Kef B110
 

On 19/12/2015 12:57, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Jim Lesurf 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.

I'd wonder just how good an anechoic room these reviewers have for doing
their measurements. A proper one costs a great deal of money.


I was wondering how these reviewers detect a slight harshness
in a 250w amplifier at near clipping levels. I would have thought
their ears and speakers would have been slightly harsh at those levels.

--
Eiron.

Kef B110
 

On 20/12/2015 4:43 AM, Eiron wrote:
On 19/12/2015 12:57, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Jim Lesurf 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.

I'd wonder just how good an anechoic room these reviewers have for doing
their measurements. A proper one costs a great deal of money.


I was wondering how these reviewers detect a slight harshness
in a 250w amplifier at near clipping levels. I would have thought
their ears and speakers would have been slightly harsh at those levels.


**That would depend on:

* The sensitivity of the speakers.
* The damping of the room.
* The distance the listener was from the speakers.

Under some circumstances, 250 Watts may not be nearly adequate.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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

Kef B110
 

On 19/12/2015 9:17 PM, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Trevor Wilson
wrote:

Measurements, unlike humans, do not lie and are not clouded by delusions
and imagining that the old days were better. Those humans can be
reviewers or owners.

Alas, measurements are made and interpreted by humans, who do make
mistakes in the process, leading to misleading impressions. You only have
to read the webpages I put up recently to see serious examples of this.

Classic case, for example, of how a "measurement" was done and presented in
a way that was mis-appropriate. It isn't a "lie", but misleads anyway.

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.


The LS3/5a is far from accurate.

Fair comment on most speakers as a sweeping generalisation. But doesn't
stop some examples from suiting many people given their circumstances and
preferences. OTOH the QUAD ESLs tend to be "accurate", but won't suit some
people for various reasons.


**Suitability has zero to do with anything. Accuracy may have nothing to
do with preference. I do not, for one millisecond, doubt that many
listeners prefer the sound of the LS3/5a. I don't. I prefer a speaker
which exhibits a closer approach to accurate sound.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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

Kef B110
 

On 20/12/2015 2:03 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 08:23:39 +1100, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

Measurements, unlike humans, do not lie and are not clouded by delusions
and imagining that the old days were better. Those humans can be
reviewers or owners.

Really? You tell me what response you want to see from a speaker, and
I'll guarantee I can find somewhere to put the microphone that will
get you close.

In some fields measurement is pretty objective, but speakers? Not even
close.


**It is reasonable to assume that Stereophile use the same measurement
system (at any given time frame) for all their speakers. It is also
likely that the same people are used to perform those measurements.
Therefore, it is valid to draw comparisons between various speakers.
That said, I suggest you examine the ragged top end of the LS3/5a
response and explain how that effect can be caused by the measurement
system.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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

Kef B110
 

On 19/12/2015 9:29 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
And a speaker which sounded good in the 70s will still sound good today.

**That is a perfectly insane claim. I loved my 1973 Ford Escort. Great
little car, but performance, handling, fuel economy, comfort, safety(!)
and reliability pale beside a 2015 Ford Focus. I would estimate (though
I have not crunched the numbers) that the Escort was more expensive too.

Interesting you choose a cheap and nasty mass produced small car as your
basis for this. And of course many billions have been spent developing
cars in that time - to the point where there is little to compare.

**I compared TWO Ford, mass produced cars of approximately similar
market segments. If you'd prefer, we could use the Fiesta, rather than
the Focus. The results would be very similar. The Fiesta would
comprehensively trump the Escort. In every way. If you'd rather, stick a
2015 Mercedes SL350 vs. a 1971 Mercedes SL450.

CAD and millions of Dollars in research has propelled speaker design far
beyond what the LS3/5a can manage.


Same deal with the LS3/5a. It WAS a good little speaker, compared to the
competition, back in the 1970s. Compared to the competition today, it is
sadly lacking.

So you keep saying. I don't believe you.

**I accept your delusions as your own. Like I said: You need to get out
more.


If there were obvious faults with the 3/5a like colouration or poor
imaging I'd have long since replaced them.


**Not necessarily. I have a client who owns a Mercedes SL450. He
stubbornly refuses to get rid of it. I suggested that a Toyota Corolla
would offer better performance, fuel economy, far superior safety,
better reliability, etc, etc. He keeps driving it for no other reason
than he can put the top down on a nice day. Me? I've driven both the
Corolla and the SL450. There is no comparison. The Mercedes is a POS.
And, for the record: I have driven a late model SL500. It was quite
nice. Certainly better than the Corolla.

The LS3/5a was quite decent several decades ago. Today, it is not even
in the race.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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

Kef B110
 

On 19/12/2015 11:57 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Jim Lesurf 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.

I'd wonder just how good an anechoic room these reviewers have for doing
their measurements. A proper one costs a great deal of money.


**Anechoic environments are useful, but not strictly necessary for
modern measurement systems. Particularly so in the HF area, where time
window measurements can easily be arranged to ignore reflections. And,
if you examine the HF response of the LS3/5a, you will note some very
serious problems.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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

Kef B110
 

On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 06:27:16 +1100, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 20/12/2015 2:03 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 08:23:39 +1100, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

Measurements, unlike humans, do not lie and are not clouded by delusions
and imagining that the old days were better. Those humans can be
reviewers or owners.

Really? You tell me what response you want to see from a speaker, and
I'll guarantee I can find somewhere to put the microphone that will
get you close.

In some fields measurement is pretty objective, but speakers? Not even
close.


**It is reasonable to assume that Stereophile use the same measurement
system (at any given time frame) for all their speakers. It is also
likely that the same people are used to perform those measurements.
Therefore, it is valid to draw comparisons between various speakers.
That said, I suggest you examine the ragged top end of the LS3/5a
response and explain how that effect can be caused by the measurement
system.

Sorry, but no it isn't. When you are in a normal room listening to a
speaker, what you hear is the sum of all the possible paths from
speaker to you, via the walls. The on-axis response is not quite
irrelevant, but almost.

Speaker designers may use the on-axis response, but that is because it
is all they have. You want to know how a speaker performs? Stick it in
your listening room and live with it for a few weeks. If there is
something about it that you like, send it back because whatever it is
will start to annoy you after a while. Go for the speaker that has
absolutely no stand-out features.

d

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

Kef B110
 

On 20/12/2015 6:42 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 06:27:16 +1100, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 20/12/2015 2:03 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 08:23:39 +1100, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

Measurements, unlike humans, do not lie and are not clouded by delusions
and imagining that the old days were better. Those humans can be
reviewers or owners.

Really? You tell me what response you want to see from a speaker, and
I'll guarantee I can find somewhere to put the microphone that will
get you close.

In some fields measurement is pretty objective, but speakers? Not even
close.


**It is reasonable to assume that Stereophile use the same measurement
system (at any given time frame) for all their speakers. It is also
likely that the same people are used to perform those measurements.
Therefore, it is valid to draw comparisons between various speakers.
That said, I suggest you examine the ragged top end of the LS3/5a
response and explain how that effect can be caused by the measurement
system.

Sorry, but no it isn't. When you are in a normal room listening to a
speaker, what you hear is the sum of all the possible paths from
speaker to you, via the walls. The on-axis response is not quite
irrelevant, but almost.

**The ragged HF response of the LS3/5a cannot possibly be caused by room
effects. I suggest you study up on some physics.


Speaker designers may use the on-axis response, but that is because it
is all they have. You want to know how a speaker performs? Stick it in
your listening room and live with it for a few weeks. If there is
something about it that you like, send it back because whatever it is
will start to annoy you after a while. Go for the speaker that has
absolutely no stand-out features.


**Without measurements, we are in the dark.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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

Kef B110
 

On 20/12/2015 4:06 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 16:47:27 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 14:49:51 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

Speaker + room effects are *far* more complicated and case-variable
than mere amplifier behaviour. One reason I avoided ever doing any
speaker design!

Jim

This is so. You don't listen to a speaker - ever. You listen to a system
(room, plus furnishing, plus speaker, plus room next door - plus you -
and of course anyone else who happens to be around. All you have to do
to convince yourself of the pointlessness of trying to consider the
speaker alone is measure an impulse response, move the microphone a
couple of inches and measure again. If you can tell the measurement was
made in the same room, you cheated and looked over the tester's shoulder.

FWIW I used to have access to a (small) anechoic room when I still worked
at Uni. It was very useful for making controlled measurements for research
purposes. But the percieved sound from a speaker was nothing like what you
heard in any normal domestic room. And having someone in the chamber
affected measurements, so we had to leave and close the door.

Gated pulses would have a similar effect when testing, if used to exclude
reflections. With the added difficulty of also modifying LF behaviour.

Jim

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.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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

Kef B110
 

On 19/12/2015 19:37, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 19/12/2015 9:29 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
And a speaker which sounded good in the 70s will still sound good
today.

**That is a perfectly insane claim. I loved my 1973 Ford Escort. Great
little car, but performance, handling, fuel economy, comfort, safety(!)
and reliability pale beside a 2015 Ford Focus. I would estimate (though
I have not crunched the numbers) that the Escort was more expensive too.

Interesting you choose a cheap and nasty mass produced small car as your
basis for this. And of course many billions have been spent developing
cars in that time - to the point where there is little to compare.

**I compared TWO Ford, mass produced cars of approximately similar
market segments. If you'd prefer, we could use the Fiesta, rather than
the Focus. The results would be very similar. The Fiesta would
comprehensively trump the Escort. In every way. If you'd rather, stick a
2015 Mercedes SL350 vs. a 1971 Mercedes SL450.

CAD and millions of Dollars in research has propelled speaker design far
beyond what the LS3/5a can manage.


Same deal with the LS3/5a. It WAS a good little speaker, compared to the
competition, back in the 1970s. Compared to the competition today, it is
sadly lacking.

So you keep saying. I don't believe you.

**I accept your delusions as your own. Like I said: You need to get out
more.


If there were obvious faults with the 3/5a like colouration or poor
imaging I'd have long since replaced them.


**Not necessarily. I have a client who owns a Mercedes SL450. He
stubbornly refuses to get rid of it. I suggested that a Toyota Corolla
would offer better performance, fuel economy, far superior safety,
better reliability, etc, etc. He keeps driving it for no other reason
than he can put the top down on a nice day. Me? I've driven both the
Corolla and the SL450. There is no comparison. The Mercedes is a POS.
And, for the record: I have driven a late model SL500. It was quite
nice. Certainly better than the Corolla.

The LS3/5a was quite decent several decades ago. Today, it is not even
in the race.


While I don't accept your 'objectivity' arguments (I've read some pretty
good reviews of the LS3/5a, although not heard them myself), I would
support the notion that sentimentality plays a part, countering in part
the 'if they were that bad I'd have replaced them' line of argument.


--
Cheers, Rob