Audio, hi-fi and car audio

Audio Banter (https://www.audiobanter.co.uk/forum.php)

- uk.rec.audio (General Audio and Hi-Fi) (https://www.audiobanter.co.uk/uk-rec-audio-general-audio/)

- - Kef B110 (https://www.audiobanter.co.uk/uk-rec-audio-general-audio/8952-kef-b110.html)

In article , Huge
scribeth thus
On 2015-12-18, tony sayer wrote:

[66 lines snipped]

It wasn't the comments of the reviewers, it was the comments of users!

Do you think you could see your way clear to snipping your responses?

Yes Mr huge boss mann!. Got those 63's yet;?....
--
Tony Sayer

compared to my reference small speakers (NEAR 10M-II) and the result was
as expected: The LS3/5a is far from accurate.

My reference is live recorded sound.

I've had a few people over time say that some recordings are rather weak
and flat boring and have no life to them but they are an accurate
representation of what when on in front of the microphones.
Some people just like a different "sound"

Course we could now get into a decent debate re Schoeps Neumann
Sennheiser Bruel & Kjaer etc.....

--
Tony Sayer

On 20/12/2015 8:41 PM, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Trevor Wilson
wrote:

**Just like an anechoic chamber. I am stunned at some of the idiotic
comments I am seeing in this thread, by people (I assume) should know
better.

Possibly beause some of use listen in real rooms that aren't anechoic. :-)

**None of us listen in an anechoic room.

It is one thing to ensure the room is reasonably non-reflective. That's why
I even do things like hang rugs from some walls and have draped curtains,
etc. But having listened in both I wouldn't confuse this for a genuine
anechoic room. The audible difference is quite dramatic. I really wouldn't
want to have to sit in an anechoic chamber to listen to music for
enjoyment. And if I did, I suspect I would not like the same speakers as I
use now quite happily.

**My cousin worked for these guys:

http://www.nal.gov.au/

They have (or had) the largest anechoic chamber in Australia. I was
fortunate in being able to listen to a sound system in their largest
chamber many years ago. It was scarily realistic. With no reflections to
interfere with the sound, the image was incredible. It was also MUCH
easier to detect small changes in the equipment (including speakers)
Every other room I've listened in has been inferior. Since that time, I
have striven to damp reflections in my own room/s and those of clients
where possible and where appropriate.

TBH I doubt any real loudspeaker makers *only* carry out measurements in
anechoic chambers and take no interest in what they sound like in domestic
environments. I'd guess it would be suicide for them to try it.

**Speaker manufacturers ALWAYS carry measurements using either anechoic
conditions and/or using measurement system which allow the system to
ignore reflections. I've been using such a system for more than 20
years. It ain't new. It's also not perfect. Bass measurements are
particularly difficult. I recall testing some subwoofers way back in the
backyard (lawn), using PZM techniques, at 4:00AM to minimise extraneous
noise. Nonetheless, it is VITAL for manufacturers to either measure or
(nowadays) accurately model their products for ideal conditions. After
which, the speakers may be tailored for specific applications. My point
is that EVERY room is different. A baseline measurement is very important.

The reality is that domestic loudspeakers are bought by people who use them
in ordinary rooms. Which of course, may be of a different size, shape, and
constuction from one place to another. It occurs to me that your listening
rooms may be very different to mine.

**Certainly.

I dislike the Linn isobaraks, etc. To me they sound awful. But it doesn't
bother me that some other people really like them - provided they have had
a fair an unbiassed chance to try alternatives and relate this to their
preferences in music, etc. They - like I - choose speakers for the purpose
of enjoying the results.

**I agree. And, my point is that LS3/5a users have probably not listened
to the very fine products presently available. I have.

I don't doubt there are 'better' speakers than the LS3.5A. But they work
fine for me since my primary use for them is to listen to BBC radio 3/4 in
a small room. i.e. pretty much what they were designed for. YMMV.

**My suggestions remain: Go out and listen to something else.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 20/12/2015 8:22 PM, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Trevor Wilson
wrote:
The problem with anechoic chambers is that what you measure is
essentially irrelevant - unconnected with what a speaker in a room
does. Sure it makes for consistency, but that really isn't good enough.

**Wrong. Given the fact that the characteristics of a (proper) anechoic
room are well known and that every listening room is different, then an
anechoic environment (or measurement systems which simulate such an
environment) are the only sane way to quantify a loudspeaker's
performance.

I'm sure many speaker designers would *love* that belief to be correct! It
would help them a great deal. Alas, to make it so would require something
more than you state.

To start you'd have to do the measurements around the entire theta/phi
sphere. Then do them at different distances to assess near field effects.
Then you'd have to find a way to assess the effects of reflections on the
speaker itself as that may alter its coupling to its surroundings.

Then you'd have to work out how to apply that to a range of listening rooma
acoustics and listening positions, etc. In the process finding that the
results depend on these so much that the whole process is a bit of a
nightmare and you end up using judgement.

**Well, yes, you are correct. Defining and measuring speakers is very
challenging. I always have a little chuckle when I see speaker
measurements (even those in Stereophile), because the limitations are
huge. Many years ago, I had a copy of the specifications supplied by
Duntech for their Crown Prince model. It ran to more than 20 A4 pages.
Chock full of graphs, plots and specifications. And even that is not
enough to quantify the sound of a loudspeaker. It was a very good start.
John Dunlavy was an exceptionally talented speaker designer, who used
both an anechoic room and state of the art measurement equipment to
quantify the performance of his products. The important thing to note is
that all the tests were performed under anechoic, or simulated anechoic
conditions. The Crown Prince (and the bigger brother, the Sovereign)
stand up today is stunning sounding speakers. Even more than 25 years
after they were released. And no, I am not trying to compare the
Duntechs to the LS3/5a (that would be silly, as the Sovereign is one of
the few speakers on the planet which can provide a decent reproduction
of a full orchestral piece), but to indicate the process.

Much as I am very keen on basing our understanding on *appropriate*
measurement and analysis I am also very aware that in the end speakers are
made and sold for people to put them into all kinds of rooms to listen to
all kinds of music and enjoy the results. Afraid there are too many
variables out of the developers control/awarness to make this as simple as
your sweeping description.

**My point exactly. An anechoic test is essential, BECAUSE of the
massive variety of rooms.

Anechoic measurements are very handy, and methods like gated pulses, etc,
can also be handy. So make good sense. But they won't be enough in
themselves. Measurements can just as easily mislead as reveal. Depends on
the measurements *and* the judgement of the people making them and
interpreting the results.

**Correct. Just as the opinions of those who do not bother listening to
different products is suspect.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 20/12/2015 8:03 PM, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Trevor Wilson
wrote:
And trying to "measure" loudspeakers and interpret/explain the results
in a *meaningful* way is considerably more difficult than for
something like an amplifier. e.g. Simply looking at a frequency
response plot done anechoic/pulsed won't always tell you what it
sounds like. Particularly given how the results will vary with the
room acoustic, etc.

**Quite so. However, I chose Stereophile for the reason that many
measurements are performed, by very experienced people and, presumably,
under the same conditions each time. Thus, valid comparisons may be
drawn.

I was with you until the last statement. :-)

Instead of "Thus" I might have said that "There is a reasonably chance
that".

**I accept your correction.

But TBH experience has taught me to take a lot of what I read in
reviews as being questionable or unreliable.

**Of course. Humans are extremely unreliable. Measurements are far more
useful (provided the obvious attention is paid to proper procedure).

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

In article , Trevor Wilson
wrote:

But TBH experience has taught me to take a lot of what I read in
reviews as being questionable or unreliable.

**Of course. Humans are extremely unreliable. Measurements are far more
useful (provided the obvious attention is paid to proper procedure).

Yes. Unfortunately, all to often measured values are presented without
anyone being able to easily tell if they were obtained in a appropiate
manner. This can lead to 'conclusions' being inferred which are
inappropriate. The advantage measurements give us here is that anyone else
can try to do the 'same' measurement to see if they agree about the results
and assess the proceedure. There are snags, though...

e.g. On the final 'Armstrong History' page one example was the reviewer's
use of 0.1% THD to 'define' what was meant by "overload point" without
actually specifying this was the basis in the review.

In some circumstances that is a reasonable and appropriate basis. e.g. for
a line level amp which has a fair bit of feedback, or similar. i.e. cases
where the THD stays low as you increase the signal level, only to suddenly
start rising rapidly as you reach clipping. In such cases you'd get much
the same result for "overload point" if you'd chosen, say, 0.2% or 0.5%.

However it was done in this case to a small signal amp with *no* feedback.
And one for use in circumstances where the source (moving coil cart) would
be producing vastly more distortion. The amp would also handle signal
levels ten time higher than this "overload point" - again with far lower
distortion than the intended sources.

In such circumstances, the specified "overload point" value was highly
misleading - but the review didn't say how it had been 'determined' or
'measured'. So readers couldn't tell if they didn't already know the
internal details of the amplifier, etc.

Fortunately, the reviewer :

a) revealed the basis in a 'postscript' when challenged.

b) proceeded to make other statements which shot himself in the foot
anyway.

But in many cases such a value in a magazine may appear *without* readers
knowing the protocol used. e.g. In an earlier review discussed on another
page which gave wildly misleading values for "half power bandwidth".

Against all that, listening tests can also be very useful *if* the right
protocols are adopted, we're told what they were, and we don't end up with
the usual, "trust me, I'm an expert" basis the magazines present all too
often.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Jim Lesurf wrote:

The reality is that domestic loudspeakers are bought by people who use them
in ordinary rooms. Which of course, may be of a different size, shape, and
constuction from one place to another.

** Sad to say most hi-fi systems are used in rooms that are very far from ideal for the purpose - with polished timber floors, large glass windows, smooth walls and ceilings. The sort of rooms you see depicted in glossy advertising photos of hi-fi installations.

I dislike the Linn isobaraks, etc. To me they sound awful.

** Yet another speaker built using the same drivers found in the Kef Concerto - but with two of each per box, which is rather too many.

The Linn Sondek turntable was a common sight here in Australia, but other Linn items were few and far between - so I have never seen or heard an Isobarik.

Having an extra mid diver and tweeter mounted on top like that reminds me of Sonab, also popular in Australia, but for all the wrong reasons.

..... Phil

In article , Huge
scribeth thus
On 2015-12-20, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Huge
scribeth thus
On 2015-12-18, tony sayer wrote:

[66 lines snipped]

It wasn't the comments of the reviewers, it was the comments of users!

Do you think you could see your way clear to snipping your responses?

Yes Mr huge boss mann!. Got those 63's yet;?....

Bought a new house to put them in, first.

Decent sized living room that the right sort we hope?....
--
Tony Sayer

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:21:41 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Huge
scribeth thus
On 2015-12-20, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Huge
scribeth thus
On 2015-12-18, tony sayer wrote:

[66 lines snipped]

It wasn't the comments of the reviewers, it was the comments of users!

Do you think you could see your way clear to snipping your responses?

Yes Mr huge boss mann!. Got those 63's yet;?....

Bought a new house to put them in, first.

Decent sized living room that the right sort we hope?....

And make it anechoic as the weird Australian likes? OK, maybe not.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus