I’ve briefly taken a look at some online reviews for budget Tekton speakers from ASR and Youtube. Both are based on Klippel quasi-anechoic measurements to achieve "in-room" simulations.
As an amateur speaker designer, and lover of graphs and data I have some thoughts. I mostly hope this helps the entire A’gon community get a little more perspective into how a speaker builder would think about the data.
Of course, I’ve only skimmed the data I’ve seen, I’m no expert, and have no eyes or ears on actual Tekton speakers. Please take this as purely an academic exercise based on limited and incomplete knowledge.
The standard practice for analyzing speakers is called "quasi-anechoic." That is, we pretend to do so in a room free of reflections or boundaries. You do this with very close measurements (within 1/2") of the components, blended together. There are a couple of ways this can be incomplete though.
a - Midwoofers measure much worse this way than in a truly anechoic room. The 7" Scanspeak Revelators are good examples of this. The close mic response is deceptively bad but the 1m in-room measurements smooth out a lot of problems. If you took the close-mic measurements (as seen in the spec sheet) as correct you’d make the wrong crossover.
b - Baffle step - As popularized and researched by the late, great Jeff Bagby, the effects of the baffle on the output need to be included in any whole speaker/room simulation, which of course also means the speaker should have this built in when it is not a near-wall speaker. I don’t know enough about the Klippel simulation, but if this is not included you’ll get a bass-lite expereinced compared to real life. The effects of baffle compensation is to have more bass, but an overall lower sensitivity rating.
For both of those reasons, an actual in-room measurement is critical to assessing actual speaker behavior. We may not all have the same room, but this is a great way to see the actual mid-woofer response as well as the effects of any baffle step compensation.
Looking at the quasi anechoic measurements done by ASR and Erin it _seems_ that these speakers are not compensated, which may be OK if close-wall placement is expected.
In either event, you really want to see the actual in-room response, not just the simulated response before passing judgement. If I had to critique based strictly on the measurements and simulations, I’d 100% wonder if a better design wouldn’t be to trade sensitivity for more bass, and the in-room response would tell me that.
3. Crossover point and dispersion
One of the most important choices a speaker designer has is picking the -3 or -6 dB point for the high and low pass filters. A lot of things have to be balanced and traded off, including cost of crossover parts.
Both of the reviews, above, seem to imply a crossover point that is too high for a smooth transition from the woofer to the tweeters. No speaker can avoid rolling off the treble as you go off-axis, but the best at this do so very evenly. This gives the best off-axis performance and offers up great imaging and wide sweet spots. You’d think this was a budget speaker problem, but it is not. Look at reviews for B&W’s D series speakers, and many Focal models as examples of expensive, well received speakers that don’t excel at this.
Speakers which DO typically excel here include Revel and Magico. This is by no means a story that you should buy Revel because B&W sucks, at all. Buy what you like. I’m just pointing out that this limited dispersion problem is not at all unique to Tekton. And in fact many other Tekton speakers don’t suffer this particular set of challenges.
In the case of the M-Lore, the tweeter has really amazingly good dynamic range. If I was the designer I’d definitely want to ask if I could lower the crossover 1 kHz, which would give up a little power handling but improve the off-axis response. One big reason not to is crossover costs. I may have to add more parts to flatten the tweeter response well enough to extend it's useful range. In other words, a higher crossover point may hide tweeter deficiencies. Again, Tekton is NOT alone if they did this calculus.
I’ve probably made a lot of omissions here, but I hope this helps readers think about speaker performance and costs in a more complete manner. The listening tests always matter more than the measurements, so finding reviewers with trustworthy ears is really more important than taste-makers who let the tools, which may not be properly used, judge the experience.
So tell me how you measure dynamics in a speaker? How fast the speaker is? Is that measurable? Mid bass punch under actual program material?
I had pioneer S1ex speakers. Heavy as hell and measured really well. Well they had 0 mid bass and no dynamics for anything other than acoustic rock… which they were amazing at! If I was just that or maybe a classical guy might have been perfect. But alas despite the amazing measurements and the bombshell cabinet it was a no go. My Focal 836w measured worse but similar.They sounded TOTALLY different real world with a multitude of amps both ss and tube.
Where is your proof that an $80 DAC.....or any DAC for that matter, is transparent?
There are multiple peer papers I suggest you read on this topic:
“Noise: Methods for Estimating Detectability and Threshold, ” Stuart, J. Robert, JAES Volume 42 Issue 3 pp. 124-140; March 1994 “Dynamic-Range Issues in the Modern Digital Audio Environment, ” Fielder, Louis D., JAES Volume 43 Issue 5 pp. 322-339; May 1995
If you don't have access to AES, you can read my quick write up in this article I published on audibility of small impairments. Or this video starting at 5 minute mark:
Once you read/watched those, take a gander at the review of the SMSL SU-1 $80 DAC. Here is its dashboard performance:
FFT spectrum shows distortion products way below threshold of hearing. Even discarding simultaneous masking, those impairments are inaudible. Dynamic range likewise covers threshold of hearing to playback level of about 115 dBSPL:
That is transparency for you, albeit, just at the edge with respect to dynamic range. This $80 DAC cleans the clocks of many expensive DACs.
Distortion products are now at -80 dB which is a massive 50 dB worse than the $80 SMSL DAC! It uses an output transformer which saturates and generates these harmonics. Its noise floor is so high that it can't even clear 16 bit audio:
You have no idea what transparency is since you do not listen.
Well, there are my listening tests of above PS Audio DAC:
Listening Tests
For subjective testing, I chose to use the recently reviewed and superb Monoprice Monolith THX 887 Balance Headphone Amplifier. This headphone amp has vanishingly low distortion and hence is completely transparent to DACs being tested. For the alternative DAC, I used my everyday Topping DX3 Pro 's line out RCA to Monolith. I then used the XLR input to connected the DirectStream DAC. Once there, I played a 1 kHz tone and used my Audio Precision analyzer to match levels using PS Audio's volume control. PS Audio claims perfection there ("bit perfect") so I figured they can't complain about that. The final matching was 0.3 dB difference between the two.
I started the testing with my audiophile, audio-show, test tracks. You know, the very well recorded track with lucious detail and "black backgrounds." I immediately noticed lack of detail in PerfectWave DS DAC. It was as if someone just put a barrier between you and the source. Mind you, it was subtle but it was there. I repeated this a few times and while it was not always there with all music, I could spot it on some tracks.
Next I played some of my bass heaving tracks i use for headphone testing. Here, it was easy to notice that bass impact was softened. But also, highs were exaggerated due to higher distortion. Despite loss of high frequency hearing, I found that accentuation unpleasant. With tracks that had lisping issues with female vocals for example, the DS DAC made that a lot worse."
Your sonic test might be correct (you did not test it in with stereo speakers) and .... that is not a scientific test run by many people with many toys in many systems and blind tested, etc...which is what proof is (at least that is what you preach!!!). That particular DAC might be bad......I am glad you heard a difference (OMG!!! Amir says he hears a difference). Usually, you just say they are ALL transparent. How about wires? Have you listened to wires? Can you hear a difference? Have you listened to a ton of amps and premaps and DACs and heard all the difference us serious folks hear? Of course you have not....that would upset your ego to do serious listening tests. Can you hear what getting the cables off the floor does? What if you found out you were wrong all these years and every single brand of wire sounds different from each other (which they do). Very few serious audiophiles believe your crap. Oops, I said I was over and out....well, now you can have the last word.....the ego demands it....for we have to be right. Have fun in fantasy land.
Have you listened to a ton of amps and premaps and DACs and heard all the difference us serious folks hear?
Sure.
Can you hear what getting the cables off the floor does?
I haven't tried but I imagine electrons move slower the closer they are to the floor.
What if you found out you were wrong all these years and every single brand of wire sounds different from each other (which they do).
Same back to you.
Very few serious audiophiles believe your crap.
Over 2 million people visit ASR every month. That is almost an order of magnitude more than people that visit stereophile.com. So pretty sure your claim is wrong but go ahead and provide data that back it.
Hey Amir, how many people eat at McDonalds? Further, these visits could be something akin to always looking at an auto accident as you drive by. Oh and comparing yourself to Stereophile doesnt help give you any credence.
Just so I am clear, you hear differences between products that measure similarly so now you will tell us what would be an appropriate amount to spend on our equipment. Less is fine unless it is gear that you sell then the extra money is well spent.
I would like to become a trained listener but will require a certificate to show my friends. Please help. Funny thing is that I will need to completely change the setup in my dedicated room to mirror your setup which runs contrary to what I have read, discussed with manufacturers and experienced in numerous rooms and shows over the last 40 years. Especially nice is the fact that I can now confidently include by big screen into my main system and improve my sound. Who new; hell who could even have imagined.
Visitors to ASR, starting tomorrow, will be 2,000,001.
@amir_asr I do not understand why Amir comes here to peddle his cultist religion. No one listens or is interested. Go away and do not come back. Most other sites have banned you; you are lucky this one has not. Maybe if you did not throw people off your site for precisely what you do on this site, others might listen a bit more. Do not presume you can teach us, because it is completely obvious you do not know much.
"Over 2 million people visit ASR every month." No. You might get 2 million hits a month, that is a far cry from 2 million people or is that part of your bulldust again?. In my case I pop in once a week or so to see what latest stupidity is being peddled and to read and laugh at the comments from your sycophantic minions. I could mention some but what is the point?
Mr. Amir in the introduction to one of his videos stated
"we absolutely can measure the differences between cables. The question is do those measurements matter as far as the perception, and the short answer is they don't"
I want to take this opportunity to apologize to Amir and ASR members. No stance taken on a public forum is worthy of ridicule and you have every right to voice your opinions on this or any forum. Having said this, I dont believe you could be more wrong in much of what you say and the things that you use to back up your beliefs count for very little. Worse, for me, is that I believe you are doing your members and this hobby a great disservice encouraging them to follow an ideology which is completely false. Encouraging skepticism and due dilligence is fine, but implying that they dont trust their senses is not.
Now that this out of the way, I can ignore you just I have before this thread started.
Mr. Amir in the introduction to one of his videos stated
"we absolutely can measure the differences between cables. The question is do those measurements matter as far as the perception, and the short answer is they don’t"
I am confused now.’
These kinds of contradicting statements are commonly made by individuals suffering from cognitive dissonance, knock1. Cognitive dissonance occurs in those who hold contradictory beliefs at the same time, and/or make statements that contradict, as those statements are made according to suit whatever argument is preferred at the time. Amir has made similar contradictory statements on a number of other issues - he has also conceded that measurements are not enough to tell the entire story, and yet bases all his arguments on them. It is my hope less experienced audiophiles see through the techniques of paltering and prevarication he engages in order to avoid confrontation over issues he has no proper answer for. While perfectly acceptable that one need not have answer for everything, Amir has worked his way into a corner where he must have a reply for anything, due to his deep belief measurements are all that matter. I have come to realise measurements are all he has, to overcome his inability to listen critically, possibly compounded by that one bad experience all audiophiles have at some point over a misinformed purchase made before better listening skills were cultivated. And, instead of putting the effort into learning how to listen more critically, he fell back on measurements for the security of quantitatively feeling right, as many audiophiles with lesser hearing ability also do.
For those less experienced audiophiles who rely more on measurements than their ears, please please know that a whole other world exists that developed listening ability will reveal. Please do not be discouraged by the mistakes you may have made. And please do not be misled by Amir into confirmation bias by hearing what your measurements tell you.
Amir refuse to engage on hearing theory in acoustics.😁
He answered only about gear measurements and created discussions about this SECONDARY matter...
Subjectivist takes the bait and gulp it with the line...
😊
What is hearing? and what it is not ?
What do we hear when we hear a sound ?
Is there a difference when human hear speech, stereo playback music and natural sound ?
When we choose a piece of gear and connect it in our system and in our room and for our ears, does it make sense if we see the sheet where Amir has written the verified specs measured again does it make sense to claim that we will be able to predict if the S.Q. will be good or not so ?
The answer is evident it cannot be yes ...
Because there is no linear connection between sound experience and any gear specs ; they are not acoustics measures, then does not means much save for the gear electrical synergy.
Measuring a single speakers did not say anything important about his concrete installation and the resulting acoustic experience but only can confirm what the designer intent was or not with the basic specs.
Amir techno-cultist ideology reflect the state of our social fabric : in shambles because of the gullibility of masses easy to control as sheep going in the "right" direction...
But some are able to read a text in acoustics and makes their own mind and experiments....
And some at least keep secure their only treasure : their ears...
A very deceptive sense according to Amir trained to spot digital artefacts...😊
As if there was a relation between spotting digital artefact and recognizing all sounds in a jungle environment or evaluate any acoustic parameters in a dedicated room for our ears specific psychoacoustics parameters...
All these perceptions about acoustic qualities dont ask for "acuity" as much as they ask for the right concept to be known and recognized...Nobody can recognize and evaluate what he dont know about even if he had sensed it ...
We perceive more, if we had the right acoustic concept nevermind our measured "acuity", than a person with only top notch acuity but no conceptual experience about the sound qualities and meanings he was hearing...
Amir has acuity but does he know how to change for the better the system/room ears experience in an evident way with a bundle of straws or some empty toilet paper or plastic roll?😎
Does he understand how work mechanical crossfeed or listener envelopment ?
No because he need to compute each parameters separately for dimensions, geometry, size, location, and there is no simple recipe to compute it optimally for all room geometry, size, topology and all acoustic content, and all room pressure zone locations ( too much factors non linearly linked together ). We need our ears/brain trained with basic acoustics concepts if we want to recognize the S.Q. parameters interaction and their resulting meanings at the end.
Anyway discussing with him about gear specs measures will only comfort his digital ideology...
Amir is not even wrong here ...😊
Amir sell gear pieces...
He does not sell knowledge and experiments ...
Nothing will be wrong with that but his ideology about the measures presented as the only truth is the problem...
Does the 1KHz tone that you measure on the DAC, does it tell you how good the bass is or how sweet the treble sounds? Do you have a test for these as well?
This thread is frickin’ awesome, absolutely delivers.
Amir: this equipment measures badly. Here’s my evidence from tests that I performed. Feel free to purchase it at your own risk.
ASR Forum: science trumps all. If two pieces of "stuff" measure the same you will not hear a difference under a blind ABX test. Prove us wrong but if you argue with us, we’ll beat you into submission.
Audigon: this cables sounds great, if you don’t hear the difference your equipment sucks & cannot resolve the difference, your room needs acoustic treatment, you have a tin ear, you don’t know what you’re listening for. Blind ABX tests are meaningless, I don’t need to test my hearing to know that I heard a difference. I attended a Pink Floyd concert in 1978 and I can still remember how great it was. If I like Pasta Primavera more than Chili con Carne I don’t need a blind ABX test to prove that to myself. WRT blind ABX tests... oh, you’re one of those.
Why does Amir keep posting here? No one cares what he has to say... 500+ posts later the argument continues.
Mr. Amir in the introduction to one of his videos stated
"we absolutely can measure the differences between cables. The question is do those measurements matter as far as the perception, and the short answer is they don’t"
I am confused now.
Oh, you didn’t know??? The ASR romons can’t perceive cables, but, they can somehow magically perceive 0.0000000001% sinad and they will rank their Toppings and Poppings accordingly on the sinad romon database (purchase guidance shining light).
Sure. Often when we measure an audio device and it has high distortion, the objectivists theorize that a) this distortion is audible and b) could be an explanation for why folks who buy these products prefer them.
I don't agree with either one of those. There has never been any evidence/controlled testing that shows preference for certain distortion profile. My own listening tests shows that the distortion is either inaudible, or annoying. I suspect if audiophiles heard the annoying distortion, they would not buy the product. So the only conclusion is that audiophiles are not hearing any improvement as a result of these impairments. And hence, the reason they buy them is due to other factors unrelated to the sound the device is producing. These is especially so when so much folklore is out there to make people believe that "tubes sound warm" or that "R2R DACs sound more analog," etc.
Hearing non-linear distortion that you see in measurements can be quite hard. It usually requires special training. In my last job, we performed large scale blind tests of lossy audio codecs with both our trained listeners and audiophiles. The latter group failed to remotely hear distortions that our trained listeners could instantly recognize.
@amir_asr I still don’t understand who is doing the training of these trained listeners, could certainly be a bias in that as well. I don’t believe any audio equipment sounds exactly like unamplified musical instruments, so if that is the reference than who are you and your trained listeners to be judge and jury.
And what devices typically produce which types of distortion? The level of distortion becomes much more audible and relevant based on the type. So it would be incorrect to directly compare 2nd order harmonic and higher ordered types as being the same.
Also inaudible levels of distortion still have a profound impact on the sound of the device at any output level.
I still don’t understand who is doing the training of these trained listeners, could certainly be a bias in that as well.
People are being tested double blind. Only their ears are involves so if they hear something, they hear it.
The training for speakers/headphones is based on hearing frequency response errors in again, a double blind testing program. It is not specific to any product, brand or type. Training allows you to hear smaller and smaller impairments. I provided a video explaining this already. Here it is again:
There is a specific paper that shows effective of training vs measurements starting at 40:00 minutes but I highly suggest you watch the whole video.
For audio impairments, again, I provided a video tutorial for that:
I explain the techniques used such as listening to high impairments when the distortion is quite high and audible and then reducing it gradually. Further, knowledge of the system design and what the impairments can be, is very helpful in finding specific parts of a music clip that better highlights the audible problem.
Finally, in all cases, you want to use music that is revealing of the type of distortion you are looking for. This is explained in both of the videos above.
This is no different than an athlete training. While they will become very good at their specific domain, they also become more performant in general.
Of course, if you worry about bias, you should never do sighted evaluation as that surely corrupts and biases the results.
I don't know how you are defining "dynamics." I define it as how loud it can play cleanly. Distortion tests help with this but ultimately I like to listen with specific music clips that show the ability of the speaker to do so with sub-bass content.
How fast the speaker is?
There is no such thing. Every sound has its frequency and speaker driver needs to only be "fast" enough to play that. The perception of slow bass likely comes from non-flat bass response of the speaker combined with the room it is in. Both of these are measured using frequency response.
Mid bass punch under actual program material?
Same answer as above.
I had pioneer S1ex speakers. Heavy as hell and measured really well. Well they had 0 mid bass and no dynamics for anything other than acoustic rock…
Both of your statements are invalidated in stereophile review. This is the frequency response:
This is not remotely an example of a speaker "measuring well." Treble is exaggerated and there are serious signs of tweeter resonances. JA's measurements have an error in them which shows a peak in bass but this is shows even more energy as he explains:
"The lower midrange and upper bass do feature a rise in level; while some of this will be due to the nearfield measurement technique, some is indeed real, and possibly contributes to the speaker's occasionally "puddingy" low frequencies. "
In other words, there is too much (upper) bass, than not. Of course in room and without EQ, you would have a lot of room modes to content with so even if your impressions are right, you would have to untangle them before blaming the speaker. I have a room mode at 105Hz which I dial out in my speaker reviews for this reason.
@knock1 - I did know that! I’m so sorry if my post came across pedantically - it was merely my intention to explain and put a known psychological term to the condition of cognitive dissonance. There are many audiophiles in two minds about these issues who would find it easier to give in to the security that measurements provide - my post was to caution that those following asr do so with balance and moderation, in finding trust for the half of amir who cunningly says listening is more vital than measurements, and then get misled when the other half of amir only falls back on measurements in all other situations. A person who is inconsistent in his or her stand should never be trusted completely.
I knew I saw this somewhere and believe it applies:
Why is reductive reasoning bad?
In doing so, ideological reductionism manifests a cascade of errors in method and logic: reification, arbitrary agglomeration, improper quantification, confusion of statistical artefact with biological reality, spurious localization and misplaced causality.
What is the weakness of reductionist theory?
The reductionist approach is also more scientific than other approaches as cause and effect relationships can more easily be tested through the scientific method. A disadvantage of the reductionist approach is that these experiments can be too simplistic. They are narrow and can ignore other influences.
In other words, too much kool-aid. We are not at the apex of measuring. Not by a long shot.
Now read this by a top physicist in fluid mechanic who is also a top audio designer of world wide fame who also design his own amplifier and speakers:
An innovative approach to suppress the distortion of electronics
Dr. Hans R.E. van Maanen (Temporal Coherence)
«Every amplifier, no matter how well made, distorts. Don’t be fooled: the distortion-free amplifier still needs to be invented. The distortion, introduced by electronics, is even at low levels, annoying, which is why all designers strive for an as low as possible distortion level of their brain child. And in order to be able to compare results, the distortion is measured and is expressed in a number, usually a percentage. Sadly enough, in reality this so-called “distortion figure” shows to be indicative at best, but it certainly is not an absolute measure for how we experience the quality of the sound reproduction. This can easily be
demonstrated by a couple of simple examples from daily practice: a loudspeaker commonly distorts at least 0.5%, which is significantly more than the 0.01% of a good semiconductor amplifier. Yet, the misery, introduced by the amplifier, is clearly audible using such loudspeakers. Although valve (tube) amplifiers have distortion figures which are significantly higher than those of semiconductor amplifiers, still a lot of music lovers prefer the sound of valve amplifiers. Also, there is no guarantee that a semiconductor amplifier with 0.001% distortion “sounds” better than one with 0.01% distortion. Unfortunately, we will not be able to dig deeper into the backgrounds of this paradox, but it is important to remember that a
distortion figure is barely informative on the experienced, sonic, quality of an amplifier.»
Only this short quote by a scientist as well known as Toole in acoustics destruct all Amir pretense about tube amplifier being bad and S.S. being good ...
Now about the way high frequency signals way over 20KHZ affect sound perception of human :
«In-
audible high-frequency sounds affect brain activity: hypersonic effect.
J Neurophysiol 83: 3548 –3558, 2000. Although it is generally ac-
cepted that humans cannot perceive sounds in the frequency range
above 20 kHz, the question of whether the existence of such “inau-
dible” high-frequency components may affect the acoustic perception
of audible sounds remains unanswered. In this study, we used nonin-
vasive physiological measurements of brain responses to provide
evidence that sounds containing high-frequency components (HFCs)
above the audible range significantly affect the brain activity of
listeners. »
@erik_squires- I’m sorry for not acknowledging your original post earlier - it was a terrific read for me and pointed out clear and understandable facts regarding the measurement of speakers that go beyond a single viewpoint or method, and engage relationships, acoustic and electromagnetic. Thanks for your insights.
other very important consideration about the 20KHZ limits of audibility :
«One of the major problems is that it is fundamentally impossible to determine the
requirements for sound reproduction systems by sound reproduction systems: when something is “inaudible” is this because of the limitation of human hearing or because of the limitation of the sound reproduction system (including the microphone(s), sound recording and storage system)? By designing a sound reproduction system, you have to start somewhere and I have been told numerous times that the 20 kHz limit is based on the Fletcher�Munson curves. Apart from that, although I have deep respect for what people achieved 60 years ago, I seriously doubt that the equipment they had available in those days is superior to human hearing and any conclusions drawn from their work should be critically
examined with our current knowledge, which, however, still leads to conflicting results. So far, I have never heard a sound reproduction system which comes even close to the live performance of a symphony orchestra. So there is still a lot of work to be done and we need deeper understanding of the workings of human hearing. In that perspective, I find the
historic background of the 20 kHz limit less interesting; more interesting is the question whether we need an extended frequency response in order to bridge the gap with the symphony orchestra as this 20 kHz number has penetrated the whole audio business. Just look at the specifications of the different components from microphones to recording equipment to tweeters»
«The discussion on the perceived quality of audio systems often lacks
objective criteria. This is partly due to the subjective experience of the
ill-defined property "quality", covering many aspects, partly to the lack
of understanding of all the properties that influence the perceived
quality. The latter is not synonymous with the technical quality of a
system to begin with.
Disregarding non-linear distortions, the frequency response between 20 Hz
and 20 kHz of a system is very often taken as a major parameter determining
the quality of a sound reproduction system. The basic idea behind this is
the Fourier analysis of sounds, in which any sound wave, no matter how
complicated, can be decomposed into an infinite series of sine and cosine
waves of different frequencies, starting at zero and "ending" at infinity. The, never mentioned, assumption is that the frequency components above the
hearing limit, usually taken at 20 kHz, do not influence the perceived
sound in any way. Although this seems a reasonable assumption at first, it is not as
straightforward as one would think. Two aspects play an important role: the
first is that Fourier analysis only holds for linear systems and if there
is one transducer which is non-linear, it is the human ear. In non-linear
systems frequencies not present in the original signal can be generated
and/or other frequencies can acquire more power than in the original sig-
nal. This can easily be demonstrated using a 3 kHz sine wave with 5 periods
on and 5 periods off. Although Fourier analysis tells that 300 Hz is only a
weak component in this signal, it is the strongest one hears. As 300 Hz
corresponds to the envelope of the signal it is not surprising using the
non-linear properties of our ears. It can be concluded that frequencies
above the hearing limit can indeed generate signals that are below the
hearing limit which could thus influence the perceived sound and the
quality experienced.»
Then Amir is a seller of his limited set of tools , his stance on tube amplifier made no sense in acoustics, and his interpretation of the results of his Fourier tools are acoustically meaningless because human hearing dont work as Amir want it to do to sell his marketing measuring site ...
Van Maanen is a scientist known worldwide in audio .
Amir is not...By far.... Even with 2 million visitors...
Science is not made in a marketing site of audio reviews...
Now read this attentively and you will learn why Hans Van Maanen is not in the ASR team but in science :
«The theory of Fourier analysis yields that the inverse Fourier transform of
the complex valued transfer function of any filter, and thus also of our
idealised audio system, equals the Dirac delta function response of the
system in time domain. Note that the impulse response thus tells us more
than the amplitude response of a system, because it contains information
about the amplitude response at ALL frequencies (not only those between 20
Hz and 20 kHz) and about its phase response, albeit in an implicit way.
.........................................
In other words, any audio system has the tendency to "smear out" the signal
both in amplitude and in time. These effects could reduce subjective
experiences like the "definition" and "transparency" of the perceived
sound. This smearing will always be a degradation of the original sound and
we will try to study its influence on the perceived sound.
The temporal decay of high-end analog audio systems is higher than the
decay of digital systems in their present version and consequently the
temporal "smearing" of the formers is less.
.............................................
The superior sound quality of moving coil cartridges over moving magnet
ones is at least partly due to the extended frequency response and higher
temporal decay. Moving magnet cartridges with extended frequency responses
approach the perceived quality of the moving coil cartridges, especially
those which produce a higher output signal (and thus generally speaking
have a lower mechanical resonance frequency). Compensation of the
mechanisms that create the low temporal decay of moving magnet elements
leads to significant improvement of their perceived quality (ref. 1, 2).
One of the better ways to compare analog and digital systems is by lis-
tening to a good copy of an analog recording on disc and the CD made of the
same master tape. If the digital re-processing would not audibly effect the
signal, no difference would be perceivable. Yet, on a high-end audio
system, using e.g. electrostatic loudspeakers for the midrange and high
frequencies, the transparency and clarity of the analog version (half-speed
master copies) invariably showed to be better.
Comparing loudspeaker systems is one of the most difficult and tricky
aspects of audio. Yet, generally speaking, the loudspeakers sounding best
are those with the highest temporal decay. To mention some examples:
electrostatics, ribbon tweeters and last-but-not-least ionophones. Also,
loudspeakers that show a high temporal decay in Wigner distributions
generally sound best.
The temporal decay seems to be a useful "handle" to get grip on the
temporal behaviour of audio systems and to make a semi-quantitative
comparison. It is an excerpt of the impulse response of a system, which
tells more about a system than its frequency response between 20 Hz and 20
kHz.
High-end audio systems often sound better with analog recordings than with
digital ones. This is at first surprising because of the very high quality
specifications of digital systems. But the temporal decay is one of the few
points at which analog systems beat their digital counterparts and it is
thus a clear hint of its importance.
The behaviour of the amplitude and phase characteristic of an audio system
above 20 kHz. is of importance to its temporal decay and can thus be of
influence on its perceived quality.»
It is useless to argue with Amir about one piece of gear and contradict him about his opinion of this piece of gear...
This is a dialiogue between deafs with NO fundamental ARGUMENTS in acoustics...
Van Maanen speak about audio and acoustics...
That is my argument and it contradict all Amir mantra....Which one is serious?
"golden ears" Amir spotting digital artefacts to sell his measuring ideology out of any hearing real knowledge or physicist and acoustician Van Maanen ?😊
@kevn- Thank you but I really only meant to poke fun at how far off this thread has gotten from my original intentions and now I've lost all control over it. 🤣
“In other words, there is too much (upper) bass, than not. Of course in room and without EQ, you would have a lot of room modes to content with so even if your impressions are right, you would have to untangle them before blaming the speaker. I have a room mode at 105Hz which I dial out in my speaker reviews for this reason.”
nope that’s the exact opposite I heard. 0 upper bass no dynamics. Had all kinds of amps including a Krell 200S monster. Same thing. Best thing was a 50 watt Jolida integrated el84 tube amp. If you heard the combos you would agree unless you’re absolutely tone deaf.
You can’t measure speakers and know what they sound like with pink noise bro… sorry. You are wrong. The spikes in the treble are over 10k so unlikely to be a problem. Bright was not the problem. Stick to measuring dacs and telling everyone they should buy a hundred buck topping! Ohh multiple rooms as well.
"Your definition of dynamics is how loud a speaker can play? Wow . . . Not. It . At . All. "
What can one say? Now wonder he is regarded as a joke by serious reviewers.
nope that’s the exact opposite I heard. 0 upper bass no dynamics.
I hear you but we have no way of knowing if what you say is a function of speaker or not. If you had measured your in-room response, we could comment. See more below.
Had all kinds of amps including a Krell 200S monster. Same thing.
This makes sense. Speaker's response plus your room are the main problems. Amplification has no prayer of compensating for those.
You can’t measure speakers and know what they sound like with pink noise bro… sorry. You are wrong. The spikes in the treble are over 10k so unlikely to be a problem.
You brought up the measurements, claiming your speaker had done well. Clearly it has not. In addition, KR's subjective review directly contradicts your claim of bass dynamics:
"If you've read this far, you know that I love the Pioneer S-1EX. It is a full-range speaker with great transparency, dynamic potency, and truly neutral tonality. "
Now, I don't know if he is right. But he is saying the opposite of what you are saying, pointing precisely the issue with "listening tests" you all swear by. They are unreliable. Measurements however, are concrete and with skill can be interpreted to produce far better conclusions.
Does the 1KHz tone that you measure on the DAC, does it tell you how good the bass is or how sweet the treble sounds?
That's like asking me if there is a traffic counter that counts how many UFOs go by. First you have to show that there is such a thing as "sweet treble." If you mean rolled off treble, sure, the frequency response tests show that different filters have the ability to roll off high frequencies, making the sound softer which some people confuse with "analog sound" and I guess "sweet treble."
As you see, there are two filters that roll off starting as low as 12 kHz.
Do you have a test for these as well?
See the test for treble above. For bass, I do run sweeps down to 20 Hz and often problems are seen there, sadly in high-end DACs such as the aforementioned PS Audio DirectStream DAC
This one gets you coming and going with rising distortion at both ends of the spectrum! My listening tests confirmed the same with problem identified by the designer as cost cutting on the output transformer (in a $6000 DAC!!!).
Here is another expensive DAC, the TotalDAC D1-six which retails for whopping $14,000:
See how it either accentuates or attenuates high treble depending on filter setting.
We can see lack of fidelity in how it handles SMPTE IMD tests which has 60 Hz+7kHz components:
Pretty sure this a "sour" treble instead of sweet. 😁
How many is that exactly? I have measured and listened to nearly 300 speakers of every kind possible.
you a dummy!! Go measure a dac.
I measure, review and listen to almost every audio product other than subwoofers. I test speakers, headphones, phono stages, preamps, poweramps, headphone amps, cables, audio and power tweaks, DACs, ADC/audio interfaces, DSPs, room EQ, etc. I am nearly 2000 audio products reviewed in just 5 years or so.
You put forward a specific argument and I showed using stereophile that your comments are inconsistent. You have no answer for that?
I am not surprised that i am the only one here Amir do not dare to answer...
Perhaps i am a bit too hard on him with real arguments with real science articles against his main claims...The others attack him on a ground ( his gear specs measures) where no decisive win is possible against him, they gave him " the cable "he need to win easily ...
Why not discussing what hearing a sound quality means in acoustics?
Acoustics rule audio and gear design not Amir measures....
Now read this attentively and you will learn why Hans Van Maanen is not in the ASR team but in science :
I read it. Here is quote at the end:
As the work reported here is partly based on theory, partly based on experience, further experiments should determine if temporal decay can be used as a semi-quantative parameter for the perceived sound quality. It is not within my possibilities to do much experimental work on a scientific basis.
So no controlled testing to see if any of the assumptions in the paper are correct.
Disregarding non-linear distortions, the frequency response between 20 Hz and 20 kHz of a system is very often taken as a major parameter determining the quality of a sound reproduction system.
Disregarding distortion? That is the very topic we are discussing. I am showing measurements of distortion. If that is out of the scope for this paper, why cite it?
This is a $129 headphone amp from an American company whose response keeps going past 100 kHz -- 5 times higher than human hearing.
It is trivial for many audio devices to have such wide bandwidth so it is not at all a test of how good an audio device is by itself.
The temporal decay of high-end analog audio systems is higher than the decay of digital systems in their present version and consequently the temporal "smearing" of the formers is less.
Where is the evidence of this? The paper defines a metric but never shows measurements of such in any audio device, high-end or otherwise. What is the point of that metric if we are just going to assume certain systems are perfect at it?
One of the better ways to compare analog and digital systems is by listening to a good copy of an analog recording on disc and the CD made of the same master tape. If the digital re-processing would not audibly effect the signal, no difference would be perceivable. Yet, on a high-end audio system, using e.g. electrostatic loudspeakers for the midrange and high frequencies, the transparency and clarity of the analog version (half-speed master copies) invariably showed to be better.
Where is example of such content and controlled testing demonstrating that? "Shown" how? Where is his metric for either one of these systems?
Comparing loudspeaker systems is one of the most difficult and tricky aspects of audio. Yet, generally speaking, the loudspeakers sounding best are those with the highest temporal decay. To mention some examples: electrostatics, ribbon tweeters and last-but-not-least ionophones.
"Generally speaking?" What does that mean? Where are the real tests that show this? Controlled testing shows that Martin Logan speakers sounding poor compared to traditional speakers due to resonances and non-flat frequency response. Does he have results otherwise?
Here is a controlled study:
"M" is Martin Logan electrostatic speaker. Here is the preference ratings:
It finished dead last.
High-end audio systems often sound better with analog recordings than with digital ones. This is at first surprising because of the very high quality specifications of digital systems. But the temporal decay is one of the few points at which analog systems beat their digital counterparts and it is thus a clear hint of its importance.
Again, claims made without any evidence and lacking his own metric through any kind of measurement.
Netting out, his metric relies on bandwidth. The more the better. It has little to nothing to do with the discussions we are having. Nor is there any evidence or data that such a metric helps perceived fidelity.
@erik_squires- yes, the humour didn’t go unnoticed 😂 - my thanks was badly timed, I had meant to post it sooner, but didn’t get round to it. It was also perhaps, for the many other posts you have made over the years that I learned from but never acknowledged - audiogon may have its little battles and disagreements, but my journey of listening would never have been made if not for voices like yours and many others. I am a very new audiophile, made wise by the experiences of the many. Thanks again for it all 😉🙏🏻
‘I am not surprised that i am the only one here Amir do not dare to answer...’
don’t flatter yourself, mahgister 😂 - there are many he doesn’t respond to, having to deal with his insecurities just as everyone else! Just summarise your thoughts better, you are an indispensable part of audiogon and would be beloved and not picked on if you only posted the necessary with less repetition - have pity on your readers! ! I trust you not to take offence🙏🏻
I asked myself, “Why does he continue to go on and on…” , what’s motivating him? Most would stop to do something else even after heated words or quickly realize it’s a waste of time….better spent…Listening to Music!
I had a friend who used to punk people (ask uncomfortable questions) just to see their reactions, a form of entertainment.
Some people love attention, and it doesn’t always have to be positive.
Maybe relishing in perceived control over others, playing with hot buttons.
He seems like an intelligent person, why closed off?
Or maybe he’s defining his world as a box. All that is possible must be contained within this box. Built on parameters believes true. So nothing else is beyond the box.
Not looking beyond the box is foolish, that’s how we stop growing. But if this box was built with emotional investment like from fear, may cling to the box for emotional security.. There are many marvelous things beyond the box, maybe a step of courage…
Could be a fear of losing his audience, self worth tied up in his stance…
So no controlled testing to see if any of the assumptions in the paper are correct.
You adressed NO argument in all the articles i proposed, but jumped on one sentence asking for further studies as a proof that this van Maanen analysis is with no value but your Blind test debunking motivated by digital faith and no psychoacoustics value is truth ...
Excuse me, but do you think all people are idiots ?😊
Incredible!
You discarded a perspective well argumented in many papers with one sentence revealing all the complexities of all is needed to do next to confirm EXPERIMENTALLY his ideas with decade of research , which completely contradict yours by the way, as a "proof" of their non value...
How to twist words out of context and deny any value to someone as reputed than him in acoustics...And giving back no answer about his main argument about time decay and the way the ears/brain work... What about that and what have you to say contradicting it because it is ALREADY proven ?
What about all the others papers of research at least three important one you did not even mention about hearing theory and the way the ears/brain work in his own time domain in a non linear way ?
You are a gentleman when you discuss but politeness dont replace good faith ...
The necessary complexities of comparing playback systems in the same conditions about time decay is very complex as Van Maanen suggested and it is in good faith that after explaining the reason why it is such that time decay is so important he had stated ideas way more better than you and completely opposed to your digital bias about high end system...
He will laugh at your absence of hearing theory save double blind test ...
He will laugh at your simplistic few measures test the way you interpreted them psychoacoustically as if the ears brain merely worked in the linear time domain of the Fourier maps with frequencies responses...
You took his sentence expressing his idea honestly about the necessary and needed research and interpreted it as a devaluation of his arguments by the side of your hand...
Anybody with a brain can see it ... A software engineer selling salad versus an acoustician and physicist as well known as Toole explaining why time decay matter and what it means for the non linear ALREADY PROVED working of human ears/brain in his own time domain ...
All your research consist in double blind test debunking of audiophiles for promotion ...
Pityful...
All that to sell ideology devoid of acoustics meanings based of few Fourier tools without being even conscious of the necessary acoustic context analysis required and related to their interpretation..
You acted like last year after many days of discussion when you attacked the integrity of van Maanen as scientist degrading it to the level of being a mere sellers of gear, this year you are more cautious, you take one sentence twisted it and concluded there is no more discussion and nothing to see and nothing to derive from VERY RECENT psychoacoustics research in the last months i quoted ...
No shame?
Only ASR publicity matter because anyway consumers as me are all ignorants...
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
