My two cents as the designer behind the speakers mentioned in this thread: neutrality is nothing but an objective criteria. It is a fact which can be found out, and no opinion or a feel.
Neutrality can be defined very simple by the difference between what goes inside of the speaker and what comes out of it. It can be measured in many complex ways. The most famous and also most simple one to understand is the 'frequency response', but it does not tell the whole story of a speaker at all - otherwise all speakers with a flat FRQ would do sound the same.
But almost all effects to "sound" can be measured and follows the same principle: the difference of IN and OUT. The less the difference, the more 'neutral'. And this is at least what we do at TIDAL: bringing this difference as low as possible.
But HOW one likes neutral speakers/systems closer to neutrality then others - well, about this one could talk back and forth since it is a subjective issue/feel/opinion.
many greetings, Jörn |
Jorn, once again I don't understand the statement that neutrality is objective. I agree that comparing what goes in with what comes out is "neutral." However, as you admit frequency response is a measure but is necessary not sufficient for neutrality. Were we to have digital information on both what goes in and what comes out, we could have a correspondence measure that would get at this, but I don't think anyone does this. Instead they listen. This is a very sensitive measure but is typically rejected by "objectivists" as too subjective, as some listeners will not like a speaker and standing beside them another person will. |
Tbg, again you miss the point. Your speaker's designer has explained it, we've linked articles, others have chimed in. Here is the reality: YOU don't have a comprehensive understanding of these, but there IS a gropuong of generally agreed-upon measurements that, when examined and assessed by an expert speaker engineer, do tell us whether a speaker is basically neutral. This isn't guesswork or subjective. It is widely agreed upon. This is THE way good speaker design is done. And with neutrality -- what goes in comes out -- as the goal. We understand that you don't understand, but please don't confuse your misunderstanding with the facts as they have been layed out for you! |
Appreciate your chiming in Jorn, and well summarized Holenneck. It's getting a bit tiresome and a little long winded on this basically simple subject. |
Holenneck, no I don't misunderstand. There is much that we know about how to design speakers, such as a good frequency response, wide dispersion, and sometime good phase consistency. But as Jorn suggests speakers with these good characteristics don't sound alike. Of course going further is subjective and it is somewhat more than guesswork. Please don't persist in the nonsense that we know enough to make perfect speakers. We don't have anywhere near perfect drivers, and there are severe costs to weigh in choices of parts.
I know objectivists always want to believe there is no guesswork in any audio component, but the reality is that our ears are the only real guidance we have. I am obviously very impressed with some designer's work and believe others come up short. |
Of course there should be that remaining 5-10% in the R&D process whereby final/fine tuning by ears often/do play an equally crucial role (subjective). But as repeatedly stated, good standard sets of measurement criteria have to be met first (objective). I'd be wary if a designer chose to design their products the other way around. |
Again, Tbg, you don't get it. Why set up the strawman about "perfect speakers"? Did I say that? Uh, no.
But there is great consistency among good designers about a great many things that matter. They all do it differently, weigh things differently, and have their own sensibilities. A balance of tradeoffs.
Remember, you were the one that said "I have known many speaker manufacturers over my time in audio. Measurements have not been a major consideration in any case that I know of."
I simply proved that this was an ignorant statement. But you can't admit you're wrong, when clearly you are.
I'm done with this thread and you, Tbg. |
Holenneck, you refuse to understand what I am saying and to exaggerate what benefit we can get from measurement. I said, "As I said repeatedly, measures of frequency response, phase, and dispersion are goals and used. But there is much beyond this and that is where listening comes into play. I have personally experienced designers coming to grips with their prototypes that meet the measurement criteria but fail to sound good."
Yes, I might say that you just don't get it. I certainly agree that designers do balance many things in designing their speakers and the paths they follow are many. Seemingly you believe on one hand that there is a simple solution to good design and on the other that designers follow different paths. I cannot resolve this confusion on your part. Sorry! |
Thg,
Like Tidals designer have written there is no single measurement which measured neutrality alone, still there are measurements which can reveal every single characteristic of the speakers sound and all these measurements combined is the tool to measure degree of neutrality.
Sorry Thg, but it is time to admit you are wrong in every aspect. |
Hi, this is Jörn again,
even if it does not sound very romantic and many clients would prefer to hear a nice marketing story like oh yes, we had a couple of hundreds listening sessions with a bunch of famous grey haired musicians, but for us there is no such thing. We do not sit in our listening room while making serious faces and debating about it if the violin sounds like a Stradivari or like a Guarneri after we changed this or that detail
We leave that to those who like to tell and/or read such thing since such a process brings me back to one simple thing: everybody can build drivers into a cabinet, tells a story about it and try to sell it. Since always something will come out of the box and one can describe it as sound then and talking about it how much one likes this sound. Print it, or let it print and find clients who like exactly your philosophy/story/sound and you are in speaker business. What do you think is more difficult: being able to work with difficult measurement equipment (which is more expensive then a nice car) and the willing to invest in to it and knowing exactly what one is doing or taking the short cut and just describing the sound of a product, judging it by hearing and telling a story about it ;-)? Even without ever touching a microphone one could design a likeable speaker and could check it with live music, concert visits etc. and would get maybe even a pretty decent result, and it is nothing wrong with doing it like that.
But we believe it needs much more to offer a product which is working like a messenger, since we want to design a postman who delivers the mail without changing the content of the message nor forgetting parts nor adding parts because it would be more enjoyable to read the message then. We also do not like to sit in a closed closet in the first row of an orchestra because it sounds better in there to prefer a coloured/filtered way to listen to what is happen in front of one.
And therefore our best friends here at TIDAL are microphones and measurement systems. But even then one can not make a general conclusion out of this procedure, since many manufacturers claim measuring over hearing and most clients heard that before and disagree with the result. The difference and the core of it is how good and what they measure. And what they believe is relevant to the sound and how they deal with it or finding a solution for it. Of course we know as well there are things one can hear more easily then it is easily to measure in the dynamic process of converting current and voltage from the amps into sonic for the ears by the speaker, and also take care about it. But this is a very small amount and just the little cherry on top of the cream. At least for us.
Using technology and judging it with technology is something we do to avoid to colour our speakers with our very own preferences. Everybody has a preference if it comes to hifi. And to mix it with this is right and this is wrong makes no sense per se. As an example: there was reviewer coming to our room this year at the CES and wrote the Sunray sounded bass shy after listening to his tracks. He claimed to have a neutral position to judge this. Well, we gave it a friendly grin and can live perfectly with a.) such attitude and b.) the statement he did.
Why is that? Simple answer: the guys reference speaker is a speaker with a big bass boost, where a Sunray simply does not add bass where no bass is. Used to his recording of course he heard it bass shy he heard it maybe the first time as it really is. We treated even the room with very effective bass absorbers to have no big bass peaks even if it would be more popular then a reproduction closer to neutral. And since the TIDAL Sunray is like all speakers from us designed to do the opposite of absolute sound we took it as a big compliment.
I leave it up to everybody to consider if a TIDAL could be one of the more neutral speaker out there. A chameleon-like ability to follow every change in equipment is always a first little sign for neutrality of a speaker if one does not have or care about measurements. Because in the end of the day all manufacturer should build products for the ears, and not for the microphone! And if it has to be a TIDAL, then one better just trust us why we work that way.
You as clients can enjoy the fun part to do something we dont do - to get praise from music lovers in the end of the day: judging and discovering the speakers in an emotional way, to play with them, to feed and spice them them in many different ways with many different amps, cables and sources until YOU feel they do sound like the best to in your ears.
And a neutral speaker will always allow that. Just think about it :-).
Many nice hours in front of your systems,
Jörn Janczak
TIDAL Audio GmbH, Germany |
Thg,
I have read all your posts on this discussion again. You are 100% correct that it is not possible in any way to measure what is best because we all have different opinions about what is best. What is best is a matter of opinion and by that 100% subjective.
You do however make one mistake when you think neutrality is equal to what is perceived as best.
Please imagine a loudspeaker playing through a system without any listeners. Then we have removed taste and subjective opinions from the equation. Still the speaker will output the same as if there were listeners present. That is a fact and not subjective.
Please then imagine there existed a single measurement tool which shows neutrality. This measurement would undoubtably have shown the same degree of neutrality with or without listeners. That is a fact and not subjective.
It we then imagine one listener in the room. This listener doesn't like the sound. There is no doubt the neutrality measurement would show the same with or without the listener. That is a fact and not subjective.
Lets then imagine another listener in the room. This listener really likes the sound. There is no doubt the neutrality measurement would show the same with two, one and no listeners. That is a fact.
Haven't we then just established that the sound doesn't change no matter what any individuals opinion of the sound is and because of that the neutrality of the sound can't change either. The only thing which change is the listeners evaluation of the sound. So since we are talking about neutrality from the speaker, which sound doesn't change no matter how any listener might perceive it, the neutrality can not change either. It's only the peoples opinions which change and are subjective. |
I need to add that how can something that doesn't change be subjective. It can't. The only thing subjective about something that doesn't change is how we like it. Taste is subjective. However no matter how much we like or dislike the sound from a speaker its deviations between the input signal and its output will be constant. That is a fact even if we can't measure it.
The only way neutral could be subjective would be if individual taste would be part of how to detect neutrality, and that is not the case. Taste is only involved when you determine what is best.
Neutral and best certainly is not the same. |
Thank you Mr Janczak.
Your position on this issue is very convincing and makes me want your products even more.
I would actually say that to use hearing and listening evaluation as tools for manufacturing a speaker would be good for a DIYer who knows what he wants, but to do that when manufacturing a speaker for market with as many opinions as people would be very unprofessional and selfish. |
|
Roysen, You say, "Please then imagine there existed a single measurement tool which shows neutrality. This measurement would undoubtably have shown the same degree of neutrality with or without listeners. That is a fact and not subjective." All that I really can say is that I entirely agree, but this is unimaginable.
That is my entire point. Were we to have such a measure, there would not be thousands of manufacturers or any point to discussions about speakers on Audiogon. The real question is what happens if we lack that measurement. |
05-13-11: Tidal
A chameleon-like ability to follow every change in equipment is always a first little sign for neutrality of a speaker if one does not have or care about measurements. Jörn - This comment struck me. A while back, I started an A'gon thread on the topic of neutrality. In it, I proposed a way to judge the neutrality of a component in cases where you do not have measurements. Here is what I wrote... "Your system is becoming more neutral whenever you change a system element (component, cable, room treatment, etc.) and you get the following results: (1) Individual pieces of music sound more unique. (2) Your music collection sounds more diverse. This theory occurred to me one day when I changed amps and noticed that the timbres of instruments were suddenly more distinct from one another. With the old amp, all instruments seemed to have a common harmonic element (the signature of the amp?!). With the new amp, individual instrument timbres sounded more unique and the range of instrument timbres sounded more diverse. I went on to notice that whole songs (and even whole albums) sounded more unique, and that my music collection, taken as a whole, sounded more diverse. That led me to the following idea: If, after changing a system element, (1) individual pieces of music sound more unique, and (2) your music collection sounds more diverse, then your system is contributing less of its own signature to the music. And less signature means more neutral." I'd be very interested to hear your reaction to this idea. Bryon |
it is not appropriate for manufacatur to comment on his products, on these end- user threads.
self- promoting noneses, together with self- marketing is double wrong. |
Bryoncunningham, the Munich audio show is going on now with many listening to quality speakers and deciding which sound better. Jorn may not respond quickly. |
Jorn described neutrality very well. I would add that your system should react accordingly to different recordings as well as equipment. If every recording sounds unique you are in the right path...Or vice versa, the common sound attributes you identify between different recordings is your system's character. ;)
Happy Listening,
Mike |
Dear Bryon,
I can follow your experience and your conclusion could be a first proof that your system allows you to hear the different qualites of your recordings. Cause in the end of the day it is like this: if you have the perfectly neutral speakers/cables/amps/source/room, what do you hear then and would start to describe? The recording quality itself.
And this can be both a wonderful revelation and bring you closer to the artist then ever before, or it can show you the same unasked truth as seeing a not so pretty face on a 55" full HD screen. I believe the whole hifi camp is making a constant discussion between these two ones: reproducing music as it was recorded and reproducing music as one likes to hear it. And all inbetween ;-).
Please understand that I do not want to be to much involved into this, I just wanted to explain it a bit better what it is what WE do.
Jörn |
again, self- promiting,and self- marketing b.s
from tidal!
everyone should agree that is wrong for you to paint these chat threadswith your "opinions". unless they are part of your "cult" |
Thank you, Jörn, for your response. The views you have expressed about neutrality are very similar to my own. And FWIW... I, for one, enjoy comments from manufacturers, provided that the thread doesn't become a vehicle for advertising, which this thread has not, IMO. 05-13-11: Argyro
...your system should react accordingly to different recordings as well as equipment. If every recording sounds unique you are in the right path...Or vice versa, the common sound attributes you identify between different recordings is your system's character. I completely agree, Mike. Bryon |
Focalfan,
is it promotion to answer what Tidals view on neutrality is and how they implement that i their designs in a thread specificly about Tidal speakers where the issue of neutrality is discussed?
I think not. |
Focalfan - You are certainly entitled to your opinion. It is my opinion that Jörn has not crossed the line into advertising.
As far as being a member of a "cult," I have never even heard a speaker from Tidal.
Bryon |
Focalfan,
It is entirely appropriate and acceptable provided the manufacturer identifies themselves.
Sadly many reviewers have monetary interest in equipment (getting a special deal on a demo item) and do not make these conflicts of interest well known.
At least with a manufacturer or dealer we know to take everything with a pinch of salt.
Frankly, I liked what Jorn said. His statements about the principles he uses to design speakers was very helpful. I am actually more interested in Tidal now that they are claiming to have a solid design philosophy based on neutrality instead of the usual techno-babble BS that you hear from so many manufacturers (you know special materials, special cryogenic treatments - blah-di-blah). |
I would add that Tidal are sticking their neck out by designing to neutrality as EVERYONE knows that a "smilie EQ" on a speaker will sell. All you need do is
1) above all make it look good (as though it is brimming with technology) and
2) give it plenty of bass and bit of zing in the treble
... and there you go "boom boom tizz" sells better than anything else (it would be unfair to single out Wilson or B&W but the market leaders in high end all know that this is true because impressive sound wins in a demo most of the time). |
Focalfan, I for one appreciate Jorn taking his time chiming in sharing his insight and experiences with Tidal users, after all, it is what this thread is about, thus appropriate. Curiously though, out of your few posts here at Gon, I noticed mostly were attacks on Tidal, you seem to have something going against them. |
focalfan....why don't you read the title of the forum again..obviously you don't understand the meaning of the word ' owners'...nobody on this forum cares what you think about tidal speakers...we all love them....we, as owners, are no more a 'cult' then porsche owners are a cult for liking their porsches.you like focal speakers...that's great..go find a 'focal forum' to infest. |
Let's continue guys, please do not feed the trolls! |
Bryon, I actually enjoy this thread and your thread for debating neutralnality, I don't think it is hyjecting the Tidal thread. Because as a Tidal owner, all discussions here approve one thing : Tidal is more neutral than most others in the market. Jorn is sticking with what he believe and deliver them in the way the owner can easily recognize.
My friend who own Marten Coltrane Prime, he visited my house to listen Tidal, at the first audition, he told me Tidal is "normal", maybe I did not set up well enough.
Then I went to his house to listen his Coltrane, I finally understand why he comments Tidal as "normal", Then we start to debate the definition of "good speaker". I describe my feeling of good speaker was very very similar to what Jorn described here. But that was months ago, I have not read Jorn's philosophy he posted here just in these two days.
To make long story short. My friend bought a pair of Sunray, and did not want to listen to Coltrane anymore even they are still in his living room . He accepted my listening philosophy and fully appreciate Tidal speakers since then. Hope you can visit Tidal demo soon and reply to us soon, I want to know your listening experience is matching to owners' experiences. |
Argyro, I agree. I have the BMC M1 amps and play them at somewhere in the range of 53-59 on their volume. Most others who have them place at no more than the 49, including on 86 db efficient speakers. What is the efficiency of the Contriva Diacera SEs? Is it in the low 80s? |
Tbg, Jorn never disclose the technical spec. But by comparing to my previous speakers, my best guess is around 88 db. |
Quanmer, that is what I was thinking, but the volume relative to the 86 db speakers suggests much lower. |
Quanmer - Thanks for those kinds words. As I'm sure you saw in the neutrality thread, I'm generally an advocate of neutrality, which is to say an advocate of minimizing colorations, particularly certain kinds of colorations.
Of course, there are other considerations besides neutrality when assembling an audio system, and each person should make up his own mind about how to weigh them.
I am certainly interested in hearing Tidal's speakers. It doesn't look like they are going to be at the next RMAF, but maybe I'll hear them at a future CES, which I attend from time to time.
Happy listening.
Bryon |
Tbg, but it is more efficient than ATC 20SL, which is 83 db |
Guys there are many other things except the sensitivity rating that determine how easy is to drive a speaker. For example the diameter of the drivers, the impedance of the speaker on the whole frequency range as well as the power supply of the amplifier. You cannot estimate sensitivity the way you try to.
Happy Listening,
Mike |
Argyro, you are right. I don't feel my Contriva Diacera SE is difficult to drive as ATC 20SL, I still can listen at low volume, not like ATC, the sound collapsed when play low volume. |
Quanmer, I am in no way saying that I dislike my Tidals. It is also possible that I am playing them loudly because they can take it and the signal I am sending is so clean. I am just trying to understand why I am playing a such a much higher level than other guys I know, none of whom have Tidals.
Incidentally, I substituted a wall outlet that has given me what appears to be a 6 db increase in volume. I cannot really understand where this energy was going in the old outlet, as it was not hot. I am told that the new outlet, from Sound Applications, has much higher conductivity. |
Tbg, good to know, how about the sound from new outlet except 6db louder. |
Τbg 6db equals with double the acoustic pressure, thus two times as loud.
I think that Tidals have such an undistorted sound that cracking up the volume seems much more comfortable than with other speakers.
Happy Listening,
Mike |
Argyro, I have never heard of an outlet capable of doing this but this is what I measure. I'm dumbfounded, but it does relieve me of my concerns about the low volume. |
Tbg can you please provide a link of this company? |
Argyro, it is a special order Hubble. This is all I know other than the fact that it very substantial and has only brass and bakelite. I got it with a Sound Application SA-1 for review. I also know that it far surpasses anything else I have heard. |
I visited the Munich High End Show on Saturday and Sunday. The best sound of the show was in my opinion the system with Ancient Audio lector Air, Tidal Impact stereo amplifier and the Tidal Piano Cera with the latest black ceramic drivers. A system with a total value of 50000 Euros was so musical and coherent unlike any other system I heard. Congratulations Jorn... |
How many of you have used Tidal speakers with no preamp? Can you share your impressions please?
Happy Listening,
Mike |
Argyro, I am using BMC gear. They have no preamp or line stage. Their DAC1 PRE has an optional line stage module that allows analog input. I have this option. In fact presently I am using a Weiss Dac202 driven by my Macintosh computer into one of the two RCA inputs. I am soon going to use balanced cables from the Weiss to hear whether balanced improves performance.
If you have no need to have analog, I cannot, you can buy the DAC1 without the preamp module. The DAC1 provides control of volume to the BMC amps as well as the "current injection" circuit in running the amps. |
|
I recently heard a Tidal - some floorstander at the dealer and my further impression was - what's the big hype here?
Will return another to audition some more. |
Shsohis, no hype on Tidal, just very real, coherent and musical, if you like hype, try Wilson or something else. I can hear my Tidal for many hours without hint of fatigue.
Please bring your most familiar CD for audition, if you could hear the difference, please share your feeling with us. |
Shsohis, much depends on the electronics and wire associated with the speakers as well as the room. Fortunately, Tidals show what precedes them. If your dealers makes no effort to audition them well, that is his problem. |
