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.
Amir you completely distorted what i said and Van Maanen said...
i was not thinking about measurements...
Van Maanen and all the other articles you dare to forgot i used here (5) are about the context of listening psychoacoustics measurement not about specific gear measurements ...
I spoke of the reason why in psychacoustics concerning what we hear and the information we retrieve in any sound phenomenon your measures of the gear so good they can be and i never contest this point, as others here did, so good they could be cannot be used to predict the quality of sound aqnd it is YOUR MARKETING CLAIM ...
Your answer draw the fish beside the side attacking psychacousticals question you dont ADRESS here in all 5 or 6 articles by different scientists all ;pointing in the same direction about hearing : an ecological theory of hearing..With psychoacoustics measurements in each one...
You distorted what Van Maanen said and only adressed him as you adress an amateur reviewer with no measures when he spoke psychoacoustics science consequence for design and hearing music...
not only that you distorted the matter saying your sinad tool is not a Fourier tool. This is an half truth. why ?
All tools in audio directly or indirectly use Fourier mathematics as direct tool or as the only context of interpretation.
It is easier for you to not answer anything but distort and drown the psychoacoustics fishs..
And most people here do not understand anyway, not one comment ...
Three of the articles i cited in psychoacoustics are research of the last year and one from few years ago by an acoustician , which book i own, demonstrated right by 2 new research of this year, i cited above but you never adressed
you did not adressed nothing save distorting Van Maanen suggesting that he is an "amateur"...
Anybody can verify he is not, you are an amateur in acoustics physics and psychoacoustics..
@mahgisterHey magister! I don’t hate Amir, I just don’t like his style and motives. You’re not remotely qualified to assess what I say and mean, and for that matter, never have been.
You, if anyone, are not polite. You explode with anger all the time and when confronted with your behavior, you apologize. You’ve done that many, many times.
you came back answering me without sarcasm this time or insults as one year ago with laoman and few others... These small gang harasseed me this year with no post content in many threads..
They go and come back...
it is true i answered their harassment instead of staying mute...
I apologize when i am wrong...i did not apologize to them...
They never apologize for their sarcasms..
Why did i adressed you here and during a year now if not politely and i even congratulate you nonoise?
Who put a non sensical sarcasm here adressing me like one year ago about a rational discussion here suggesting two chikens cacklings : Amir and me ?
i spoke of "hate" when people are unable to apologize, unable to forgot past discussions, and go on gangstalking one and going back again and again...
Then i am not patient because i answer about what you forgot easily : harassments, sarcasms, no arguments save AD HOMINEM attack by 3 or 4 people you know well ...
People should get their facts straight before posting.
Speaking as a professional engineer now for almost a good 40 years, like him or not, right or wrong, Amir is clearly an experienced engineer and that is what he is selling.
Engineering is based on math and science. That’s how our hifi gear gets produced and no two pieces are exactly the same in that regard. So I think it is often a challenge for many to understand how engineers must think and operate in order to be successful.
Some engineers can lose that mold and adapt to being able to communicate better with others who do not have that background. Others not so much. Communication is a key ingredient in pretty much everything...including engineering. It’s perhaps the main ingredient in successful marketing including of one’s engineering accomplishments. People need to speak a common language to communicate effectively. That’s hard and something we all probably need to work on, including many engineers like myself and others I work with. The best engineers seldom make for the best marketing reps. Two different mindsets and ways of communicating in order to be successful.
Even the best engineers make mistakes and will work to correct them. The very best engineers I’ve worked with know what they do not know as well as what they do and operate accordingly.
Last year Amir rejected from the back of his hand the competence and articles of Van Maanen i used to make my point...
Today he did the same without adressing m 5 reference articles above from different scientists about the context in which ANY set of measures must be interpreted in psychoacoustics. Instead he alleged that Van Maanen made no measurements about what he spoke about. Last year he insinuated that it is only a designer selling his gear.😊
When we measure the gear piece specs to falsify or verify the design piece we do a good job; but if we extrapolate this measures as a prediction about good sound out of any psychoacoustics context of evaluation we go to far.
van Maanen is also a designer and use his psychoacoustics knowledge in his own design.
Amir measure specs of piece of gear, which he never designed himself, then he does not use as ground real psychoacoustics parameters based on an explicit hearing theory, save blind test to debunk audiophiles listener; then how Amir could promote as truth his set of verification claiming for it a guarantee of good sound experience ? he did this as a marketing of his site tools not as science. He is not Van Maanen. 😊
Here is a description of who is the physicist Van Maanen:
«Hans van Maanen’s work has significantly influenced modern audio technology, particularly in the areas of high-resolution audio (HRA) and high-end audio (HEA) systems. His research and findings have shaped the understanding and development of audio technologies aimed at achieving accurate and perceptually transparent sound reproduction.
Temporal Coherence and Audibility
Van Maanen has conducted extensive research and listening tests on the audibility of high frequencies (e.g., 15kHz) and the importance of temporal coherence in audio reproduction. His work emphasizes the need for accurate temporal and spectral reproduction to faithfully convey the nuances and details of recorded audio signals as perceived by the human auditory system.
Objective Measurements and Psychoacoustic Confirmations
Van Maanen advocates for the use of objective measurements and psychoacoustic confirmations to evaluate the performance of audio systems. He emphasizes the importance of aligning technical specifications with perceptual aspects, ensuring that advancements in audio technology translate into tangible improvements in the listening experience.
Requirements for High-Resolution Audio Systems
Van Maanen has published papers outlining the requirements for loudspeakers and headphones in the "High Resolution Audio" era. His work highlights the need for accurate temporal and spectral reproduction, low distortion, and extended frequency response to fully realize the potential of high-resolution audio formats.
Influence on Audio Industry and Standards
Through his research, publications, and participation in industry events and conferences, van Maanen’s work has influenced the development of audio technologies and standards. His insights have shaped the understanding of perceptual aspects of sound reproduction and have guided the design and implementation of high-end audio systems.In summary, Hans van Maanen’s pioneering work on temporal coherence, audibility of high frequencies, and the perceptual aspects of sound reproduction has significantly influenced modern audio technology, particularly in the realm of high-resolution and high-end audio systems.His emphasis on objective measurements, psychoacoustic confirmations, and aligning technical specifications with human perception has shaped the industry’s approach to achieving transparent and faithful audio reproduction.»
not only that you distorted the matter saying your sinad tool is not a Fourier tool. This is an half truth. why ?
It is the full truth. Fourier transform takes a time domain signal and converts to fundamental sine waves that created it. This is a proven mathematical relationship. Just like Pythagorean formula. It is not subject to debate. And no experiment whatsoever has disproven it. Again, it is a mathematical proof ("theorem").
There is an observation with respect to such a transform that follows the same in quantum mechanics called Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It says that the more you know about a particles momentum, the less you know about its position and vice versa. The comparable version for Fourier transform is that to get more accuracy in frequency domain, the less you know about its timing and vice versa. Here is a nice video explaining all of this briefly:
The research you put forward says that our hearing system due to its non-linearities, doesn't follow this relationship. That when we trade off timing resolution vs frequency, they don't follow a 1:1 relationship. But this has no bearing whatsoever on audio measurements! In audio measurements, we have a known, usually simple input signal. At no time are we interested in its characteristics with respect to time domain. What we want to know is when it goes into our audio system, does it create noise and distortion that is NOT in the audio signal that was input.
Take my dashboard for example:
On the left is a simple sine wave. In a perfect system, its fourier transform would produce a single spike (on the right) at its frequency and that would be it. Above is not an ideal system so we see harmonic distortion and noise.
The uncertainty principle comes into play in that I had to select large enough number of audio samples to give us the resolution we need on the right to clearly see the spurious tones created by the non-linearities of device under test. For my dashboard, I use 32,000 samples.
It is true then that you don't know where in those 32,000 samples that distortion profile exist from the fourier transform. But you do know that because the above sine wave never changes! It goes on forever producing a single tone at 1 kHz.
I demonstrate all of this in my view on FFT:
Because the number of samples I use is programable, the fourier transforms I show hugely outperform human ear! To wit, I can measure the frequency components of a signal to less than 1 Hz if I want. Human ear has far lower resolution, expressed as ERB:
At 10 KHz, our hearing's frequency discrimination is as poor as 1000 Hz!
All tools in audio directly or indirectly use Fourier mathematics as direct tool or as the only context of interpretation.
No, no, no. Some of the measurements I perform have been around for nearly a century! Way before we have had any audio analyzer had any computing ability to produce fourier transform. You can go on ebay and buy analog THD+N analyzers such as this:
My analyzer produces a more accurate version of these measurements but no fourier analysis is used, and even if it had, it would not matter per my explanation above.
You can take to the bank that it has power supply noise and distortion. There is no uncertainty about that.
Finally, our knowledge of psychoacoustics is strongly based on actual human listening tests. Whatever the ear+brain can do, is already embedded in that science. The experiment you keep citing does not change any of that.
So please, for love of everyone, don't keep repeating what you have been saying about measurements, how they work and their use of fourier transform, or not.
One one hand we have the untruth of Amir stating that all amps, preamps and DACs that measure a certain way are totally transparent and that all wires sound the same and that power cords, fuses, footers, getting cables off the floor, my tweako things, etc.....are totally nonesense (all because he refuses to listen to these things).........and on the other hand we have the Mahgister with his constant rants that no one cares about. You guys should take your act over to Audio Asylum.......he he.
What is missing is happiness. Happiness is our true and real state of being. Basically, we mind f..k ourselves into thinking we are something else and not deserving of happiness......so we try to prove our worth....or our unworth. All false identities are just that.....false. When you just sit still and quiet the mind and open the heart.....guess what happens?.....you become peaceful and happy.
Whatever you think, say, feel and do every second creates your next reality....and all your realities....and everyones reality. We are powerful.....and we can create as much happiness as we want. But being addicted to our mind and our righteousness does not bring happiness......only separation.and despair. When Amir and Mahgister are posting they are not in Bliss (our true nature)....at least, that is my guess. However, they could feel their bliss and then write words that reflect their true nature. Then we would all benefit. I try and write from bliss. I am getting better at it. Perfection takes forever.......How much more love and bliss can you or I feel and share? What are you doing on this forum.....are you looking to increase your love and bliss.....or are you here to affirm your ego beliefs? Are you here to be of REAL service? For when you feel more and more love and joy....you want EVERYONE to join in.........like Frampton said....."Do you feel like I do?" I want to feel like the Sun.....like the Moon......like eternal lovers.....like a new born baby......like a child or pet playing......like a dancer in total ecstacy.......I want everyone to feel this way. What do you want?
While standing, imagine a two foot wide circle in front of you on the ground. Imagine the quality you want to embody and mentally put it into that circle....now step into the circle and feel that quality and become that quality. This is ALL there is to creation. We are that powerful. It has nothing to do with anyone else.....what they think or say or do. YOU CREATE YOUR OWN REALITY.......moment to moment. So step into conscious circles and bubbles every moment you can remember and become more and more love and joy.......It is a fun dance......and we can all join in.
He is not banned from ASR. A number of others have started to measure equipment and they do so on ASR. And I routinely promote their content as long as it is not for monetization.
Only part of the story. Erin may not be banned currently. He was banned from ASR in the recent past. After that ban was put in place, Amir defended himself by claiming he warned Erin multiple times but allowed violations to continue for almost a year. Erin defended himself as "monetization" links were added by others posting Erin's reviews - a situation beyond his control.
Why would violation of a core principle of the ASR code of conduct be allowed to continue for so long? Appears to be selective rule enforcement to support another agenda. Half truths and a lack of full transparency are not the hallmarks of an honest broker.
Very few more positive emotions than shame and guilt. Hopefully we rarely feel these but they are a wonderful way of keeping ourselves in check. Happiness is a wonderful state of being but it must be earned. To be in a constant state of happiness requires a special type of person that is able to recognize the significance of humanity as well as the pitfalls of self-interest. Our true nature is one in which how we feel varies from day to day and is situational.
Happiness does not have to be earned. It is who we are. We are naturally happy when we stop mind fuc.... ourselves. It is all in our beief systems. Change your beliefs and change your life. If your parents held you as eternal love and bliss then you would be happy all the time. Your parents thought they were "humans" and somewhat flawed and non deserving. They then passed their "attitudes" and perspective on to you. This is what the whole earth experience is for. We get programmed to think we are less than infinite and we slowly remember our divinity.....the fact that we we were and are...always whole and complete.
You do not have to vary in emotional waves with the circumstances of life. You can feel any way you want to.....regardless of the situation. You can sit at a standstill in your car because they are working on the road....or there is an accident and you can either moan and bitch or you can sing and dance. It is up to you. You can celebrate loosing a close super bowl.....you can dance in ecstacy when you loose. What, you say? We are addicted to our emotions. We think we have to go up and down and feel good when things go "right" and feel bad when things go "wrong"......There is NO WRONG......there is just the WAY IT IS in this moment. So, enlightenment is just digging this very moment....no matter what it presents. Easy to talk about and takes an eternity to embody. So simple....yet, so hard.
That is why it is called spiritual practice. You don’t get good at something by doing it once in a while. You eventually realize that every moment is a test.....to see how loving and accepting of this moment you are. And you see......you really have no choice.....he he. You programmed this entire life as a test. You can pass the tests or not. You can celebrate your growth or bemoan your life. You will walk down the hall.....but how you walk down the hall is up to you. You can hit your head on the walls or dance and sing and skip along. That is what spiritual practice is. The practice of enjoyment. The more you practice then the more you experience it.....no matter what the circumstance.
Eventually, you don’t get up in the morning and think "I need to do my spiritual practice".........for the practice has become embodied......you are now living the truth....moment to moment. We have all experienced moments that transcend time and space.....that are truly miraculous. I have been with a few people who live in the eternal miracle.....every moment. It is a blessing just to be with them and feel that extremely high vibration......the vibration of our true nature......eternal, infinite love and joy.
Erin defended himself as "monetization" links were added by others posting Erin's reviews - a situation beyond his control.
That's false. From start, Erin was pleading with ASR members for donations and repeatedly so. That link for donation remains even today. If he had post that here, he would have been banned immediately. Ditto for any other forum. Yet we gave him room to grow until such pleadings got too much so he was banned. When he went through his painful divorce, almost two years ago, I removed the ban so he could interact with the membership and that continues to this day.
We probably have two dozen industry reviewers on ASR. None have posted reviews asking for donations on ASR. This is the level of conduct that is expected and implicitly understood.
Above should clearly demonstrate that any accusations of competition, or bad intentions on my part is patently false.
Why would violation of a core principle of the ASR code of conduct be allowed to continue for so long?
Again, forums like this would have disallowed such monetized links but we have chosen to allow members to link to other reviews even if they are monetized. The line is drawn however at self promotion.
Appears to be selective rule enforcement to support another agenda. Half truths and a lack of full transparency are not the hallmarks of an honest broker.
What you are posting is at a minimum uninformed and at worst, the half-truth you complain about.
A rules violation, yet Erin is not banned currently.
Again, forums like this would have disallowed such monetized links but we have chosen to allow members to link to other reviews even if they are monetized. The line is drawn however at self promotion.
You are so generous to allow long term rules violations to allow growth. As noted, selective rules enforcement. And of course your response to this situation is constructed to paint you in the best possible light. Must be exhausting talking out of both sides of your mouth.
" I removed the ban "
So you lied, Amir. You did ban him. The fact that you re instated his membership later is irrelevant. By the way, it was not your idea to support Erin regrading the recent review; some of your minions suggested it and you jumped on board.
"No, it was you who claimed I had banned my competition. I corrected you by stating that is not banned, hence nullifying your claim. "
Amir, you are speaking with a forked tongue. You banned him. Later you unbanned him, but he was still banned for a period of time.
If Erin was asking ASR members for donations I dont blame Amir for banning him.
Yes, that is correct if the situation were that simple. Refer to Amir's actions.
Amir allows Erin to violate rules for nearly a year. Amir looks good for helping Erin through a tough patch. Is that a courtesy that would/will be extended to anyone in a similar situation? A rule is not a rule when selectively enforced.
Amir finally bans Erin. Again, he looks goods for allowing Erin to grow - but finally has to enforce ASR rules to look good to ASR members.
Amir next allows Erin to return. Another nice guy move to polish the Amir image.
Another piece of data. Erin posted a video hours after his ban, clearly upset. He said nothing about Amir communicating non enforcement of the ASR monetization rule to allow growth. Nothing Erin stated in that video aligns with Amir's version. That video quickly disappeared.
Amir can continue to prevaricate to his hearts content. The more he does so, the deeper the hole he digs.
not only that you distorted the matter saying your sinad tool is not a Fourier tool. This is an half truth. why ?
It is the full truth. Fourier transform takes a time domain signal and converts to fundamental sine waves that created it. This is a proven mathematical relationship. Just like Pythagorean formula. It is not subject to debate. And no experiment whatsoever has disproven it. Again, it is a mathematical proof ("theorem").
it is useless arguing with you...
the context of interpretation of all designed gear and all tools is the Fourier context...
it is evident that your voltmeter or your sinad dont need Fourier transform as a tool as such to be used but interpretating the results will be in the Fourier context guess why ?
hearing theory is done in the Fourier context...
you deliberately distorted my posts context : hearing theory and the Fourier context for the design of gear...
The research you put forward says that our hearing system due to its non-linearities, doesn’t follow this relationship. That when we trade off timing resolution vs frequency, they don’t follow a 1:1 relationship. But this has no bearing whatsoever on audio measurements!
Another distortion about Van Maanen and my posts :
It is evident for anybody that your audio measurements are aimed at the gear specs verification!
This is what i claimed also and it is why i explained with 6 articles above that because the brain work in his own time domain and in a non linear way any designer must think about the conditions necessary to apply the Fourier theory BEFORE designing a piece of gear...And we dont have a complete and perfect hearing theory , and what is revealed in the articles above is the ears/brain work in a way we do not understand yet to extract acoustic information...
This immediately imply that your gear measures cannot be translated in direct prediction about sound quality perception... As you falsely suggest to all ...
you are really a marketting dude not a scientist at all... you prove it to all here with your distortion of facts...
At 10 KHz, our hearing's frequency discrimination is as poor as 1000 Hz!
All tools in audio directly or indirectly use Fourier mathematics as direct tool or as the only context of interpretation.
No, no, no. Some of the measurements I perform have been around for nearly a century! Way before we have had any audio analyzer had any computing ability to produce fourier transform. You can go on ebay and buy analog THD+N analyzers such as this:
«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.»
You use a temporary conclusion about our set of hearing measures as we know it now and the gear design specs which you measure again and equate them WHICH IS A FALSE EQUATION, and use this measures to PREDICT sound qualities..
Sound qualities suppose a listener...
A room....
Complementary piece of gear...
Then a tube amplifier cannot be a bad sound qualities only because you decide that your measures set will replace hearing theory and even a specific listener biases...
You are not an audio designer proposing a new amp or new speakers better designed to suit human hearing as a TOP designer understand them, as Van Maanen for exemple, you are a marketer of a methodology to verify gear specs thats all ...
«Signal analysis for evaluating audio fidelity has 2 broad domains: Frequency (spectral) and time (temporal). To focus on only one of these is like approaching audio assessment with only half a brain. A spectrum analyzer focuses on only the first and is not best suited for studying impulse response and transients4, which are influential in defining instrumental timbre. Also Fourier representations cannot properly describe transfer functions of non-linear and non-time-invariant
systems.»
Milind N. Kunchur, Ph.D., APS Fellow
Once this is said...
And i will cite you now :
The research you put forward says that our hearing system due to its non-linearities, doesn’t follow this relationship. That when we trade off timing resolution vs frequency, they don’t follow a 1:1 relationship. But this has no bearing whatsoever on audio measurements! In audio measurements, we have a known, usually simple input signal. At no time are we interested in its characteristics with respect to time domain. What we want to know is when it goes into our audio system, does it create noise and distortion that is NOT in the audio signal that was input.
Then your measurements had nothing to do with subjective hearing experience of a consumers ...Because they had nothing to do with hearing and hearing theory...
Your marketing distortion of truth come when you claim that a tube amplifier is "noisy" as defined by your measures not by hearing experiments and then you falsely conclude that those liking it are deluded and proved wrong by your measures, which measures had nothing to do with the experience of timbre as suggested by the text of Kunchur i quoted above when we listen non steady state signals called music ..
Then go on measuring the gear specs but stop saying you can predict what will sound good for us all ... claiming the opposite is not science it is the opposite of science ...
«A lot of the controversy surrounding high-end and
high-resolution audio arises because most of the
community is unaware of many basic and essential facts
about human hearing. From the published literature, it
appears that even some auditory-temporal-resolution
research studies are unaware of the synchronous AND
gating processes taking place in the octopus neurons of the
PVCN and their incorporation as an attack-assessment step
in pattern-recognition in the VNLL.»
Also all the others to various degrees even if I find some way more useful than others.
Moderators of each site get to decide what goes and what does not FBOFW and then the cards will fall where they will.
It’s a free country and people can say what they want good or bad (at least for the most part so far) but it is a bad habit for folks to want to shoot down everything in this world that they happen to take some issue with. Censorship is bad.
Diversity is the reality in this world and is what makes the world go round whether any one person or group happens to think so or not. The internet confirms that for all no matter where you might actually live.
Nothing is perfect! Take it all for what it’s worth. If its worth nothing to you, so be it. If someone or something is doing you actual harm, then its a different story.
It’s pretty simple. If you don’t like ASR, don’t go there.
Same for this site.
I like both. Ying and yang.
It is not the question...
Anybody with a brain appreciate ASR... Some here unable to answer rationally and prove him wrong insult him. I have a brain and i dont need to insult him but can explain why he is wrong as i did here with many science articles...
I even thanked Amir multiple times for his work abvout specs verification ..
The question is : is the Amir claims about his set of measures enough to predict sound hearing qualities experience ?
Just the mention of ASR is a trigger here because so many do not agree with Amir's measurement based conclusions. They also seem to resent that he administers his own website and runs it as he desires. The fact that none of the detractors have taken the time to start and maintain their own websites, or to perform the fastidious testing on so many products as Amir, doesn't keep them from complaining.
I agree that measurements don't seem to tell the whole story wrt to the sound of audio gear, and what people like to listen to. I have five DACs currently and the excellent measuring (per JA at S'phile) Benchmark is my least favorite to listen to. However, what I don't understand is why people can't take the measurements and opinions on ASR as information only, the same as they would any other opinions they read on the web, or simply stop reading the ASR website if they don't like it. Can it be any worse than the constant barrage of impassioned, pseudo-scientific, marketing rhetoric audiophiles are constantly subjected to about the next greatest tweak or product?
One thing I notice about Amir is that he makes the effort and takes the time to provide an earnest answer to questions people bring up about his methods and conclusions, whether they agree with him or not.
There was a post that mentioned me which I think was removed. Hard to tell since this thread is scrolling by so fast.
Yes, this thread has gone far off topic so I'm no longer following it, but OTOH, the energy and points people want to make related to ASR seem to have a lot of interest and energy so I'm not getting in the way of them.
When the last person leaves please check the toilet isn't running and the lights are off. Thanks.
Real Test and Measurement Engineers would call audio industry standards rudimentary and lacking rigorous correlation. Maybe that is good enough for audio. However, ASR and Amir routinely claim the scientific, accurate, unquestionable final authority high ground.
He is no such authority.
Here’s a recent example of PS Audio moving on track to post all AP measurements for all their products (Schiit Audio was the first to do this after battling this lousy creature).
The sooner all these companies start providing this information to the masses, the sooner this lousy creature sitting in its garage with a AP kit will be forced into irrelevance, forced to crawl back under its rock.
Moral of the story is....If you don’t come out swinging as the expert of what you are and what you produce, any lousy creature sitting in its garage will claim to be the expert of you. PS Audio is learning it the hard way.
P.S. While it’s real nice of McGowan to offer the questioner a job, the questioner is a business owner himself with a lot more employees to take care of than PS Audio. Hence, he can’t be working for PS Audio! 😁
In simple word for those who will not read about acoustics and the articles above quoted...
We cannot as Amir has done, discarded the "distortion" levels of a tube amplifier as pure noise in all case when we spoke about any tube amplifiers.And we cannot put all S.S. design as better . This is simplistic.
Why ?
The concept of timbre in acoustics is not an unwanted "color" added to a graph of frequencies and duration which ask to be eliminated .
It is a fundamental concept in acoustics that we do not yet fully understand especially when using acoustic theories that are not rooted in the natural context of hearing.
Eliminating distortion in gear design is necessary but the better the design the better he do not interfere with human hearing conditions about "timbre" quality experience and the better he makes the "timbre" perception a qualitative experience.This cannot be predicted as Amir claim only by measuring few specs of the design. Van Maanen has wrote article about distortion and about the physical and acoustics conditions necessary to satisfy the Fourier conditions for the human ears in gear design .
For this any audio design must satisfy the conditions which are described in fundamental psychoacoustics : our ears/brain decode sound using a symmetry breaking mechanism working in his own time domain in a non linear way. it is working in such a way that our ears/brain beat the Fourier uncertainty principle limits about the acoustic amount of processing information. it is the source of our human hyperacuity. ( which symmetry breaking express our evolutive trained biases toward natural sounds perception )
All the articles I have used demonstrate this. Amir ignores this and persists in declaring, contrary to common sense and science, that his measurements and they alone are sufficient to predict sound quality.
«Power amplifiers are an essential part in the sound reproduction chain. And although semiconductor amplifiers have been around for over 60 years, there is still a lot of development going on. Nowadays, the distortion figures of high-end power amplifiers are very impressive (e.g. < 0.001% harmonic distortion) and easily outshine those of microphones and loudspeakers. Yet, when it comes to listening, differences are noticed between amplifiers and their distortions can be heard in spite of the use of loudspeakers with much higher distortion figures. In this note I will discuss some aspects which play a role in this –at first sight incomprehensible- phenomenon, albeit that I will address a part of the puzzle, not all noticeable differences can be explained by the points I will bring up, partly
because I don’t know everything there is to know and partly because not all causes have yet been identified, I think. So please see this as a contribution to the discussion, not as the final word on it.
Therefore, I welcome contributions of others as “two know more than one”, as an age-old Dutch expression says. One of the basic problems is that we try to “catch” distortion in a single number. But
one could pose the question whether this is feasible. To take a simple example: would the audible effect of say 1% harmonic distortion of only the second harmonic be just as noticeable or annoying as 0.1% of harmonic distortion of each of the second to the eleventh harmonic? Or be equivalent to 1% harmonic distortion of the tenth harmonic only? I don’t know the answer (because I never tried such a comparison as it is rather hard to do) but there is another example: valve (tube) amplifiers are often highly rated for their musical quality,
even though their distortion figures are horrible, compared to those of semiconductor amplifiers. Could there be a similarity between loudspeaker properties and valve amplifiers, distortion wise? Well, there is: both produce mostly lower harmonics (up to the fifth) with virtually no harmonics above that as is illustrated in fig. 1. Semiconductor amplifiers, however, tend to generate harmonics up to very high numbers as can be seen in fig. 2. In literature, there is agreement that our hearing tends to mask frequencies close(r) to the
exciting tone than those further away. Or, in other words, the lower harmonics are easily masked by the exciting tone whereas the high harmonics are not, as is shown in fig. 3. On top
of that most mechanical musical instruments generate only harmonics up to the fifth of the basic frequency, so distortion products introduce only a small change in the ratio of the harmonics, usually less than is caused by the linear distortion of loudspeakers. So the disSo it is not
really surprising that components which generate only lower harmonics are not so much experienced as annoying than components which generate more higher harmonics, even at a lower level. So the distortion figure of an amplifier is in itself of little use.A spectral specification would be more useful, but is rarely given.
...............................................
for the rest of the article go to the adress above
You, if anyone, are not polite. You explode with anger all the time and when confronted with your behavior, you apologize. You've done that many, many times.
As for infestation of threads, that seems to be your forte. You've done it for years. Practically everything you've said in this thread, you've brought up before to the point of boring the heck out of members. You go off on your tangents demanding that others must respond and when one or two do respond, you claim vindication and insult other members when they complain of your tactic of highjacking a thread.
You post multiple times in a row but no one answers and it spoils the thread and intention of those who want to participate. Like others have already said, they (we) just pass over what you write hoping you lose interest (at least I do).
If you're of the mind, why don't you go over to ASR and start posting there and let us know how that goes.
By the way, if you really think members here are "gangstalking" you, reflect for a moment as to why and you'll discover it is because of you and your manner.
All the best,
Nonoise
@mahgister, You could move over to ASR, but i highly doubt they would be as open minded or patient with you. It might end quite rough for you there.
Do the following exercise. Scan your own posts spanning the past 6 months and examine the sheer magnitude/number of times you've repeated the same lines (over and over) in every thread attempting to discuss different topics. Does that seem "normal" to you, clinically speaking? Imagine for a moment that it was someone else doing it (because your defense for yourself would be coming in pronto). Would you consider that "normal"?
I would suggest that you visit with a healthcare professional, especially one who specializes in mental health and maybe say something along the lines of, "Hey doc, i think my mind gets caught in repeat loops all day". Thereafter, he could further examine you and provide a diagnosis/treatment. There are various conditions that respond well to certain types of medication. Good luck.
Insulting people posting content , articles and rational arguments, will not do...
I dont like that anywhere...
But instead of criticizing my arguments with the many articles i posted you attack me...
pathetic!
by the way i posted in classical music thread and in jazz thread and in thread about acoustics and music very different content ...
By contrast you send few posts suggesting i am "nut"...
Find a post of me where i attack someone which had never harass me as you just did for the second time ?
I am interested by music and acoustic and i intent to spoke about that here ...
In the 6 articles i quoted here about very new acoustics discoveries about hearing you did not dare to read, point to me the loop...
*I wait ...
As a test of your understanding if my posts are only simple loop from a nut brain, explain to me what means for you dude "an ecological theory of hearing perception "...
if what i spoke is only non sense i think it will take you few second to point toward his meaninglessness?
Go i wait instead of writing two insulting paragraph...
i will see if you understand or if you are here to throw insults...
Perhaps you read too much time the word "acoustics" in my post and your brain concluded that it was a loop ?
Answer rationally now, why an ecological theory of hearing matter for audio ? or did not matter...
And explain to us why Amir is not in a loop predicting sound qualities from his narrow set of measures...
Answer instead of insults or stay mute as the perfect brain you claim you are with no noise inside ....😊
After all this set of insults prove to us that you are able to think by yourself...
In the 6 articles i quoted here about very new acoustics discoveries about hearing you did not dare to read, point to me the loop...
You have 125 posts on this thread alone, most within the last month. In the last year you've referenced Van Maanen 64x. This is the very definition of a loop.
@mahgisterI've read most of this literature, including the new (for me) Kunchur paper (his previous paper on cables is neither relevant nor well-designed). I'm not certain, however, as to how to parse your long digressions on these topics.
For instance, if we can measure noise and distortion in audio equipment, it is valuable to reduce or eliminate it in the reproduction chain regardless of whether there are potentially complex heterodyning/non-linear ultrasonic interactions or whether hearing capabilities can be shown to have greater sensitivity than assessable via Fourier analysis.
If there is an additional claim that perhaps cables and other tweaks that are measurably irrelevant to the signal reproduction can actually be heard, it is still in the best interest of general epistemic humility to remain skeptical until such measurements/ABX hearing results (with the LTM/STM refractory suggestions in Kunchur maybe) can be found.
So, in the meantime, we just get great measurements from ASR and can merely speculate that something might be missing, not that it demonstrably is missing.
So the distortion figure of an amplifier is in itself of little use.A spectral specification would be more useful, but is rarely given.
I give that in every dashboard view of audio electronics I test. This is the response of a $10,000 Bricasti DAC:
Now you can apply the very analysis he is performing with respect to power of harmonics. Without my measurements, you would have no idea. Therefore, my work is sanctioned by him.
I think Amir/ASR does an EXCELLENT job of measuring and evaluating all sorts of audio equipment. Another reviewer who does excellent work is Erin’s Audio Corner. I trust reviewers who do actual measurements. Although such measurements are not the last word they are a good baseline. Everyone’s ears and listening rooms are different but those baseline measurements can give you an idea of what to expect. Nothing is perfect but who performs reviews better than Amir or Erin?
The reviewers I don’t like are the guys on YouTube that only give opinions on what they hear. One of those reviewers actually asks his wife’s opinion. That type of review is useless to me.
I think Amir knows how to use his equipment. What it means is another thing. Baseline measurements tell you practically nothing about how something sounds. According to Amir.....all amps sound the same as long as they meet his SINAD number.....same with DACS, preamps and cables. Nothing could be further from the truth. Basic SINAD and the spectral of distortions are just a couple of a million things in a product that affect the sound. I have been doing serious listening tests to passive and active parts since the mid 70s. I was one of the first people to do straight wire bypass tests on wire.....back in the 70s as well. No, no wire passed the test. All jacks, wire, solder, damping, shielding, capacitors, resistors, switches, relays, fuses. power cords, etc to infinity ALL change the sound of an amp....and NONE of the things I just mentioned CAN be measured.....NONE. It is so juvenile and simplistic to think that a certain distortion measurement number means a certain pure sound. Only the deaf or stubborn would claim such. You have to listen to know how something sounds.....this is the simple truth. Those that follow Amir are and were already disposed to cheapness, a super "scientific bent"....and cynicsm about the high prices of some audio gear. Amir is their savior. He claims he KNOWS.....but he is ignorant of the truth. Look at the reviewers/listeners who listen.....they all move on from the Topping DACs......dry, two dimensional and uninvolving......not REAL...and I am not talking tube colorations needed......just a more natural sound.....like real instruments in real space......goosebump city.
Does not mean you cannot get good sound out of a Topping stack and generic cords.......yes, the lowest levels of gear today are really good. But if you want to hear what brand of string is on the guitar, and you want to have goosebumps higher than Everest......you will need to go higher than SINAD measurements can take you.....and to do that.....you must listen.
If there are all kinds of sonic properties that can't be measured according to these well-researched and standardized methodologies, how is it that engineers are able to formulate and use science/engineering to design the components in the first place? Do they just combine metals together and listen to them until they are happy? Do they just hope that they can get the right mix of tubes and opamps?
Your ideas don't seem very well thought through.
Every engineer is at some level applying science and engineering to the technologies they work on. In civil engineering they measure the soil properties to identify the correct foundation and footings. In ME they measure the elasticity of materials (like speaker cones). In EE we measure the transfer functions of systems and characterize noise and distortion properties and channel capacity and signal attentuation.
How is it that consumers of these engineered products have developed a mythic idea of how it all works? Measurements are core to engineering audio products. The opposite is faith mixed with marketing signals, which is fine for those who are so committed, but is not how the actual products get created.
I have yet to see anyone here posit that measurements aren't used in constructing gear. In fact, they go to great lengths saying they are. What they take issue is with measurements taken after the product is complete as the sole arbiter that it sounds good or bad.
Measurements can show where something is amiss but they also confound when they measure odd or off at certain things but still sound wonderful, just as things that measure great can sound sterile, shrill, flat and two dimensional. Go figure.
OK, so the engineer/designer has used measurements and therefore understands the sonic characteristics of the device, but you are emphasizing that after it is complete some people have preferences about the different measured outputs? That's not the same as saying that there are things that aren't measurable, which many suggest above, or that there are secret measurements from special pixie dust that are some kind of hidden knowledge.
All it means is that people have...preferences, like enjoying the distortion signatures of tube amps because that is what they are used to. If, however, we value high fidelity to the original recorded music, then we know very well that removing noise and distortion (which are measurable) results in close approximation to the original.
It's really very odd to argue passionately and affirmatively about something that just amounts to preferences, hopes, pleasurable mystifications, deepenings, and so on. Just ignore ASR if it doesn't add value to your hobby. I value good engineering and high fidelity, but the glow of tube amps is really neat too. It doesn't bother me that some folks like to listen to high distorting amps or think cables make much of a difference, but there is a kind of gradualistic erosion of these myths that forums like ASR help to promote, which is good for me in helping avoid crap products!
Print " In the 6 articles i quoted here about very new acoustics discoveries about hearing you did not dare to read, point to me the loop...blah blah blah, Hans Van Maanen blah blah "
I left out preferences in listening pleasure as well as the rooms gear is listened to, it being so obvious that I felt it need not be mentioned.
This reminds me of a review Ron did over on New Record Day about (I think it was) a Dali speaker. His measurements showed a rather large frequency spike around 12 or 15 KHz that didn't manifest itself as shrill, etched or zingy. He spoke with Dali about it and it was designed in. He found that it had lots of air, ambience and detail without the negatives. The speaker had a lively and not fatiguing quality that made listening a pleasure.
I find it odd that many who are into measurements cite the Harmon/Toole studies about preferences that were pleasing to the general and uninitiated public, resulting in that V curve which is not all that accurate and faithful to the original that's held up as something to aim for. So which is it? Accuracy or pleasure?
The answer is it has to be both. Strict accuracy leaves out the variables we haven't nailed down as of yet, small and elusive they may be and to dismiss it as mysticisms and deepenings smacks too much of hubris for my liking.
Ok, so we agree that there are preferences and those preferences may not correspond to the Harman curve, for instance, which is an aggregate measure of preference. In DACs and amps the notion that there is a preference for distortion artifacts is simply at odds with valuing accurate reproduction, however. I'm fine with that. Folks be free, always, but I still have no clear idea why anyone gets bent about basic accurate engineering that targets fidelity or make astonishing claims without evidence about cables or power conditioners?
We do have a disconnect with scientific reality that is itself hubristic because it strays from (repeating myself) epistemic humility by suggesting all these listening preferences supervene on basic measurable facts about music reproduction.
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.
