Kef B110
 

Trevor Wilson wrote:



**I have several listening rooms. The best one has the fewest
reflections and the most damping. In fact, it is the one which most
closely approaches an anechoic environment.


** If you want to hear what your speakers and the recording really sound like, - then a non reverberant listening room is essential.

Listening via high quality ( ie electrostatic) headphones eliminates room effects and provides a level of sound quality few loudspeakers can approach - and then only if used in a non reverberant room.

By non reverberant, I mean a heavily damped room with no hard reflective surfaces. It should also be very quiet.



..... Phil

Kef B110
 

On 20/12/2015 11:26 AM, Phil Allison wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:



**I have several listening rooms. The best one has the fewest
reflections and the most damping. In fact, it is the one which
most closely approaches an anechoic environment.


** If you want to hear what your speakers and the recording really
sound like, - then a non reverberant listening room is essential.

Listening via high quality ( ie electrostatic) headphones eliminates
room effects and provides a level of sound quality few loudspeakers
can approach - and then only if used in a non reverberant room.

By non reverberant, I mean a heavily damped room with no hard
reflective surfaces. It should also be very quiet.

**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.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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

Kef B110
 

In article , Trevor Wilson
wrote:
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.

The problem in the case I referred to on my recent 'Armstrong' pages was
that their 'reference' amp was far less powerful. So when "comparing
amplifiers" they:

A) By using their reference amp they would have had no idea how the
speakers were affected when driven to +250W levels.

B) To find out they would be playing the music that much louder than
possible with their reference amp. So not comparing like with like in terms
of their hearing.

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

Kef B110
 

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

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

Kef B110
 

In article , Trevor Wilson
wrote:
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.

I would not recommend either LS3/5As or QUAD ESLs to someone devoted to
loud organ music or reggae. They would be unlikely to suit their purposes.

I can only say that having over many years based my preferences on
comparing Radio 3 with being at the venues (and often performances)
broadcast, I regard both the ESLs and the LS3/5As as very suitable for
giving a good representation. But this does depend on ensuring they are
used in an appropriate way. e.g. the LS3/5As strike me as best used in
small rooms, etc. But then, that's what they are designed for IIUC.

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

Kef B110
 

In article , Trevor Wilson
wrote:
**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.

I'm afraid that seems to me to be an example of the same thinking that
reviews often trot out. i.e. looking for some measurement which you feel
'justifies' your reaction. post hoc.

How many domestic listening rooms *don't* have a "ragged top end" I wonder?

And how well does a nominal on axis measurement really show the behaviour
of a *small* speaker? Particularly used off-axis in a small room?

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

Kef B110
 

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.

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.

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.

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

Kef B110
 

In article , Trevor Wilson
wrote:

I will ask once mo What room effects cause the ragged HF response of
the LS3/5a?

i must admit to being puzzled by your apparent horror about this. I've
never done an in-room measurements where the room acoustic didn't add a
"ragged" HF response. Thats what echoes do when you measure with time
periods much longer than the round trip times.

Human hearing tends to process these out as we 'learn' the room's
behaviour.

if you wish to avoid them, then listening in the open air may help you. :-)

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

Kef B110
 

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. :-)

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

Kef B110
 

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Trevor Wilson
wrote:
**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.

I'm afraid that seems to me to be an example of the same thinking that
reviews often trot out. i.e. looking for some measurement which you feel
'justifies' your reaction. post hoc.

How many domestic listening rooms *don't* have a "ragged top end" I
wonder?

And how well does a nominal on axis measurement really show the behaviour
of a *small* speaker? Particularly used off-axis in a small room?

You only have to look at the various plots that have been made of the
response over the years to note the differences.

Personally, I'll believe the original BBC one out of them all - having
seen the room and equipment used for that testing.

--
*And the cardiologist' s diet: - If it tastes good spit it out.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.