240 replies to this topic

[genek]

I fail to see where "transparency" whatever that means is not part of the concept of accuracy. If transparency means that musical instruments and voices are distinguishable from one another as they would be in a live performance, how is that in conflict with the notion of accuracy? What exactly do you mean by the term accuracy in this context?

There is a certain "faith in numbers" thinking in some circles that appears to hold that electrical signal curve in = SPL curve out = accuracy, and that if a speaker with such performance doesn't produce good sound it's because the signal going in isn't good. Following that line of thinking all the way up the audio playing chain, all the blame for bad sound coming out of a system made of components with "flat response" belongs to the recording, and while that might be so from a conceptual POV, I'm not about to devote a lot of time, effort or money to an audio system just so I can end up listening to faithful reproductions of recordings I think sound bad.

[Zilch]

I fail to see where "transparency" whatever that means is not part of the concept of accuracy. If transparency means that musical instruments and voices are distinguishable from one another as they would be in a live performance, how is that in conflict with the notion of accuracy? What exactly do you mean by the term accuracy in this context?

I agree. What Holt means by "transparency" is indefinite.

Here is the article:

http://www.stereophi...kers/171advent/

Contrary to Shacky's reading, Holt was saying that Avents are as good as speakers costing 5 times as much or more BECAUSE they are accurate, at least in his view, 33 years ago....

[Shacky]

I agree. What Holt means by "transparency" is indefinite.

Here is the article:

http://www.stereophi...kers/171advent/

Contrary to Shacky's reading, Holt was saying that Avents are as good as speakers costing 5 times as much or more BECAUSE they are accurate, at least in his view, 33 years ago....

While you are very correct in that that is what the article said about Advents, I took the quote in separate context. I felt that quote may do a better job than me of describing the variation in measured accuracy and prefered sound that has been a topic many threads here in the Kitchen.

I would have preferred I use the word may instead of is not the end all. With all the comments here about AR 3a's not being accurate or being colored - there has got to be a way to better describe why some find them their favorites and closest thing to live music/sound reproduction.

[genek]

Contrary to Shacky's reading, Holt was saying that Avents are as good as speakers costing 5 times as much or more BECAUSE they are accurate, at least in his view, 33 years ago....

More specifically, he was saying that that was how people who found his conception of accuracy 33 years ago a guarantee of personal satisfaction with a loudspeaker were likely to feel about them.

[soundminded]

I agree. What Holt means by "transparency" is indefinite.

Here is the article:

http://www.stereophi...kers/171advent/

Contrary to Shacky's reading, Holt was saying that Avents are as good as speakers costing 5 times as much or more BECAUSE they are accurate, at least in his view, 33 years ago....

This was a typical Stereophile trash review. There wasn't a single measurement given. No on or off axis frequency response. No THD vs frequency for the woofer. Not even a listing of the speaker's sensitivity. Was it's impedence specified?

"In fact, the only respect in which we felt the Advents took a back seat to any other speaker system was in transparency. Compared with the KLH Nine full-range electrostatic, which has some other imperfections and costs over $1000 anyway, the Advents seemed to be playing through a velvet fog."

If that doesn't tell you anything about what Holt is talking about, consider that the only amplifier he mentioned that he used it with (there were others that weren't mentioned) was Crown DC300, an amplifier many audiophiles have described over the intervening decades as "unlistenable." (In my limited experience with Crown DC300 I never found it that way and in my limited experience with Advent, I did not find it at all accurate...by my definitions)

A useless review from a useless magazine. I expect the review of the AR3a will be in the same vein. It's interesting that the speaker was given a kind of negative praise. The bottom line was...ho hum, it wasn't very exciting, we couldn't find anything wrong with it so it was OK. It just wasn't as transparent as another speaker that cost five times as much and had other things wrong with it. Makes you want to drop what you're doing this very instant, grab your checkbook or credit card and run right out to get a pair.

[Zilch]

It's interesting that the speaker was given a kind of negative praise. The bottom line was...ho hum, it wasn't very exciting, we couldn't find anything wrong with it so it was OK. It just wasn't as transparent as another speaker that cost five times as much and had other things wrong with it. Makes you want to drop what you're doing this very instant, grab your checkbook or credit card and run right out to get a pair.

At the going rate of $20 or less a pair, not a bad deal, actually, considering that some variants come in rather handsome cabinets, and they can be "fixed."

[We're allowed to say stuff like this here in The Kitchen.... ]

[soundminded]

At the going rate of $20 or less a pair, not a bad deal, actually, considering that some variants come in rather handsome cabinets, and they can be "fixed."

[We're allowed to say stuff like this here in The Kitchen.... ]

Zilch, stuff yer box. And while you're at it, put your grill cloth back on. Your whizzer cone is sticking out.

[Zilch]

Zilch, stuff yer box. And while you're at it, put your grill cloth back on. Your whizzer cone is sticking out.

O.K., SM, fess up:

Where'd you hide the SpyCam?

10,000 + views on U-Tube, now:

[See dem Advents there? ]

[Zilch]

Attached is a copy of a curve of the Advent run by AR in its chamber back in 1976.

Pretend I got a different result 32 years later:

http://www.audiokarm...495#post1913495

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Zilch]

Your point being?

That my measurements are substantially in agreement with AR's findings, and they are not "neutral" or "transparent," no matter how the definition is stretched.

We can debate whether your assertion that a 10" woofer can't play to 1 kHz, and the inherent "deficiency" of the dispersion at that frequency, but, from your perspective, Allisons are better.

I believe we get YOUR point, but there are also other options:

http://www.classicsp...amp;#entry80844

[Zilch]

Sure. My point (mentioned in several published articles, as well as here and there on the internet) is that what matters is smooth and decently flat (maybe with some downward sloping towards the treble) wide-bandwidth and low-distortion response that can combine the direct and reverberant fields in such a way that one set up might sound more spacious and the other might sound more detailed and tighter imaged. I have no philosophical problems with either, but I "prefer" the more-spacious approach.

Cool. Now, if you'll only agree that there IS no reverberant field in typical "small room" listening spaces, rather, merely a reflective one, we can be pals....

[Zilch]

Interesting. Perhaps all along our disagreements have involved terminology and semantics and not actual philosophical issues.

All we need now from you are three things:

1. An explanation of how a reverberant field, which by definition involves reflected energy, cannot form in smaller listening rooms (like typical living rooms).

reverberant:
adj.
reverberating; reechoing; resonant

Please re-read Toole Chapter 4, "Sound Fields in Rooms" which documents the fact that a Beranek reverberant field does not exist in small rooms, and the reason(s) one cannot form.

2. How a "reflective" field is different from a reverberant field in any kind of listening space, but particularly a small one.

Villchur, Allison, and Berkovitz presumed a homogenous, isotropic, diffuse, steady state reverberant field, such as exists in large spaces like concert halls, to similarly dominate small home listening spaces, as well. It does not exist, and that is the fundamental reason their model and design approach fails. We no more listen in a reverberant chamber than in an anechoic one, and there is no reverberant field "normalizing" the perceived spectral balance.

3. How a "reflective" field (your term for what I call the reverberant field) in a small room, in combination with the direct field, is not able to significantly impact the spectral balance generated by speakers at the listener's ears.

It does, of course, but the rules are different from what you presume. We are not listening in a sea of reflections, rather, a mix of finite paths, and only those short enough in length to impact the spectral balance do so, while those longer in length primarily affect spaciousness.

See below, from http://www.gedlee.co...s/Cum laude.pdf

Toole shows essentially the same diagram throughout his book....

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Zilch]

It's the same problem we've had all along, Howard; it'd be good if you actually read this stuff objectively, because your bias precludes your getting the point.

Geddes tells the reader that the omni is both the dotted and the solid lines.

Toole in Vienna is about listener envelopment which cannot be achieved via two-channels in small rooms.

Imaging and spaciousness are in large part mutually exclusive if wide dispersion is the means of achieving the latter. You said that, Toole said that, Allison said that, everyone says that. Can spaciousness be achieved via other means and imaging preserved? Yup, but two-channel, you've got to give up the notion that spraying the room with wide dispersion is the only way to accomplish it, much less, the best or "right" way.

Allison and Berkovitz demonstrated that we are NOT hearing the imaginary diffuse soundfield you still contend exists, and Toole tells us why: by the time a reflection has bounced enough times, and off enough absorptive and diffusive surfaces and objects, and traveled the requisite distance in a typical listening room to get back to the listener, it is attenuated to inaudibility.

What we hear is a mix of the direct field and high order reflections, SPL adjusted, and you can easily prove this to yourself by damping the primary laterals alone. Imaging will focus, and the artificial soundstage will collapse....

[Zilch]

And in no way did Allison and Berkovitz demonstrate what you say at all. You must be reading a different article from the one I posted. If a signal was attenuated as you say after bouncing off multiple room boundaries speakers would sound the same indoors as they do outdoors. Obviously, they do not behave that way at all, and the reason is that the reverberant field is having a huge impact indoors.

You'll not lead me around that one again, Howard. It's the early reflections doing it, not your imaginary reverberant field. I have provided many suggestions as to how you might prove yourself wrong.

Here, read up:

http://www.aes.org/t...90707/13686.pdf

If you must embellish subjectivist blather with science, it's generally best to get the science part correct....

[Zilch]

Indeed, Howard, and just to refresh your recollection, it was largely responsible for our now having The Kitchen, whose meager 16 threads now boast 1353 replies and 31,000 views.

Interestingly, I recently finished reading a copy of Floyd Toole's new book on loudspeakers and rooms, and in there Toole basically dismisses the AR live-vs-recorded presentations as mostly being entertainment for people who were unsophisticated by modern audio standards. I think this is a preposterous claim, but it is obvious that if one embraces the validity of what Villchur did it invalidates much of what Toole says about speaker sound in his book.

Of note: To which in reply I posted the same link as just above; it'd really be good if you actually read it this time....

[soundminded]

"Indeed, Howard, and just to refresh your recollection, [I] was largely responsible for our now having The Kitchen, whose meager 16 threads now boast 1353 replies..."

Yes Zilch but 1352 of those replies were yours.

Yes Zilch, you were largely responsible for our now having The Kitchen...because the heat of your postings got you thrown off the AR message board and Mark was generous enough to think someone might want to read them. I think it's the first time something like this happened since this blog site started. Congratulations, as a relative newcomer it didn't take you very long. The next step will probably be "The Back Alley."

You went a whole week without posting. I was waiting to see how long you could go. Had it lasted much longer, I was thinking of asking someone to go over to your house to see if you were still breathing. Then I realized, you were probably busy putting a speaker together for someone on Audio Kharma you convinced to actually buy one.

BTW, when do we get to see the Review of the AR3a? I can hardly wait to see how creatively Stereophile can bash it indirectly without offending the intelligence of (almost) everyone on this site.

[Zilch]

Yes Zilch but 1352 of those replies were yours.

Bah.

You've expended WAY more posts than me just tellin' everybody you've got a secret that nobody'll give you any money for....

I think it's the first time something like this happened since this blog site started.

Uhmm, "discussion forum," not a "blog site."

I thought he always hung around here like flies around, um, waste products. It is interesting that once he got back on line, as usual, he stayed attached to the site like a suckerfish on a shark. He certainly responded to my recent messages with impressive speed. The guy's world revolves around his internet connection - even if it is, as he has stated in the past, a dialup.

Though I've been busy, Howard, the main thread having just rolled over 6300 entries and 300,000 views, I do monitor this site for new posts....

[Zilch]

As I have implied elsewhere, your world revolves around the internet - and probably not around much else.

Maybe you and Soundminded could get together and actually DO something, Howard; he's got the "secret formula," and you've got the backyard shop to build it....

[Zilch]

After publishing a couple hundred magazine articles and four books, plus helping to edit and write rticles for two reference books, I think I have DONE enough.

Alas, Howard, ignorant as surely I am, I've read but one review of one of your books, and must rely upon others to assess the merits of the larger body of your work.

[Zilch passes the baton to the most erudite and eloquent Soundminded for a Cliff Notes synopsis.... ]

[soundminded]

Alas, Howard, ignorant as surely I am, I've read but one review of one of your books, and must rely upon others to assess the merits of the larger body of your work.

[Zilch passes the baton to the most erudite and eloquent Soundminded for a Cliff Notes synopsis.... ]

Zilch, if you are looking for my review of Howard's books, you are out of luck. I never read any of them. I never even saw the magazine he usually wrote for (was it Absolute Sound) even once. If I read an article he wrote for High Fidelity Magazine 30 or 40 years ago, I've forgotten it. I didn't read most of the articles in most magazines I subscribed to and I rarely if ever take note of who the author is.

The only thing I ever read that Howard wrote and it was the first time I ever heard of him was his review of Bose 901 when it was referenced on this blog site last year. It's a topic I feel I know something about. I was disappointed with the review for several reasons. He reviewed speakers at a friend's house that were about 5 feet from a wall, not even remotely close to what the manufacturer recommended which is 6 to 24 inches with 12 to 18 inches being optimal. Since the installation of these speakers is so critical to their performance, this alone invalidated the value of the review IMO. Also these were a recent version that was substantially different from the original version that sparked so much comment in the press. IMO the newer versions in many ways were substantial design compromise to make them more marketable and increase profits, not a technical improvement over the original design.

I share some of Howard's views, I disagree with him on many others. I do not consider myself an audiophile in the usual sense and my views and opinions are invariably different and strongly at odds with other people's especially audiophiles. One thing we do agree on I think is that the current market of very expensive audio equipment is no better and sometimes even not nearly as good as its far less expensive predecessors of a few decades ago.