the intersection of psychophysics, human hearing, and high-end audio -- we measure the limits of human hearing and relate them to the neurophysiology of the auditory system. These experiments also help to define the criteria for perfect fidelity in a sound-reproduction system ...


Our recent behavioral studies on human subjects proved that humans can discern timing alterations on a 5 microsecond time scale, indicating that that digital sampling rates used in consumer audio are insufficient for fully preserving transparency."




This is what has the subjectivist meaurements above all else crowd up in arms, Kunchur is not involved in digital theory or design. He is interested in what can be perceived therefore his work involves to a large degree what is happening both inside the ear and beyond when synapses take over. Having been somewhat involved in a long winded, brutal battle on another forum the subjectivists take on Kunchur with the mathematics of digital reproduction, which is not his specific field of expertise. http://www.physics.sc.edu/kunchur/resume.pdf


True, Kunchur has presented his work to many groups, http://www.physics.sc.edu/kunchur/papers/Probing-the-temporal-resolution-and-ban dwidth-of-human-hearing--Kunchur.pdf, and taken questions from those qualified to discuss digital theory and operation but the peer review he has undergone has not been by the specific "peers" the numbers crowd wants him to face.

Therefore none of Kunchur's work suits the numbers gang since it tends to suggest they are wrong in one of their most basic assumptions regarding digital theory.



As to how well CD players work, the basic work was mapped out in the 1930's by Nyquist and in the case of what is generally being debated in Kunchur's articles is best known as the Nyquist Rate, which stated rather simply, says the sampling frequency must be twice the highest frequency reproduced; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_rate

All this was done decades before it could be applied to real world conditions but measurement folk are not so quick to laydown their calculators when reality slaps them in the face. Nyquist Theory became the basis for Redbook principles of operation in the days of Atari 400's and black and white monitors displaying a game of Pong. Any modern cell phone has substantial times more raw processing power than did the computers available to those formulating Redbook operation in the mid '70's.


As I saw the arguments develop on both sides for and against Kunchur's work, trying to remove the personal grudges and animosity that frequently overwhelmed any rational discussion, the stance of the measurements tell us all crowd - and this included someone who has worked in digital for decades and was partially responsible for the development of processes such as MPEG - amounts to 16/44 is "good enough".

When asked why they fought so hard for something that was only "good enough" the answer I received mostly centered around cost. I found it to be a very weak rebuttal of insufficient quality in audio reproduction when so much money is spent trying to lower the standards of reproduction. Decades of music are being stored in a substandard format and no future improvements can bring back what has not been retrieved and recorded.



Asking how well CD players actually operate, the numbers shown in the "discussion" would indicate the case can be made for resolution that is "good enough" if you only consider 16/44's ability to discriminate time differences in one channel. Once you begin talking about stereo or multichannel reproduction, the numbers actually argue against the present standards being even high enough to be rationalized away as "good enough". However, what we are discussing falls under the category of "under certain circumstances" and is not what would be the bulk of information processed through a 16/44 digital playback system.



Remember also Kunchur's work is only discussing the ability of the present day standard to discriminate between the time differences in two signals. It doesn't in any way discuss the overall sound quality of 16/44 reproduction. And Kunchur's emphasis, as I read it, is more on what can be perceived than on what is being reproduced. The areas of perception and human hearing are far more arcane than those of digital theory. So those looking for a Trojan Horse to jump upon in this series of articles might be disappointed when it comes down to what has actually been discussed. And that alone seems to give the pocket protector crowd new breath to continue their assault on Kunchur's work.





.
 

Gold Member
Username: Frank_abela

Berkshire UK

Post Number: 3722
Registered: Sep-04
In fact what I had meant in my rather obtuse use of the English language was that I am surprised that CD players work as well as they do - given Kunchur's results. If our perception of musical quality is based on something which the very format cannot reproduce, then it's amazing to me that there are some CD players which seem to reproduce that musical quality in a pretty satisfying way - or at least getting close to it.

Either way, his approach is certainly thought provoking, and who knows? Perhaps it'll bear fruit one day.
 

New member
Username: Mattias

Post Number: 4
Registered: Jul-09
Raheem Stream, did you audition them?
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 12
Registered: Jun-09
Actually Im still waiting for a reply to set it up. Im hoping at the end of this week. Will let you know.
 

Gold Member
Username: Frank_abela

Berkshire UK

Post Number: 3740
Registered: Sep-04
I am VERY interested in your results Raheem. The guy who imports Guru into the UK is a solid chap with a wealth of experience and a very good reputation for making good systems which work. He's also just a nice guy who owns a HiFi shop so it was quite a surprise to find him doing importation.

I am not associated with that shop so I don't have an agenda (in fact quite the opposite since in effect he's a competitor).
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 12978
Registered: Dec-04
BUT, you are going to go visit the chap's shop if Raheem goes gaga, right?
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 13
Registered: Jun-09
Well, finally I got my ears on them today. I was expecting to audition them in a store but it turned out the only representetative here in Montreal is actually a musician, pianist to be exact and the only place to audition the speakers is at her home which is not only refreshing but actually most preferable circumstances right after auditioning in ones own listening room. The only sound treatment in the room were the recommended foams behind the speakers. Other than that she had a thick carpet, sofa, desk and the usual little things and stuff people have in their living room.

Equipment:
Pre: Xindak XA8250 (07v) Class A push & pull
Power: Xindak XA8800 Monoblocks
Cd-Player: C06
Cables: Supra Ply 3.4/S
Interconnects: Supra EFF/I

The cd-player used was Xindaks entry level 16-bit cd-.player so nothing too fancy altough it should be mentioned that the amplifier combo looked like serious business and even if chinese, is not exactly cheap either.

So, 4" customized woofer with a german tweeter costing no more than 2$ (so the rumours say at least)... Considering how enthusiastic I have been about these speakers, most of all intriqued by their design which adress most commonly known problems in room acoustics and using them to its advantage, I decided to concentrate analyzising the sound and find some kinds of "symptoms" which would reveal the inferiority of Gurus unique and different approach to speaker design. If not already, lets be clear about it though, Gurus do not "try" to break physics but for a lack of a better word it rather expoits them, mainly refering to that bass reproduction (close to wall placement and phat front baffle).

I honestly wish I had something negative to say about their sound reproduction but I simply couldnt find any. Take ANY standmount in their price level and Gurus beat them hands down. In fact, take ANY speaker in their price level or even double it, if you feel like, and you still have a long way to go. The primary reason for this is that the speakers, in their design, makes a rather ingenius shortcut inorder to achieve neutral tonal balance and "even" frequency response: Take a great speaker worth of 10 000$ and place it in a nontreated acoustical environment and you will not get its full potential and most propably, (if you listen to your dear dealer) because of it, end up spending thousands of more in cables to compensate for the shortcomings because, and lets be honest about it, thats what high-end pretty much seems to be all about. It is exactly here where Gurus ingeniousity, their acoustically adaptive character, comes to the fore. Theres no need to spend a fortune on your cables, in fact theres no reason to spend a fortune on your speakers either. Most of all no need to turn your listening room into a studio environment inorder to experience dynamic, transparent, coherent and tonally balanced - honest - sound reproduction.

The sound Gurus reproduce truly is balanced and more over effortless. What really caught my attention was that they still remain somehow "sweet". Usually one has to make a compromise between "accurate" and "musical" but for some strange reason I found both of these qualities very much present. This doesnt happend to often, in fact it hasnt yet happened with any speaker under 7 000$. Meaning that even the sound is coherent, neutral and dynamic it doesnt become "razor sharp", reminiscent to studio monitors or "too" analytic like described by some - a character posessed by many. The speakers also posess a high level of transparency and resolution. In reasonable limits, everything I could expect was simply there. It should be mentioned though; I asked the representative about any tonal faults she had found (musicians are known to posses very accurate ear especially when it comes to instruments) and she said that the only thing she had noticed was that the violin in her older symphony recordings sounded just a little too harsh. I asked her to kindly demonstrate and couldnt hear it. Whether her perception was simply because of the higher resolution of the speakers (she had Sonus Faber before Gurus) or a subtle lift in the mid-range was left unanswered.

That bass reproduction is no hype either. They truly go low. And no, theres no boom, no over emphasized warmness, nothing of the sort. In fact producing low frequencies in a nontreated room, comparable to Gurus would to the best of my knowledge require in most if not all cases some sort of dsp processing. The bass is just as balanced as rest of the frequency range which is a great achievement as it is but considering the size of the speakers... well you know it already. Soundstage and imaging are also impressive. I have heard just a little deeper and perhaps slightly more accurate but, again, not from any speaker in this price range or from a standmount of any price.

I was secretely wishing I could depunk my expectations but unfortunately I cant. What I can ultimately criticize is the price considering the cost of materials used here but considering its overall sound reproduction capabilities and the fact that the speakers are a production of several if not tens of years of development I decide not to. Best standmount ever and the biggest breakthrough in the history of speaker development? Perhaps not. Most innovative speaker and best value for money when emphasizing solely sound reproduction? Without a doubt, most definitely. Go and make your own conclusion. Im already saving for my pair.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 14
Registered: Jun-09
I cant think of any speaker in this price range which could give Gurus a good run for their money. I havent heard them but Anthony Gallo Reference 3.1 which use dsp prosessing is closest which come to mind but they arent exactly in the same price range as they cost half as much as the Gurus. Another interesting design worth auditioning, if not a box for the common taste.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 12986
Registered: Dec-04
Good write-up, thanks RS.
A few of us have the Gallo's if you have any questions. There is no DSP used with them, but an active XO in the sub-bass.
 

Gold Member
Username: Frank_abela

Berkshire UK

Post Number: 3748
Registered: Sep-04
I don';t see why you say it's not value for money. Here you are saying that the Gurus trash all other speakers in the same price bracket, and then say that they';re not value for money because of the perceived material cost! What about the performance??? Isn't that what you're paying for? This attitude toward some kind of price/materials cost with no thought for the R&D costs and the sheer brilliance of design really p1ss3s me off. Is there no value in ideas?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 10316
Registered: Feb-05
Tell us how you really feel Frank...lol!

The whole thing reads like a well planned ad to me...sorry.
 

Gold Member
Username: Frank_abela

Berkshire UK

Post Number: 3750
Registered: Sep-04
As I said earlier, I am not associated in any way with Guru or its importer but I have heard too many people talking in glowing terms about these speakers. They appear to be really quite something.

But no Nuck, I won't be replacing my SL-2s with Gurus. Well, not yet at any rate...!
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 15
Registered: Jun-09
Frank:

"I don';t see why you say it's not value for money. Here you are saying that the Gurus trash all other speakers in the same price bracket, and then say that they';re not value for money because of the perceived material cost! What about the performance??? Isn't that what you're paying for? This attitude toward some kind of price/materials cost with no thought for the R&D costs and the sheer brilliance of design really p1ss3s me off. Is there no value in ideas?"

---> ??? Where do I say they arent value for money?

"What I can ultimately criticize is the price considering the cost of materials used here but considering its overall sound reproduction capabilities and the fact that the speakers are a production of several if not tens of years of development I decide not to."
 

Platinum Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 10318
Registered: Feb-05
I belive that they may be a good speaker Frank but this still reads like a well planned ad. But hey, that's alright if they are for real...but man can't they make 'em look good, or at least acceptable.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 16
Registered: Jun-09
Nuck:

Thanks for the correction. I have noticed myself focusing on speakers which adress room acoustics and Gallos have also catched my interest altough I have been wondereing why there seems to be so many of them in the second hand market. Used pair pretty much drops their price to the same level with the Gurus. So in this regard they seem to be a valid competitor. Id love to hear you thoughts and experiences on Gallos though.

Art:

Im little dissapointed if you think my intrest to these speakers and the overall conclusion hasnt been sincere from the begining. You well know I am one of those handfull of people who think that acoustics are way too underestimated and almost completely overlooked by consumers and dealers alike. The exact reason along with the raving reviews and the unconvential design which caught my attention. So no, (unforunately) I have no connections to Gurus other than what I have perceived as a potential customer.

I still have my Rega R5's (also had R3's at my home after I found a dealer who was ready to trade in but eventually had to cancel the deal) and I have to say that they sound too different when I first auditioned them in a store. I still like my Rega R5's but in all honesty they are coloured speakers mainly in the upper mid-range / lower treble area Also, their driver technology (tweeter) is way behind and even those paper cones give a beautiful mid-range response their capabilities in the bass region are limited giving a somewhat a "hollow" (again for the lack of a better word) response. I believe this has something to do with the lightness of the cone (trade off is excellent speed) as if something crucial happends (damping?) to a noticable part of the energy itself. For what its worth, and Im no expert, these are my current and honest conclusions.

Anyway, I urge you to audition them even if you do not plan to change your current set up. As u know we currently use same speakers so I would be very much interested hearing your conclusions. Ones own ears are all that matters, right?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 12995
Registered: Dec-04
RS, can you PM me some contact info?
I get to Montreal quite often.
I would like to be able to review as well.

Check out the pianist as well (hope she is not a foot tall)...
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 17
Registered: Jun-09
As there seems so much scepticism around their technology, how they manage to deliver all that, I wanted to share a couple of links where their technology is better explained. I have become somewhat obsessed with paper cone woofers mainly because of their superior mid-range capabilities. It seems that Gurus use a customized hybrid of some a sort, a plastic covered paper cone woofer made by Tymphany (manufacturer for Peerless, Scanspeak and Vifa).

http://www.sonicflare.com/archives/qa-with-guru-designer-ingvar-ohman.php

This is a review but shares some light on the driver technology in the capter "Tech Talk"

http://www.sonicflare.com/archives/guru-qm10-speakers-review-by-robert-learner.p hp
 

New member
Username: Mattias

Post Number: 5
Registered: Jul-09
Raheem Stream, Nice review there. I agree with most of it, I have listen to some VERY expensive monitors (like Focal diablo) and I have not heard any I think sound as good.

You posted:
" Meaning that even the sound is coherent, neutral and dynamic it doesnt become "razor sharp", reminiscent to studio monitors or "too" analytic like described by some - a character posessed by many. "

The reason why is possible one or two things, or both together.
1. Some "clear and neutral" speakers are rather not neutral but some boosting at the treble.
2. Many speaker distort and compress VERY easy in the treble. The guru can be played very loud without any real problem there.

Now when you have heard the QM10, you have heard much of the sound I have. My speakers do sound a lot more "clear" and even more neutral and have better focus on the soundstage. They can be played 25-30 dB louder too and I have -1dB @ 16hz!

"I was secretely wishing I could depunk my expectations but unfortunately I cant. What I can ultimately criticize is the price considering the cost of materials used here but considering its overall sound reproduction capabilities and the fact that the speakers are a production of several if not tens of years of development I decide not to"

The speakers are made in sweden and not a lowcost country and the treble selection throws away 30% of the trebles they gets before they can modify it. So it is not cheap, but it is not overpriced either.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 18
Registered: Jun-09
Mattias:

"The reason why is possible one or two things, or both together.
1. Some "clear and neutral" speakers are rather not neutral but some boosting at the treble.
2. Many speaker distort and compress VERY easy in the treble. The guru can be played very loud without any real problem there. "

This surely is the case with many speakers but not exactly what I wanted to say. After arriving to Montreal and auditioning couple of North American middle priced speakers I noticed their overall sound balance emphasised so much treble that I honestly couldnt listen to them for longer than 5 minutes. Altough I wasnt refering to this but to studio monitors like Genelec for instance which I have worked with before. I assume youre swedish and know the Finn made Genelecs. They have somewhat flat frequency response +-1dB if I remember correct, distortion levels second to none and are so "ruthless" in their transparency and resolution that it makes enjoying music a real challenge. In fact this is the main reason why in most cases the final mastering is not executed with state of the art monitors. Studio monitors are more like a tool, comparable to a one surgeon would use. That was merely what I wanted to point out.

And I agree with you solely on sound per pound, as they say in UK, they are an absolute steal and those factors you mention should be taken into consideration when valuing these speakers. At the end of the day though, IMO, it doesnt even matter as in their price range no other speaker can challenge the sound reproducing capabilities Gurus posess.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 19
Registered: Jun-09
"Good write-up, thanks RS.
A few of us have the Gallo's if you have any questions. There is no DSP used with them, but an active XO in the sub-bass."

Correct I got them confused with the dipole Emerald Physics CS-2 or the newer CS-2.3. Would love to audition them as well. lol. Would be interesting to hear how much that dsp processing affects the overall sound reproduction and what kind of audiable compromises it produces if any.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 10322
Registered: Feb-05
"Im little dissapointed if you think my intrest to these speakers and the overall conclusion hasnt been sincere from the begining."

I just wasn't sure Raheem...however I do believe you.

I have changed my system already Raheem. The R5's are sitting in my office for sale as the were replaced by DeVore 's.

Also must take issue with the statement that the R5's are colored...I agree, and so too are all speakers. Choose your flavor...lol!
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 20
Registered: Jun-09
Art

You owe it to yourself to audition them. Im serious. Even more Id really like to hear your thoughts on these speakers.

So yes, it is?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 10325
Registered: Feb-05
If I run accross them I'll certainly give them a listen, however until then I won't be looking as I'm quite satisfied with where I am.
 

Silver Member
Username: Kbear

Canada

Post Number: 188
Registered: Dec-06
Thought I'd do a Google search on these. Hi-Fi Choice gave them 5 stars. Though in their eyes there is some definite coloration, they felt it was very coherent and musical.

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/audio-visual/hi-fi-and-audio/hi-fi-and-av-speak ers/sjofn-hifi-guru-qm10-proaudio-465869/review
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 21
Registered: Jun-09
Placed as suggested, the speakers have slowly rising emphasis (+3dB overall peak) from 300hz to around 1500hz and also have a small dip (again -3dB) between 3kHz and 6kHz. So in other words everything from the upper mid-range and up is more serene if you will, rising back to the norm level in the frequency extreme. The leaness (80--300Hz) Hi-Fi Choice mentions is aligned with rest of the frequency range so Im not exactly sure what they're refering to. Also the lower and midbass can and should be adjusted by placement, mainly by the distance from the back wall.

Obviously Gurus are not flat (for those who want a flat response should simply look into specific studio monitors) as they have been voiced (originally developed for voice reproduction). The voicing highlights the lower and the mid midrange and restraints the upper midrange. Infact, this is pretty much the exact same voicing found on Harbeth's Compact 7ES-3 for example but without the extra warmness in bass.
 

New member
Username: Mattias

Post Number: 6
Registered: Jul-09
Well, they are rather flat when they are set-uped like they should. The measurements that soundstage did don't say much, the speaker measure differently against the wall + the toe-in one should have. I know, I have seen many in-room measurements of the original version.
They are not voiced, that is something Ingvar don't want. He wants flat directsound and that is what one gets, when it is set-uped correctly. I feel they sound very neutral. :-)
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 22
Registered: Jun-09
I agree, they do sound balanced and neutral perhaps exactly because of the voicing.

In all honesty they are voiced but unlike Hifi Choice describes. Hifi + also came to a different conclusion. Measurements:

http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/guru_proaudio_qm10/

Then again when you have flat frequency response measured usually one or maximum two meters away from the speaker they do not correspond to what you get from your normal listening position. Floor cancellation, first reflections etc..
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13772
Registered: May-04
.

This concept of "flat frequency response" is BS.

" ... those who want a flat response should simply look into specific studio monitors"

Further the presumption that studio monitors are "flat" is either misleading or misinformed and falls into the objectivist trap of audiophiles not having a clue about sound reproduction.

There is nothing about a "studio monitor" that gives it any advantages over a consumer speaker when you are discussing frequency repsonse. Anyone who has been in a studio or heard a studio monitor knows they can and often will use some of the most colored speakers on the market. The fact that many recordings are still being monitored on Yamaha NS10M's is sufficient proof of that fact. Knowing which monitor speaker was used in any particular studio - quite a few use consumer oriented speakers, just imagine Dave Wilson not using Wilson speakers as monitors - is similarly useful to knowing which brand of gasoline was used in a Car and Driver review.


"Well, they are rather flat when they are set-uped like they should."


You gentlemen are missing the most important point of speaker (or component) design, the balance of the system. Sucessful speakers are most often successful not because they are "flat", flat assures you of nothing since it is the cumulative response of the drivers and enclosure - or lack of enclosure in some cases - that begins to make up the balance of the speakers "sound". The alignment of the bass system results in an overdamped or underdamped or critically aligned sound. The power response in the listening room determines much of what is heard at the listening position - how much energy is arriving at the listener's ears and in what time scale. Time smearing and time misalingment are all factors in what is actually "perceived" by the listener and only slightly reflect the measured frequency response you see in those audio magazine graphs.

How do the various drivers, if we're discussing a multi-way system, intregrate due to dispersion patterns that are quite disparate when comparing a 8" low frequency system to a 1" dome type high frequency driver? How does the reflected sound integrate with the direct sound in such circumstanes where wide dispersion meets narrowing directivity? How does the configuration of the crossover affect the directivity of the system in both the horizontal and vertical fields? There is more to this than measured "flat" response.

You need to look beyond simple "frequency response graphs" to determine how much divergence from "flat" response a particular speaker might have in a typical room. Then consider how its total impedance and electrical phase angle might affect the sound of the entire system when driven by an amplifier. If your amplifier does not have exceedingly low output impedance, the response of the system will be influenced by as much as several decibels up or down due to the interaction of the speaker load with the amplifier's output impedance as predicted by Ohm's Law.

After you've considered all of those factors you should simply listen because all of those things barely begin to suggest the overall balance of the speaker system. Ideally, a speaker such as the Harbeth "monitor" should measure with a relative flatness to their response that lacks excessive (10dB) humps or dips. However speaker designers have long acknowledged the balance of the sound is what predicts whether a speaker begins to appeal to the audiophile ear and suggests "flat" response to the listener. Speakers with tipped up bass often respond well to a slightly rolled high frequency response. Speakers with excessive in room energy in the high frequencies will have a difficult time not sounding like BIC Formula 6's unless the bass is adjusted to balance those highs.

It is not "flat frequency response" that makes a speaker successful or even listenable, it is a pleasing balance to all frequencies that appeals to the educated listener. If a speaker does this, then it should do that. If the speaker cannot do that, it shouldn't do this.

If you cling to an argument over how "flat" a speaker needs to be in order to be convincing, you might want to do a bit more listening and more reading to educate yourself on the ability of a speaker to convince the listener they are hearing the real thing. It is not how flat the repsonse is, it is how convincing the system is that matters. The convincing lies in the balance of the speaker's sound, not the measured "flat" response. "Voicing" a speakers is not a bad thing, it is what good designers do to build a convicing speaker.


Then put that speaker in a typical room and hope for the best. It is not uncommon for a designer to make attempts at controlling the environment the speakers operate into. Whether it is done by controlling the dispersion of the mid and high frequencies relative to the bass region or by controlling the most obvious influence of the room regarding bass lift by predicting - or specifying - where the speaker sits in the room environment, this has proven successful in many speakers over the decades. This last bit would seem to apply to the Guru's with their close to the wall placement, a technique Peter Snell, Jon Bau, Roy Allison and Paul Klipsch, to name a few, have used to their advantage.

.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 13013
Registered: Dec-04
It may also be good to note that monitors have often been pahase inverted for the sound booth, or console.
When studio consoles offer a phase inversion, to more readily accomodate bass mixing without boom, it might be used in recording as well.

Phase inversion is a handy tool, and might be very convenient to test these speakers as well.
 

New member
Username: Mattias

Post Number: 7
Registered: Jul-09
"I agree, they do sound balanced and neutral perhaps exactly because of the voicing. "


I know Ingvar, have meet him more than a couple of times, he have drawned my listningroom and I can tell you this, he don't voice his speakers. All, from the small qm10, to the biggest system (i64s) are build to do the same thing, present the music/sounds as neutral as possible at the lisningposition.
Yes, the qm10 is not perfect, the bigger system, QM60 for example, are better, but QM10 is not voiced, just build to give the same presentation as the bigger system; lifelike and neutral sounding, within the limits the monitors have.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 23
Registered: Jun-09
Jan:

From your reply I can only conclude that you didnt read this thread before jumping in which made you look ignorent and arrogant which Im sure you're not.


"Further the presumption that studio monitors are "flat" is either misleading or misinformed and falls into the objectivist trap of audiophiles not having a clue about sound reproduction...

....There is nothing about a "studio monitor" that gives it any advantages over a consumer speaker when you are discussing frequency repsonse....

..."Anyone who has been in a studio or heard a studio monitor knows they can and often will use some of the most colored speakers on the market."

---> You really dont seem to know what youre talking about and/or you are confused with the different stages and requirements of recording process. I worked with many different monitors but mainly with these which are highly regarded all over the world and reference monitors in their own right:

http://www.genelec.com/documents/datasheets/DS1037c.pdf

As you can see flat (+-2dB) on the whole range compared to +-10dB of Gurus which are very common with many "audiophile" speakers. The flatest response of "audiophile" speakers are usually somewhere around +-7, +-5 being extremly rare. I dont know what kind of studios you're refering but it appears that you dont know the difference between recording, mastering, close monitoring or any of the standards associated with them.

The complete process of producing a record uses several different speakers from the first stages of recording to the final stage of mastering. These different stages demand different qualities from the speaker used. The word monitor, in its original meaning referers to speakers used in the recording stage or rather certain qualities demanded by the speaker used in the recording process. Very often the recording studio is different than the mastering studio as many records are recorded in one place and mastered in other. Some musicians prefer certain qualities of certain recording studios and record different tracks or even just portions of a track in different studios. For this exact reason the recording stage demands and requires certain standards which apply "universally". In here flat frequency response comes crucial as you do want the original samples sound exactly the same regardless where you choose to master them all together.

Those studios which do the complete process in one studio must have, and always do it should be mentioned, at least two different speakers, in most cases three as the mastering stage requires different qualities than the recording stage.


"You gentlemen are missing the most important point of speaker (or component) design, the balance of the system. Sucessful speakers are most often successful not because they are "flat", flat assures you of nothing since it is the cumulative response of the drivers and enclosure - or lack of enclosure in some cases - that begins to make up the balance of the speakers "sound"."

---> I think it is you who missed the point and like already mentioned didnt bother to read the whole thread before coming all gunz blazin here as it has been already stated by my behalf that I perceive Guru QM10's to have an exremely "neutral" and effortless sound and it is not because of the flat frequency range, which should be mentiones, it doesnt have (link to measures). Also mentioned was the fact that flat frequency response tells nothing thus has very limited value as it doesnt take into consideration the variables dictated by the acoustical environment where the speaker after all will be used. Pretty much the reason for posting this thread in the begining.


"How do the various drivers, if we're discussing a multi-way system, intregrate due to dispersion patterns that are quite disparate when comparing a 8" low frequency system to a 1" dome type high frequency driver? How does the reflected sound integrate with the direct sound in such circumstanes where wide dispersion meets narrowing directivity? How does the configuration of the crossover affect the directivity of the system in both the horizontal and vertical fields? There is more to this than measured "flat" response."

---> Exactly why the monitoring or mastering room is (or at least should be) sound treated and speakers used so called close monitors.


"You need to look beyond simple "frequency response graphs" to determine how much divergence from "flat" response a particular speaker might have in a typical room....

...It is not "flat frequency response" that makes a speaker successful or even listenable, it is a pleasing balance to all frequencies that appeals to the educated listener."

---> Now Im sure you didnt read this thread fully before giving your response.


"If you cling to an argument over how "flat" a speaker needs to be in order to be convincing, you might want to do a bit more listening and more reading to educate yourself on the ability of a speaker to convince the listener they are hearing the real thing...

...."Voicing" a speakers is not a bad thing, it is what good designers do to build a convicing speaker."

---> I never made those arguments, on the countrary. Maybe it is you who should read the thread fully before starting to educate others. Just a friendly advice.


"Then put that speaker in a typical room and hope for the best."

---> Ingvar seems to disagree with you just that much, leaving hope for people who needs to be educated themselves.


"It is not uncommon for a designer to make attempts at controlling the environment the speakers operate into."

---> You cant control the environment where your designed speaker will be used but what you can do is interact with it which is one of the reasons why Gurus are rather genious speakers.


"This last bit would seem to apply to the Guru's with their close to the wall placement, a technique Peter Snell, Jon Bau, Roy Allison and Paul Klipsch, to name a few, have used to their advantage."

---> Thats just one the things they do. Heres the link once more, please read it fully before replying:

http://www.sonicflare.com/archives/qa-with-guru-designer-ingvar-ohman.php
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 24
Registered: Jun-09
Mattias:

"I know Ingvar, have meet him more than a couple of times, he have drawned my listningroom and I can tell you this, he don't voice his speakers. All, from the small qm10, to the biggest system (i64s) are build to do the same thing, present the music/sounds as neutral as possible at the lisningposition."

---> Im not sure if we have a different perception on voicing as we dont seem to agree to what is fact: the frequency response (measured @ 2m, plotted @ 1m) is not exactly flat.

It is understood that various different variables which contribute to the overall sound are not shown in frequency response measures and what Ive understood is exactly that, voicing adress' this; adjusting the overall tonality of the speakers beyond these measures inorder to achieve "neutral" and balanced tonality/sound.


"Yes, the qm10 is not perfect, the bigger system, QM60 for example, are better, but QM10 is not voiced, just build to give the same presentation as the bigger system; lifelike and neutral sounding, within the limits the monitors have."

---> They get pretty close and excel all the others which atleast Ive encountered in their respective size and price range; Pretty much as perfect as it gets.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13773
Registered: May-04
.

Raheem - From your response I would say you didn't pay much attention to what I posted which now makes you look quite ignorant and arrogant in your tangential reply.



No, I haven't stayed with this thread thru all of the complaints about its driver selection or the arguments for and against DBT's, neither is of interest to me. And this thread has too often read like an advertisement for the Gurus for me to care that much about them due to this thread alone.



I was responding to your comments regarding studio monitors and their superior "flat" response and to the concept of voicing. Please don't patronize me with, "You really dont seem to know what youre talking about and/or you are confused with the different stages and requirements of recording process. I worked with many different monitors but mainly with these which are highly regarded all over the world and reference monitors in their own right ... "

Arguments from authority fall particulary flat when you try them after the fact. I'm familiar with the Genelex line though they currently are not sold in the US to my knowledge. They have a particular appeal to a specific aspect of the professional crowd who desire their peculiar qualities. They are to my knowledge excellent speakers for their purpose - but they are not "flat" and they are "voiced", as are all "excellent" speakers which is what I was trying to point out.

That said they are not the only speaker used as "monitors" as you now point out. There are just as many lines of "monitors" as there are consumer speakers and the "monitors" share the same flaws and virutes as any other speaker, "audiophile" or "professional". Here's what I posted, I encourage you to read it again since you missed its intent the first time out; "There is nothing about a 'studio monitor' that gives it any advantages over a consumer speaker when you are discussing frequency response. Anyone who has been in a studio or heard a studio monitor knows they can and often will use some of the most colored speakers on the market. The fact that many recordings are still being monitored on Yamaha NS10M's is sufficient proof of that fact."

And, yes, I am aware of the various stages a recording might go through and the many trips a recording might take in that process so, once again, don't patronize with, "The complete process of producing a record uses several different speakers from the first stages of recording to the final stage of mastering. These different stages demand different qualities from the speaker used. The word monitor, in its original meaning referers to speakers used in the recording stage or rather certain qualities demanded by the speaker used in the recording process."


No, the word "monitor" in its meaning suggests something that doesn't exist. A speaker can be called a "monitor" by anyone for any reason. If someone wants to call the NS10M a "monitor", they certainly can do so though it is in no way a "flat" response speaker even in the near field.

The application of the usage might in a small way determine whether a speaker should be considered a "monitor" but those applications vary considerably and assuming "certain qualities demanded by the speaker used in the recording process" take a speaker from garden variety to "monitor" is misguided at best. The NS10M is the best example I have for my argument. Of course, I assume you realize most recording studios have muiltiple speaker systems, near and far field types, within the room just for the purpose of "monitoring" the process.




"Exactly why the monitoring or mastering room is (or at least should be) sound treated and speakers used so called close monitors."



I'm not discussing the room environment when I am discussing "monitors" or "audiophile" systems.

What I am doing is dismissing the idea that "flat" response is obtainable even in the near field position. And most sincerely I am dismissing the idea that studio monitors have some precious qualities that consumer speakers do not - they do not. What they all too often have is a tilted frequency balance that reveals certain flaws more quickly than a speaker with a more "neutral" voice. So pull whatever you're wearing out of your crack and let's get on with the discussion.



I was making the point that every speaker is "voiced" and "flat" response is a myth - a myth perpetuated by the subjectivist crowd who prefer to ridicule audiophiles for their selections in equipment. I am saying speakers are not flat but it is not due to the room and its "Floor cancellation, first reflections etc..", we all understand the issues of the room as the final arbitter of the sound we hear - so, no more patronizing, OK?



It requires only a small lift or dip in the frequency response or a shift in the frequency extension, well within your +/- 2dB range (which, of course, still amounts to as much as a 4dB total variance from "flat") to "voice" a speaker system depending on how the designer wishes to present their product. Arguing over "flatness" is ridiculous as two speakers with near identical averaged in room response measurements over the broadest sections of their range can be quite different in personality when the only differences occur in a small region of frequencies - thus the speaker has been "voiced" by the designer. A speaker with 1/4-1/2 octave deeper bass response must be voiced differently than a speaker with less bass extension or the system will probably not appear to be balanced to the educated listener despite the fact the two systems can measure very much alike over their entire range.

A speaker with a slight low Q rise of +1dB over the upper midrange region will need a different voicing than a speaker than remains relatively flat or slightly depressed through the presence range. An educated listener can hear this "voicing". If a speaker truly appears to be balanced, it is not due to "flat" response, it is due to the designer's careful and willful selection of a "voice" for that speaker and that voice comes from (among other things) subtle manipulation of not so flat frequency response that will still meaure within that wonderful +/- 2dB range.

The desire for flat response or even "nuetrality" is IMO a matter of choosing the voice that appeals to you whether that voice is crisp and detailed, warm and romantic or detailed and musically iinvolving. It requires not very much at all in the way of a frequency shift to make a speaker's voice come from either end of the spectrum. "Neutrality" does not have a frequency range it favors whereas voicing does. A speaker can be considered by many to be exceptionally neutral while still possessing a distinct voice.


"The flatest response of "audiophile" speakers are usually somewhere around +-7, +-5 being extremly rare."


Are you actually suggesting the vast majority of "audiophile" speakers have as much as 14dB of variation in their anechoic frequency response? If so, you'll have to provide some proof for that rather outlandish statement.


"Also mentioned was the fact that flat frequency response tells nothing thus has very limited value as it doesnt take into consideration the variables dictated by the acoustical environment where the speaker after all will be used."


On the one hand you seem to be agreeing with me. On the other you seem to confuse the acoustic environment the speaker occupies with flat response in either anechoic or semi-anechoic conditions which is what a desinger works with and measurements state. I must therefore assume you have misread my statements about the acoustic environment of the speaker system and how it has been used to their advantage by many designers.

We can agree there is no way for any designer to predict with absolute certainty the room type their speakers will ocupy and we have all agreed the room will make for the final sound quality the listener perceives. There are, however, other attributes to a speaker than contribute to its perceived sound within that environment as I have notated above, the alignment of the low frequency system, the contribution of the enclosure or the lack of a conventional enclosure, the radiating pattern of the disparate drivers and the impedance and phase angle of the speaker to name but a few.

If you wish to argue that any speaker - studio monitor or what you denigrate as "audiophile" systems - will be affected by the room, then you are stating the obvious. If you are basing your reasoning for 14-20dB variations in frequency response on room effects, then you are misleading the reader.


Let's look at what I posted; "Then put that speaker in a typical room and hope for the best. It is not uncommon for a designer to make attempts at controlling the environment the speakers operate into. Whether it is done by controlling the dispersion of the mid and high frequencies relative to the bass region or by controlling the most obvious influence of the room regarding bass lift by predicting - or specifying - where the speaker sits in the room environment, this has proven successful in many speakers over the decades. This last bit would seem to apply to the Guru's with their close to the wall placement, a technique Peter Snell, Jon Bau, Roy Allison and Paul Klipsch, to name a few, have used to their advantage."


To which you replied; "Ingvar seems to disagree with you just that much, leaving hope for people who needs to be educated themselves.", and, "You cant control the environment where your designed speaker will be used but what you can do is interact with it which is one of the reasons why Gurus are rather genious speakers."

To which I would say, you, sir, are wrong, not fully informed and you are twisting words to your own benefit.

Name me a speaker that does not "interact" with the room?


To my point, Snell, Allison, Bau and Klipsch all had one thing in common despite their very different speaker systems and distinctly diffferent sound qualities. They all realized the room will most affect the perceived sound quality of a speaker by its reactance in the low frequency range. All of the named designers therefore dictated exactly where they intended their speakers to be placed within the room in relation to their low frequency drivers - much the same as I read in the Guru literature. By doing this prediction to the best of their abilities - the Klipschorn and the Allisons simply did not sound very good if they were not placed tight into the corners of the room, the Snell relied on the reinforcement from the wall behind the speaker for its bass extension and specified such placement to the user and Jon Bau's Spica could only have the Angleus woofer at the specified height and working into the near free field environment which was design specific to the tapered front baffle - these designers (and others) could to a very large degree predict the acoustic environment their speakers occupied. They knew with great accuracy the reinforcement provided by the baffle, adjacent walls and the floor. Knowing this much meant they very likely could also predict the dispersion patterns as they related to reflections through the higher frequencies. These designers made strides too often overlooked by others when it came to controlling a large portion of the environment their speakers occupied. This control of the environment was to a large extent a contributing factor to their success and longevity.


"It is understood that various different variables which contribute to the overall sound are not shown in frequency response measures and what Ive understood is exactly that, voicing adress' this; adjusting the overall tonality of the speakers beyond these measures inorder to achieve 'neutral' and balanced tonality/sound."


"Various different variables"?!



You seem to toss around the word "neutral" with great ease. I really have little idea of what you are trying to say in the above quote other than you wish to come across as some authority on what is "neutral". Maybe it's just the language barrier that is standing between us. I'll say that is the reason for the misunderstanding. You say the Guru is "voiced". Not having heard the speaker I can't say yes or no other than to reiterate that all speakers deviate from "flat" response and all good speakers are "voiced" to the designer's intent. Arguing otherwise is missing the obvious.

You apparently wish to include room interaction in all of your reasoning for why this speaker is "neutral" and all other "audiophile" speakers are vastly colored. Despite the designer's statements to his intent I can't disagree with you more on your conclusions regarding most of your statements - they appear narrow minded and short sighted IMO or simply manipulated to make a point in this thread which still reads far too much like an advertisement for the Gurus.


.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 28
Registered: Jun-09
"And this thread has too often read like an advertisement for the Gurus for me to care that much about them due to this thread alone."

---> Yet you feel compelled to post here. Interesting.


"I'm familiar with the Genelex line though they currently are not sold in the US to my knowledge."

---> Just for the record they are Genelec, not Genelex.


"They are to my knowledge excellent speakers for their purpose - but they are not "flat" and they are "voiced", as are all "excellent" speakers which is what I was trying to point out."

---> You are simply wrong. They are "flat" (+-2dB). And, no they are not voiced just like any other serious monitor for recording purposes are not. If you had read the link I posted we would not have to be arguing about facts.

Here, the measured frequency response which can be found from the third page:

http://www.genelec.com/documents/datasheets/DS1037c.pdf


"No, the word "monitor" in its meaning suggests something that doesn't exist. A speaker can be called a "monitor" by anyone for any reason."

---> Im not going to argue for the reason of having an argument which is mainly what I get from your posts.


"If someone wants to call the NS10M a "monitor", they certainly can do so though it is in no way a "flat" response speaker even in the near field."

---> One can call his wife a Queen if one decides to but that doesnt necessarily mean that she is.

Speakers for monitoring record process are always preferably "flat". Period. You wanna have an argument about it I suggest you go to specific pro-site for sound engineers and make your absurd and petty statement there as Im not going to continue arguing it with you.


"And most sincerely I am dismissing the idea that studio monitors have some precious qualities that consumer speakers do not - they do not."

---> Like already mentioned certain monitors are developed for specific purposes; ultimately, some of them, are solely about monitoring sound not music. Completely different purpose than speakers developed for consumers. And yes they do have certain qualities found seldom and randomly in commercial speakers.


"So pull whatever you're wearing out of your crack and let's get on with the discussion."

---> From your few statements which werent incorrect I didnt yet find one which stated anything else than which had been already.


"I was making the point that every speaker is "voiced" and "flat" response is a myth - a myth perpetuated by the subjectivist crowd who prefer to ridicule audiophiles for their selections in equipment."

---> Well this is not true as is the case with Genelec's speakers as well as most studio monitors developed for recording purposes. So no, not all speakers are voiced and theres no myth to this subject either. Not at least in my world.


"It requires only a small lift or dip in the frequency response or a shift in the frequency extension, well within your +/- 2dB range (which, of course, still amounts to as much as a 4dB total variance from "flat") to "voice" a speaker system depending on how the designer wishes to present their product."

---> The best of them have no more than measured variation of 2dB which is not exactly what you call voicing. Again certain speakers are designed to have as little characteristcs as possible, "flat" frequency response being one of their objectives. I cant believe you would even want to argue against.


"A speaker with 1/4-1/2 octave deeper bass response must be voiced differently than a speaker with less bass extension or the system will probably not appear to be balanced to the educated listener despite the fact the two systems can measure very much alike over their entire range."

---> You still seem to be confusing the difference in speakers designed for commercial use and speakers designed particulary for studio monitoring. This is simply not how most speakers for proffessional use are designed. Also, to solve few of the problematics you mention many of them are active.


"A speaker can be considered by many to be exceptionally neutral while still possessing a distinct voice."

---> Indeed. Again not a quality prefered by speakers used to monitor the recording process.


"Are you actually suggesting the vast majority of "audiophile" speakers have as much as 14dB of variation in their anechoic frequency response? If so, you'll have to provide some proof for that rather outlandish statement."

---> my bad. 7dB variaton, yes. And Genelec's have a 2dB variation which is commonly accepted as flat frequency response.


"On the one hand you seem to be agreeing with me. On the other you seem to confuse the acoustic environment the speaker occupies with flat response in either anechoic or semi-anechoic conditions which is what a desinger works with and measurements state."

----> First, it seems like you enjoying arguing for the sake of having an argument.

Second, from what I've understood Gurus are not designed "from" anechoic chamber measurements. The whole design concept of the speaker lies in "acoustical adaptiveness" (cant find a better expression but Im sure you get the drift)

Third, It is extremely painfull to argue with someone who hasnt read your statements thus creating a fallacios contect from them. Please read the posts and get back. It is you who came to educate "us guys" here. So again, I suggest that you have the self-respect to read what have been posted before making your arguments inorder to create a proper context for them.


"To my point, Snell, Allison, Bau and Klipsch all had one thing in common despite their very different speaker systems and distinctly diffferent sound qualities. They all realized the room will most affect the perceived sound quality of a speaker by its reactance in the low frequency range. All of the named designers therefore dictated exactly where they intended their speakers to be placed within the room in relation to their low frequency drivers - much the same as I read in the Guru literature. By doing this prediction to the best of their abilities - the Klipschorn and the Allisons simply did not sound very good if they were not placed tight into the corners of the room, the Snell relied on the reinforcement from the wall behind the speaker for its bass extension and specified such placement to the user and Jon Bau's Spica could only have the Angleus woofer at the specified height and working into the near free field environment which was design specific to the tapered front baffle - these designers (and others) could to a very large degree predict the acoustic environment their speakers occupied. They knew with great accuracy the reinforcement provided by the baffle, adjacent walls and the floor. Knowing this much meant they very likely could also predict the dispersion patterns as they related to reflections through the higher frequencies. These designers made strides too often overlooked by others when it came to controlling a large portion of the environment their speakers occupied. This control of the environment was to a large extent a contributing factor to their success and longevity."

---> And how is this controlling the acoustical environment in anyway? It is not, it is exactly an effort to minimise the interaction, or at best (like in the case of Gurus) interact with it. Describing it as *control* is simply fallacious. Sound treatment is control. Speaker design is not unless you want to refer to dsp processing.


"You seem to toss around the word "neutral" with great ease. I really have little idea of what you are trying to say in the above quote other than you wish to come across as some authority on what is "neutral"."

---> As you might have noticed, I use "...." emphasising the subjective nuance of the word in this specific context [sound reproduction]. Just like when I use the word "natural"... In my oppinion effortless is the correct word to describe these qualities as it doesnt have the subjective nuance to it...


"You apparently wish to include room interaction in all of your reasoning for why this speaker is "neutral" and all other "audiophile" speakers are vastly colored."

---> Never stated that "all other "audiophile" speakers are vastly colored" in "all my reasoning", only that QM10 adress' these problems in an unique way and somewhat radical manner going the opposite direction than most current designers [mainly refering to dispersion characteristics]. Thats all. Now you feel compelled to put words in my mouth inorder to have a valid argument? And yes, they do sound extremely *natural*, *neutral* and balanced in their sound reproduction without ever becoming dull, on the countrary they sound sweet to a degree of becoming extremely addictive.


"Despite the designer's statements to his intent I can't disagree with you more on your c2conclusions regarding most of your statements - they appear narrow minded and short sighted IMO or simply manipulated to make a point in this thread which still reads far too much like an advertisement for the Gurus."

----> Honestly, I couldnt care less whether you take this thread as an ad or not.
 

New member
Username: Mattias

Post Number: 8
Registered: Jul-09
"---> Im not sure if we have a different perception on voicing as we dont seem to agree to what is fact: the frequency response (measured @ 2m, plotted @ 1m) is not exactly flat."


No, but it much better when one measure it in a room, standing like they should. Then I think pip (the original version of QM10) are -+2dB and the bigger system are -+1dB.
But then again, the most important thing is how one experience the speaker in the listningposition.


"They get pretty close and excel all the others which atleast Ive encountered in their respective size and price range; Pretty much as perfect as it gets."

Then you should listen to the bigger system, QM60 for example. :D
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 31
Registered: Jun-09
"Then you should listen to the bigger system, QM60 for example. :D"

---> Completely out of my range and in that price range there comes a lot more serious competition to choose from. Like I said Im rather intriqued by the dipole and dsp controlled CS-series by Emerald Physics. I havent yet had the possibility to audition them but their design does interest me.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13774
Registered: May-04
.

"---> Yet you feel compelled to post here. Interesting"

How childish of you. Compelled? No, just making a post that you took exception to without undertsanding what was said. You want to spend all this time arguing over one word that you obviously do not understand.


Get over yourself, Raheem.



"If someone wants to call the NS10M a 'monitor', they certainly can do so though it is in no way a 'flat' response speaker even in the near field."

"One can call his wife a Queen if one decides to but that doesnt necessarily mean that she is."


Now you're catching on. BTW, who's side of this are you arguing with that thought?



"Speakers for monitoring record process are always preferably "flat". Period. You wanna have an argument about it I suggest you go to specific pro-site for sound engineers and make your absurd and petty statement there as Im not going to continue arguing it with you."


Good, I'm not looking for an argument, just setting the record straight. And this "pro sound" thing is exactly what I debunked. You need to do more reading, RS.


But, my! for someone not wishing to argue you certainly do a good job of it for the next 200+ lines. If I can't trust you when you say you don't want an argument, I don't think I'll believe much of what you say at all.




"Like already mentioned certain monitors are developed for specific purposes; ultimately, some of them, are solely about monitoring sound not music. Completely different purpose than speakers developed for consumers. And yes they do have certain qualities found seldom and randomly in commercial speakers."


Once again you've corroborated my point. Speakers all their own unique voice that is the result of the designers talents and skills. You've also shown you don't know much about speakers. I especially like the part about monitoring "sound" but not "music". That's good, RS, that's really good!



"---> From your few statements which werent incorrect I didnt yet find one which stated anything else than which had been already."






"Well this is not true as is the case with Genelec's speakers as well as most studio monitors developed for recording purposes. So no, not all speakers are voiced and theres no myth to this subject either. Not at least in my world."


And we've seen "your world" is not very big nor is your viewpoint often correct.


"The best of them have no more than measured variation of 2dB which is not exactly what you call voicing. Again certain speakers are designed to have as little characteristcs as possible, "flat" frequency response being one of their objectives. I cant believe you would even want to argue against."


With 4dB of variation to play with, any speaker is "voiced". That is the point I have been making that you just don't care to accept. You have some pro sound superiority in your head that won't accept the fact many "audiophile" speakers are also designed for "accuracy" and to show exactly what is coming into the speaker. But they are still voiced differently from one another, a KEF does not sound like an Usher and a PSB doesn't sound like a Dynaudio. They each have a unique if rather similar sound of a speaker designed to project "accuracy". But they speak in their own voice. If they didn't there wouldn't be any reason to build the product, would there? The fact many of them sound as if music was the last thing on the designer's mind is beside the point. I find that to be more of a problem with "professional" speakers than I do "audiophile" speakers. Thank God for the audiophiles!

You are showing your ignorance and prejudice and I can't believe you want to continue doing so, but here you go again ...



" You still seem to be confusing the difference in speakers designed for commercial use and speakers designed particulary for studio monitoring. This is simply not how most speakers for proffessional use are designed. Also, to solve few of the problematics you mention many of them are active."


Good going, RS, when you can't disprove what I've said you toss in active speakers - as if that removes the issues I noted. As if there aren't active "audiophile" speakers. You fail to mention that most active speakers still have passive crossovers and the problems still exist. Or, that active speakers still can have enclosures and bass alignments and the problems still exist. And ...

... well, maybe you just didn't realize any of that. You just thought throwing active speakers in would make a point that it fails to make. As you say, your bad.



""A speaker can be considered by many to be exceptionally neutral while still possessing a distinct voice."

"Indeed. Again not a quality prefered by speakers used to monitor the recording process."


Indeed, indeed!

What's not desirable? Neutrality?!

Speakers are "voiced", that's something you can accept or not. You are going to extraordinary lengths to fight over a single word.



"Are you actually suggesting the vast majority of 'audiophile' speakers have as much as 14dB of variation in their anechoic frequency response? If so, you'll have to provide some proof for that rather outlandish statement."

" my bad. 7dB variaton, yes. And Genelec's have a 2dB variation which is commonly accepted as flat frequency response."


So you have no proof. I asked you to show proof of your statement, RS. Either you have proof most "audiophile" speakers have such wide variation in response or you don't. Making up more BS isn't improving your game.


Here are a few measurements of common "audiophile" speakers. Staying within 100-15kHz indicate which ones have as much as +/- 7dB of variation in their response as measured by Stereophile.

http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/psb_imagine_b_loudspeaker/index3.html

http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/708kef/index4.html

http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/508ush/index4.html

http://stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/dynaudio_sapphire_loudspeaker/index4.ht ml

http://stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/808pro/index4.html



You seem to be hung up on this superiority of "professional" speakers and the inferiority of "audiophile" speakers. And you're really hung up on "flat" response, RS. My point is any speaker can be "flat" and any speaker will be voiced. Frequency response alone doesn't make a speaker neutral. I thought you made the same statement a while back.

You seem to be arguing you know neutral. I don't think you do. You just know 4dB is less than 7db and you want to use one speaker to represent the entirity of the "profesional" speaker market while coming up with no proof of your statement regarding "audiophile" speakers.

Your bad, indeed!



"First, it seems like you enjoying arguing for the sake of having an argument."

I like to set the record straight.


"Second, from what I've understood Gurus are not designed "from" anechoic chamber measurements. The whole design concept of the speaker lies in "acoustical adaptiveness" (cant find a better expression but Im sure you get the drift) "


I think you understand wrong.

Understanding the room influences the sound of any speaker does not negate starting with a speaker you realize in a perfect environment before you change anything to adapt to a more challenging environment. I would be highly surprised if the Guru designer didn't begin with baseline measurements that represented what he was looking for in an anechoic or semi-anechoic environment. Or else he did what? Tried his design in 1,000 rooms to start the design process? I would have expected him to have tried his speaker in many different rooms after he had the baseline product set. But to start without that baseline, he would have had nothing to work with that wasn't influenced by each different room. Not a good way to design a product by using a constantly changing variable.


"Third, It is extremely painfull to argue with someone who hasnt read your statements thus creating a fallacios contect from them. Please read the posts and get back. It is you who came to educate "us guys" here. So again, I suggest that you have the self-respect to read what have been posted before making your arguments inorder to create a proper context for them."


I've read about the Guru. Do you think you are the only person who has heard of these speakers?




"All of the named designers therefore dictated exactly where they intended their speakers to be placed within the room in relation to their low frequency drivers ... these designers (and others) could to a very large degree predict the acoustic environment their speakers occupied. They knew with great accuracy the reinforcement provided by the baffle, adjacent walls and the floor. Knowing this much meant they very likely could also predict the dispersion patterns as they related to reflections through the higher frequencies. These designers made strides too often overlooked by others when it came to controlling a large portion of the environment their speakers occupied."

" And how is this controlling the acoustical environment in anyway? It is not, it is exactly an effort to minimise the interaction, or at best (like in the case of Gurus) interact with it. Describing it as *control* is simply fallacious. Sound treatment is control. Speaker design is not unless you want to refer to dsp processing."


I see you also have a very narrow definition of "control". Sound "treatment" is not generally "control". Sound treatment is broadbrushed, broadband absorption, reflection or diffusion in the conventional sense of using plenty of fiberglass and turning a room into a lifeless hole into which you play music - or in your case "sound" as music is not that important to you. If you prefer to discuss reasonable treatments such as the Mpingo discs and the ART devices, then we can discuss effective treatments of the space that will not remove most of the music. Otherwise, you and I are on very different pages on this subject. You want to kill the music and I want to listen to the music.

DSP is still just a pipedream for most designers as it has too many issues to be truly effective at room eq. It has come a long way since the days of the Infinity DSP "Shadow" columns but it still has a long way to go IMO. DSP is not "control", it is a BandAid.

Unless you understand that controlling the environment the speaker ocupies begins with controlling the location of the speaker relative to the surfaces that influence its sound, there is nothing more to discuss with you. You are being a PITA just because you don't care to acknowledge the superiority of certain "audiophile" products. Certain audiophile products you apprently don't know and have never encountered so you just brush them aside without the simplest ability to comment on their design objectives since they are in your opinion just inferior "audiophile" speakers.

And as long as you have that opinion of audiophiles and the products they produce there is no point is paying any attention to anything you have to say about audio.

You are an arrogant, ignorant fool who is wearing blinders to a large and important part of the real world. Studio monitors do not possess any special abilites that cannot be found in audiophile products and studio products are often just as colored, if not more so, as any audiophile product. The Genelex are excellent speakers voiced to do a specific job, as you point out that job just doesn't happen to be playing music. Their frequency repsonse is hardly representative of the entire "professional" speaker market.

Finally, without audiophiles to buy their wares, studio speakers wouldn't exist at all.


Get over yourself, RS.




.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 33
Registered: Jun-09
You get over yourself and come with proper arguments when you need that extra attention.

From your long and worthelss post you still didnt anyhow manage to proove how the following facts are incorrect. As a result you try to compensate your incapability to refute or provide evidence by adhominem attacks which pretty much speaks for what youre worth.

1. The standards for near studio monitors, speakers designed for recording or mixing differ from speakers designed for commercial use thus their capabilites and often their design process differ as well. This on the other hand doesnt mean, unlike which you seem to insist, that either one of them ultimately cant posess qualities of the the other. 20.000$ "audiophile" speaker should by all means achieve certain standards of a studio monitor.

2. For the above mentioned fact one of the most paramount priorities of a studio monitor (to diffuse your confusion, studio monitor referes to the rest of us living in the real world a near field speaker used to monitor a recording process, sound monitoring, something which you still seem to have difficulty of understanding) is to have as flat linear phase and frequency response, something which isnt as paramount for a commercial speaker to posses naturally because of the market and purpose of use.

3. Proper studio monitors arent voiced to sound good in certain ares of the frequency response on the expense of another but their primary target is to sound as good as possible in ALL areas of frequency response. Again a standard for any proper speaker, but yet again, more often compromised by commercial speakers than with studio monitors.

4. Speaker designers cannot and do not control the acoustic environment (suggested placement exactly being interaction with, not control of) of the speaker but sound treatment does exactly that; control the acoustic charcterics of a specific environment.

Dig it, as far and as long as you feel like.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13775
Registered: May-04
.

1) "20.000$ "audiophile" speaker should by all means achieve certain standards of a studio monitor."


This speaker,

http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/psb_imagine_b_loudspeaker/index2.html

sells for $1000 retail and is specified by the manufacturer to be within "55Hz--20kHz, ±1.5dB (on axis)". As you can see from my link in the above post, it comes very close to that spec in a real room.

#1 debunked.



2) "For the above mentioned fact one of the most paramount priorities of a studio monitor ... is to have as flat linear phase and frequency response ... "


I repeat, "No, the word "monitor" in its meaning suggests something that doesn't exist. Any speaker can be called a "monitor" by anyone for any reason. If someone wants to call the NS10M a "monitor", they certainly can do so though it is in no way a "flat" response speaker even in the near field.

The application of the usage might in a small way determine whether a speaker should be considered a "monitor" but those applications vary considerably and assuming "certain qualities demanded by the speaker used in the recording process" take a speaker from garden variety to "monitor" is misguided at best. The NS10M is the best example I have for my argument."




As an example of another "monitor" that does not hold to your description of what a "monitor" needs to do, read this,

" I did, however, note a slightly forgiving aspect to the sound in the midrange registers between 1 and 3 kHz. While I was mastering a dense rock project with heavily distorted guitars, it was a little too easy to push EQ in this area, and the client called back, wondering if I could tone down the brashness somewhat. Chalk it up to the euphonic nature of the O410s -- they don't misrepresent this area, but they simply sound so good that it takes a little practice to hone in on their vibe. After realizing this characteristic, it was a snap to adjust my workflow accordingly, and subsequent masters had perfect balance. http://mixonline.com/gear/reviews/review-klein-hummel-monitors/


Obviously a case of a "monitor" that is not "flat", eh? One that is euphonically "voiced", wouldn't you say?

#2 debunked.



"Proper studio monitors arent voiced to sound good in certain ares of the frequency response on the expense of another but their primary target is to sound as good as possible in ALL areas of frequency response. Again a standard for any proper speaker, but yet again, more often compromised by commercial speakers than with studio monitors."


I assume you want me to find more reviews that point out the "voicing" of the "monitors" under review?

OK ...

"The CMS 65 exhibited a high degree of articulation in the upper range. Pianos, bowed strings and synthesizers were well represented, if not slightly forward in the 1.6 to 2kHz range, as I mentioned previously. Although the specs indicate an upper frequency response out to 28 kHz, the air was not that apparent, with a slight attenuation in the 12kHz range."
http://mixonline.com/gear/reviews/focal-professional-cms-powered-monitors-review /



How long do you intend to play this game? Anyone can call any speaker a "monitor" if they so desire. There are no requirements for what makes a speaker a "monitor" and many studios that respect the music rather than just the sound use "audiophile" speakers as part of their monitor set up.

"I should note that Pierre's playback system is a tweaked melange: Martin-Logan CLS IIa electrostatic panels (operating full range), coupled to a pair of enormous Rohrer columnar/tubular, slot-loaded subwoofers, and augmented with a pair of small ribbon supertweets, powered directly from a hybrid tube/solid state amplifier made in Virginia and known to a select few as the "Magic" Amp (which he helps to distribute through word-of-mouth), all strung together with his custom "Omega Mikro" solid-core wires and interconnects. No preamp of any kind is used, and Pierre sets his playback volume passively using discrete resistors." http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/main/audiophile.php

#3 debunked.



4) "Speaker designers cannot and do not control the acoustic environment (suggested placement exactly being interaction with, not control of) of the speaker but sound treatment does exactly that; control the acoustic charcterics of a specific environment."


Wrong. Acoustic "treatment" is as I described above. Why make me repeat it? It is broadband and it is, in the case of fiberglass absorption, reflection and diffusion (the three most likely ways to "treat" a room), not possible to control the rate of absorption to specific frequency ranges. If you use a trap to effect 100Hz, that same trap will affect 1,000Hz and will probably also affect 5kHz and even 10-20kHz. That is not control, it is another BandAid and a poor one at that.

#4 debunked.



You want to argue that the Guru designer made an effort to control the environment his design works into by specifying near wall placement. First of all, that's nothing new in speaker design, the effects of near wall and corner placement on low frequency response have been known since the 1920's - further back than that if you care to discuss purely acoustic treatments and techniques used by the Greeks in shaping the acoustic properties of their amphitheaters. Did you know the Greeks used what is commonly referred to today as a Helmholtz Resonator in their theaters? Of course, it wasn't named a Helmholtz Resonator until the 1800's.

Now that, a HR, is a frequency specific treatment that can control specific issues in a room. A bale of fiberglass is not control.



If we agree that's the case with the Guru though, so too do the designers I've mentioned control the environment though to an even greater degree by specifying exactly where in relation to the surfaces that affect the low frequency driver's response that driver sits. Once that position is determined the relation to the higher frequency drivers is also controlled by simple mathematics. This then controls the directivity of the mids to high frequencies and controls the amount of lift provided in the lowest three octaves. I have no idea how much more "control" you want to argue about.

He!!, if a speaker designer chooses a specific high frequency driver for its dispersion characteristics, that designer is "controlling" the acoustics of the room by predicting just how much energy will be arriving at the reflective surfaces. If a designer prefers a wide front baffle, the designer can control the amount of lift given the dirver's operation, lower the cut off frequency of the driver and lower the distortion the driver produces as it approaches its out of bandwidth limits. None of that requires any amount of fiberglass.

But let's look at Bau's design for his Spica line of speakers where every Spica wide front baffle was covered top to bottom and side to side in a thick felt blanket that "controlled" the dispersion characteristics of the tweeter which therefore "controlled" the acoustic space the speakers occupied.

Have you ever heard the term "controlled directivity" applied to a front horn loaded driver? How about a "wave guide"?



If you insist on now arguing over the word "control" also, I can provide more examples of designs you have never heard of and cannot comment on.


Look, RS, my position on this is not going to change just because you are too stubborn to realize and admit you are wrong. You are arguing things that have nothing to do with the "voicing" of a speaker and you are loosing the argument. Admit you don't know any of this and stop the BS. Be a good boy and lay down in the corner.

.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 36
Registered: Jun-09
1. "sells for $1000 retail and is specified by the manufacturer to be within "55Hz--20kHz, ±1.5dB (on axis)". As you can see from my link in the above post, it comes very close to that spec in a real room."


---> LoL More false claims i see. Giving one speaker doesnt yet make your case altough claiming a speaker to have a variation of 3dB while in reality it has a measured variation around 22dB does even less. Measurements between 10kHz and 20kHz equals a rough variation of 22dB:

http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/psb_imagine_b_loudspeaker/index3.html

Youre only just a bit under 20dB's short but thats a good start.


2) "I repeat, "No, the word "monitor" in its meaning suggests something that doesn't exist."

---> It surely does exist. You have been already given one reference of it by Genelec. I could give you plenty of more but not just yet.


"The application of the usage might in a small way determine whether a speaker should be considered a "monitor" but those applications vary considerably and assuming "certain qualities demanded by the speaker used in the recording process" take a speaker from garden variety to "monitor" is misguided at best. The NS10M is the best example I have for my argument.

Obviously a case of a "monitor" that is not "flat", eh? One that is euphonically "voiced", wouldn't you say?"

---> Yes, and thats the exact reason why it can not be considered a proper monitor as it doesnt meet the standards of what monitoring requires. Speaker doesnt qualify as a monitor even if the manufacturer would claim so. Notice the word I am using here, qualify. You just keep posting those amateur links.


3. "I assume you want me to find more reviews that point out the "voicing" of the "monitors" under review?"

---> By prooving that there exists women who are called Queens by their husbands doesnt yet proove your statement to be true, mainly that Queens do not exist and they are a myth. Keep going. You'll eventually get there.


4. "Wrong. Acoustic "treatment" is as I described above. Why make me repeat it? It is broadband and it is, in the case of fiberglass absorption, reflection and diffusion (the three most likely ways to "treat" a room), not possible to control the rate of absorption to specific frequency ranges. If you use a trap to effect 100Hz, that same trap will affect 1,000Hz and will probably also affect 5kHz and even 10-20kHz. That is not control, it is another BandAid and a poor one at that."

---> This has nothing to do with your primary claim that speakers control the acoustic environment.


"You want to argue that the Guru designer made an effort to control the environment his design works into by specifying near wall placement."

---> Beautiful, when you are refuted you yet again try to reverse your position and the argument to your advantage. I never stated that ANY speaker can control any acoustic environment, it was you who claimed that. Go and read your own post.


"First of all, that's nothing new in speaker design, the effects of near wall and corner placement on low frequency response have been known since the 1920's - further back than that if you care to discuss purely acoustic treatments and techniques used by the Greeks in shaping the acoustic properties of their amphitheaters. Did you know the Greeks used what is commonly referred to today as a Helmholtz Resonator in their theaters? Of course, it wasn't named a Helmholtz Resonator until the 1800's."

---> It is not one of these but all combined; Hermholtz resonator, wide front baffle, exeptionally powerful and modified motor with about 176 pa/V achieving sound pressure of 140 dB inside the box at just about 1.1 volts input signal, frequency response designed for close to wall placement and the unusual crossover design adressing dispersion characteristics which make Gurus particularly a unique pair of speakers. And no, that has nothing to do with controlling the acoustic environment but rather adjusting to it inorder to achieve the desired results.


"He!!, if a speaker designer chooses a specific high frequency driver for its dispersion characteristics, that designer is "controlling" the acoustics of the room by predicting just how much energy will be arriving at the reflective surfaces.

"If a designer prefers a wide front baffle, the designer can control the amount of lift given the dirver's operation, lower the cut off frequency of the driver and lower the distortion the driver produces as it approaches its out of bandwidth limits. None of that requires any amount of fiberglass."

---> You have a great difficulty to understand that when a speaker is designed to spread energy in a certain specific way it doesnt yet control the acoustic qualities of the space it will be used but rather is dictated by them and thus forced to control its own behaviour by adjusting to, or interacting with it to achieve the desired results.


"If you insist on now arguing over the word "control" also, I can provide more examples of designs you have never heard of and cannot comment on."

You're hilarious. Keep going.


"Look, RS, my position on this is not going to change just because you are too stubborn to realize and admit you are wrong."

---> I couldnt care less about your position. People like you make no difference to me personally. The only thing you're capable of is confusing the less informed which is the exact reason Im setting the record straight here on your behalf.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 37
Registered: Jun-09
My claim: The flatest response "audiophile" speakers usually have is a variation somewhere around 7dB , 5dB being extremely rare.

Your given references to refute this claim:

1. PSB
http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/psb_imagine_b_loudspeaker/index3.html
----> Variation 22dB plus

2. KEF
http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/708kef/index4.html
---> Variation of 14dB plus

3. USHER
http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/508ush/index4.html
---> Variation of 9dB plus

4. DYNAUDIO
http://stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/dynaudio_sapphire_loudspeaker/index4.ht ml
---> Variation of 11dB plus

5. PROAC
http://stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/808pro/index4.html
--->Variation of 6dB plus


As we can see the only one of these rather expensive "audiophile" speakers were able to come close to that extremely rare variation of 5dB were ProAc's with a variaton of roughly between 6dB and 7dB. Rest of them had a variation of (plus) 22dB, 14dB, 11dB and 9dB. It should mentioned that most of these speakers are highly regarded and terrific speakers in their own right.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13776
Registered: May-04
.

1) PSB, you're looking at the ultrasonic ringing of the dome tweeter above 22kHz.

2) KEF, this from the JA's measurements, "Otherwise, the KEF 201/2 offers an extraordinarily flat anechoic response, basically meeting tight ±1dB limits from the upper bass through the high treble."

Once again you are looking at the ultrasonic resonance of the tweeter, this time the resonance is pushed up above 26kHz due to the use of a titanium dome tweeter.


3) Usher, same thing.


4) Dynaudio, "Lower in frequency, the dip between 40 and 60Hz and the peak between 20 and 40Hz are residual room effects that have not been eliminated by the spatial averaging."

There is an intentional steep rollout of the high frequencies above 20kHz. This minimizes the resonance of the tweeter; you know, the stuff you can't tell is resonance and not signal. It's the stuff that occurs in all dome tweeters if you do not apply a steep rollout to remove it from the audible passband. You either push it up as high as possible outside the 20kHz range or you damp it with additional components. There are reasons to do either and reasons to not do either. That would be up to the designer to choose which is the more appropriate selection for the specific speaker with most designers preferring to allow the resonance rather than add components to damp the ringing.

None of this proves the speakers do not provide the perception of "accuracy" which they all manage easily with the slight exception being the ProAc which you picked - incorrectly, but you are the one who picked it.


5) ProAc, "The tweeter is basically flat within its passband, but is set 2--3dB too high in level compared with the woofer's level at 1kHz. The woofer peaks a little at the top of its passband before rolling out with a very steep slope. The trace features the usual upper-bass hump that results from taking this measurement in the nearfield, with the expected minimum-motion notch evident at 48Hz, which is the frequency of the saddle in the impedance-magnitude trace. The port peaks at 50Hz, but its smooth upper-frequency rollout is disturbed by a second peak at 180Hz, which is one of the frequencies of the discontinuities in the fig.1 impedance traces. Presumably, this is due to an internal air-space resonance of some kind and again I suspect it contributes to the speaker's 'warmth'."


If you want to pull out speakers that do not meet the tight response curves I have shown in my selections, that's fine.

But you selecting a speaker that does not meet my requirements for "flat" response does nothing to prove your statement regarding studio monitors. A statement I have successfully debunked on more than one example.

And when you remain within the 100-15kHz range that I had specified (which I did to minimize the issues JA mentions in his remarks and so you wouldn't be so stupid as to include the resonance of the tweeter or the room errors which occur in some of JA's measurements) all of the speakers here are essentially "flat". None sells for $20k, one has a retail price of $1k.

How much do a pair of Genelex's cost?

So the speaker you think measures the "best" actually measures the worst of the five speakers selected and a much less expensive speaker is measurably closer to "flat" response than your selection.

And the studio "monitors" I linked to all have been "voiced" and are not "flat" response as you say must occur for a speaker to be a true monitor.

And response curves do not insure neutrality - which is what we were discussing not that long ago. It is the balance of sound that makes a successful speaker system. I tried to educate you to that fact but some people are just too dumb to be helped.


As we can see, you, RS, are an idiot.

You cannot read a frequency response graph.

You don't know what you're blathering on about.


And you're wasting my time.


.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 38
Registered: Jun-09
Anyone familiar with frequency response measures knows that 20.000hz is the minimum when interpreting and measuring frequency responses.

"2) KEF, this from the JA's measurements, "Otherwise, the KEF 201/2 offers an extraordinarily flat anechoic response, basically meeting tight ±1dB limits from the upper bass through the high treble."

---> So no need for lower bass, right? Critical monitoring needs to go at least as low as 30Hz, preferably to 20Hz, but lets throw the rope for you shall we. 50Hz being a minimum which doesnt consist the lowest notes from a bass guitar.

"4) Dynaudio, "Lower in frequency, the dip between 40 and 60Hz and the peak between 20 and 40Hz are residual room effects that have not been eliminated by the spatial averaging."

---> Did you know that Dynaudio manufactures also those so called studio monitors which you say they dont exist? Sapphires msrp is modest $16,500. Im not sure if Dynaudio even has a studio monitor in that range but do yourself a favor pick one closest to that price range and post its measures for the rest of us. OK?

Sapphire goes to as low as 20Hz.

from 20Hz up: variation of 11dB
from 50Hz up: variation of 9dB


"None of this proves the speakers do not provide the perception of "accuracy" which they all manage easily with the slight exception being the ProAc which you picked - incorrectly, but you are the one who picked it."

---> No need to confuse the debate even more than what you have already. You stated that it is a myth and nonexistent fallacy that studio monitors have more flat frequency response than speakers developed for the "average Joe". Im pointing out the fact that your claim is false. Now be a good boi and suck it all the way.


"If you want to pull out speakers that do not meet the tight response curves I have shown in my selections, that's fine."

---> Save it.


"But you selecting a speaker that does not meet my requirements for "flat" response does nothing to prove your statement regarding studio monitors. A statement I have successfully debunked on more than one example."

---> and delusional

________________________________________

Your claim, Jan:

"There is nothing about a "studio monitor" that gives it any advantages over a consumer speaker when you are discussing frequency repsonse. Anyone who has been in a studio or heard a studio monitor knows they can and often will use some of the most colored speakers on the market."

My answer: "The flatest response of "audiophile" speakers is a variation usually somewhere around 7dB, 5dB being extremly rare."


Variation of frequency response between 50Hz-20kHz

PROAC D28 (msrp $6000): 7dB
DYNAUDIO Sapphire (msrp $16500): 9dB
KEF Reference 201/2 (msrp$6000): 11dB
USHER Be-718 (msrp $2795) 5dB
PSB Imagine B (msrp $1000) 8dB

GENELEC (50Hz - 20kHz)
1039A ($11400 each): 3dB
1037C ($5500 each) : 3dB
1032A ($2800 each): 3db

GENELEC (30Hz - 20kHz)
1039A: 3dB

http://www.genelec.com/products/

It should be noted that the Genelec monitors refered here are bi- or triamplified, meaning that a pair of speakers consist total of four (Genelec 1032A) or six (Genelec 1037C & 1039A) amplifiers which none of the compared speakers mentioned do. Also Genelec doesnt have official msrp prices available so the prices given are actual selling prices.


"And you're wasting my time."

---> Do a favor for both of us. Please run along and go do your educational consulting somewhere else where it is needed. Thank You.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 13017
Registered: Dec-04
I might post, but I have to catch a plane in an hour, LOL!
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 44
Registered: Jun-09
hahahaaaaa. Get back when you have landed safely. :D
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13777
Registered: May-04
.


"Anyone familiar with frequency response measures knows that 20.000hz is the minimum when interpreting and measuring frequency responses."

If you're such a f'ing expert at this measurement stuff, why didn't you realize you were looking at the tweeter resonance?

Hmmmmmm?

Show me where what you claim is stated as fact. Just show me. Not just what you want to say, buy show me where it is stated anywhere. That's all I ask. So far I've provided all of the facts in this little ditty. How about you stop making BS claims and put your money where you mouth is. Show me where what you claim is stated anywhere.

Then I'll explain why you're wrong - again.



""2) KEF, this from the JA's measurements, "Otherwise, the KEF 201/2 offers an extraordinarily flat anechoic response, basically meeting tight ±1dB limits from the upper bass through the high treble."

"So no need for lower bass, right? Critical monitoring needs to go at least as low as 30Hz, preferably to 20Hz, but lets throw the rope for you shall we. 50Hz being a minimum which doesnt consist the lowest notes from a bass guitar."


With apologies to all @sses of the world, you, RS, are being a complete, world class @ss about this. Where did anyone describe the KEF as a "monitor"? This is a consumer speaker meant to be placed in a typical room. Don't confuse apples with horses.

Oh, sorry, I suppose you would stand there expecting an apple to carry you somewhere.

Are you now saying any speaker that does not have "flat" bass resposne down to 50Hz cannot be a "monitor"?

We can check that against a few speakers that call themself monitors, you know? Why don't you reconsider that statement before you get embarrassed - again.


Look, since KEF calls this a "Reference" product and since KEF products are highly respected in the audiophile and the professional market, let's take a look at JA's comments regarding this loudspeaker - this should be instructive to you, RS, since it is plain for all to see that you either cannot or do not read anything about what you comment on (pay attention here you little jerkwad, you said earlier I should have the self respect to read the literature you provided, I suggest you now do the same here);



"The traces in fig.1 are smooth, lacking the small discontinuities that would hint at the existence of panel resonances of various kinds. Investigating the cabinet's vibrational behavior with an accelerometer revealed that the gracefully curved enclosure was commendably inert. The only resonant modes I could find lay at 400 and 670Hz, but were very low in level (fig.2).

The saddle at 50Hz in the impedance-magnitude trace suggests that this is the tuning frequency of the top-firing port behind the coaxial driver's subenclosure, though the height of the lower-frequency impedance peak implies a rather overdamped alignment. This is confirmed by the nearfield responses of the port (fig.3, red trace) and woofer (blue). There is only a suggestion of the usual minimum-motion notch at 50Hz in the woofer's output, while the port's output is both slightly suppressed and covers a broader bandpass than usual.

>>>The woofer's response appears to hump up in the upper bass; this is mainly an artifact of the nearfield measurement technique.<<<<

(You really don't have a clue about reading and interpreting frequency response graphs, do you, RS? This is not the first time you have ignored JA's words about artifacts of the measurement technique or made stupid comments about things that are not debatable. You make stupid mistakes and then you continue to make them repeatedly. I have no sympathy for someone so arrogant and willfully ignorant that they do not want to learn from their own obvious mistakes.)

The crossover to the midrange unit (fig.2, green trace) looks asymmetrical, the woofer rolling off with a fairly gentle second-order slope, while the midrange comes in with a fourth-order slope.

Both units are well behaved both in and out of their passbands.

The upper-frequency crossover occurs at around 2.7kHz and appears to be symmetrical fourth-order. The tweeter is flat, other than a peak that starts just below the limit of the graph at 30kHz, this presumably due to the unit's primary dome resonance.

Fig.4 shows how these individual drive-unit responses sum in the farfield, averaged across a 30° horizontal window centered on the tweeter axis.


>>>The bass rolls off a little earlier than the port tuning frequency of 50Hz might suggest, and there is a slight boost in the top octave<<<.


(Do you know what it means when Atkinson says the port is tuned to 50Hz? Are you paying attention to my remarks about the "balance" of the speaker's sound and the comment about the slight boost at the top? I suspect the answer is "no" to both of those questions.)

Otherwise, the KEF 201/2 offers an extraordinarily flat anechoic response, basically meeting tight ±1dB limits from the upper bass through the high treble.

(Pay attention to that statement because it is explained in further comments you simply did not bother to read before you shot off your mouth.)

This response was taken with the gold-plated tuning caps set to Flat. Peculiarly, between the maximum and minimum settings I found only a 0.3dB difference at 10kHz.

Not only was the KEF's on-axis response flat, its dispersion was textbook in the smoothness and evenness of the contour lines in its plot of horizontal radiation pattern (fig.5). This smoothness and evenness always correlates with stable, accurate stereo imaging, and while the tweeter gets more directional above 10kHz, as expected, there is only the slightest hint of an off-axis flare in the bottom octave of its passband and no off-axis irregularities. This generation of the KEF's Uni-Q drive-unit is very much better behaved off axis than its predecessors. The speaker demonstrates the same wide dispersion in the vertical plane (fig.6); as a result, it will not be fussy about the listener having to sit exactly on axis.

Fig.7 is the KEF's spatially averaged response taken in WP's smaller listening room. (I took 40 responses for each speaker individually in a grid 36" wide by 18" high and centered on the position of WP's ears in his listening seat.) The speakers' bass was set for boundary loading with the appropriate screw cap removed, and the treble was set to its maximum, which is how the speakers were auditioned. The hump between 60 and 120Hz and the depression an octave higher are room-acoustics effects that have not been eliminated by the spatial averaging. The low bass rolls off prematurely, and there is a slight excess of midrange energy, but other than those features, the 201/2's in-room behavior is, again, extraordinarily flat. This is one neutrally balanced speaker.

(Did you get that?)

In the time domain, the KEF's step response on its tweeter axis (fig.8) reveals that both the tweeter and midrange units are connected in inverted acoustic polarity, the woofer in positive polarity. When this is combined with the phase shift due to the crossover filters, the result is a smooth, even summed output through each of the two crossover regions. You can also see that the step response of each driver smoothly blends into that of the next lower in frequency.

The 201/2's cumulative spectral-decay plot on the tweeter axis (fig.9) is superbly clean and free from any resonant effects.


The KEF Reference 201/2 is one of the best-measuring loudspeakers I have had the pleasure to test in my lab. As WP found, a pair of them will offer a superbly transparent, neutral, grain-free window on the recorded acoustic.--John Atkinson




Keep in mind this is a standmount loudspeaker. Do not apply some rule that you have just made up to all loudspeakers. Do not compare the bass response of a standmount speaker to that of a floor standing or large "monitor". Any fool knows that, you should learn it, RS. KEF builds larger versions of this speaker that have all the bass extension anyone with realistic views could expect; http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/208kef/index4.html

Why don't you do the honest thing here and reference a frequency response graph of a "monitor" with the same driver size and enclosure volume. Then we can compare apples to apples. Otherwise, you got squat.


If you would have taken the time to read about this speaker rather than just being an @ss, you would have found a further explanation for the measurements in the lower octaves;

" Above the terminals are three gold-plated "switches" (hex-head bolts, actually) that can be removed to alter the "Uni-balance." One, designated LF, is designed to allow the speakers to be placed nearer to boundaries than with the Flat position."

Now return to the text that accompanies the measurements for this; "The speakers' bass was set for boundary loading with the appropriate screw cap removed, and the treble was set to its maximum, which is how the speakers were auditioned. The hump between 60 and 120Hz and the depression an octave higher are room-acoustics effects that have not been eliminated by the spatial averaging ... This is one neutrally balanced speaker."


RS, when you learn to read both the frequency response graphs and the text of the review and the explanation of the measurements, come back and I'll tell you more about what you clearly do not know.



"Did you know that Dynaudio manufactures also those so called studio monitors which you say they dont exist?"


Why don't you suck it up here and show everyone where I said monitors do not exist? Just how stupid are you?



"Im not sure if Dynaudio even has a studio monitor in that range but do yourself a favor pick one closest to that price range and post its measures for the rest of us. OK?"


No. You want measurements, you go find them. And what exactly will they prove after you post them? That speakers vary in their measurements? Well, knock me down with a capacitor!


Don't you ever get tired of being an idiot?



"None of this proves the speakers do not provide the perception of "accuracy" which they all manage easily with the slight exception being the ProAc which you picked - incorrectly, but you are the one who picked it."

"No need to confuse the debate even more than what you have already. You stated that it is a myth and nonexistent fallacy that studio monitors have more flat frequency response than speakers developed for the "average Joe". Im pointing out the fact that your claim is false. Now be a good boi and suck it all the way."


Nope, I guess you enjoy being an idiot. I did not post "it is a myth and nonexistent fallacy that studio monitors have more flat frequency response than speakers developed for the 'average Joe'."

A "non-existent fallacy"? Good one, RS, good one.

You actually quote me when you post, ""There is nothing about a "studio monitor" that gives it any advantages over a consumer speaker when you are discussing frequency repsonse." Look at the "text book" measurements of the KEF and tell me how many "studio monitors" have an advantage over what Atkinson measured, "The KEF Reference 201/2 is one of the best-measuring loudspeakers I have had the pleasure to test in my lab." He goes on to say, "a pair of them will offer a superbly transparent, neutral, grain-free window on the recorded acoustic."

Oh, yes, I know, your precious Genelex is flatter at +/-2dB than the KEF at it +/-1dB - Genelex! the one that you say can't play music but is marvelously "voiced" to display noises.

ROTFLMF'ingAO!

What a stupe!



Neutrality is what we are discussing here, RS. Measurements alone do not predict neutrality or transparency.


Stop chasing your tail, you look stupid and you're going to fall over on your face - again.



There's no need to play this game any longer, the rest of your post is just more BS.

RS, you started this fight. All I did was point out that flat measured response was not an indication of neutrality. I suggested you consider the balance of the speaker's sound rather than focus on numbers that have little to do with how many listeners will use their loudspeakers. I suggested there are other qualities that reflect the ability of a speaker to project accuracy and neutrality.

You have made a mountian out of nothing because ... well, I suppose you did it because you are an idiot ... and you have nothing to show for it at the end. You do not understand what you are saying, you are scattered and contradictory in how you arrive at a poorly drawn rebuttal and you pull BS out of your @ss with nothing to back it up other than "I say so".

I don't deal in "I say so's" when they come from an idiot.

I've spent more time in this thread than I care to nursing along a little child who can't be bothered with facts.

Learn a few things and learn how to read and to think. You have made an @ss of yourself from the start of this thread to the end.


.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 48
Registered: Jun-09
You're still here?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13778
Registered: May-04
.

 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 49
Registered: Jun-09
.
 

New member
Username: Mattias

Post Number: 9
Registered: Jul-09
"Completely out of my range and in that price range there comes a lot more serious competition to choose from. Like I said Im rather intriqued by the dipole and dsp controlled CS-series by Emerald Physics. I havent yet had the possibility to audition them but their design does interest me."


I listen to TAD reference one 2 days ago and I would not take that over QM60.
I have not found any dipole that sound good, for me, and I am not a believer in DSP but I hope you find what you are looking for. :-)
 

New member
Username: Mattias

Post Number: 10
Registered: Jul-09
"I would be highly surprised if the Guru designer didn't begin with baseline measurements that represented what he was looking for in an anechoic or semi-anechoic environment. Or else he did what?"


He don't use anechoic measurements at all as I understand it. He builds the speaker to sound flat in a room, not to look flat on a anechoic measurements :-)
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 63
Registered: Jun-09
"I listen to TAD reference one 2 days ago and I would not take that over QM60.
I have not found any dipole that sound good, for me, and I am not a believer in DSP but I hope you find what you are looking for. :-)"

---> To tell you the truth neither have I for many year but it seems (note, this is mainly what Ive read, not yet heard myself) like it is starting to evolve to a point were it can seriously challenge traditional design concepts.

The only dipole speaker I've heard is this one and their previous "Revolution" which both I have to say were completely out of this world :]

http://www.gradient.fi/models/helsinki

Revolution was pretty much what demonstrated and convinced me the importance of the acoustic environment in sound reproduction and more importantly what kind of advantages can be achieved when "thinking outside the box". Dipoles have their own shortcomings like any other technology but their advantages, if optimised can produce the most natural, neutral and effortless outcomes. EP seems to agree and their CS-design takes the best from the digital world inorder to achieve superior results.

What Ive read so far about their design is that the DSP Emerald Physics they use is initially a crossover with several advantages over traditional crossovers. One significant being able to adjust phase and time coherence to a pin point accuracy. Theres more to it but I havent yet had the time to fully research into it.

"The Behringer Ultra Drive Pro DCX2496 is the brain of the outfit and more. It's the electronic crossover and a DSP powerhouse that makes the speaker work. Its functions include digital signal processing of the loudspeakers behavior including control of the amplitude response, active crossover duties, and time alignment. When Emerald Physics speaks of time alignment what they're really talking about is phase and time coherency, which are accomplished in the digital rather than the physical domain. The drivers are not staggered and the speaker is not canted rearward; time alignment is accomplished in the digital domain through buffering. The crossover is something that cannot be duplicated via the usual methods. The CS2's crossover from the dual woofers operating in tandem to the Selenium compression driver is at 1kHz with both high pass and a low pass slopes of 48 decibels per octave. That's not new but what we have here is a crossover performed in the digital domain, which allows for total phase coherency despite the extremely steep slope. It's the phase coherency that can't be achieved through the conventional use of resisters and compactors, but it can when done digitally."

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue37/emerald_physics.htm

As you propably have noticed I'm more interested in innovative designs and technology than wooden boxes for "soldering squares" and even though Emerald Physics is not the inventor nor the only one using digital crossovers, as far as I know, they most certainly are in completely different price range than rest of the competition. Usually this technology has been used by speakers, or rather complete systems, with five, sometimes even six number figures.

But like I said I havent yet had a chance to audition them so Ill have to wait and see how much goods this technology provides and what kind of audiable shortcomings it provides and how audiable they are.


ps. you didnt answer my PM
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13780
Registered: May-04
.

"He don't use anechoic measurements at all as I understand it. He builds the speaker to sound flat in a room, not to look flat on a anechoic measurements"


I understand that but you have to start from a baseline. That baseline must have a repeatable response so you understand what has changed when you progress a design from virtual modeling through to final production. I haven't seen any specifics on how the speaker was designed but as I said I would have expected the design to begin with either an anechoic or semi-anechoic environment as the baseline. I would expect this was done in real environments and not entirely on a computer. From there the adjustments would be made as the designer experimented with the design in various rooms either real or virtual. In the end I would have expected the design to be finalized in real rooms and a great variety of rooms at that.

What had taken weeks if not months of trial and error testing a few decades prior can now be accomplished in a few hours to days on a computer by modeling the response desired. But I don't know of a good designer who doesn't listen to their designs and make real world adjustments as they progress from computer screen to finished product. Even designers who rely heavily on anechoic measurements still listen before they present a finished product. The sort of listening required of a high end product cannot be finalized in an anechoic environment.

.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 13029
Registered: Dec-04
But how does it sound when the Big Band plays ?
Recordings and music are not sine waves, static loads or any other measureable values, as much as emotion.

Keep your graphs and charts.
Stuff your #'s.
Gimme some Tommy Dorsey and emotional Swing, and I will show you a speaker that talks to me musically.

I have had the most musical bookshelfs in my room, but have to jump through hoops to run them.
I have also had smooth, musical speakers that look icky on a graph.
I run those now.

Flat speakers are a myth, a fallacy, and a waste of time to music lovers.

The pocket protector crowd may wow and fuss over the values gained (even hilarious in a non acoustic room) but when the band stops, and you have no tunes to enjoy, the bus stop is 2 blocks down.

Flat response is a road runner to a Coyote, and just like real life, when the Coyote caught the bird, he says 'Now what do you want me to do'?

ahhhh...sing?
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 64
Registered: Jun-09
"Flat speakers are a myth, a fallacy, and a waste of time to music lovers."

---> Whoever said that flat frequency speakers, near field monitors, call them what you want, were musical or that relatively flat frequency response measured in an anechoic chamber 1m from the speaker is a criteria for a musical sounding speaker? Rather the opposite; It is not. It never was and whoever told you otherwise was pulling a fast one on you or simply didnt know what he was talking about just like someone claiming that proper near field studio monitors are just as coloured, or perhaps even *MORE* coloured than 'commercial' speakers. Thats not only an incorrect statement and truly a fallacy but propably the stupidest and the most ignorent thing I've ever heard in this field.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 13030
Registered: Dec-04
What Wax said.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 65
Registered: Jun-09
Wax didnt say anything but found on those charts you threw away.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13781
Registered: May-04
.

" ... just like someone claiming that proper near field studio monitors are just as coloured, or perhaps even *MORE* coloured than 'commercial' speakers. Thats not only an incorrect statement and truly a fallacy but propably the stupidest and the most ignorent thing I've ever heard in this field."




That's "ignorant", fella.






And that's not what was said.



Go back and read the exchange.



You have "misconscrewed" the words.






.
 

Gold Member
Username: Mike3

Wylie, Tx USA

Post Number: 2072
Registered: May-06
The smartest thing I seen from RS was switching from his "name" to his moniker because if I was taking the with waxing he was taking I wouldn't want my name out there either.


When one poster presents facts and another just waxes on, well, what do you expect.


Whatever enthusiasm RS may have stirred up for the Gurus whether a salesperson as Art, JV, and perhaps others suspect, or not, has pretty much been washed out by now.



Apropos moniker I might add. Cheers.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 66
Registered: Jun-09
"The smartest thing I seen from RS was switching from his "name" to his moniker because if I was taking the with waxing he was taking I wouldn't want my name out there either."

----> The only smart thing you ever did in your life was decide to settle down in Texas which I do thank you for. Sincerely.

Other than that, what made you think and say that I used my real name in the first place and even better what does that have to do, as you so nicely put it, *anything* with the facts?


"When one poster presents facts and another just waxes on, well, what do you expect. "

---> For what its worth, you couldn't separate the facts from myths, sales pitches, delusions nor your assumptions even if they were staring at you, written, with a font bigger than the monitor you're staring right now.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 67
Registered: Jun-09
"And that's not what was said." [ just like someone claiming that proper near field studio monitors are just as coloured, or perhaps even *MORE* coloured than 'commercial' speakers.]


--->

"Anyone who has been in a studio or heard a studio monitor knows they can and often will use some of the most colored speakers on the market....

They [Genelec] are to my knowledge excellent speakers for their purpose - but they are not "flat" and they are "voiced", as are all "excellent" speakers which is what I was trying to point out..."

Further the presumption that studio monitors are "flat" is either misleading or misinformed and falls into the objectivist trap of audiophiles not having a clue about sound reproduction..."


---> Nobody made an argument that *speakers* are flat. What have you been drinking?
The claim was that what most of us identify as studio monitors (no, not those you see on sale at ebay) have a relatively flat frequency response and as a matter of fact more often than commercial speakers do.



"The desire for flat response or even "nuetrality" is IMO a matter of choosing the voice that appeals to you whether that voice is crisp and detailed, warm and romantic or detailed and musically involving."

---> It is you who is misleading and fallacious when claiming that neutrality and balance of the sound is independent from frequency response and more importantly that it is exactly *this kind of* neutrality which makes the sound pleasant; That monitor is a myth as commercial speakers are as flat or colored as studio equipment.



It is exactly statements like these which expose your lack of knowledge or rather the ability to filter and differentiate that knowledge into proper understanding, thus your credibility, in this field. You simply don't know what you're talking about:


"It is not "flat frequency response" that makes a speaker successful or even listenable, it is a pleasing balance to all frequencies that appeals to the educated listener...

Neutrality" does not have a frequency range it favors whereas voicing does....

The convincing lies in the balance of the speaker's sound, not the measured "flat" response. "Voicing" a speakers is not a bad thing, it is what good designers do to build a convicing speaker"


Although not the only one, (Even the chosen material for the drivers cone has influence on the color, or rather the character of the sound but this has nothing to do, and should not be confused, with voicing or overall balance of the sound) frequency response is one of the most crucial factors when achieving neutral balance. Voicing is exactly either:

1) Addressing the inevitable influence of acoustics in order to achieve more flat frequency response (in the listening area). Ie: *more* neutral balance.

2) Designers interpretation; emphasis on certain part of the frequency response in order to achieve a pleasant and more enjoyable (commercially adapt) sound balance.



"I am saying speakers are not flat but it is not due to the room and its "Floor cancellation, first reflections etc.."

I'm not discussing the room environment when I am discussing "monitors" or "audiophile" systems."


---> And that is your problem there exactly. Space and its acoustic character is a speaker itself just like the body of a guitar is a speaker for the strings or the enclosure of a drum makes it a drum etc...

It is exactly because you refuse to acknowledge the importance and more importantly the correlation of acoustics, frequency response and tonal balance / neutrality you find yourself creating myths about them, and about voicing and studio monitors, while writing ten page replies explaining fxxxd up frequency responses which after all didnt measure flat @ 1m even though they do sound very musical, balanced and neutral indeed...
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13782
Registered: May-04
.

I would argue with you except for two things; 1) you are a rude, 32 year old male with too much testosterone clogging your brain who thinks he knows it all when as best as I can see you are a jackshit fool who insults first and then writes drivel that is incomprehensible, and 2) well, ... you post drivel that is incomprehensible.



I have no idea what you are trying to communicate here other than you think you should come stomping into this forum to show us who's boss and I deduce from your insult filled ramblings you don't have a clue what you are saying or know how to say it but you're willing to say it to anyone who crosses your path.


ROFLMF'ingAO!!!







Present some facts in a coherent argument and not just more opinions such as, "It is you who is misleading and fallacious when claiming that neutrality and balance of the sound is independent from frequency response and more importantly that it is exactly *this kind of* neutrality which makes the sound pleasant; That monitor is a myth as commercial speakers are as flat or colored as studio equipment."



That is so incoherent it is laughable that you have the guts to let others see it.




Wax, son, take this advice, you're approach is to attack someone with stupid opinions and name calling - that's the same mistake RS made when he just started making up his BS. You see how far that got him.


You need to prove you are correct by either; 1) proving your own points as I did with RS's idiotic references to tweeter resonance and referencing reviews of "monitors" that were not flat but were indeed voiced or, 2) disproving the other side's points as I did with the KEF measurements and Stereophile text which RS clearly failed to read and therefore made a complete @ss of himself by stating imaginary objections that were easily overcome when I by quoted a respected third party and provided links to my references.

You've done neither and I seriously doubt you have the ability to manage either. People like you never do, they just spout BS. If you could find as link to a respected third party as easily as you have found your @ss with your head, I would have something to say to you. Clearly, links and facts are not something you deal with.


If you want to do this, do it so it makes sense. Show facts and reference sources, make points that I can debate.

I am not going to try to decipher what is written by someone who appears not to comprehend what is actually on the page and then cannot interpret their own thoughts into coherent points - or worse, cannot even write an understandable setence let alone put several sentences together in an order that forms a complete thought.



I'm particularly not going to waste my tine with someone as rude as you when you have nothing to say other than invective. I suppose you missed the part where I said I don't deal in "I say so" when it comes from an idiot. Well, you fall into the same category - you would appear from all I can see to be just as much of an idiot as RS, possibly more so though until you showed up I thought that impossible to manage. Give this man a cigar! Maybe it willl drown out that horrible stench that covers him.


I have no desire to provide you a platform for your stupidity - I'm sure you'll grab every opportunity you can to display it to its fullest extent without my assistance.


Don't post more cr@p like this, "It is exactly statements like these which expose your lack of knowledge or rather the ability to filter and differentiate that knowledge into proper understanding, thus your credibility, in this field. You simply don't know what you're talking about ... "


You have, with that single rambling, incoherent mess, proven you know nothing about anything.



And this thing about acoustics affecting "voicing"?!

"It is exactly because you refuse to acknowledge the importance and more importantly the correlation of acoustics, frequency response and tonal balance / neutrality you find yourself creating myths about them, and about voicing and studio monitors, while writing ten page replies explaining fxxxd up frequency responses which after all didnt measure flat @ 1m even though they do sound very musical, balanced and neutral indeed... "



Well, I think I see where you have your head and it's a very dark place that smells rather foul. I don't waste my time with anyone who smells like three day old dinner.



Put this together so you don't sound like a blithering fool and come back later. If you make sense, I'll show you where are you wrong.

And there's no need for insults because I promise you, you won't care to see me if you get me p!ssed off. You either do this without the insults from here on out or I don't do this at all. I do have better people than you to be with.

Good luck, you're going to need it.


.
 

Silver Member
Username: Hawkbilly

Nova Scotia Canada

Post Number: 634
Registered: Jul-07
"...which after all didnt measure flat @ 1m even though they do sound very musical, balanced and neutral indeed..."

I'm really not sure what you are arguing RS. You talk about what voicing is.....

"Voicing is exactly either:

1) Addressing the inevitable influence of acoustics in order to achieve more flat frequency response (in the listening area). Ie: *more* neutral balance.

2) Designers interpretation; emphasis on certain part of the frequency response in order to achieve a pleasant and more enjoyable (commercially adapt) sound balance. "


...which explicitly states voicing is "exactly" some flavour of frequency response manipulation/choice. But then you say that a speaker which doesn't measure flat sounds balanced and neutral (aka not "voiced"). How can that be ? If I've "voiced" the speaker by making its frequency response something other than flat, should it not sound "voiced" ? If a speaker isn't flat, but sounds flat, what does a flat speaker sound like ?

I think voicing is much more than frequency response decisions by the designer. Let me ask you this. Do two test tones that measure the same SPL's in the exact same conditions, but coming from two different loudspeakers sound exactly the same ? Do you think what is going on electrically/mechanically inside the speaker to generate that tone at that frequency to that SPL is identical in two different speakers ? If a speaker measures flat with single test tones, would it still measure flat with simultaneous test tones (or better still, music) of different freqencies ?

I'm not sure why it's important to have a specific definition for voicing, or for what a "monitor" is. I've never seen published definitions for these things, as they seem to me to be rather loosely used by both "audiophiles" and people in the music industry. Perhaps they are there and have just never stumbled upon them. If I'm mixing a hip-hop song, am I using a monitor with a flat frequency response ? Does it matter if I call it a monitor if it isn't ?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13784
Registered: May-04
.

OK, RS/Wax, I see that I was too naive about the depth to which you would sink when trying to become a worldclass @sshole.

When I clicked on RS's name this profile came up, http://www.ecoustics.com/cgi-bin/bbs/board-profile.pl?action=view_profile&prof ile=just_wax_it-users

Same as when I clicked on Wax's name.


So you too have two personalities on this forum. The real nut jobs always do. And Wax is even more of an idiot that RS.


Here's some more advice for you RS, you ain't got nothing on wiley. You're going to have to get yourself admitted to an institute to top wiley - and even that won't do it!


Now that is truly ROTFLMF'ingAO funneeeeeee stuff!



GeezLoueeez!



Come up with another idnetity and try again. No one in their right mind would have anything to do with you after this little stunt.










What a f'ing d0uchebag!!!!!!!!





.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 13032
Registered: Dec-04
Ho hum, another troll.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 68
Registered: Jun-09
Chris:

"I'm really not sure what you are arguing RS."

---> You would if you'd have the patience (I wouldn't) to read this thread from the early part where I say: "Those who are interested in flat frequency response should look into studio monitors"

To which Jan stated:

"Further the presumption that studio monitors are "flat" is either misleading or misinformed and falls into the objectivist trap of audiophiles not having a clue about sound reproduction...

Anyone who has been in a studio or heard a studio monitor knows they can and often will use some of the most colored speakers on the market..."

It is to this fallacious statement to which I responded by giving several references which prove Jan's claim as false. It is well accepted reality and a fact that most important qualities and standard for a near field studio monitor is relatively flat frequency response and linear phase.



"...which explicitly states voicing is "exactly" some flavour of frequency response manipulation/choice. But then you say that a speaker which doesn't measure flat sounds balanced and neutral (aka not "voiced"). How can that be ? If I've "voiced" the speaker by making its frequency response something other than flat, should it not sound "voiced" ? If a speaker isn't flat, but sounds flat, what does a flat speaker sound like ?"

---> You indeed captured the core of the issue which at first might strike as contradictory and confusing.

As we both know frequency response measures are executed relatively close to the speaker (1m to 2m), closer than what 'commercial speakers', unlike near field monitors, are most often designed to be listened. It is exactly the reason why flat frequency response is not as crucial for a speaker designed to be listened usually 3m to 4m ,perhaps even 6m, away ---> acoustics.

Now one can make, and rightfully so I might add, the argument that not all studio monitors are designed for close use but still have (ironically) relatively flat frequency response. The reason for this is that studios give much more emphasis on sound treatment than domestic environments - consumers generally. More importantly you cant tune sound 'back' to flat response with sound treatment and even if youd manage to come close the price would be loosing neutrality; emphasizing the already unwanted colorations or characteristics of the speaker. Guru's capabilities in this regard are exmplary as they manage to adapt to different acoustics while withdrawing from coloration, achieving relative neutrality, better than most.



"I think voicing is much more than frequency response decisions by the designer."

---> It surely is and I haven't stated otherwise. From acoustics to even the material used for the cones of the drivers 'color' the sound. Ie; give audible character to the sound. This is why some people prefer specific materials like paper or silk over aluminum. They sound and behave different even having all but identical frequency response.

But again, this doesn't mean that frequency response *IS NOT* a crucial part of voicing. On the contrary all those mechanical/physical qualities emphasize even more the importance of frequency measurement in voicing.



"Let me ask you this. Do two test tones that measure the same SPL's in the exact same conditions, but coming from two different loudspeakers sound exactly the same ? Do you think what is going on electrically/mechanically inside the speaker to generate that tone at that frequency to that SPL is identical in two different speakers ? If a speaker measures flat with single test tones, would it still measure flat with simultaneous test tones (or better still, music) of different freqencies ?

---> You would first have to specify what you mean by "different" loudspeakers otherwise we will achieve nothing but create more confusion. Other than that mechanical qualities (crossover, driver etc..) of the speaker naturally all contribute to the sound. Stating anything else would be foolish.

Like I said it starts from the chosen materials and components ending up in measurements. This still doesn't prove that a flat frequency response is irrelevant, something of a lesser value thus overrated, on the contrary.



"I'm not sure why it's important to have a specific definition for voicing, or for what a "monitor" is."

---> Mainly because of the same reason why language itself has certain laws and rules to confirm with: From creating chaos and confusion in order to achieve understanding and knowledge.



"I've never seen published definitions for these things, as they seem to me to be rather loosely used by both "audiophiles" and people in the music industry."

---> This unfortunately is very true. But there are certain distinct factors in the process of speaker design which amount to what is called voicing. If I get his response, I'll soon post one designers take on this word. What does voicing mean in practise, in the process when designing a speaker.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 13033
Registered: Dec-04
Yawwn..same old troll.
You would first have to specify what you mean by "different" loudspeakers otherwise we will achieve nothing but create more confusion. Other than that mechanical qualities (crossover, driver etc..) of the speaker naturally all contribute to the sound. Stating anything else would be foolish.

Pick any 2 for your comparo, Wiley.

One of these things is not like the other...
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 69
Registered: Jun-09
"Pick any 2 for your comparo, Wiley.

One of these things is not like the other..."


>>> You miss the point:

"From acoustics to even the material used for the cones of the drivers 'color' the sound. Ie; give audible character to the sound. This is why some people prefer specific materials like paper or silk over aluminum. They sound and behave different even having all but identical frequency response.

But again, this doesn't mean that frequency response *IS NOT* a crucial part of voicing. On the contrary all those mechanical/physical qualities emphasize even more the importance of frequency measurement in voicing."
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13786
Registered: May-04
.

What BS!
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 71
Registered: Jun-09
"The human ear is remarkably sensitive to low-level colorations arising from the sound. Metal drivers sound metallic, sometimes annoyingly so (metal dome tweeters, in many cases). Kevlar drivers usually exhibit an edge to their sound, derived, one supposes, from their form of break-up when they do break up. Paper sounds like paper, though doped paper is actually a remarkably good material for low siqnature, if not driven too hard. And plastic drivers tend to have some residual plasticy."

http://www.harbeth.co.uk/uk/uploadfolder/theabs.pdf


"As anyone shopping for speakers is undoubtedly aware, loudspeaker cones are made from a variety of materials, each one being claimed to have some property or another that makes it better than all the rest. Unfortunately, in spite of what the ad copy writers would like you to believe, there is no single "best" cone material for loudspeaker applications. Different cone materials have different mechanical and acoustical properties that result in various performance tradeoffs, making them better or worse suited for various situations. However, almost always the choice of material involves some kind of compromise. The basic material parameters that affect the acoustic performance of a cone material are its density, stiffness, and internal lossiness (i.e., the internal damping). Very loosely speaking, the stiffer and lighter a cone material is, the wider the bandwidth of the cone will be. The more lossy it is, the smoother the response. Unfortunately, the above parameters are typically interactive, and it is very difficult to optimize all three parameters simultaneously. To find out why, we need to understand a little better what happens in a speaker cone when it is making music...

Fortunately, most cone materials have a degree of lossiness in them -- meaning that they are imperfect sound conductors....

Another means of controlling the intensity of standing waves in a cone is the cone surround. Typically, a speaker cone is supported around its edge by some kind of material -- usually a rubber-like elastomer or foam, but sometimes cloth or even accordioned paper. One function of this surround is to allow the cone to move back and forth with relative ease at low frequencies while providing an air-tight seal. At higher frequencies, it can be used to absorb some of the cone's standing wave energy. As the wave travelling out from the base of the cone hits the surround/cone interface, a portion of the wave energy is actually transmitted into the surround material, with the remaining energy immediately reflecting back into the cone. Depending on how lossy the surround material is, the portion of the wave energy transmitted into the surround may be converted into heat (effectively damping resonances), or it may be bounced around inside the surround and then back into the cone (creating a more complicated series of resonances). Synthetic rubber-like surround materials are typically formulated to have very high internal losses, although there are a few that are surprisingly low. Foam surrounds are typically less lossy than "rubber" ones, although I'm betting that someone, somewhere makes a foam that is very lossy. In either case, the amount of loss in a surround (or a cone for that matter) may or may not be constant with frequency....

Paper is the traditional material for speaker cones and is widely (though mistakenly) considered to be an outdated technology inappropriate to high performance audio applications. Among its virtues are that it can easily be formed into a wide variety of shapes without overly complex or expensive tooling and its mechanical properties can be varied over a usefully wide range. Unfortunately, untreated paper is very sensitive to environmental conditions -- humidity in particular. As the ambient humidity changes, the moisture content in the paper also changes, and this leads to changes in cone mass and other parameters. Also, while it is possible to manufacture paper to be stiff enough to get extended frequency response, the paper itself is usually insufficiently lossy to achieve a smooth rolloff. Finally, paper is not the easiest material to manufacture consistently, with the possible result that there will be wide production variances.

Despite the seeming low-techness involved, a well engineered paper cone can deliver a combination of bandwidth and smoothness that is at least as good as any "higher-tech" material. Additional research into new paper formulations, manufacturing methods, and treatments continues. Don't be surprised if some of the newest "breakthroughs" in cone technology are based on lowly, old-fashioned paper."

http://www.birotechnology.com/FAQ/index.html
 

Silver Member
Username: Hawkbilly

Nova Scotia Canada

Post Number: 635
Registered: Jul-07
">>> You miss the point:

"From acoustics to even the material used for the cones of the drivers 'color' the sound. Ie; give audible character to the sound. This is why some people prefer specific materials like paper or silk over aluminum. They sound and behave different even having all but identical frequency response.

But again, this doesn't mean that frequency response *IS NOT* a crucial part of voicing. On the contrary all those mechanical/physical qualities emphasize even more the importance of frequency measurement in voicing.""


Ok. I'm still trying to follow (for some reason). We went from voicing being "exactly" frequency response manipulation (you listed two methods), to "voicing" being all kinds of other things. So we've established pretty much that "voicing" is pretty much anything, including the selection of components and materials. Probably also xover design too ? All this, yet all speakers aren't "voiced" ? Seems to me (and you apparently) that every decision a designer makes "voices" his/her speaker, be it studio monitor (whatever that is) and "audiophile" speaker alike.

"More importantly you cant tune sound 'back' to flat response with sound treatment and even if youd manage to come close the price would be loosing neutrality; emphasizing the already unwanted colorations or characteristics of the speaker."

Why would you need to tune a studio monitor if they all have a flat frequency response ? And tuning frequency response enhances any existing colorations ? So if I add treatments to enhance bass response, what colorations am I enhancing while doing that ?
 

Gold Member
Username: Mike3

Wylie, Tx USA

Post Number: 2073
Registered: May-06
"
---> For what its worth, you couldn't separate the facts from myths, sales pitches, delusions nor your assumptions even if they were staring at you, written, with a font bigger than the monitor you're staring right now."


Okay Wax, for what it is worth I will give you that.

And giving you that, I can still see through you.

As a couple of folks here politely have offered, "make some sense" in what you are saying.

You come off as some two-bit Texas hold 'em player who got pinched on his bluff that instead of folding, hit the flop harder, then lost it all from there to a mid-level pair.

Unless you are Wiley, which as posts build up becomes more of a possibility, you should just stick to the $.50 / $1 tables where it seems you still have a chance of helping others with your posts.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 10386
Registered: Feb-05
He's not Wiley. This is a different cat.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 72
Registered: Jun-09
"Ok. I'm still trying to follow (for some reason). We went from voicing being "exactly" frequency response manipulation (you listed two methods), to "voicing" being all kinds of other things. So we've established pretty much that "voicing" is pretty much anything, including the selection of components and materials. Probably also xover design too ? All this, yet all speakers aren't "voiced" ? Seems to me (and you apparently) that every decision a designer makes "voices" his/her speaker, be it studio monitor (whatever that is) and "audiophile" speaker alike."

>>>> You jump in to conclusions. Nothing is absolute when it comes to sound. That includes coloration. Speaker manufacturing is always about compromises. I don't know any designer which would argue otherwise. Voicing is *to compromise* in the essence of the word. It is compromising the frequency response in order to tune the speaker to obtain more pleasing sound. Of course some audiophile speakers do this to a lesser extent than others. What I've discussed with Genelec's representatives they do not voice -- trade measurements for musicality - their speakers. Harbeth does and perhaps that's why they aren't considered pro studio monitor manufacturer. Genelec's only goal is to manufacture speakers with high SPL's, low distortion levels, flat frequency and linear phase response and a low frequency cut off less than 3dB. If that doesn't sound good to your ears too bad. Dont buy it. Buy Harbeth.

So it is a philosophical approach (as we can see from Jan) which separates one from the other even both claim to have the same goal. Music first is not a phrase to be heard from a pro studio designers mouth neither can it be heard from their speakers.



"Why would you need to tune a studio monitor if they all have a flat frequency response ? And tuning frequency response enhances any existing colorations ?"

>>> Not all of them do. Those which don't are not suitable for professional use. It simply a standard protected and nourished by a certain group of professionals. Why indeed?



"So if I add treatments to enhance bass response, what colorations am I enhancing while doing that ?"

>>> Whiskey or scotch?
 

Gold Member
Username: My_rantz

Australia

Post Number: 2366
Registered: Nov-05
Whether JWI or whatever his name might be, at least he hasn't stooped to degrading and childish insults as his nemesis has done. And quite frankly I am very disappointed in some of the other comments that are flying around on this thread. I understand the concept of friendship but I believe a line should be drawn when other lines are crossed.

The rule on this forum seems to be: disagree with the King and your own peril.

Too bad really, there are some fine people here on ecoustics.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 10392
Registered: Feb-05
Agreed MR, there are some fine folks here.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 74
Registered: Jun-09
Thanks MR for the support. If my response seemed rude in the beginning it was only because I was tired of everyone thinking my enthusiasm as guerilla marketing, which it wasn't. Instead of genuine feedback I got suspicions. I look for innovative designs in this field and as over 99% of them fail to deliver and actually are another desperate marketing effort to promote sales I was surprised about the hype in the media and wanted to get more thoughts. So, my apologies if any needed.

Anyway, I didn't get what link you were referring to
 

Gold Member
Username: My_rantz

Australia

Post Number: 2368
Registered: Nov-05
JWI, I was not referring to any link, I was merely supporting your tolerent behaviour under the circumstances and not necessarilly what you've been posting - that's all a bit out of my range.

Btw, it should have read "at your own peril".
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 75
Registered: Jun-09
"He don't use anechoic measurements at all as I understand it. He builds the speaker to sound flat in a room, not to look flat on a anechoic measurements :-)"

>>> And that is exactly what voicing should be all about.
 

Silver Member
Username: Hawkbilly

Nova Scotia Canada

Post Number: 636
Registered: Jul-07
"What I've discussed with Genelec's representatives they do not voice -- trade measurements for musicality - their speakers. "

According to your prior description of voicing, they most certainly do "voice" their speakers. They chose a certain kind of tweeter, woofer cone material, as you described. Each with a sonic signature.

""So if I add treatments to enhance bass response, what colorations am I enhancing while doing that ?"

>>> Whiskey or scotch?"


Alrighty then.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13787
Registered: May-04
.

You quoted their words as if to prove your point and then you turn around and disparage them as not being worthy of consideration as a "serious" monitor manufacturer.



Make sense, little man.




"What I've discussed with Genelec's representatives they do not voice -- trade measurements for musicality - their speakers. Harbeth does and perhaps that's why they aren't considered pro studio monitor manufacturer."



http://www.harbeth.co.uk/uk/index.php?section=products&page=harbethinthestudio


"Monitor Series

In use at the new flagship headquarters of The British Library in all its studios and transfer channels to provide continuity of sound throughout the entire audio area which is used to archive the nation."

"Monitor Series

"The biggest single UK customer is the BBC which uses Harbeth speakers for critical broadcast monitoring and quality control in its studios both here and in news bureaux around the world."

"Monitor 20

Monitor 20 is favoured by the BBC as a master control speaker - used as such for 2006 FIFA World Cup in their Berlin studios. The sound from the field, the interview studio and all other sources was mixed to the picture using only the M20s and then sent on to London for transmission throughout the BBC in the UK, over the internet and through the BBC World Service."


http://www.harbeth.co.uk/uk/index.php?section=products&page=endorsements







Look, this thread needs to end before you have reached the point you're saying music doesn't come out of a monitor speaker ....

AWWWWWSHIT!


You just said that!


OK, how about we reach an agreement here? Why don't we let the other forum members set a number that would end this thread? That number would be the number of times you have mouthed off about something you have no clue about and then I have come along - like I did here - and proven you totally, conclusively and fatally stupid.

At that point you would go away. Far away.



I figure that should take only a few more of your posts if you keep up at this rate.



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13788
Registered: May-04
.

"Music first is not a phrase to be heard from a pro studio designers mouth neither can it be heard from their speakers."



You are seriously deluded ...




not to mention hillariously absurd ...





and fatally stupid.


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13789
Registered: May-04
.

Don't take Rantz or Art seriously. I've shown they don't have any more of a clue than you do. And I've done it on many occassions all to their chagrin.



It's too bad people of their age still hold grudges like school children.



It's unfortunate their only contribution to this thread is to insult someone they intensely dislike, someone they can't prove wrong and someone they can't get over. I suppose I should be honored to be the person keeping these two awake at nights.



ROTFL!




KMA, guys!


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 10393
Registered: Feb-05
By all means don't take me seriously.

"Agreed MR, there are some fine folks here."

Pretty controversial. I thought MR might get some agreement from regulars on an obviously true statement. There are a lot of good folks here...Nick, Stu, David, Frank, Mike, MR, Gavin, Chris M, JJ, NMT, Nuck, Larry and many more.

So as always I will decline to argue over this. Enjoy.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13791
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.zzounds.com/item--YAMHS50M

I particularly like the idea of "gain controls" on a monitor speaker that is supposed to be "flat". But then saying this is just as flat as the NS10M is ridiculous to anyone who ever heard a NS10M.

"You put a Kleenex over the tweeter of the white-coned ones, the big ones mounted in the walls make your ears bleed, the cool powered-ones have great low end if you're sitting back in the corner of the control room...it just goes on...

Not a bad read if you have the time ...

"No wonder it's such a common practice to take mixes out on a cassette and listen in the CAR!"

http://www.johnvestman.com/studio_monitor_madness.htm




Here's a studio monitor that is also sold to the "audiophile" listener;

http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/192west/index4.html

(I remember someone saying all measurements should extend to 20kHz. OK, look at the response of the Westlake at 20kHz in Fig. 9.)

"When a speaker has horizontally mounted drive-units, the off-axis behavior can be critical. Shown in fig.7, therefore, are the differences in response to be expected as the listener moves to the side of the BBSM-6's tweeter/midrange line. The response actually changes only a little up to 15° off-axis, suggesting that the speaker will have quite a wide "sweet spot." Though this finding would contradict the "vertical venetian blind" effect that I noticed during the auditioning, it is possible, of course, that the horizontal lobing is too fine-structured to be picked up by these relatively coarse measurements. At 30° off-axis--the listening position with the speakers firing straight ahead--the response gets lumpy in the lower crossover region and peaky throughout the low treble. This is most probably connected with the fact that the high 6kHz crossover frequency for the midrange/HF transition means that the midrange unit is being used in a range where its size is larger than the wavelength of the emitted sound: the wavelength of a 6kHz tone is around 2"; the unit's cone is 3" in diameter. This will result in severe beaming for the top octave or so of the midrange-unit output, which probably leads to the "vertical venetian blind" effect heard.

Finally, looking at how the Westlake's response changes as the sound decays gives the cumulative spectral-decay or "waterfall" plot (fig.10). There is some inconsequential hash from the soft-dome tweeter between 7 and 12kHz, which would add a very slight degree of "thuffiness" to the sound of treble transients; otherwise, the decay in the mid- and high-treble is clean. (The black streak just below 16kHz is the computer monitor's scanning frequency and should be ignored.) Note, however, the ridge parallel to the time axis at the cursor position, 2575Hz. This represents a major resonance, perhaps due to a breakup mode of the midrange cone, which would be expected both to lend the sound some hardness in the low treble and pop some piano notes forward in the soundstage, as noted during the auditioning. There is also some complicated behavior noticeable below 1200Hz or so, which might correspond to reflections of the impulse from the baffle edges.--John Atkinson


And an alternative review of the Westlake from "Sound and Music" magazine (without measurements);

"Seldom do I fall in love with speakers. In fact, I have a great dislike for most monitors and speakers. I simply do not enjoy or learn very much about my own recordings from the bulk of speakers.

The Westlakes are different... way different, decidedly different--"different" as in amorous mind-beguiling, ear-instructing instruments that get sound right with complete and utter seriousness. Anyone who records or masters professionally, in my estimation, has nothing to lose (perhaps a great deal to gain) by giving the BBSM-6s serious consideration. Anyone who wants to hear recordings with a degree of accuracy rare in any sonic environment--including the rarefied air of mega-buck "audiophile" speakers--ought to live with these monitors awhile. Such a listener might be surprised how much the "analytical" mode enlarges the musical value of listening.
The final touch that renders time with music worthwhile is that moment we hear more and better and, thus, come closer to undefinable sonic magic. Westlake 's BBSM-6 monitor understands that quest, that touch.


http://www.westlakeaudio.com/Speakers/Reviews/body_onsndandmsc-bbsm6.html



Another Westlake product, see Fig 3 for frequency response;

http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/449/index5.html

And from the text of the review;

"I've asked myself that each of the past few years, whenever I've walked past Westlake Audio's room at the Alexis Park Hotel. My mental excuse for not going in the Westlake room was that I was covering analog, so why bother? What I was really telling myself was, Westlake is a pro audio company, so why bother?

Assigned a few months ago to review Westlake's tiny Lc5.75F minimonitor ($1699/pair), I had to bother. I accepted the task with a mixture of curiosity, resentment, and amusement: "Aren't there already enough speaker companies in high-end audio? Isn't being all over the studio map enough for these folks? Okay, Westlake may know about monitoring music, but what does that have to do with listening to it? Whose bright idea was this, anyway? I know it's going to be a 'bright' experience!" And so on.


http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/449/





Anyone need more?


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13792
Registered: May-04
.

"Why would you need to tune a studio monitor if they all have a flat frequency response ? And tuning frequency response enhances any existing colorations ? So if I add treatments to enhance bass response, what colorations am I enhancing while doing that ?"


Very good question for Wax, Chris. Too bad he doesn't have any real answers.



The statement that room acoustics serve to "voice" a speaker is not thinking even remotely in the real world.

Yes, room acoustics play a major role in what the listener perceives, we all recognize that fact. We also all recognize other contributors to the sound of the final system include speaker location and listening chair location. However, the voicing of a speaker has been done by the designer long before the speaker arrives in the listening room whether that room is a home or a studio.

And all speakers are voiced to the designer's taste. To say otherwise is either not being realistic or not being honest.


"According to your prior description of voicing, they most certainly do "voice" their speakers. They chose a certain kind of tweeter, woofer cone material, as you described. Each with a sonic signature."





To your point, CH, and as Atkinson explains in his Westlake comments, so too will many other factors of the speaker's construction that result in the overall sense of neutrality or the ultimate "voice" of any speaker.


Good logical approach to this, CH!




.


.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 76
Registered: Jun-09
Im glad you took the bait. So lets clear this out of the way as well.

Again, when you're unable to refute you try to create confusion by taking words out of their context. That's pretty much your only contribution besides your infant behavior, that which your ego is possesed to communicate and express.

This is what was said: "The complete process of producing a record uses several different speakers from the first stages of recording to the final stage of mastering. These different stages demand different qualities from the speaker used."


Anyone who is familiar with the industry knows Harbeth and knows that they are pretty much the mother of all studio monitoring. Well at least when it comes to radio and tv broadcasting... Their history (some even consider it a legacy and perhaps rightfully so) can be traced to the early ages of radio broadcasting and their inheritage, as they put it, is unquestionable in this regard.

But recording studios? No. Why? They are considered a too big of a compromise for monitoring the recording stage. Mastering Stage? Most certainly. Perhaps even recommendable.


"Many Harbeth speakers are installed in post production studios. This is a work-intensive and highly skilled area of audio as a trypical radio/TV/film production spends thirty to fifty times longer in 'post' as it does at the original recording stage."

http://www.harbeth.co.uk/uk/index.php?section=products&page=harbethinthestudio

Harbeth is exactly the embodiment of the distinction professionals want to make between an audiophile speaker and a monitor. Harbeth seems to posses both 'identities': highly regarded by certain audiophiles - most definitely a musical speaker - yet still widely accepted monitor for professional use. This is what makes them unique speakers and accepted by commercial market as well as sound engineers alike, even though only in the last stages of production.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13793
Registered: May-04
.

"So as always I will decline to argue over this."


Given your lack of knowledge in this area, Art, you're "assistance" will be better served elsewhere.


Too bad you see everything you don't understand as an "argument".


Didn't you see Wax's apology to everyone?

Posted on Friday, July 31, 2009 - 12:00 am: "So, my apologies if any needed."


I assume this means he intends to behave himself from here on out. Let's hope.



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13794
Registered: May-04
.

Oh, well, I see he doesn't intend to behave himself.


What could I have been thinking?



.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 77
Registered: Jun-09
Your Westlake is on stereophile because nobody buys them for their studios with the acception of your next door garage band. Another manufacturer in the neverending sea of brands trying to indentify themselves as "pro monitors".
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 78
Registered: Jun-09
"I assume this means he intends to behave himself from here on out. Let's hope."



(Cant remember when was the last time I laughed this much: hurts up til stomach)
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13795
Registered: May-04
.

Prove what you say about Harbeths. You saying they are not used in in "recording" studios is not proving they are not used in recording studios. Once again you are relying on "I say so" with no proof you are any more correct on this than you have been on any other point.


"Anyone who is familiar with the industry knows Harbeth and knows that they are pretty much the mother of all studio monitoring. Well at least when it comes to radio and tv broadcasting... Their history (some even consider it a legacy and perhaps rightfully so) can be traced to the early ages of radio broadcasting and their inheritage, as they put it, is unquestionable in this regard.

But recording studios? No. Why? They are considered a too big of a compromise for monitoring the recording stage. Mastering Stage? Most certainly. Perhaps even recommendable."




Are you saying only specific types of monitors can be considered for "professional" use? Only certain types of speakers - the ones that don't play music - can be considered as real monitors for recording?


Doesn't the BBC - the largest user of Harbeths for monitor use - record?

"The biggest single UK customer is the BBC which uses Harbeth speakers for critical broadcast monitoring and quality control in its studios both here and in news bureaux around the world."


So now you wish to make a distinction between "critical monitoring" of TV and radio and a studio that only "records"?


"But recording studios? No."


That would mean all the BBC broadcasts are live? None are ever recorded?


Fascinating!


Any proof of that?



""These are very revealing loudspeakers and should enable you to make the recording/editing decisions required."
'Line Up' Magazine, UK


http://www.harbeth.co.uk/uk/index.php?section=products&page=monitor20&model=Moni tor%2020



Third paragraph, if you would, please;

http://www.harbeth.co.uk/uk/uploadfolder/soundpro4.pdf



http://www.harbeth.co.uk/uk/uploadfolder/olympicsm20-phone-1l.jpg





So even when you use links, you don't understand what is being said!


You don't read beyond the most obvious.


Even when you "bait" the trap, you are the one who gets caught.










Your "thoughts"(?) on recording studio monitors also doesn't seem to be in keeping with this from the Westlake review,

"Astute audio recording and mastering engineers are likely to know about Westlake 's extreme concern for sonic linearity, regardless of SPL loads. Linearity under varying playback and listening conditions is one of the holy grails of mastering work."


This reviewer seems to think of the Westlakes as recording studio monitors and also seems to think mastering studios require "linearity" in their speakers as well.


The reviews would all indicate the Westlakes can even play music rather well. But you say "recording" monitors aren't supposed to do that, right?


Well, as the Stereophile measurements indicate, the Westlakes are not exactly "flat" response (either pair) though they can have an "accurate" voicing.



What would your opinion be of the Westlakes' performance above 15kHz? Shouldn't "monitors" be flat to 20kHz? Isn't that what you complained about earlier when I showed you the Stereophile measurements of several "audiophile" speakers?

The Westlakes don't qualify then as monitors in your opinion?

But they do when the reviewer mentions "astute audio recording and mastering engineers".



"Your Westlake is on stereophile because nobody buys them for their studios with the acception of your next door garage band. Another manufacturer in the neverending sea of brands trying to indentify themselves as "pro monitors"."



Uh-huh! Another "I say so" thing without any proof from you.


I guess your opinion is to be taken more seriously than that of a writer for Stereophile, eh?

We should believe you rather than someone who has been involved in audio for over forty years? Believe you rather than some who has been an audio reviewer for 15 years. That's what you want us to do?





It seems your opinion of what is a monitor and what makes a monitor a monitor has been growing smaller and smaller as we go along. Pretty soon it looks like the only speakers that will qualify as "monitors" according to your caveats will be the Genelex.


And the KEF's are flatter in their response than the Genelex! And they are an "audiophile" speaker.




Please, someone put up a number so this can end.











.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 13040
Registered: Dec-04
Is this why Abby Road studios and ILM use B&W speakers and Classe amps?

I think ILM is doing OK, Abby Road...maybe not so much.

Have any of you listened to flat speakers in a chamber?
Do you know how terrible it sounds?
Visit the NRC in Ottawa for a go at that.
Add a room, and well...you have your sound.

The ns1000 was used for years as a studio monitor, in many recording studios, and that POS is as coloured as it gets!

This is pointless.
Flat speakers are flat sounding, and chambers and mixing studios will please only a few employees looking for what they think is right.

Get out into the real world, with real room interractions, then tell me about flat.

Flatter than piss_on a plate is fine, for #'s.
I don't listen to Johnny Cash by #'s.
However, I painted dogs playing poker by #'s, so there ya go.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 79
Registered: Jun-09
>>>> Selective reading and word games to the rescue yet again..



"Many Harbeth speakers are installed in post production studios. This is a work-intensive and highly skilled area of audio as a trypical radio/TV/film production spends thirty to fifty times longer in 'post' as it does at the original recording stage."

>>>*POST*, notice? RADIO and TV, notice? I hope your not asking me to patronize and humiliate you again by explaining the difference between post and preproduction. Even they themselves mention it but at least they have the integrity to distinct their product and their strengths which cant be said from most other manufacturers looking for their piece of the pie.

Again, what was said?

"Harbeth is exactly the embodiment of the distinction professionals want to make between an audiophile speaker and a monitor. Harbeth seems to posses both 'identities': highly regarded by certain audiophiles - most definitely a musical speaker - yet still widely accepted monitor for professional use. This is what makes them unique speakers and accepted by commercial market as well as sound engineers alike, even though only in the last stages of production."

Even though only in the last stages of production...



What comes to Westlakes and the standards considering near field monitors for recording process nothing has changed. Your KEF didn't measure flat on 1m, or was it 2m's away and that's exactly one of the reasons they are not studio monitors nor are they used by sound engineers for near field monitoring. The same goes to Westlake: if they manage to meet standards given, not by you nor by your precious authorities at stereopile, they will be accepted as studio monitors, used in proper studios. If not then they cannot be considered as such. Very simple. It is unbelievable, the lenghts you're willing to go only to make an argument which doesnt correlate in to reality. Stunning to say the least.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13796
Registered: May-04
.

"Like many people, I find that Yamaha NS-10s serve a valuable purpose for mixing, even though they don't sound very good. They make me work hard, but the mix always translates better the harder I'm pushed. Over the years I've worked on quite a few quality monitors that had great fidelity and were easy to listen to. Inevitably I can hear good detail and can make good decisions with eq, compression and effects. But there's another quality to a loudspeaker that is harder to judge, and that is what the NS-10 (like it or not) does so well. It pushes you to work harder and really get the balances correct. "Nice" studio monitors may be revealing, but it's often far too easy to get the mix sounding "nice"--but not translating well on home stereos and car systems.

So, after listening to music on the Focals I was a little worried that they sounded a little too good. I did observe a nice forwardness in the critical mid and upper mid range that I thought would be good for mixing, but did I have another "nice" pair of speakers on my hands? Well, the proof is in the pudding... you never truly know how well you can mix on a speaker until you actually do a mix.

In terms of presentation, the Twins provide a unique sound. The low end is tight and defined, but not especially huge. The low mids are very smooth, and transition nicely into the mids and upper mids where the real sound of the beryllium tweeter is going on. I wouldn't characterize the Twins as bright, but they have a forwardness and presence that's more significant than Genelecs, yet not as in your face as ADAM Audio speakers. For me, the sound and presence in this most critical range is important for mixing rock and pop. Depending on your tastes, I think Focal strikes a great balance between neutral and "in your face".

I've been doing quite a few high end monitor reviews over the past year. It's been both a blessing and a curse, as there's always a learning curve to get used to something new. While I'm a sucker for fidelity, and being able to hear things in my favorite recordings that I hadn't heard before, I look for a professional monitor to deliver something beyond fidelity.

I'm looking for a studio monitor that's like a swift kick in the pants, waking me up and reminding me that there's still more work to be done on a mix before it's complete. I want a speaker that is pleasant and revealing for tracking, yet can be a motherly nag when I need it in mixing. So far, more than any other monitor I've used, the Focal Twin6 Be is the ticket. And it comes at a price that, considering the build quality and sonics, is a totally reasonable investment for one of the most important tools in your studio."


http://www.recordingmag.com/productreviews/2008/06/18.html




So, not only do monitor speakers vary in their voicing, but different engineers prefer different speaker voicings.


Now that's interesting, isn't it?


.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 80
Registered: Jun-09
"Is this why Abby Road studios and ILM use B&W speakers and Classe amps? "'

Even though ILM is *primarily* post production, you give me one reference which proves that either ILM or Abby use those equipment in recording, not mastering stage and you're aces high. Otherwise you keep coming to the palm of my hand.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 81
Registered: Jun-09
www.recordingmag.com?

Now thats what you call a reference.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 13044
Registered: Dec-04
Which monitors did Parsons use for DSOTM?

In a jam packed room full of interference, he dragged out what he wanted from a pair of NS monitors.
Go figgur.

You guy swant to go into the booth or stay in the real world?

Flat speakers are a myth. And sound like pooop.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13797
Registered: May-04
.


"Again, what was said?

"Harbeth is exactly the embodiment of the distinction professionals want to make between an audiophile speaker and a monitor. Harbeth seems to posses both 'identities': highly regarded by certain audiophiles - most definitely a musical speaker - yet still widely accepted monitor for professional use. This is what makes them unique speakers and accepted by commercial market as well as sound engineers alike, even though only in the last stages of production."

Even though only in the last stages of production... "




So now you are down to quoting yourself to prove what you claim is true!


But your claim is not in agreement with other's opinion of Harbeth.

And ignores the question about the BBC and recording.



So where does that leave your vaunted "I say so"?


In the ditch I would say.




"What comes to Westlakes and the standards considering near field monitors for recording process nothing has changed. Your KEF didn't measure flat on 1m, or was it 2m's away and that's exactly one of the reasons they are not studio monitors nor are they used by sound engineers for near field monitoring. The same goes to Westlake: if they manage to meet standards given, not by you nor by your precious authorities at stereopile, they will be accepted as studio monitors, used in proper studios. If not then they cannot be considered as such. Very simple. It is unbelievable, the lenghts you're willing to go only to make an argument which doesnt correlate in to reality. Stunning to say the least."




Stunning is the word.



I've made my point a dozen times while dumbsh!t here has only said "I say so" and made up more BS.


Is there anyone else out there caring to see this continue?




.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 13047
Registered: Dec-04
Wait, I have to get popcorn...
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 82
Registered: Jun-09
Thats why nobody in their right mind would use or recommend them for vinyl playback for crying out loud.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 83
Registered: Jun-09
"So now you are down to quoting yourself to prove what you claim is true!

But your claim is not in agreement with other's opinion of Harbeth.

And ignores the question about the BBC and recording."


>>> You seem to have real difficulties interpreting references and Im not too sure to whom are you refering to when you say 'others'. In fact, I dont case to as my claim stands completely inline with the facts considering the use of their products and how they define themselves.

"Many Harbeth speakers are installed in post production studios. This is a work-intensive and highly skilled area of audio as a trypical radio/TV/film production spends thirty to fifty times longer in 'post' as it does at the original recording stage."

http://www.harbeth.co.uk/uk/index.php?section=products&page=harbethinthestudio

[*POST*, notice? RADIO and TV, notice? I hope your not asking me to patronize and humiliate you again by explaining the difference between post and preproduction. Even they themselves mention it but at least they have the integrity to distinct their product and their strengths which cant be said from most other manufacturers looking for their piece of the pie.]



"Is there anyone else out there caring to see this continue? "

>>> Somebody forcing you? Dont post here or open this thread anymore. It is as simple as that. Actually you would do a huge favor for yourself and the rest of us.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 13048
Registered: Dec-04
Once an analogue signal is sent, or a digital signal is converted and sent, the reaction of the crossovers will be the same.
I think you were referring to the preamp or stage,Wax?

Speakers don't do all that, unless active, of course.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13798
Registered: May-04
.

"Dont post here or open this thread anymore."


""These are very revealing loudspeakers and should enable you to make the recording/editing decisions required."
'Line Up' Magazine, UK


http://www.harbeth.co.uk/uk/index.php?section=products&page=monitor20&model=Moni tor%2020



"You seem to have real difficulties interpreting references and Im not too sure to whom are you refering to when you say 'others'. In fact, I dont case to as my claim stands completely inline with the facts considering the use of their products and how they define themselves."




It's obvious you don't care about facts, you make up BS instead of using facts.




Ohshit! I opened the thread and posted here.






.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 84
Registered: Jun-09
Again this is a link to a magazine... They are the last authority to define anything mainly because they make their living from the industry by recommending gear for consumers to buy. They have a clear role to play, even some of them try to mantain an unbiased role instead of sounding parrots to marketing managers, but before they do blind tests their credibility is close to none. The only thing they are good for is measurements, and not necessarily even that. But anyways, wheres the link?

Recording what exactly???
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 85
Registered: Jun-09
"Once an analogue signal is sent, or a digital signal is converted and sent, the reaction of the crossovers will be the same.
I think you were referring to the preamp or stage,Wax?

Speakers don't do all that, unless active, of course."

>>> You're right but that's not what I was referring to. That they don't sound good at your home and should be left from the whole context of stuffs'n'thangs for audiophiles. As I stated earlier they should be considered more of a microscope. They [near field monitors used in recording process] are a tool for certain and very specific use which on the other hand demands certain qualities from their sound, in addition to the previously mentioned technical standards, mainly the lowest possible coloration and highest possible resolution. These sound qualities alone don't yet make music enjoyable even though they are a significant part of it. In fact speakers which highlight these qualities to the extreme are considered by most less than a pleasant experience indeed.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13799
Registered: May-04
.

"In fact speakers which highlight these qualities to the extreme are considered by most less than a pleasant experience indeed."


That would be their "voicing" you are referring to, as decribed here;

"I wouldn't characterize the Twins as bright, but they have a forwardness and presence that's more significant than Genelecs, yet not as in your face as ADAM Audio speakers. For me, the sound and presence in this most critical range is important for mixing rock and pop. Depending on your tastes, I think Focal strikes a great balance between neutral and "in your face".


.



.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 89
Registered: Jun-09
Enjoy the honey moon.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13800
Registered: May-04
.

Genius, sheer genius.
 

Silver Member
Username: Jazzman71

Phoenix, AZ USA

Post Number: 827
Registered: Dec-07
OK, 150. Take your best shots. Somewhere, there is an OP with a nonfunctional Dual turntable that is starving for attention. Besides, you have to be getting carpal tunnel by now. Good grief...
Upload
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 91
Registered: Jun-09
"That would be their "voicing" you are referring to, as decribed here;

"I wouldn't characterize the Twins as bright, but they have a forwardness and presence that's more significant than Genelecs, yet not as in your face as ADAM Audio speakers. For me, the sound and presence in this most critical range is important for mixing rock and pop. Depending on your tastes, I think Focal strikes a great balance between neutral and "in your face". "

>>>>>LOL. How exactly does that quote (quote without a reference I might add) prove in anyway that their characteristics are a result of voicing? Not in anyway. You just make that false conclusion because of your fallacious assumption that all characteristics in sound are because of voicing which obviously is as fallacious as your comprehension of frequency response in general.

Enjoy the honey as long as it lasts, my moon.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13801
Registered: May-04
.

I do believe this boy is on something illegal. Or maybe he is really wiley out on a pass.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 13063
Registered: Dec-04
I am rolling...
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13802
Registered: May-04
.

Read, little waxed-boy, read before you complain about no references. If you aren't going to read what I post, how are you going to make up enough BS to have any credibility left?


Read; Posted on Friday, July 31, 2009 - 01:02 pm:






Done? Or did you ignore that too?


Hmmmm? I guess you have no credibility left, have you?





You are becoming very tiresome. I'm done with your "I say so's".



I've proven what I've said and then some.

I've provided references whenever they were needed. And I haven't turned around and contradicted my own references.

My opinions have broadened the "monitor" category to be any number of speakers so named just because someone wants to call their product a monitor.


I have stayed with speakers that play music and not speakers that play noise.

I've shown numerous times that speakers need not be one thing or the other and that all speakers share similar traits.


You have in your futile attempts to discredit everything and anything only narrowed the concept down to one pair of speakers and you've provided no proof for anything you've said about those speakers. I have said more about the Genelecs' capabilities than you have proven.




I've shown that audiophile speakers are every bit as capable as professional speakers to have a flat frequency response within the conventional limits of measurements and good sense and that those speakers can sound musical rather than grating.

I've proven acoustics do not serve to voice a speaker but every speaker has its own voice as provided by its designer(s).



I've shown that there is much more to neutrality and balanced sound than a flat frequency response.




I've proven everything I had claimed at the outset of this little fiasco you've stoked with your constant BS.


Chris H has proven you make no sense with what you say, you contradict everything you say and what you say only goes to prove the opposite of what you claim.


And you've provided no reasonable answers to his questions.


You've only made yourself look worse than when this thread began.




You have done nothing and have nothing to hold up your side of this affair other than "I say so". That hasn't and won't get you anywhere.





It looks like that email you were waiting for isn't going to come. Even if it does, it will prove nothing. The proof has been presented by my referenced facts and your "I say so's" have reached an end.






Why don't you just allow this to be a lesson and learn something from it? Don't be a child and don't continue stomping your feet insisting you are right when you clearly are not.

Stop insulting me, you are very tiresome when you do so.



And don't be even more of a child and carry a grudge forward. I intend to have no more to do with you unless you cross my path again with more insults.



It's over.



Now learn what you don't know and figure out what you did wrong. That's what any intelligent person would do.



.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 92
Registered: Jun-09
"I've shown that audiophile speakers are every bit as capable as professional speakers to have a flat frequency response within the conventional limits of measurements and good sense and that those speakers can sound musical rather than grating."

>>>> No one argued that audiophile speaker's aren't as capable (note: capable in which regard?!) as speakers designed for proffessional use. That was not the argument. But your argument that audiophile speakers have as flat frequency response than proper studio monitors designed for monitoring the recording stage is false and this was confirmed by your own references. That means no, the majority of audiophile speakers are not suitable for *monitoring certain specific stages in recording process* and that is the reason why they aren.t used as such. For the exact same reason studio monitors possess more often and more flat frequency response than audiophile speakers. This is not my opinion but a fact and the reason for this is quite obvious as mentioned before: their purpose of use is different thus the standards differ as well. Quite simple when you put your mind to it.



"Chris H has proven you make no sense with what you say, you contradict everything you say and what you say only goes to prove the opposite of what you claim."

>>> When you jump into conclusions or assumptions this may be true. Chris hasn't proven anything else than anyone can use the word as they pleases. This yet proves nothing. Voicing is a word used to describe a certain stage when designing a speaker and therefore it is speaker designers and their work which ultimately define the meaning of the word in reality. Chris made the same fallacious conclusion as you: because any material (meaning all the parts which create the speaker) used in a speaker affect the overall sound reproduction capabilities, thus the character of the speaker, it is to be considered voicing. He refused to accept the fact that voicing is a specific stage in speaker design adjusting the frequency response to a desired 'shape'.

You can't hold me responsible when refusing to accept some of my claims while making false conclusions from others.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13803
Registered: May-04
.


We're going to end this just as you began. You are talking in circles, you are contradicting yourelf and you are making no sense. Everyone other than yourself can see you make no sense.


No one is rushing to your assistance because you are too stubborn to move in any direction, you are encumbered by your own BS.


You don't even acknowledge just how wrong you were about your last post. You prove that you either don't read or cannot comprehend what has been posted. You just blunder forward oblivious to everything that is the truth.


You just continue to create more BS that will soon bury you under its own weight.






No, I can't hold you responsible for what you do not yet understand.

It is up to you to reach a point where you make an attempt to put aside what is stuck in your head and replace it with fresh information that sometimes contradicts what you had previously thought. It's up to you to broaden your views, to open yourself to new ideas rather than narrow them down to the point they become constrictions that you cannot defend.



That's how learning goes when you become an adult. You realize some of the things you thought were undebatable become very debatable and some of what you had believed simply isn't true as you had once thought. At that point you set aside those childish thoughts.




At that point it is up to you, no one else, to make the attempt to find the truth and accept that you had been wrong about some things. You accept that you must replace the wrong with the right.



You stop talking in circles when you become an adult and you begin to make sense of what you should believe. You realize when you have been wrong and accept it graciously and with a thought to improving your knowledge.



When you become an adult, you realize the more you know, the more there is to know. You realize how much you do not yet understand and how difficult it will be to replace old thoughts with new. But you never stop trying to find more knowledge than what you already possess.



Improving your knowledge means moving forward rather than standing in one spot and creating a deeper rut by stomping your feet in defiance to the truth.



When you reach adulthood you discover other viewpoints and how they can shape what you believe and that each of us has our own opinion. We may not always agree but we have the right to our own informed opinions. We have no right to hold on to uninformed crap. We do everyone a disservice if we remain a child in thought and action.



You do not cling to the false beliefs of youth just because it takes too much work to replace those ideas with new, fresh information that can shape what you truly believe going forward. You look at the facts and listen to other opinions when you become an adult.


You grow up.




I learned long ago I don't have to know everything, I only need to know how to prove anything I say.


I've done that here.


No one other than you has said they think I have not proven what I set out to prove.



What should that tell you?






You have done nothing other than verify you are incapable of proving any opinion you might have on anything regarding audio.






So, no, I can't hold you responsible for what you do not yet know or realize as truth. I can, however, laugh at someone who refuses to bend and who will soon break from their own futile efforts to stand in one spot stomping their feet in defiance.


I've told you before I have no sympathy for someone who can only lash themself to pole of "I say so".



You have become a clown. Who doesn't laugh at a clown?




I can't change you. You have to do that yourself. You've been given the facts, it's up to you to use them wisely or to remain an arrogant and ignorant fool being passed by with every new fact you refuse to allow in your head.



You might begin by reading this entire exchange once again. If you choose not to see the facts as they have been presented by myself and CH, then you will remain a clown. You will have learned nothing from this thread and that will be too bad.




It's up to you.









.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13804
Registered: May-04
.

One more thing to chew on; back on Friday you called this a
"reference"; www.recordingmag.com?


As anyone who follows the link can see, it takes you to the front page of a magazine with no specific article indicated to prove anything you, little waxed-boy, have said.




Just linking to something that proves only that you can find a magazine page on line isn't a "reference". It's just more BS on top of the BS you've already provided in abundance.






However, if someone clicks on this title on that front page
"ATC SCM11 Studio Monitors", they will find the following,


"ATC SCM11 Studio Monitors
7/28/2009
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA -- JULY 2009: TransAudio Group has announced the immediate availability of ATC's most reasonably-priced reference monitor--the SCM11 two-way passive speaker ...


The frequency response of the SCM11 is 56 Hz -- 22 kHz (-6 dB), with a sensitivity of 85 dB (1W @ 1 meter) and a maximum SPL of 108 dB."





That is your own link leading us to a quote regarding a "reference" quality "studio monitor" speaker. Something else you didn't read before you opened your mouth.













I don't expect a rebuttal that these do not fit into your thinly conscribed definition of "monitor" and I shall not respond to anything of the sort. You have once again proven you have no real working definition of "monitor" other than claiming (your infamous "I say so") you get to decide what is a monitor and what is not based on your concept of which speakers play noise rather than music.


LOL, boy, LOL!





What I expect you to do is learn something from your own mistakes.





.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 93
Registered: Jun-09
>>>> So you are saying that ATC SCM11 Studio Monitors, or any other speakers named by their manufacturer as monitors or studio monitors infact are studio monitors because they are marketed as such? Do I understand your argument correct?

Please define speaker *voicing* for us before we continue.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13805
Registered: May-04
.


I don't think my definition of voicing is in question. Anyone who has read my comments can realize what I mean when I say "the speaker has a voice of it's own".



Why are we continuing to embarrass you?




You've jumped from topic to topic without consistency and without proving one thing before you move to the next.

This is how you "debate".




Now you want to argue about voicing when you think it is no more than "a specific stage in speaker design adjusting the frequency response to a desired 'shape'."

The question should be, what do you think happens after this "specifc stage" called by you the voicing "phase" has occurred? What is the next "stage" in a speaker's design process that occurs after the voicing has been accomplished? Does a "+" or "-" 4dB provide enough room for a speaker to be voiced?


And what happened to your idea that voicing was accomplished by the room acoustics?



.


 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 13072
Registered: Dec-04
Any ATC speaker that I have heard sounds like a hollow box...really horrid with no life and no soul.
The only voice that they have is one by Rosanne Barr.

I do not know how they stand up in the booth, but just no fun at all to listen to.
Even a Mac would not save it.

If it is voiced, it is after a trachionomy. Shortly after...
While the bigguns can argue your points on voicing, I will again offer that flat speakers just suck, and we each find our own compromises.
If I could roast some garlic and sage, simmer in olive oil with a bay leaf, I would add that to the ATC stuff. With grilled tomato and zuccini.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 13073
Registered: Dec-04
I miss Raheem...
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 94
Registered: Jun-09
"I don't think my definition of voicing is in question."

>>> It surely is when you refute against


"The question should be, what do you think happens after this "specifc stage" called by you the voicing "phase" has occurred? What is the next "stage" in a speaker's design process that occurs after the voicing has been accomplished? Does a "+" or "-" 4dB provide enough room for a speaker to be voiced?"

>>> Oh, so you argument against but without being able to provide any facts which would prove otherwise. That pretty much leaves the ball in your corner...

Just for your notice it isn't what *I* call voicing. It is what speaker designers define as voicing. And please do explain what happens after.



"And what happened to your idea that voicing was accomplished by the room acoustics?"

>>>Nothing, it stays where it belongs: in your imagination.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 13077
Registered: Dec-04
Or in my room...
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13806
Registered: May-04
.

"And what happened to your idea that voicing was accomplished by the room acoustics?"


">>>Nothing, it stays where it belongs: in your imagination."


Possibly, however, you did post this ...

"It is exactly because you refuse to acknowledge the importance and more importantly the correlation of acoustics, frequency response and tonal balance / neutrality you find yourself creating myths about them, and about voicing and studio monitors, while writing ten page replies explaining fxxxd up frequency responses which after all didnt measure flat @ 1m even though they do sound very musical, balanced and neutral indeed... "


I will grant you that garbled mess could be interpreted a million ways and, since it makes no sense at all, all one million could still be inaccurate.



"I don't think my definition of voicing is in question."


"It surely is when you refute against




Refute against?!

Refute against "what"?!




Voicing?!


I am refuting against voicing?!!!



I don't know where you've been but I have not refuted the concept of voicing. My position has been all speakers have been voiced by their designer(s) and all speakers have a distinct voice to the educated ear.

It has been your position, as I have understood it to the best of my ability, that "monitors" have no voice ...

Posted on Monday, July 27, 2009 - 12:15 am:

"They are to my knowledge excellent speakers for their purpose - but they are not "flat" and they are "voiced", as are all "excellent" speakers which is what I was trying to point out."

"---> You are simply wrong. They are "flat" (+-2dB). And, no they are not voiced just like any other serious monitor for recording purposes are not."



You went on to say at least one more time the Genelecs have not been voiced. My understanding of your posts has been you believe any speaker that has a "voice" is not a "monitor" used for "studio" work and that "studio" would only be the recording booth.


You have a very narrow definition of a monitor and its use.


In your opinion any speaker you feel plays music or is voiced simply cannot be a monitor because you say so. You get to decide who is the real deal and who is a just a second rate pretender. No one else's opinion counts.



I'm fairly certain I have that correct.




Those are all points I have disagreed with. All speakers have a voice, monitors can and often do have more than one use and you do not get to decide which speakers fit the definition of "monitor". And I have provided references to back up my opinions.


What have you done?





"The question should be, what do you think happens after this "specifc stage" called by you the voicing "phase" has occurred? What is the next "stage" in a speaker's design process that occurs after the voicing has been accomplished? Does a "+" or "-" 4dB provide enough room for a speaker to be voiced?"


">>> Oh, so you argument against but without being able to provide any facts which would prove otherwise. That pretty much leaves the ball in your corner..."


I still have no idea what you believe I am against. Those are questions, not arguments. Didn't you see the "?" at the end of each complete sentence? You do know what "a complete sentence" is, right?



This is the second time you have said I have no references for my words. The first time you tried that it didn't work out very well for you, did it?

Possibly, if I knew what you wanted referenced, I could once again point you to where I have already provided that reference since I seem to be the only one backing all of my posts with links to neutral third parties and you seem to be the one not paying attention to what has been posted.



Earlier, in regards to voicing, you posted, "Voicing is a word used to describe a certain stage when designing a speaker ...

... voicing is a specific stage in speaker design adjusting the frequency response to a desired 'shape'."




My questions refer to those comments.






"Just for your notice it isn't what *I* call voicing. It is what speaker designers define as voicing. And please do explain what happens after."



After?!


After?!


After what?!


You still want me to explain what you meant?!


That's impossible since you cannot post a comprehensible sentence.






That would seem to leave the ball in your "corner"(?) ...







At this point, wax, I have no idea what you are trying to prove.


I'm going to state my proofs one more time;

"I've proven what I've said and then some.

I've provided references whenever they were needed. And I haven't turned around and contradicted my own references.

My opinions have broadened the "monitor" category to be any number of speakers so named just because someone wants to call their product a monitor.

I have stayed with speakers that play music and not speakers that play noise.

I've shown numerous times that speakers need not be one thing or the other and that all speakers share similar traits.

You have in your futile attempts to discredit everything and anything only narrowed the concept down to one pair of speakers and you've provided no proof for anything you've said about those speakers. I have said more about the Genelecs' capabilities than you have proven.

I've shown that audiophile speakers are every bit as capable as professional speakers to have a flat frequency response within the conventional limits of measurements and good sense and that those speakers can sound musical rather than grating.

I've proven acoustics do not serve to voice a speaker but every speaker has its own voice as provided by its designer(s).

I've shown that there is much more to neutrality and balanced sound than a flat frequency response.

I've proven everything I had claimed at the outset of this little fiasco you've stoked with your constant BS."




As I see it, those are the points of contention in this thread and at this point I don't know what else I have to prove.



If this has all been the result of a severe language barrier that renders your posts largely incomprehensible, that is too bad.


However, continuing to go back and forth over one word when that word has been defined and examples of that definition have been provided on numerous occassions in my referenced links and commentary seems to be, on your part, chasing your tail just to see if you can catch it.



You would seem to be the only one not catching anything here.






.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 95
Registered: Jun-09
["It is exactly because you refuse to acknowledge the importance and more importantly the correlation of acoustics, frequency response and tonal balance / neutrality you find yourself creating myths about them, and about voicing and studio monitors, while writing ten page replies explaining fxxxd up frequency responses which after all didnt measure flat @ 1m even though they do sound very musical, balanced and neutral indeed... "]

I will grant you that garbled mess could be interpreted a million ways and, since it makes no sense at all, all one million could still be inaccurate."

>>>>> Let me rephrase then: It is exactly because you refuse to acknowledge the correlation between acoustics, frequency response and tonal balance you find yourself creating myths about frequency response, voicing and studio monitors. Mainly when stating:

"Speakers are "voiced", that's something you can accept or not. You are going to extraordinary lengths to fight over a single word.

"They [Genelecs] are to my knowledge excellent speakers for their purpose - but they are not "flat" and they are "voiced", as are all "excellent" speakers which is what I was trying to point out."

>>>>> So no, Genelecs are not voiced. They like many other speakers for professional use are relatively flat compared to millions of other audiophile speakers. And no, not every speaker is voiced. You seem to insist that because speakers has a 'voice'- certain specific character to its sound - it is voiced. This is simply a fallacious statement.



"My position has been all speakers have been voiced by their designer(s) and all speakers have a distinct voice to the educated ear.

"It has been your position, as I have understood it to the best of my ability, that "monitors" have no voice ... All speakers have a voice, monitors can and often do have more than one use and you do not get to decide which speakers fit the definition of "monitor"."

>>> Yeah they don't have a voice. They don't speak. You've been drinking again?

Please show where I have stated that monitors do not have a character, or a voice as you put it, to their sound? You insist quoting me incorrect because that is the only way can keep this debate going. Again you seem to have difficulties separating voicing from "sound character" Ie: Speaker can and always will have more or less character even if it is not voiced.



"My understanding of your posts has been you believe any speaker that has a "voice" is not a "monitor" used for "studio" work and that "studio" would only be the recording booth.

In your opinion any speaker you feel plays music or is voiced simply cannot be a monitor because you say so. You get to decide who is the real deal and who is a just a second rate pretender. No one else's opinion counts."

>>> And here we go again, false quotations. I stated that manufacturer marketing their speaker as a "monitor" doesn't yet make it one as monitors have certain standards upheld by the professionals who use them. Rather, 'proper' studio monitors are defined in the reality when they qualify (flat frequency response being one of those qualities) to be used in the recording process. So please try to keep up without yet again misinterpreting or misquoting me.



"The question should be, what do you think happens after this "specifc stage" called by you the voicing "phase" has occurred? What is the next "stage" in a speaker's design process that occurs after the voicing has been accomplished? Does a "+" or "-" 4dB provide enough room for a speaker to be voiced?"

"[Oh, so you argument against but without being able to provide any facts which would prove otherwise. That pretty much leaves the ball in your corner...]

I still have no idea what you believe I am against. Those are questions, not arguments"

>>>>> So now you dont know, eh? You were asked to provide answer to them otherwise why post them in the first place if they are irrelevant to this debate?



"Earlier, in regards to voicing, you posted, [Voicing is a word used to describe a certain stage when designing a speaker ...]

[... voicing is a specific stage in speaker design adjusting the frequency response to a desired 'shape']"

My questions refer to those comments."

>>>>> Since you beg for it here is your answer:
"Yes, the "voicing" process is significantly one of manipulation of the energy levels in various frequency bands, plus very careful consideration of how the speaker fires into the room - its dispersion characteristics." - Alan Shaw, Harbeth



"At this point, wax, I have no idea what you are trying to prove."

>>>>> To prove that your argument that audiophile speakers have as often and as flat frequency response as preproduction monitors and that not all speakers indeed are voiced. That speaker having a distinct character does not necessarily mean it has been voiced.



"My opinions have broadened the "monitor" category to be any number of speakers so named just because someone wants to call their product a monitor."

>>>>> Which is fallacious and pretty much what marketing heads do, or just people who, by some, are referred to as "audiophile whores".



"I have stayed with speakers that play music and not speakers that play noise."

>>>>> Your point?



"I've shown numerous times that speakers need not be one thing or the other and that all speakers share similar traits."

>>>>> You haven't provided ANY evidence that speakers for preproduction monitoring do not emphasise certain qualities over others. For that claim to be accepted as truth you would have to show that speakers used in preproduction stage are so called audiophile speakers or at least that they measure the same. Are you sure you wanna go this through again?



"You have in your futile attempts to discredit everything and anything only narrowed the concept down to one pair of speakers and you've provided no proof for anything you've said about those speakers. I have said more about the Genelecs' capabilities than you have proven."

>>>>> Oh, is that so? So those links to Genelecs' frequency responses measures I posted were a product of my imagination?



"I've shown that audiophile speakers are every bit as capable as professional speakers to have a flat frequency response within the conventional limits of measurements and good sense and that those speakers can sound musical rather than grating."

>>>>> "good sense" I like that one. Unfortunately that sense doesn't serve your claim when we talk about hard "no-BS-accepted" measures.



"I've proven acoustics do not serve to voice a speaker but every speaker has its own voice as provided by its designer(s)."

>>>>> Some of those designers seem to disagree with you.



"I've shown that there is much more to neutrality and balanced sound than a flat frequency response."

>>>>> Ironically that was my point when you jumped in rambling and insulting me as your response was to my statment:

"those who want a flat frequency response should look in to studio monitors"

So with whom you been arguing all this time then?



"As I see it, those are the points of contention in this thread and at this point I don't know what else I have to prove."

>>>>> Unfortunately you haven't proven what you claimed and please correct me if *I* have misunderstood you:

1. Near field studio monitors (speakers used in the preproduction stages) do not have a relatively flat frequency response compared to audiophile speakers and this is a myth nourished by god-knows-who.

2. All speakers are voiced because every speaker has a unique character to its sound



"However, continuing to go back and forth over one word when that word has been defined and examples of that definition have been provided on numerous occassions in my referenced links and commentary seems to be, on your part, chasing your tail just to see if you can catch it."

>>>>> Which definition? Voice or voicing?

So we agree that not every speaker is voiced only because of its 'voice' and that proper speakers adopted by professionals for recording process indeed have relatively flat frequency response compared to most, if not all, audiophile speakers?
 

Gold Member
Username: Nickelbut10

Post Number: 2657
Registered: Jun-07
I don't know about the rest of the people on this forum, but if I see a post longer than a paragraph I lose interest.lol. I mean, at that point I have to get up and run around, or hit myself in the face with a stick for enjoyment. As amusing as this is, can you guys keep the posts short? LOL!!

Stuff like... The

and...your a...

and...go _______ yourself.

Much easier.lol
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13807
Registered: May-04
.

How about we sum this up with this contradiction, " ... not every speaker is voiced only because of its 'voice' ... "


Or this, "Again you seem to have difficulties separating voicing from "sound character" Ie: Speaker can and always will have more or less character even if it is not voiced."


Or this, "So now you dont know, eh? You were asked to provide answer to them otherwise why post them in the first place if they are irrelevant to this debate?"


This, "Yeah they don't have a voice. They don't speak."



etc., etc., etc.




If any of those makes any sense to anyone, please, be my guest.


I can't make out beans from what has been posted.


This, does not appear to me to be anything other than what I have called voicing, ""Yes, the "voicing" process is significantly one of manipulation of the energy levels in various frequency bands, plus very careful consideration of how the speaker fires into the room - its dispersion characteristics." - Alan Shaw, Harbeth"



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13808
Registered: May-04
.

""At this point, wax, I have no idea what you are trying to prove."


"To prove that your argument that audiophile speakers have as often and as flat frequency response as preproduction monitors ... "


That's not exactly what I said. This is the exact quote from several days ago, "There is nothing about a 'studio monitor' that gives it any advantages over a consumer speaker when you are discussing frequency response."


Meaning there are more than a few audiophile oriented speakers that will measure as flat through their frequency range as many studio monitors and that many monitors do not measure flat. The KEF is "flatter" than the Genelec (the only speaker wax can talk about and the only speaker where anechoic measurements have been shown) where the Stereophile measurements can be taken without situational error or variation. The $1k PSB is not far off from either and those measurements were also taken in a semi-anechoic environment.

You cannot directly compare the anechoic measurements of the Genelecs as stated in their spec sheet to the Stereophile measurements taken in a "live" environment. The Genelec's anechoic measurements stop at 20kHz with the response peaking sharply and then dropping off at the 20kHz limit of the graph. Stereophile's measurements OTOH extend well beyond the 20kHz limit which shows the resonance and ringing of a tweeter (something not possible to see in the Genelec's limited graph)- something wax didn't realize and didn't even acknowldege as an obvious mistake. He even repeated his mistake after I had pointed out his errors.


(Providing another speaker as a reference for a "monitor" would be helpful. I've provided references to several studio type or reference speakers that are not flat response and are "monitors" depsite wax's insistence he gets to call the shots when it comes to what is and is not a real monitor. However, none of that seems to be concern wax. We are expected to assume the Genelecs represent all studio monitors because wax has resorted to his typical "I say so".)





I went on to say in that same paragraph, "Anyone who has been in a studio or heard a studio monitor knows they can and often will use some of the most colored speakers on the market."


Which is true. As CH pointed out and which is a simple matter of logic not all studios use Genelecs. Genelecs, however, are the only speaker wax has referenced as a "monitor" speaker.


If your entire argument is based around one solitary set of speakers, you do not have a very strong case. That is the position wax finds himself in.



As I pointed out some recording studios use audiophile speakers. Wax has done nothing to prove all recording studios use "flat" response, "unvoiced" speakers other than to resort to "I say so".



I still stand by my statement but what was just posted is not what I said and should not be taken as a representation of what I have said throughout this thread.




" ... and that not all speakers indeed are voiced."


All speakers are "voiced". Period.



"That speaker having a distinct character does not necessarily mean it has been voiced."


It certainly does. That "character" might be something fairly neutral such as the Harbeths' being voiced to be transparent and true to the human voice but that is their personality/character/voice or whatever else you care to call it. A speaker can be voiced to sound like a four way garage band speaker or it can be voiced to project neutrality and accuracy but either one is its voice and that has been decided primarily by the designer's manipulation of the speaker's frequency response. However, as I had pointed out earlier and as JA mentions in his comments regarding the Westlakes, many other factors go into constructing a speaker's voice. How many factors can we think of that result in a Quad ESL not sounding like a Klipschorn?



Once again wax has quoted Harbeth as a reference and then turned around and said they are not a reference for what a monitor should be. Either you use them as a reference and accept what they say or you ignore them and how they design their speakers. You can't have it both ways.


All wax has to talk about is the flat response of the Genelecs. That is his entire argument. Studios use speakers other than Genelecs. Does anyone doubt that?

Wax, you've not even said that much let alone shown any other speaker to be as flat in its response or as neutral in its character as the Genelecs or the KEF's. How can you make a case around only one speaker when thousands of speaker models exist?




Do you simply not see the flaws in your argument?



.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 96
Registered: Jun-09
"This, does not appear to me to be anything other than what I have called voicing, "[Yes, the "voicing" process is significantly one of manipulation of the energy levels in various frequency bands, plus very careful consideration of how the speaker fires into the room - its dispersion characteristics." - Alan Shaw, Harbeth]"

>>>>> The only one contradicting himeself here is you as I have diffrentiated, what you call, *the voice* from actual voicing of the speaker. It is most humiliating when one can't keep to his own statements. Posted on Friday, July 31, 2009 - 11:14 am:

"[According to your prior description of voicing, they most certainly do "voice" their speakers. They chose a certain kind of tweeter, woofer cone material, as you described. Each with a sonic signature.]

To your point, CH, and as Atkinson explains in his Westlake comments, so too will many other factors of the speaker's construction that result in the overall sense of neutrality or the ultimate "voice" of any speaker.

Good logical approach to this, CH!"

So what does Alan say about voicing again? Heres the whole paragraph:

"Yes, the "voicing" process is significantly one of manipulation of the energy levels in various frequency bands, plus very careful consideration of how the speaker fires into the room - its dispersion characteristics. But that's only part of the story. What if the designers we mentioned above discover, right at the end of the design process and now with the cabinets designed and prototyped, the launch photography done, price lists calculated, pet-customers teased for orders .... that "something doesn't sound quite right"? What would they do? What could they do? What should they do? What would you do? Would you be the one volunteered to crawl into the Engineering Director's office and tell him that the design was a failure? What does happen is that the product is launched and comes to market. The marketing boys either know that it's not a good as it could be but have to sell it anyway, or couldn't care. They know that all consumer products no matter how ill designed or poorly conceived or manufactured will sell at a price with sufficient promotion - example the goods sold in an "everything is a dollar" type of clearance store." - Alan Shaw

Please point out where does Alan in anyway suggest that selected cone material or the selected tweeter itself is part of voicing? Not, BECAUSE of the selected components and cabinet design ALREADY approved manipulation of frequency response - voicing - becomes crucial inorder make the speaker sound more *right*?

Let me quote again, just in case you missed it:

"What if the designers we mentioned above discover, right at the end of the design process and now with the cabinets designed and prototyped, the launch photography done, price lists calculated, pet-customers teased for orders .... that "something doesn't sound quite right"?"

"Right at the end of design process".... What you know??
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13809
Registered: May-04
.

Once again you don't have a clue as to what your real problem is or how to solve the real problem you've established for yourself.


But it must be nice to know you did to yourself all by yourself.



"The only one contradicting himeself here is you as I have diffrentiated, what you call, *the voice* from actual voicing of the speaker."



No, you have not.

And, wax, when you provide "the whole story" you need to include the whole story or a link to the whole story.

I'm not going looking for this specific quote just to do your work for you but, If I remember correctly, Shaw's comments refer to what happens when passive components are not supplied in the form they were specified in order to produce the original design. It is about marketing a flawed product not about the designers' intent.

It does, however, point up (in Shaw's opinion, which was what the question put to him by the interviewer referred to) the importance of passive components in the voice of the final product.




Reading that last post of yours I don't think you understand at all what you have just posted. To the best of my recollection you agreed drivers and materials matter.

That was the point of CH's rebuttal to you days ago.

As CH made clear you had said one thing but what you said actually proved the opposite of your intentions. Well, that seems to be the case again here.


You are going in circles.


If materials do not matter, why would Harbeth - you know, Alan Shaw's company, the guy you keep quoting and then turning your back on - go to such great lenths to develop their own proprietary cone material that minimizes the "voice" of a polypropolene driver?

http://www.harbeth.co.uk/faq/index.php#2


Driver types and models and enclosure shapes and treatments are the basic building blocks which begin to determine dispersion.

http://www.harbeth.co.uk/faq/index.php#24


Something as seemingly minimal as a radiused corner makes a difference in the preceived voice of a speaker.

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/704cutting/index.html



Materials also contribute to the voice of a speaker. Crossovers affect the voicing.

http://www.harbeth.co.uk/faq/index.php#14

http://www.harbeth.co.uk/faq/index.php#19

http://www.harbeth.co.uk/faq/index.php#20

http://www.harbeth.co.uk/faq/index.php#26



etc., etc., etc

http://www.harbeth.co.uk/faq/index.php#13

http://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/583639.html



As I asked prior, how many ways can we think of that a Quad ESL does not speak with the same voice as a Klipschorn?

That is what Shaw is saying. That is what Atkinson details in his Westlake comments. That is what I have been saying since the beginning of this.



After all that BS you posted I see nothing you've come up with that has anything to do with your main problem. That problem is exactly as I described in my last and prior posts.



You have hung your hat on the Genelecs and only the Genelecs. Now you have to live with that decision.



Now you have to prove how many other speakers used as monitors are as flat and "unvoiced" as the Genelecs and you have to prove all recording studios use only these few selected speakers as their monitors.

You also still have to prove the Genelecs have not been "voiced" which so far all we have is your "I say so" - not what Genelec themself actually says.

Then you need to prove none of the other speakers you have yet to mention but will need to name and detail as monitors (and provide their frequency response graphs) have been voiced by their designers. You'll have to do that with quotes from their designers clearly stating they do not voice their designs and their specific intention for their designs to only be used under recording studio conditions.


And, just so you don't try to weasel out of any of this, you'll have to do a good job of linking to the quotes, articles and graphs you're going to find.


Until you do all of that, we are right back where we started - you got squat!!!



I've already proven quite the opposite is true with numerous referenced examples of not so flat studio monitors used in all areas of production from intial recording to final mastering. I've also shown that engineers are people too and they, like everyone else, have their preferences for which voice they prefer from a monitor.


Until you can come up with "proof" regarding those simple flaws in your logic, you have nothing.



I'm tired of responding to nothing other than more BS from you.





You might want to get to work, son, this is not going to be easy for you to pull off.




Just so you know, until you manage that bit of research, I won't have much to say to you. I'm tired of your mindless drivel and incomprehensible sentences.



Ta-ta!



.
 

Gold Member
Username: Exerciseguy

Brooklyn, NY United States

Post Number: 2799
Registered: Oct-04
My eyes hurt.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13811
Registered: May-04
.

But you are still sane.




The same cannot be said for wax.


.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 97
Registered: Jun-09
"All speakers are "voiced". Period."

>>>>> Not according to the definition given by Alan Shaw. Genelec is one of the many which doesn't manipulate the frequency response in order to achieve "neutral" sound. They find different means to achieve that subjective character.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 98
Registered: Jun-09
Youre level of sanity is pretty much summarised in the following sentence:

"The KEF is "flatter" than the Genelec"

>>>>> It is... between 100Hz to 10KHz.... That is of course the *proper* frequency range to measure, or to compare to other measures, according to you.



"(Providing another speaker as a reference for a "monitor" would be helpful. I've provided references to several studio type or reference speakers that are not flat response and are "monitors" depsite wax's insistence he gets to call the shots when it comes to what is and is not a real monitor. However, none of that seems to be concern wax. We are expected to assume the Genelecs represent all studio monitors because wax has resorted to his typical "I say so".)"

>>>>> You've been given three different "proper" studio speakers for near field monitoring. That should be enough. Just because I'm tolerant to your infant behavior don't expect me to feed you like a new born.



"Studios use speakers other than Genelecs. Does anyone doubt that?"

>>>>> You're more than welcome to post any frequency response measurements from near field monitors used in preproduction stages in respectable and decent studios.



"Once again wax has quoted Harbeth as a reference and then turned around and said they are not a reference for what a monitor should be. Either you use them as a reference and accept what they say or you ignore them and how they design their speakers. You can't have it both ways."

>>>>> And here it comes yet again. If not every post at least every other: Deliberate misquoting. Pathetic. *Pre* and *post* production. Remember?
 

Bronze Member
Username: Mattias

Post Number: 11
Registered: Jul-09
"I understand that but you have to start from a baseline. That baseline must have a repeatable response so you understand what has changed when you progress a design from virtual modeling through to final production. I haven't seen any specifics on how the speaker was designed but as I said I would have expected the design to begin with either an anechoic or semi-anechoic environment as the baseline. I would expect this was done in real environments and not entirely on a computer. From there the adjustments would be made as the designer experimented with the design in various rooms either real or virtual. In the end I would have expected the design to be finalized in real rooms and a great variety of rooms at that."


The difference with QM60 is that the original version, Ino pi60, was only made to have as a reference in psychoacoustic research.

This thread have gone to hell. Too bad
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13817
Registered: May-04
.

"The difference with QM60 is that the original version, Ino pi60, was only made to have as a reference in psychoacoustic research."



I don't understand why you think that would alter the design process in some meaningful way.


.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 99
Registered: Jun-09
Not only that but completely to off the track.

I remember reading somewhere that is was specifically research on voice reproduction, no?
 

Bronze Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 100
Registered: Jun-09
Not only that but completely to off the track.

I remember reading somewhere that is was specifically research on voice reproduction, no?
 

Silver Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 101
Registered: Jun-09
"I don't understand why you think that would alter the design process in some meaningful way."

>>>> Maybe you should do some research on them to get your answer.

Heres a good start:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52fFfHHRj5o
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13824
Registered: May-04
.

The "design process" is covered in the brief moments between 2':50" and 3':00".


"Three pair of loudspeakers were made."



That doesn't provide any idea of how the design process went.

.
 

New member
Username: Wetfishodeon

Post Number: 7
Registered: Aug-09
I just skipped past this load of bollocks of first post! Because flat at 30Hz wow I must be blind and deaf China man. I'd sooner use small bookshelf and sub to take on the rest of the lows no shame in that is there.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 13244
Registered: Dec-04
No, depending upon what load your amp can adress.

Totem Mani 2's will blow these little speakers out of the water with a qualified amp, and at much higher levels.

When you play with the big boys, you play with teeth.
 

Silver Member
Username: Just_wax_it

Montreal, Quebec

Post Number: 117
Registered: Jun-09
"I just skipped past this load of bollocks of first post! Because flat at 30Hz wow I must be blind and deaf China man. I'd sooner use small bookshelf and sub to take on the rest of the lows no shame in that is there."

----> "There is one principle that can keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That is contempt prior to investigation." - Herbert Spencer (27 April 1820 -- 8 December 1903)



"Totem Mani 2's will blow these little speakers out of the water with a qualified amp, and at much higher levels."

---> In what regard exactly. Totem should stick to making furniture, because lets be honest about it thats what the company really stands for...

(I didnt know you had auditioned these speakers Nuck. When did this happend?)
 

Platinum Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 10600
Registered: Feb-05
Good lord, not again!
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 13257
Registered: Dec-04
I owned them for 6 months, Wax.

Won't get carried away, Art.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 10607
Registered: Feb-05
He's talking about the Guru's Nuck. You know you've hiding the little buggers in the closet...you can bring 'em out now. Oh and leave the bag over their heads please...they ain't too pretty.
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Facebook

Main Forums Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us