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.
Then instead of arguing about the "gear" measure we must understand psychoacoustics...No subjectivist here , neither Amir seems to understood what does it means .. They are all too busy to reduce human hearing to their fetish tool or their prefered vacuum tube amp...
You mean like your psychoacoustics fetish?
Oh well. Choose your fetish! What the hey.
How about this. Let’s tie a string between two tin cans and I will sing you a song. The psychoacoustics will explain it all and any old tin can and string will suffice.
However, the way you write and how much you write makes most of us just skip over your posts. You ever notice that practically no one says they read your articles or really replies to what you say?
I spoke for the benefit of ONE or TWO people here who are interested enough by this to really want to understand what is psychoacousyics about...and if i am useful with ONE my posted article i will be justified...
it is better than gangstalking Amir...
Most people dont understand what Amir spoke about anyway they only follow as sheep...
And when they understand the specs they dont understand the psychoacoustic context necessary to interpret them...
Instead of insulting Amir , as most here did, i propose real science...
All my articles are INTERRELATED. from different scientists .. 5 or 6 now...
Then i dont write as you suggested to hear me speaking...because the content is here and speak for itself...
What articles in science are you able to use to deconstruct Amir marketing ?
here another article that can help anybody to understand how our ears/brain work in their own time domain , then Amir measuring ideology crumble to dust because he equate electrical specs measured in Fourier linear domain with truth for human hearing and it is not:
Minimal Bounds on Nonlinearity in Auditory Processing
Jacob N. Oppenheim1, Pavel Isakov1, Marcelo O. Magnasco1
«Time-reversal symmetry breaking is a key feature of nearly all natural sounds, caused by the physics of sound production. While attention has been paid to the response of the auditory system to “natural stimuli,” very few psychophysical tests have been performed. We conduct psychophysical measurements of time-frequency acuity for both “natural” notes (sharp attack, long decay) and time-reversed ones. Our results demonstrate significantly greater precision, arising from enhanced temporal acuity, for such “natural” sounds over both their time-reversed versions and theoretically optimal gaussian pulses, without a corresponding decrease in frequency acuity. These data rule out models of auditory processing that obey a modified “uncertainty principle” between temporal and frequency acuity and suggest the existence of statistical priors for naturalistic stimuli, in the form of sharp-attack, long-decay notes. We are addition ally able to calculate a minimal theoretical bound on the order of the nonlinearity present in auditory
processing. »
I am sure you are correct about what it says. You KNOW that listening rules. Your heart is beautiful.
However, the way you write and how much you write makes most of us just skip over your posts. You ever notice that practically no one says they read your articles or really replies to what you say? It is like you are just talking over and over again to yourself. Of course, we are always just talking to ourself. I try to listen and take to heart everything I say and post and think and feel and do. We don't need to read articles to know how to listen. We listen and know. We don't need to prove to anyone that listening rules. We listen and know. Do I really need to read an article that defends my listening experience? It needs no defense....you listen and know. You do not listen....you do not know.
We are all a projection machine.......we see nothing but our own desires. We create....moment to moment our reality by the quality of our thoughts, words spoken, feelings felt and actions done. Whatever we put out.....becomes our reality. So, be careful what you think and say and feel and do. You are powerful....infinitely so. Think good thoughts. speak beautiful words....feel beautiful feelings and be of loving service.......be a do gooder. We all win when you do.
and on the other hand we have Mahgister defending his position with saying the same thing (almost incomprehensible)
if you do not understand this simple article at the end of my post as the first of 5 explaining how human hearing cannot be reduced to few electrical specs measure of gear ask me a question instead of accusing me to be incomprehensible ...I will answer WITHOUT insinuation as you just did..
Do you think your love mantra just after insulting insinuation toward me instead of question express good faith ?😊
Instead of insinuating about Amir why not proposing real science as i did to demolish his fragile ideology ?
I myself design also like you my own tweaks but it is useless to speak about that to Amir or his zealots...
only science can talk... Psychoacoustics ... Period...
Amir would never submit himself to listening tests in a room of serious tweakos. No way. If they were A/B ing various things and he said he heard no difference then they would all go on the forums and tell everyone that Amir cannot hear. If Amir heard all the differences that everyone else heard and admitted it to them then he would have to go on to his forum and tell everyone that he was wrong all those years. Either scenario would blow his ego to pieces. Therefore he will NEVER EVER let himself be in such a situation. (The last statement is false because he will eventually let go of this false belief....but probably not this lifetime). His ego (false identification) would be creamed....forever.
This whole dance of life is for the soul to grow from false identification to knowing that we are the pure infinite love and joy of existence (our true identity....forever and ever).
On one hand we have Amir defending his position with charts and quotes.....and on the other hand we have Mahgister defending his position with saying the same thing (almost incomprehensible) over and over and asking us to read others thoughts which prove his side of the story. The soul needs no defense. We are....and always will be magnficient. We are already worthy. We don’t need to prove it.
The simple truth is........you need to listen to something to know how it sounds......plain and simple. All other thoughts and actions and posts are noise (distorted truth). You need to feel love and joy to know how it feels...what it is. So, you can all continue making ego noise or enjoy a beautiful song on your stereo and tweak your stereo to make it sound even more beautiful and give you bigger goosebumps. What do you choose?.....to be right or have goosebumps?
Today I am ordering a LifePo4 battery and charger for the Giandel inverter that got shipped yesterday, to make my stereo sound better. Also, will be doubling up my speaker wire to my woofers this weekend and trying a tiny capacitor bypass cap across the inductor on my woofs. After that, I want to order two of those super low impedance toroidal inductors from Jantzen and see what they "sound" like. I WANT BIGGER GOOSEBUMPS. What do you want? What does your soul want? What does your ego want? Which will you follow?
I want you all to feel the infinite love and joy that exists......RIGHT NOW......This is who you are.....and have always been. It is not the two hands beating on each other......it is the two hands in prayer.......the oneness of our being. Blessings.
Because you dont understand how the articles i proposed to explain Amir context and error are above your head you suppose everybody must be like you ?😁
Incredible arrogance accusing me because i propose acoustics articles with explanation to quit ....
Explain to me first why my psychoacoustics articles about the way human hearing works matter not at all to interpret "sound qualities" ... And why electrical specs are enough and all we need to evaluate gear piece... Go...
Why not creating your own thread about Why Amir is right ?
People gangstalk others here as in ASR for the same reason : ignorance... When we have something to say we quote the litterature and we explain why and it is what i did...
Amir nor you did not proposed any other articles contradicting my 5 articles above ... NONE...
Amir play with his graphs but you play with my patience asking me to quit ... I never asked for people able to think rationally to quit...
Try to read the 5 articles and try to understand their relation and you will understand why Amir is wrong with his "science" interpereting his graphs as acoustic truths ...
@mahgister, my friend, Sorry but it all matters. You can talk about human perceivers all day if desired but that is a completely different thing than is being discussed here so it serves to only muddy the waters in this thread. Starting a new thread on that topic specifically would be more appropriate and effective.
The time domain of the electrical tool in Fourier mapping dont equate the time domain of the ears/brain who work non linearly ...Then what we call a sound quality for a human perceiver cannot be reduced to a Fourier map...Especially not to a few set of specs measured from a detached piece of gear ,,,
Then instead of arguing about the "gear" measure we must understand psychoacoustics...No subjectivist here , neither Amir seems to understood what does it means .. They are all too busy to reduce human hearing to their fetish tool or their prefered vacuum tube amp...
Amir promote ideology as science not because his set of measures are useless "per se" but because he proposed them as crux of the matter without even knowing why this is scientifically false...
@mahgister, my friend, Sorry but it all matters. You can talk about human perceivers all day if desired but that is a completely different thing than is being discussed here so it serves to only muddy the waters in this thread. Starting a new thread on that topic specifically would be more appropriate and effective.
The time domain of the electrical tool in Fourier mapping dont equate the time domain of the ears/brain who work non linearly ...Then what we call a sound quality for a human perceiver cannot be reduced to a Fourier map...Especially not to a few set of specs measured from a detached piece of gear ,,,
Then instead of arguing about the "gear" measure we must understand psychoacoustics...No subjectivist here , neither Amir seems to understood what does it means .. They are all too busy to reduce human hearing to their fetish tool or their prefered vacuum tube amp...
Amir promote ideology as science not because his set of measures are useless "per se" but because he proposed them as crux of the matter without even knowing why this is scientifically false...
Read the articles i suggested above ...At least 5 of them ...
😊
IT's not a crime nor a felony to at least try to take a scientific/measured approach to something, especially something like hifi gear that is purely a result of technology done right or wrong to various degrees.
And yes mapman giving specs measure for what they really are NOT out of any scientific psychoacoustics context about human hearing is ideology and marketing not science... I suppose you had taken the time to read the articles of research i posted BEFORE you read marketing Amir about such and such piece of gear... 😊
There is such a thing as "slew rate", a metric with very specific technical meaning in electronic signal processing and the time domain that I would assert clearly does matter, to the extent which it can be accurately measured in practice. Certain op-amps designed to perform well in hifi applications are known for exceptional slew rate measurements.
I’m going to go out on a limb and assert @erik_squires loves to push buttons. Just saying. Not a bad thing in of itself but one should not be surprised at what ensues. IF it takes a bad enough turn, any thread can be removed if deemed to be contrary for the common good of all.
1. Why do people wonder why someone who has a thread started that is critical of both them and their entire website bothers to respond? Someone has a problem here and its not the one being challenged.
2. If someone feels so strongly negative about another’s approach, rather than categorically trash the person (an increasingly common practice these days as more people follow bad examples they are exposed to daily), maybe start your own website that does it better your way and see where the cards fall? Otherwise best to stay away from personal mudslinging if one cares about leaving a good impression. Challenge the specifics of what is being asserted that you disagree with, rather than the person. Offer a better way perhaps. IT's not a crime nor a felony to at least try to take a scientific/measured approach to something, especially something like hifi gear that is purely a result of technology done right or wrong to various degrees.
Whelp... In all the time I've talked to audiophiles the issue of speed keeps coming up, especially with subwoofers. While I understand why audiophiles have a hard time integrating subwoofers to any speaker and room, the speed issue seems to not be a speed issue but a bass mode issue.
Keep your subwoofer small and you don't wake the dragons, so they "sound" faster. they aren't faster, they are less dangerous.
OTOH, what IS real is that high-passing drivers makes many, especially mid-woofers, really shine. The bass, where they have output but at considerable distortion, gets moved to drivers with much lower distortion at the same db/Hz.
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.
(facepalm) Absolutely Wrong!
@mofojo, A low info computer science undergrad (gpa = 2.0)/programmer grunt wouldn’t have had any coursework/tech electives in vibration, shock mechanics, etc. That’s the domain of the engineering phds (aerospace, MechE, etc), typically, i.e. guys who end up in env.test/sim engineering, spend a lot of time with setting up tests, instrumentation, sim models, validation, etc.
Don’t believe a word coming out of a low aptitude computer science grunt. His only job is to write 2 stupid lines of code without understanding anything about what it’s for.
It is a very simple ring down requirement (threshold) you can pose in the time domain and analyze it for any driver. It will be different for different drivers. In a parallel engineering world, it is done all the freaking time when mechanical shocks (impulses, whatever) are performed for testing components with ED shakers, res plates, etc.
There was a saying I am sure not unique to my career or experience - "If you can't dazzle with your brilliance, baffle with bulls***". Pitches to sell a customer on a product contained many charts, graphs, calculations and claimed benefits to designed to create an aura of expertise and authority. An audience could not possibly independently confirm or dispute every piece of data presented as truthful or not - or even applicable. Sound familiar?
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...
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…
‘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🙏🏻
@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 😉🙏🏻
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.
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....
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?
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. 😁
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.
"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.
“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.
@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. 🤣
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 ?😊
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.»
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...
«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.»
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»
@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.
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. »
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.
@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 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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
