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. |
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 guy’s 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 donÂ’t 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,
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. |
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! |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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! |
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. |
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 |
Roysen and Tbg - In the interest of not hijacking this thread further, I have responded to both your comments on the thread devoted to the topic of neutrality, which you can read here. Bryon |
I will be receiving my Piano Diacera's sometime in July.
In the meantime I am doing a little bit of upgrading in other parts of my system mainly the amp. When listening to the Piano Ceras they sounded terrific with the Spectron amp in stereo mode. While the Piano's may not need a lot of power to sound great they will take any additional power fed to them quite happily. So, I decided to upgrade to Spectron mono amps. They will be here any day and that will give me the time to break them in thoroughly before the speakers arrive. I also ordered Elrod's Silver Statement pc's and Silver Signature speaker cables. I am a big fan of Elrod cables.
That's it for now. Over and out. |
Smudge the image Dadlyvj. I am seriously considering a pair of Tidal T1 myself. The neutrality discussion really is misplaced in this thread because it has not direct relation to the Tidal Audio products even though it is an interesting discussion. |
Roysen, we are communicating but I have no comprehension of why you say what you do. Your argument again that "So neutral is not subjective" just makes no sense to me.
It is probably best that we just leave it there. |
Focalfan,
Lets keep taste out of the discussion. Some like warm, soft sound and others like bright, direct sound without either being neutral.
Even though there is no single neutrality measurement, it doesn't mean that neutral can be subjective. That is like stating that if we have no measuring tool to measure the length of one feet is subjective.
Its easy to measure that no speaker is neutral. Just measure distortion and you not find a single speaker without any measureable distortion of any kind and since its output is distorted it is not equal to being present at the actual event and by that not neutral.
Even if we didn't have any tools available to measure distortion, the speaker would be equally distorted and not neutral even if someone would claim otherwise. So neutral is not subjective, |
Unfortunately it looks like a few have taken the path to smudge the image. I don't own one, but am very happy for the owners to have found their nirvana. It really does not matter if it is "neutral" -- probably better than most in "attempting" to do so.
Whether it does or not I don't care, but to hear from so many content audiophiles, is good. Will I buy a pair of tidals, may be yes may be not, I'm happy with my current setup, and will be for some time. |
Focalfan,
Lets keep taste out of the discussion. Some like warm, soft sound and others like bright, direct sound without either being neutral.
Even though there is no single neutrality measurement, it doesn't mean that neutral can be subjective. That is like stating that if we have no measuring tool to measure the length of one feet is subjective.
Its easy to measure that no speaker is neutral. Just measure distortion and you not find a single speaker without any measureable distortion of any kind and since its output is distorted it is not equal to being present at the actual event and by that not neutral.
Even if we didn't have any tools available to measure distortion, the speaker would be equally distorted and not neutral even if someone would claim otherwise. So neutral is not subjective, |
Thg,
Neutrality is what we are searching for. Its the ultimate goal. That is why we upgrade. To get sound played back closer in quality to the real thing. But we will never get there. We will never achieve a sound played back in our listening room equl to being present at the actual event. Since we can't the sound will never be truly neutral. |
the term "neutral sound" is a subjective matter. there is no machine whiich can detect and measure"neutrality in sound".
maybe some audipphiles switch "neutral sound" with clean bright not sweet sound.
some "famous" speakers measure corrctly, but sound terrible. some sound excellent but don't have "perfect" graphs.
arguing about the concept of"neutral sound" is silly- you like the sound or you don't. |
Roysen, I am at a loss as to what you are saying in this post. You say, "Nothing is neutral in regards to audio playback." How can the concept "neutral" have any utility, if what you argue is true?" |
Bryoncunningham, you said on the other thread, " A subjectivist does not believe in objective truth." I cannot speak to other subjectivists, or more accurately those who put an emphasis on listening to make the judgment of whether they like a component, but I do believe in "objective truth."
My career was forty-five years as a researching social scientist. I constantly assessed hypotheses, such as whether states that adopted a policy to cope with a social problem improved the problem. This included whether states with concealed handgun laws had less crime. I would say that is "objective truth."
When it comes to audio, however, I would imagine that it would be very difficult to find agreement as to what objective measures might be used to assess which speaker is better. It is easy to assess frequency response, phase correctness, and dispersion. Perhaps we could even agree about distortion. Were we to then choose the ten best speakers and conduct listening sessions, I doubt that we would have any agreement about which is best. The reason is we are missing too much of what makes a speaker better and don't share opinions about these other attributes, much less having the capability to measure them. For example, in my opinion planar speakers don't imagine worth a damn. How do you measure imaging?
Harkening to my profession, choosing the most neutral, best, etc. speaker is like assessing the quality of public policy making by state legislatures. Fortunately, in audio, all we need to do is listen and buy what we like. Granted that access to listening is greatly reduced thanks to fewer and fewer dealers and more and more different manufacturers, but who is to argue that if someone like speaker X, they are wrong?
I totally agree with your concluding sentence. |
Bryon,
When I hear/read the world netural, I associate that with something without a character of its own. No matter how we can and can not detect neutrality it can never be subjective. Either it is neutral or its not even if we can't measure it. There is of course a lot of ways to do measurements and the avaiable equipment and methods to measure attributes of the output of a speaker are morer than used by the hifi magazines. So to measure neutrality or to what really is done in practice, to measure one the absence of neutrality is fairly easy. One measurement of anything from frequency response to bandwidth will show deviations from neutral on all speakers.
Neutral is a world not really worthy for audio equipment because there is nothing in the chain from the output of the microphone during the recording to the output of the speakers during playback wich does not have a character of its own which is added to the signal which in the end is output from the speakers. Nothing is neutral in regards to audio playback. |
05-02-11: Roysen
Neutral is not subjective. Neutral is no coloration, no distortion and no compression. The degree of neutrality can be measured by comparing the input with the output.
05-05-11: Fiddler
Every component, including speakers, puts it's signature on the sound. The only way one could know if a component is neutral is to listen to that component (without any other components in the system - which is not possible) and compare it against the original, live event...Neutral is subjective - PERIOD!
05-07-11: Tbg
Roysen, I don't accept that neutrality is objective. I find it strange that you use this term, but I unaware of an neutrality meter. What are the measurements of neutrality? I think there are two separate, but related, issues contained in the comments above... (1) IS component x neutral? (2) HOW DO YOU KNOW if component x is neutral? As far as I can tell, Roysen is using the term "neutrality" to mean the same thing as "accuracy." Hence, for him, neutrality is: The degree of absence of inaccuracies. Inaccuracies are deviations of a component's output from its input. By those definitions, the neutrality of a component is OBJECTIVE. That is to say, there are objective truths about the ways in which a component's output deviates from its input. But Fiddler and Tbg seem to be asking a different question, namely: HOW DO YOU KNOW the ways in which a component is inaccurate, and hence HOW DO YOU KNOW the extent to which it is neutral? This is a valid question. One possible response is: the various measurements of accuracy, some of which routinely occur in Stereophile. But I believe that that response does not entirely answer the concerns of Subjectivists. The reason is because it is often difficult to know the ways in which a component is inaccurate. The measurements available to consumers, and even those available to manufacturers, are often not exhaustive. Because of that, the neutrality of a component may be difficult, or even impossible, for the end user to assess. In that sense, our KNOWLEDGE of a component's neutrality is, to some extent, SUBJECTIVE. Personally, I do believe that some components are more neutral than others. I also believe that there are methods of assessing the neutrality of a component, WITHIN CERTAIN LIMITS. Roysen proposed one method: measurements. I proposed an alternative method in a another thread in which the topic of neutrality was discussed at great length. Hence, I am an Objectivist. In other words, I believe that there is such a thing as truth. But many truths are elusive, and our knowledge is therefore incomplete. In the context of audio, Subjectivism is valid to the extent that its truths are elusive and our knowledge is incomplete. Bryon |
Holenneck, I think you misidentify my orientation and my experience. 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
I was primarily reacting to Roysen exaggeration of the word "neutral," as though it had some objective measurement. I don't think most designer seek to "voice" their designs to be something other than realistic and uncolored, but I have never known a designer who didn't go for the best sound within their "price point."
This really is the classic "subjectivist" v. "objectivist" argument once again. There is no resolution to it. I am as are the vast majority of the designers I know, subjectivists who use some measurements when appropriate. |
Talking about measurements, can anyone tell me where can I find any measurements of any Tidal loudspeaker? |
I think I see the issue here. You don't accept that high fidelity (neutral) is the goal. OK, that's your take on it.
But the larger problem with your posts, Tbg, and I don't mean to be disrespectful of you, is that you are ignorant when it comes to how good speakers are designed. If you can honestly say that you put no confidence in companies that share some standard measurement protocol, then you truly are ignorant of what goes on. Things like smooth frequency response, wide dispersion, low distortion . . . these aren't just words, these are goals of good design. It's like saying you would not trust a car maker that uses engineering to design an auto. Of course these companies also use listening, but engineering is the backbone of the design process. YOU don't understand the measurements that equate to neutrality, but that is a YOU problem. I'm sorry, but it is difficult to debate intelligently with someone that has not bothered to learn a few simple truths. |
Thg,
This is getting tiresome. It really doesn't matter what you can accept. Can you define what you mean by neutrality? It obviously is something different than undistorted, uncolored and uncompressed. I have just written that there is not one neutrality measurement but that you have to use all the measurements and look for distortion, coloration or compression. If there are, the speaker is not neutral.
No speaker is truly neutral. There is no speaker which has absolute ruler-flat frequency- and phase-response without any hint of any kind of distortion. They all have deviations from perfectly neutral. The different manufacturers have different priorities though and use different technologies which result in the mix of deviations from neutral they are able to acheive and prefer most of cost and political reasons. Many brands have a "house"-sound which sells speakers. This doesn't mean that their speakers are neutral. I would for instance guess that a Magico Q5 is far more neutral than the Wilson Alexandria without having seen the measurements. Still many prefer the fun factor of the Wilson speakers. That is because they prefer the Alexandrias deviations from neutral more than the deviations of the Q5.
Still if there was such a thing as a perfectly neutral speaker, it would not be a guarantee that it would be the universally preferred choice. Many listeners actually prefer more than less coloration in certain areas. Also keep in mind that no electronic component or recording is perfectly neutral either. So a perfectly neutral speaker would reveal all the deviations from neutral in the electronics, cables, the room and the recording. Many would not prefer that. This is the reason matching is so important. We need to find combinations of equipment that mask out each othersdeviations from neutral to a degree we like. Still if this sounds neutral, measurements will show that its not. The ears can be unreliable and our taste misleading if the goal is neutrality. However most don't really prefer neutrality and that is where subjectivity comes in because it is of course different what kind of combination of mix of distortion, coloration and compression we prefer.
Neutral is never ever subjective. How can it be? Its like claiming that the length of one feet is subjective. |
Roysen, I don't accept that neutrality is objective. I find it strange that you use this term, but I unaware of an neutrality meter. What are the measurements of neutrality? I assume that you would argue that there is total agreement of what are these objective measures.
You say that listening is to unreliable, yet that is all we ever use our systems for. Again I don't really know what measurements other than those I listed that might be used nor do I think they determine quality sound. If Tidal, Rockport, and YG Acoustics share the measurements of neutrality with Wilson and Magico, I put no confidence in them. |
Tbg,
You are talking about what was considered best of two speakers. That would of course be subjective and as such a matter of taste.
Neutrality is different. Its an objective fact. Either the speaker is neutral or its not regardless of someones opinion.
I never wrote that there exist one universal neutrality measurement. A set of measurements much more comprehensive than what JA is using will each one show deviations from neutrality on each character the measurements show.
Technology has moved on. Todays best speakermanufacturers like Tidal, Rockport Technologies, Magico, Wilson, Anat Technologies etc rely more heavily on measurements than the top companies of the past and mostly only huse listening evaluations for confirmation purposes. In fact one of the companies most respected for top sound and neutrality is Goldmund. They have made a press release that they only do listening evaluatios to confirm single compnent choice inside their products. Everything else is done by measurements.
Listening is too unteliable because its subjective and situation related. |
Tbg,
You are talking about what was considered best of two speakers. That would of course be subjective and as such a matter of taste.
Neutrality is different. Its an objective fact. Either the speaker is neutral or its not regardless of someones opinion.
I never wrote that there exist one universal neutrality measurement. A set of measurements much more comprehensive than what JA is using will each one show deviations from neutrality on each character the measurements show.
Technology has moved on. Todays best speakermanufacturers like Tidal, Rockport Technologies, Magico, Wilson, Anat Technologies etc rely more heavily on measurements than the top companies of the past and mostly only huse listening evaluations for confirmation purposes. In fact one of the companies most respected for top sound and neutrality is Goldmund. They have made a press release that they only do listening evaluatios to confirm single compnent choice inside their products. Everything else is done by measurements.
Listening is too unteliable because its subjective and situation related. |
You said, "Measurements have not been a major consideration in any case that I know of." The fact is that you must simply not know of any real speaker designers. They ALL measure. Read this to see how Revel and Vivid do it: http://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=228:high-performance-loudspeakers-how-theyre-designed&catid=62:monthly-column&Itemid=3
If you know of a single _credible_ speaker that is not designed using measurements first, then please name it. I'm sorry, but you just don't seem to know about which you speak. |
Holenneck, I never said I knew about Jorn. I see he adds "step response" to my list and then goes to frequency response. I know that he remains very concerned with the non-resonant cabinets. As I said apart from these easy to measure characteristics, speakers are designed by listening to them. I guess you could measure cabinet resonance this rather than feel it.
Jorn is not talking about some measure of neutrality, harmonic distortion, or quality "measures" of speakers. |
Wow, not sure you could be any more wrong Tbg. You obviously know little about real speaker design. Here is what Jorn at Tidal said, ""It is 95% measurements and 5% hearing, with the step response being the most relevant measurement and then frequency response immediately following that."
See article here: http://www.soundstageglobal.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=101&catid=55&Itemid=88 |
Roysen, I am incredulous at what you have said in the last two postings. 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 once visited a major UK manufacturer and we listened to two prototypes. Both were identical in every regard, dimensions, drivers, crossover, construction, finish, wire and of course all electronics that we used in listening.
Before he could ask which I liked, I said that one sounded much better. He agreed. I said how could this be. He said they were made in different shops was the only difference. The better one went into production and has been very successful. I am sure each speaker is listened to at his shop as in others but not measured. I have not visited Tidal, so I don't know whether each is measured but I do know they are listened to.
If you mean by "non-neutral" poor sounding, I can agree with all you say. But measurements fail to capture much that is essential to "good sounding." Of course, frequency response, off axis response, phase, and efficiency are all elements of good design, and they can be easily measured in speakers. Manufacturers have little influence on what consumers hook to their speakers, and, as Geopolitis noted, can greatly influence what the speakers sound like, especially it seems the Tidal speakers. |
Fiddler,
There certainly are no deviations between what JA is hearing and his measurements. If that was so there would be something wrong with his hearing.
What you probably mean is that how he perceives the overall sound may not be what he expects after having measured one characteristic of the speaker.
One non-neutral character of the speaker can mask out another non-neutral character of the speaker, the rest of the system including the rooms non-neutral character can mask out non-neutralities in the speaker and non-neutralities in the recording can mask out non- neutralities in the speaker so that when listening the speaker sounds neutral. Still the speaker would not be neutral and the only way to find out would be by measurements.
Neutrality in this context by definition means nothing is added or subtracted from the signal inside the speaker. How can that be subjective as if something is added or subtracted to the signal inside tbhe sound is a matter of opinion. Either something is changed or its not. A fact can't be subjective and has to be measured to be proved.
If someone likes the sound is of course a matter of taste and highly subjective, but that has nothing to do with neutrality. |
Fiddler,
Are you trying to imply that measurements are not part of a speakermanufacturer's manufacturing process and that they rely on hearinng to find out if their speakers are neutral! How then would they know that all their production units of one model sound the same? By listening? Of course not! Measurements is the only tool to accurately understand why a speaker sounds the way it does or if its neutral.
Listening can reveal if the listener likes the way the speaker sounds. This has nothing to do with neutrality. Neutrality can only be proved by measurements.
Do you honesty think Atkinsons measurements in Stereophile are alll that can be measured on speakers? He is working for a magazine for the masses that are mostly interested in subjective listening descriptions. They wouldn't sell If they used mostly measurements in their magazine.
Measurements can not. og course tell you how something will sound overall, but it is the only accurate way to prove deviations from neutrality. |
Roysen, it may come as a surprise to you, but measurements don't tell you the whole story about how a speaker sounds. Far from it. If it was that simple, manufacturers could simply design speakers to measure perfectly and they would all sound identical. But we know that isn't true, don't we.
Look at Atkinson's measurements as compared to the what the reviewers hear. There is often a wide descrepancy between the two. |
Geopolitis, I certainly know that the cabling this year was Argento. If you are right, it certainly was an example of how critical cabling is. |
Tbg,
the answer to your question why the two sets had totally different sound lies on the cables that were used. During the first time, the cabling was Echole Obsession. This year they used Argento Flow Master Reference. I have owned both so I understand very well what you say. |
Quanmer, I think what you mean by "sharp edge" is the speed of the drivers. I expect all dynamic drivers, including the Marten Coltranes, lack this as compared with compression drivers on horns. This speed is not fatiguing if the electronics are good, and it makes drums and pianos sound real. I am very happy with my Contrivas Diacera SEs, but they will never equal the speed of my VOTs.
I am totally in agreement about quality speakers revealing the electronic associated with them. I first heard the Sunrays with the Bridge Audio amps, as I think I have mentioned here. They sounded like pretty poor tube electronics. But in last years CES, the same combo sounded great. I suspect that the Bridge amps had been revised. |
Fiddler,
Have you heard of something called measurements. They are not subjective and they are the only way to find out if a speaker is neutral by comparing the input with its output. |
Fiddler,
Have you heard of something called measurements. They are not subjective and they are the only way to fond out it a speaker is neutral by comparing the input with its output. |
Roysen, after listening to Sunray at my friend's house, I am sure Tidal is very sensitive to any change in a system. My Contriva Diacera SE was a bit warm before. And I switched my BMI Oceanic PC from poweramp to the CD player, and Tara Labs Cobalt PC on CD player to poweramp, then the sound changed dramatically, now it is not warm at all.
But one thing I felt the same, Tidal never show sharp edge like Marten Coltrane. But I consider it is neutral to the source. When did you hear a live music with sharp edge? That is why I can listen to the music without fatigue. |
Although HP was better than most in using words to describe sounds, I still think it is futile effort to do so. Yes, we should not have Audiogon, or it is a waste of time. Certainly, neutral is subjective; every review is subjective. Stereophile in particular has shown little or no correspondence between measurement and what we hear. Several years ago Archibald pulled in a very positive review of a $350k amp, which was the finest amp I ever heard because it did not measure very good. What bs! Several years later at the RMAF, he had a Boulder amp and an unnamed amp and showed both under loads measuring THD. Everyone raved about how stout the Boulder was. I asked "do you think the designer of the other amp think THD captures how good an amp sounds?" A hush fell over the room, and I left. |
"If what comes out of the speaker is the same as what is sent into it, it is netural."
"...the same as what is sent into it..."
And how do you know what that "same" is? Every component, including speakers, puts it's signature on the sound. The only way one could know if a component is neutral is to listen to that component (without any other components in the system - which is not possible) and compare it against the original, live event.
Neutral is subjective - PERIOD! |
Yes it was adressed to Audiofeil! ;-)
Happy Listening! |
Nice to know we agree :) I assume your first comment was meant to AudioFeil. I didn't understand that at first.
Peace -:) |
I agree completely, of course I mean the whole system, in which though the speaker has the edge in contributing to the systems sound. THANKS |
Argyro you are refering to the transparency of a system and not the speakers. This is like comparing apples to oranges.
A speaker can be perfectly netural even though its output differs from the source material because it could be the electronics preceding the speakers responsible for this differance.
No matter how much the electronics preceding the speaker in the system is polutes the neutrality of the source material, it is still possible that the speakers can be very neutral. So it is only the input to the speaker from the amplifier driving the speaker which is the measuring stick for the transparency of the the output from the speakers. If what comes out of the speaker is the same as what is sent into it, it is netural. That is all.
PERIOD! |
