Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break
- Thread starter Jeff Fritz
- Start date
Hello Micro
Aside from possible interface issues with powered monitors I would expect both to use the same quidelines. Those being resonably flat on axis response. CD like behavior where the on axis and off axis response is similar. Smooth on and off axis response, Dynamic linearity, reasonable efficiency and high power handling, clean CSD and Impulse response as examples.
They are both there to reproduce whatever the input signal is. I don't see why a well designed Pro Monitor and a well designed Commercial speaker can't be substitutued for each other. As long as they have similar sensitivity, power handling and frequency extension what would the differences be as you see it??
Rob
LOL one of my favorites Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Aside from possible interface issues with powered monitors I would expect both to use the same quidelines. Those being resonably flat on axis response. CD like behavior where the on axis and off axis response is similar. Smooth on and off axis response, Dynamic linearity, reasonable efficiency and high power handling, clean CSD and Impulse response as examples.
They are both there to reproduce whatever the input signal is. I don't see why a well designed Pro Monitor and a well designed Commercial speaker can't be substitutued for each other. As long as they have similar sensitivity, power handling and frequency extension what would the differences be as you see it??
Rob
LOL one of my favorites Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I'm not trying to be evasive, micro, I'm just trying to avoid arguing what's been argued a hundred times before, but here we go: I prefer systems that do their best to reproduce the recording accurately within their range of capability (ie: Full range is not a requirement for me, personally, concert-level volume may not matter to someone else). Some audiophiles seem to prefer systems that don't seem to even make a serious attempt to reproduce the recording accurately. I think we all know this is true. Let's avoid a lot of trouble and not go down the road of who they are and what equipment they listen to, ok?
Now, the disclaimers, for the pedantic among us who will read paragraphs and respond only to the words that continue the argument:
Yes, there are colored pro monitors.
Yes, there are recording professionals who prefer those colored monitors.
Yes, there are accurate (this is all relative, of course) passive audiophile systems.
Yes, there are audiophiles who prefer those systems.
No, there is no such thing as a system that is totally accurate (see parens above).
Yes, I'm talking about low noise, low distortion and linear frequency response. All measurable stuff.
No. That does not mean I pick my equipment by staring at specs and charts.
Yes, there could be some as of yet undiscovered quality in analog sources and SET amplifiers that actually brings them closer to reality in spite of the fact that they measure relatively poorly. I don't hear it that way, so I have no incentive to search for this quality or justify it. YMMV. To me, the remarkable clarity, detail, imaging and dynamics of a good active system, playing a great recording, is the very embodiment of "musical." YMMV on that as well.
And yes, I think the requirements of myself and most recording professionals are the same as the kind of audiophiles who buy detailed, dynamic, linear equipment. Magico, actually, is a great example.
Tim
IMHO those Some are the exception. I try to avoid looking just at our cases and a few owners of SETs ... But I do not see any problem nominating known systems - it is why I have mine in the about section.
Do you really think most pro's will be pleased with Magico's balance? See FR's of Q5 and V3 published by Stereophile ...
Attachments
The first graph is the Q5??
60 thou gets you that?
And all this time your argument hinged on people being unable to do as good a job as the 'passive experts'. And you show that graph with a straight face?
Forget the peaky response in the bass, it is not even level matched despite the response.
But the bling and the blurb makes up for it I guess. The B&B.
It's not even full range for god's sake.
Your argument about my face is ridiculous - all my comments were about sound quality, not FRs. Believe it or not, I have listened to the Q5 several times and they sounded really good. For me (and many others) it means that there are somethings that matter more than just the simple on axis FR.
They are the exception, I suppose, but SET is far from the biggest example of technologies audiophiles admire that is far from faithful to the recording. That honor would go to vinyl.
MHO, YMMV and all of that, but I think even FR, on and off axis, if you're not either seriously treating your room, or listening in the near field, is critical. Is it the only thing that matters? No. But it defines the tonality of the instruments and voices being played. Along with a quiet background, a lack of audible distortion and transient response (I don't think it's quite that simple but it will do for quick, crisp attack characteristics), even FR is at the top of the list IMO. Everything else is pretty subtle by comparison. MHO. YMMV. Etc. So why do so many audiophiles love systems that don't get tonality right? Psychoacoustics is certainly a part of the answer. We're very accustomed to hearing tonality altered by environment and we adjust pretty well. But that doesn't mean that more accurate tonality isn't better; it simply means that inaccurate tonality can be good enough. As has been pointed out to me before, this place is not called "What's Good Enough."
Tim
John Atkinson has stated, "The broad, 3dB-high peak in the upper bass is entirely due to the nearfield measurement technique, which assumes a 2pi (hemispherical) environment." It is no secret he does not measure speakers in a chamber and he has been open as to the limitations of this, particularly regarding the bass. Compared to many other "high end" speakers he has measured these are stellar.
For true anechoic measurements you must check ours: www.speakermeasurements.com. We hope to measure a newer Magico in late 2012 or early 2013.
That is exactly the point tho innit.
Fr has nothing to do with sound quality eh?
Nuthin.
Thanks Jeff, point taken about how the bible cannot even give us graphs to evaluate from. No wonder then we have this severe disconnect of how 'FR has nuthin to do with how it sounds'. No wonder we get this huge backlash to the mere thought of measurements having anything to do with how things sound.
Deliberate perhaps on the part of stereophile? Now there's a conspiracy thought for ya. It would certainly set the stage for the waffle about how things sound and how we must always trust our ears eh.
Pity you don't have the corresponding measurements for that speaker, from what I can see you only have the v2 from magico. Suddenly we are confronted with a bass light speaker! Sure, factor in some sort of room gain but still I can 'see' it being quite anemic. Room gain will not get you smooth up to 2-300 hz as needed in this case.
http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/magico_v2/
Reckon going active on that baby might give better results?
Assuming of course the bass drivers can handle it, if not then you'd be volume limited but still get you to a far better place.Of course, we would not have the genius with passives to help us on our doomed quest.....
You have to be careful with measurements. Anecholic is the way to go. Gated measurements loose resolution depending on the length of the window. Here are 2 measurements of the same speaker one anecholic the other by Stereophile. They are both valid measurements but the conditions were different as was the methods. One is ungated the other multiple and averaged in a room. The bass hump is a room/measurement artifact and not in the anecholic measurement.
Rob
Rob
Attachments
Last edited:
Why do you insist manipulating my words? My words are "there are somethings that matter more than just the simple on axis FR.".
This does not mean "has nothing to do".
BTW, I should have added I was focusing mainly on FR above the transition zone - it is the most important zone for speaker evaluation, in room bass response is mainly dominated by room.
Let's not be evasive, micro
Tim
Tim,
I wish I knew it in terms I could describe objectively
in terms that would please you. Perhaps than I would retire and start a loudspeaker business. But when I listen to the XLF I know they sound a lot better than my old JMLab Grande Utopia or the MAXX3, to refer to speakers with comparable bass and size. And the difference is not due to FR. I have told this before - I am a good friend of the first Dynaudio distributor in my country. At that time Dynaudio had excellent (passive, sorry) kits. We built two pair using their accurate plans. One in Corian the other in MDF. They sounded completely different.
Hello Micro
Because of the material the cabinets were made out of?? Were the cabinets volume, driver spacing and baffle layout identicle?? how about the crossovers?? If not all bets are off comparing the 2 materials.
Rob
Last edited:
Hello Micro
Because of the material the cabinets were made out of?? Were the cabinets volume, driver spacing and baffle layout identicle?? how about the crossovers?? If not all bets are off comparing the 2 materials.
Rob
Everything was exactly the same except the materials of the box - one was MDF the other Corian. Even the internal frames were of the same size. No screws were used in both - only special glues.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |