View Full Version : What makes a £10,000 Speaker - BBC Link
have a look at this -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/9562304.stm
Includes a look at KEF and all I could see were squitty little drivers, a hideously complicated crossover (more inductors than a dozen old Spendors like mine :lol:) and a fancy column cabinet shape with computer optimisation.
What's the audio world come to eh? :D
What interests me more is the single/coax driver monitor in the control room. I've seen reference to these but can't for the life of me remember what they are...
That was somewhat less detailed than I was expecting. Informative as the old Monty Python / Blue Peter sketch: "Next, how to play the flute." "Well you blow here and move your fingers up and down, here."
and here's that very sketch (http://youtu.be/tNfGyIW7aHM)
HighFidelityGuy
16-08-2011, 11:28
At least we now know which speakers to buy if we ever decide to live in an anechoic chamber. Very useful. Thanks Kef! :rolleyes:
Failing that, when the zombie apocalypse happens and normal society comes to an end, we'll know which speakers to crack open to harvest all the precious copper from their inductors. :lol:
Neil McCauley
16-08-2011, 11:46
Gentlemen – I beg to differ! In my view(s) as a retailer, a ‘civilian’, a music-lover and a bloke, this mini lecture is PRECISELY what our industry needs.
To get coverage on the BBC website is astonishing - for a piss-poor industry that might well be on its last legs!
There was no ‘tongue-in-cheek’ condescension, nothing patronising and no gimmickry. Just think about this for a moment. Free publicity for the industry (as a whole) without any attempt to portray audiophiles as blinged-up half-wits with more money than sense.
How else do you expect fresh blood to enter our world, given how stupid the industry now looks to outsiders?
We aren't immune from market-forces and should be appreciative of EVERY opportunity – however superficial it might seems to us insiders – to portray our hobby / passion / industry in a positive light to outsiders if the hobby is to survive in the UK!
------------------
HighFidelityGuy
16-08-2011, 14:21
The programme its self was ok, it was just rather short and low on content. It is nice to see some screen time being devoted to the topic though. I was mainly poking fun at some of Kef's design and testing methodologies which I personally disagree with.
I don't think it's the methodologies that's the issue, it's HOW THE EVIDENCE IS INTERPRETED that matters..
Anyway, one of the final comments was that the listening room is the final arbiter, and that's something I do agree with :)
Alan Sircom
16-08-2011, 20:22
Gentlemen – I beg to differ! In my view(s) as a retailer, a ‘civilian’, a music-lover and a bloke, this mini lecture is PRECISELY what our industry needs.
To get coverage on the BBC website is astonishing - for a piss-poor industry that might well be on its last legs!
There was no ‘tongue-in-cheek’ condescension, nothing patronising and no gimmickry. Just think about this for a moment. Free publicity for the industry (as a whole) without any attempt to portray audiophiles as blinged-up half-wits with more money than sense.
How else do you expect fresh blood to enter our world, given how stupid the industry now looks to outsiders?
We aren't immune from market-forces and should be appreciative of EVERY opportunity – however superficial it might seems to us insiders – to portray our hobby / passion / industry in a positive light to outsiders if the hobby is to survive in the UK!
------------------
I couldn't agree more, Howard. This is probably the first TV coverage about audio I've seen in almost a decade that didn't say all you need is an iPod. It also pushes a British (well, sort of) audio company as being hi-tech.
Disengage the cynicism duct for a few minutes, guys. This is a good thing.
Too right (Howard and Alan)! :)
Marco.
Alan Sircom
16-08-2011, 20:41
The programme its self was ok, it was just rather short and low on content. It is nice to see some screen time being devoted to the topic though. I was mainly poking fun at some of Kef's design and testing methodologies which I personally disagree with.
The BBC Click programme is always going to prefer a hi-tech approach. Computer screens and anechoic chambers are more telegenic than just a talking head. The fact the engineer was under 40 also helps. It all plays well with the target audience too.
These are the kind of people who think everything audiophile is made by idiots for rich idiots. By talking up the objective elements of loudspeaker design, they manage to by-pass the whole 'audiophool' bit.
Besides, for all your disagreement with the methodologies used at KEF, it's the same methodology that has made the Blade. And that's one of the best loudspeakers in current production. I know that doesn't cut much mustard in a forum where any loudspeaker design minted after 1950 is viewed with suspicion, but people who still buy loudspeakers today are almost universally impressed by the Blade.
Knowing Click and its international repeat cycle, that 3:20 section will probably reach hundreds of thousands of bored English speaking people in hotel rooms in far away places. Then they'll get drunk and forget about it.
Reid Malenfant
16-08-2011, 20:45
The Blade? :scratch: What is that?
I'm all ears, but i guess in this case i'll be looking at a response ;)
These are the kind of people who think everything audiophile is made by idiots for rich idiots. By talking up the objective elements of loudspeaker design, they manage to by-pass the whole 'audiophool' bit.Would have been nice to say that you don't need '$15,000' speakers to get a compelling sound from a hi-fi. To me, it came over like, "even with these hugely expensive loud speakers, an orchestra will sound rubbish." That's hardly going to impress on the iPod users to buy new equipment.
Besides, for all your disagreement with the methodologies used at KEF, it's the same methodology that has made the Blade.
KEF Blade:
http://i.imgur.com/JfQtY.jpg
These are listed as costing £20,000. link (http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/40104/kef-blade-speaker-unveiled)
Stratmangler
16-08-2011, 20:49
http://www.kef.com/en/release/bladeloudspeaker/blade
Reid Malenfant
16-08-2011, 20:53
http://www.kef.com/en/release/bladeloudspeaker/blade
Cheers Chris :) If we meet up i owe you a beer or two ;)
The programme its self was ok, it was just rather short and low on content. It is nice to see some screen time being devoted to the topic though. I was mainly poking fun at some of Kef's design and testing methodologies which I personally disagree with.
Me too - well certainly with the notion that the 'ideal' speaker has a perfectly flat frequency response! Maybe in the ideal world, but otherwise... :nono:
First of all, the rooms speakers are used in aren't acoustically perfect, so a speaker with a perfectly flat frequency response, used in such an environment, will more than likely, sound, well, FLAT (as in anodyne and boring)!
Secondly, live and un-amplified musical instruments and the human voice do not have a perfectly flat frequency response. Therefore, any speakers or partnering equipment that is unable, through being voiced as 'flat', to capture and replicate their sound properties, will never make genuinely realistic sounding music.
This is one reason why high-quality valve equipment is good at preserving, and thus reproducing, the 'life' and vibrancy of real instruments and voices. Because even though it doesn't measure as well ("well" meaning 'flat' or having less distortion present), in my experience, it more faithfully reproduces the natural distortions and 'imperfect' frequency response of the former, in turn making the results more believable to the human ear, which by its organic nature, doesn't hear like test equipment measures.
Music signals are much more complex beasts than anything test equipment can accurately replicate.
And the exact same applies with speakers: they cannot be voiced as 'flat', unless they are going to be used in an anechoic chamber (very unlikely!). This is the problem with designing equipment largely, or solely, based on measurements: much of the 'story' is missed.
The best equipment or speakers (read as most musical sounding and faithful to how real voices and instruments *actually* sound) are always those that are designed using measurements, up to a point, but after that voiced by the ears of someone who knows how real music sounds, with all its inherent intricacies and complexities.
Manufacturers who chose to ignore the latter, or worse, don't consider it relevant, preferring instead to don their white lab coats and worship solely at the altar of science, will always miss the point and never succeed in designing equipment which truly satisfies the ears of the most discerning audiophiles and music lovers.
Marco.
Covenant
16-08-2011, 21:10
Wonder how the Kef's would compare to these:
http://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/e11020.m47.l1123/7?euid=c1357c267230489fb57e4da5a853cc1c&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fcgi.ebay.co.uk%2Fws%2FeBayISAPI.d ll%3FViewItem%26item%3D170676849242%26ssPageName%3 DADME%3AB%3AFSEL%3AGB%3A1123
Alan Sircom
16-08-2011, 21:12
Would have been nice to say that you don't need '$15,000' speakers to get a compelling sound from a hi-fi. To me, it came over like, "even with these hugely expensive loud speakers, an orchestra will sound rubbish." That's hardly going to impress on the iPod users to buy new equipment.
Click is also the sort of 'magazine' programme that cuts to banks of rack-mount Dell PowerEdges and Cisco 2900s every time someone in a suit mentions the word 'server'.
Given Click is part of the BBC World network, and the last time I saw it on the AsiaBusiness rotation, the programme was sponsored by Cathay Pacific First Class and the advertising was for Vertu, Omega and high-end Singapore property developments, I think the $15,000 loudspeaker was pitched about right.
. I know that doesn't cut much mustard in a forum where any loudspeaker design minted after 1950 is viewed with suspicion, .
Bit of an exaggeration there I think - we definately get up to 1979 or thereabouts before brows start to become furrowed and teeth sucked...:lolsign:
Alan Sircom
16-08-2011, 21:24
Me too - well certainly with the notion that the 'ideal' speaker has a perfectly flat frequency response! Maybe in the ideal world, but otherwise... :nono:
First of all, the rooms speakers are used in aren't acoustically perfect, so a speaker with a perfectly flat frequency response, used in such an environment, will more than likely, sound, well, FLAT (as in anodyne and boring)!
Secondly, live, un-amplified musical instruments and the human voice do not have a perfectly flat frequency response. Therefore, any speakers or partnering equipment that is unable, through being voiced as 'flat', to capture and replicate their sound properties will never make genuinely realistic sounding music.
This is one reason why high-quality valve equipment is good at preserving the 'life' and vibrancy of real instruments and voices. Because even though it doesn't measure as well ("well" meaning 'flat' or having less distortion present), in my experience, it more faithfully reproduces the natural distortions and fluctuating frequency response of the former, in turn making the results more believable to the human ear, which by its organic nature, doesn't hear like test equipment measures.
And the exact same applies with speakers: they cannot be voiced as 'flat', unless they are going to be used in an anechoic chamber (very unlikely!). This is the problem with designing equipment largely, or solely, based on measurements: much of the 'story' is missed.
The best equipment or speakers (read as most musical sounding and faithful to how real voices and instruments *actually* sound) are always those that are designed using measurements, up to a point, but after that voiced by the ears of someone who knows how real music sounds, with all its inherent intricacies and complexities.
Manufacturers who chose to ignore the latter, or worse, don't consider it relevant, preferring instead to don their white lab coats and worship solely at the altar of science, will always miss the point and never succeed in designing equipment which truly satisfies the ears of the most discerning audiophiles and music lovers.
Marco.
I think you are seriously missing the point here.
An anechoic chamber is used to measure a loudspeaker, not for designing the loudspeaker. If the company decides to make a flat response or not, it still needs to measure what is going on in the loudspeaker in the process of designing the loudspeaker.
In a country where you are never less than two miles from the nearest car, some of the most noise polluted skies on the planet, and highly variable weather conditions, it's less of a hassle than putting a speaker and a measuring microphone on a crane and put them 10m in the air.
The measurement tools are just that... tools. They can be the only tools in the box or just the start of a lengthy process of evaluation.
People have been doing this pretty much universally for the last 50+ years. The only difference between then and now is just how good the test gear has become and just how much influence the listening tests have over the final product. Right now, the listening test has more influence than it ever used to.
Hi Alan,
I know that doesn't cut much mustard in a forum where any loudspeaker design minted after 1950 is viewed with suspicion, but people who still buy loudspeakers today are almost universally impressed by the Blade.
Impressed in what way exactly? By how realistically it reproduces music (the most important thing), its 'futuristic' and 'impressive' looks, or that it's a product of current technology?
Aesthetically, the Blade does nothing for me, but I haven't heard how it sounds.
Marco.
Hi Alan,
I think you are seriously missing the point here.
Not at all.
An anechoic chamber is used to measure a loudspeaker, not for designing the loudspeaker. If the company decides to make a flat response or not, it still needs to measure what is going on in the loudspeaker in the process of designing the loudspeaker.
I'm not disputing that; merely that some manufacturers are unhealithy obsessed by 'perfect measurements', and as a result, lose sight of the bigger picture!
The measurement tools are just that... tools. They can be the only tools in the box or just the start of a lengthy process of evaluation.
Sure, but through laziness and the misguided notion that science can measure and 'prove' all we genuinely hear with audio equipment, some 'science-first' manufacturers get stuck at the start of that process and never reach the end, where 'real-world' listening results often override what measurements have 'proven' earlier in the process.
In that scenario, an audio designer with a subjective-first mentality will trust his or hear ears and adjust the final voicing of the product accordingly, by ear, whereas the 'science-first' audio designer will often ignore what his or her ears tell them, in the belief that test results are more accurate, often resulting in the creation of equipment which measures well, but sounds merely mediocre, or often, just plain crap! :rolleyes:
People have been doing this pretty much universally for the last 50+ years. The only difference between then and now is just how good the test gear has become and just how much influence the listening tests have over the final product. Right now, the listening test has more influence than it ever used to.
Have you got any evidence to prove the latter? Because if that's true, based on what I've heard from most equipment made these days, at anything like an affordable price, the respective equipment designers then must be bloody deaf!! ;)
Marco.
Alan Sircom
16-08-2011, 22:01
Hi Alan,
Impressed in what way exactly? By how realistically it reproduces music (the most important thing), its 'futuristic' and 'impressive' looks, or that it's a product of current technology?
Aesthetically, the Blade does nothing for me, but I haven't heard how it sounds.
Marco.
Purely on the way it deals handles music. More importantly in the way it attempts to dial the room out of the equation without resorting to DSP.
Fair enough, like I said, I haven't heard it. How much is the Blade, btw?
Marco.
Alan Sircom
16-08-2011, 22:33
Have you got any evidence to prove the latter? Because if that's true, based on what I've heard from most equipment made these days, at anything like an affordable price, the respective equipment designers then must be bloody deaf!! ;)
Marco.
Well, given I don't have to ask "yes, but where do you do the listening bit?" so often now, I think this has changed a lot in the last 20 years.
It's worth bearing in mind that 'an affordable price' doesn't give the designer much wiggle room. People still want a £300 loudspeaker and expect the same from their £300 loudspeaker today as they got from their £300 loudspeaker 20 years ago.
Put another way, if you tried to make a Royd Eden today, you would either be making a £600 Royd Eden or a heavily compromised Royd Eden for £300. And the moment you start to factor 'an affordable price' you build down to a price, not up to a standard.
However, I also suspect that you are so fixated on the past that a good new loudspeaker needs to be an exceptional new loudspeaker for it to be of even remote interested to you.
And the Blade is about £20k. It was a 'concept car' that was turned into a real loudspeaker after high demand from audio enthusiasts around the world.
Spectral Morn
16-08-2011, 22:33
I couldn't agree more, Howard. This is probably the first TV coverage about audio I've seen in almost a decade that didn't say all you need is an iPod. It also pushes a British (well, sort of) audio company as being hi-tech.
Disengage the cynicism duct for a few minutes, guys. This is a good thing.
The Gadget Show did an item about 7 years ago. Very interesting but sadly KJ could not be bothered dusting the gear shown in it :doh: + the Wilson speakers with a deformed tweeter (finger damage?) and a Krell CD player that looked like it had gone through WW3 oh yes and the table bowing under the weight of Audio Research gear; not a great impression either of the gear or KJ imho.
The Linn system comparison which was part of the programme was interesting too, though a bit of a flawed demo.
I agree with Howard and yourself any mainstream media coverage of audio is better than none.
Regards D S D L
Hi Alan,
Well, given I don't have to ask "yes, but where do you do the listening bit?" so often now, I think this has changed a lot in the last 20 years.
Well all I can say, based on what I hear when I attend hi-fi shows and listen to the sounds achieved by most exhibitors, presumably demonstrating up-to-date kit, to put it politely, is that quite obviously the ears of manufacturers are not as discerning as they were 20 years ago, or more! ;)
It's worth bearing in mind that 'an affordable price' doesn't give the designer much wiggle room. People still want a £300 loudspeaker and expect the same from their £300 loudspeaker today as they got from their £300 loudspeaker 20 years ago.
Sure, I get that. The term "affordable" is obviously highly subjective. What I meant was 'affordable' by a serious audio enthusiast, such as those who populate this forum, not the general public. Using myself as an example, the maximum I'd likely ever spend on a single component, new or old, is £5k, but that's not necessarily based on what I could afford.....
I believe, however, that this policy keeps me, as far as possible, living in the 'real' world, as opposed to the ridiculous fantasy land of five and six-figure components, often built for those who buy hi-fi equipment for reasons other than simply listening to music....
Put another way, if you tried to make a Royd Eden today, you would either be making a £600 Royd Eden or a heavily compromised Royd Eden for £300. And the moment you start to factor 'an affordable price' you build down to a price, not up to a standard.
Yup, I get that. I'd far rather that the main focus of manufacturers these days was on producing equipment and speakers that sounded fantastic first, rather than what necessarily looked 'pretty', and which therefore delivered high sound-per-pound-value. The latter is what matters most to discerning enthusiasts.
Evidence, to my ears, suggests however that an SPPV-first mentality, with manufacturers, is unfortunately not usually the case these days.
However, I also suspect that you are so fixated on the past that a good new loudspeaker needs to be an exceptional new loudspeaker for it to be of even remote interested to you.
Lol - well, you see, you're wrong in the first instance. I'm not "fixated on the past"; I'm fixated on whatever delivers outstanding audio performance, whether that means using equipment and speakers that are old or new! I am no luddite.
Trust me, the sole reason why I generally prefer using quality vintage equipment is because, to my ears, whenever I do the comparison, it often sounds considerably better than what's made now, especially after some judicious modifications. But it is almost certainly usually built better. If it were the other way round, my system would consist of the latest gear, I can assure you.
What am I supposed to do, ignore my ears and buy current equipment, simply to support dealers and manufacturers? I'm sorry, but all that concerns me as an audio enthusiast and music lover is what's best for own enjoyment and system. That's just the way it is.
As for your second point, yes it would have to be an exceptional speaker for it to interest me, as I have high standards, and so only the exceptional will do!
But I like to be clever and achieve it by thinking outside of the box and shunning the mainstream, rather than merely dropping pots of cash on what the industry deems as being the 'latest and greatest'. I create my own version of exceptional, via lateral thinking. I will never, ever, be a mindless follower of audio fashion or someone who assembles a system solely with the contents of his wallet!
Those types of sheep are tailor-made customers for Absolute Sounds........
And the Blade is about £20k. It was a 'concept car' that was turned into a real loudspeaker after high demand from audio enthusiasts around the world.
It's not bad for £20k. I'd expected something ridiculous, like nearer double that amount.
Marco.
By the way, Alan, we got a bit mixed up earlier regarding anechoic chambers and loudspeaker flat frequency responses. What I was referring to, and disputing, was the assertion in the video of the Research Designer at KEF, Jack Oclee-Brown, when he said, I quote:
"The closer we can get to this ideal of the perfect loudspeaker with a beautifully flat frequency response."
I disagree with that ideal because my idea of a "perfect loudspeaker" is not necessarily one with a "beautifully flat frequency response", but one which most effectively suspends disbelief and communicates the musical message to the listener, by faithfully reproducing the sound of real instruments and voices, in the environment it is used in.
And chances are, to successfully achieve that result, it won't have a "beautifully flat frequency response", the same as, in the replay system in question, the (likely) partnering valve amps probably won't have 'beautifully perfect measurements', but still achieve the same result ;)
Ya gets me now? :)
Marco.
Oy!
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12764
Alan Sircom
17-08-2011, 09:07
By the way, Alan, we got a bit mixed up earlier regarding anechoic chambers and loudspeaker flat frequency responses. What I was referring to, and disputing, was the assertion in the video of the Research Designer at KEF, Jack Oclee-Brown, when he said, I quote:
"The closer we can get to this ideal of the perfect loudspeaker with a beautifully flat frequency response."
I disagree with that ideal because my idea of a "perfect loudspeaker" is not necessarily one with a "beautifully flat frequency response", but one which most effectively suspends disbelief and communicates the musical message to the listener, by faithfully reproducing the sound of real instruments and voices, in the environment it is used in.
And chances are, to successfully achieve that result, it won't have a "beautifully flat frequency response", the same as, in the same replay system, the (likely) partnering valve amps probably won't have 'beautifully perfect measurements', but still achieve the same result ;)
Ya gets me now? :)
Marco.
Not really. Because your statements do not in any way tally with the equipment you use. You have a series of products designed (or based on designs) that were engineered specifically to produce the flattest frequency response it was possible to produce at the time they were made. The Ditton 66 SM's especially... they weren't made as some kind of magic box of sound, Celestion was trying to do precisely what KEF is trying to do today, but with the limitations of decades old measurement capabilities and materials science.
In the case of the Tannoys, they effectively kicked off research into other kinds of ferromagnets and ferrofluids and eventually rare-earth magnets, when high-nickel content magnets became increasingly untenable. Companies like Tannoy began to investigate these alternatives because they wanted materials that delivered the same kind of linear response as alnico (or similar), but didn't entail year long waits to receive expensive, poor quality castings from places where things like 'environmental concerns' and 'toxicity issues' can be laughed off.
Were you arguing this from a position of using something like Rehdekos or Eclipse-TDs, I'd get where you are coming from, because the speakers are (were, in the case of Rehdeko) designed from the outset to deliver a non-linear frequency response. But Ditton 66 SMs and Tannoy Monitor Golds weren't.
Not really. Because your statements do not in any way tally with the equipment you use. You have a series of products designed (or based on designs) that were engineered specifically to produce the flattest frequency response it was possible to produce at the time they were made.
Perhaps, but you're forgetting one very important thing, Alan. All the equipment I use has been extensively modified in some way or other from what it was when it left the designer's test bench... I firmly believe that the best sound is achieved by combining the use of the best of both old and new technology!
That's what I do: buy high-quality vintage gear and upgrade it with the best of modern components, using my ears to 're-voice' equipment in a way which I consider to be more musically accurate. You've no idea the extents I go to in order to achieve this, and the extensive research and subjective testing involved during the process.
However, the outstanding sonic results I've achieved are well worth it!! Therefore, where does that leave the original designs which were "engineered specifically to produce the flattest frequency response"? ;)
What I'm highlighting here are the significant benefits of voicing/fine-tuning equipment by ear, once it's already been designed, via objective testing, as notionally 'perfect'. Do you see where I'm coming from?
It's just that I dislike the idea of a 'perfect' set of 'scientific rules' to follow in order to guarantee 'accuracy', as the notion is too inflexible and 'black & white' in nature to satisfy my inquisitive and lateral thinking mind.
It would be interesting to measure my equipment again now and see what the test results showed.....
The Ditton 66 SM's especially... they weren't made as some kind of magic box of sound, Celestion was trying to do precisely what KEF is trying to do today, but with the limitations of decades old measurement capabilities and materials science.
Sure, but in the final analysis, it was the subjective listening undertaken by the designer that shaped the sonic signature of the final product.
I know that Celestion matched the crossovers they used in all 66s to the electrical and sonic characteristics of their individual drive units, and that this was done through listening, and then careful component selection, to ensure that the intended voicing was acheived. I'm not sure how much that process resulted in a deviation from any measured flat frequency response.
But you can tell by listening to them, and how wonderfully realistic and musically addictive they sound, that they were voiced by a human being, compared to most modern loudspeakers, designed mainly (or solely) by computer programming, the designs of which often to my ears don't allow music to 'breathe'.
In the case of the Tannoys, they effectively kicked off research into other kinds of ferromagnets and ferrofluids and eventually rare-earth magnets, when high-nickel content magnets became increasingly untenable. Companies like Tannoy began to investigate these alternatives because they wanted materials that delivered the same kind of linear response as alnico (or similar), but didn't entail year long waits to receive expensive, poor quality castings from places where things like 'environmental concerns' and 'toxicity issues' can be laughed off.
Indeed, unfortunately though, when Tannoy stopped using Alnico, the drive units no longer had the same 'magical' sonic properties, which is one of the reasons why aficionados, such as myself, prefer the vintage DC models, such as Monitor Golds, Reds, etc.
In terms of my own speakers, and touching on what I said before, the original crossovers were removed and disposed of because they degraded the sonic performance of the drive units quite noticeably, which is why I fitted completely new crossovers, using Clarity Cap MR polypropylene capacitors, Dueland resistors and the best Mundorf air-core, foil-coil inductors, and then everything was rewired with high-quality Van Den Hul internal cable, and silver WBT speaker terminals fitted.
So again, if you measured them now, their frequency response would likely deviate notably from what Tannoy measured in the mid 1960s, when the drive units were engineered with "the flattest frequency response". However, the results I've achieved with my modifications are quite incredible. In total, after modifications, I paid £4k for my Lockwood Majors, and have achieved a sound which, I kid you not, would likely take modern speakers costing £30 or £40k to equal or better.
Indeed, when I listen to such speakers at hi-fi shows, or ones even more expensive than that, I more often than not shake my head in disbelief at what is considered by manufacturers today as 'ultimate sonic performance', and smile smugly to myself that what I have at home, for a mere fraction of the price, is to my ears superior in every way, other than aesthetically.
That, my friend, is SPPV at its absolute best! :cool:
Were you arguing this from a position of using something like Rehdekos or Eclipse-TDs, I'd get where you are coming from, because the speakers are (were, in the case of Rehdeko) designed from the outset to deliver a non-linear frequency response
Indeed, and is it any coincidence, I wonder, that some of the most musically realistic speakers I've heard are huge horns, when done well, powered by the highest quality single-ended valve amps?
And do you think that those horns have a measured 'perfectly flat frequency response'? Think about it... ;)
Marco.
I suppose the good thing that comes from creating the high end/price loudspeakers is the technology should eventually filter down to lower price speakers. Is that right?
HighFidelityGuy
17-08-2011, 11:49
By the way, Alan, we got a bit mixed up earlier regarding anechoic chambers and loudspeaker flat frequency responses. What I was referring to, and disputing, was the assertion in the video of the Research Designer at KEF, Jack Oclee-Brown, when he said, I quote:
"The closer we can get to this ideal of the perfect loudspeaker with a beautifully flat frequency response."
I disagree with that ideal because my idea of a "perfect loudspeaker" is not necessarily one with a "beautifully flat frequency response", but one which most effectively suspends disbelief and communicates the musical message to the listener, by faithfully reproducing the sound of real instruments and voices.
And chances are, to successfully achieve that result, it won't have a "beautifully flat frequency response", the same as, in the replay system in question, the (likely) partnering valve amps probably won't have 'beautifully perfect measurements', but still achieve the same result ;)
Ya gets me now? :)
Marco.
That's partly what I was getting at near the beginning of this thread, as I would agree that a perfectly flat frequency response isn't always desirable. However the main point I was getting at is that I believe it's pointless tuning a speaker so that it has a flat frequency response in an anechoic chamber as the speaker won't have a flat frequency response in any other room. So all that work in designing fancy complicated crossovers to flatten the response was a waste of time.
I don't have a problem with speakers being tested in anechoic chambers but in the end the speaker should be tuned to achieve a smooth frequency response in the average listening room. By smooth I just mean without major peaks or dips. The problem is that that's tricky as you would probably have to have different versions of each speaker model for different countries. That's because rooms are usually bigger in US homes than in the UK etc.
On the flip side of all this, buyers need to understand that the average listening room (living room) is a terrible environment to listen to music in as the acoustics are rubbish. So speaker designers can only take things so far by designing their speakers to compensate for the bass boost that occurs in most rooms and maybe a few other tweaks. We can't expect the them to be able to make speakers that are immune to comb filtering. Only acoustic room treatment can solve that and most buyers aren't prepared to treat their room. Or at least their partner won't allow them due to aesthetic concerns. That's an entirely different issue though.
I suppose the good thing that comes from creating the high end/price loudspeakers is the technology should eventually filter down to lower price speakers. Is that right?
It certainly did with metal dome tweeters, moving through copper, aluminium, titanium, beryllium, and now diamond.
Hi Dave,
However the main point I was getting at is that I believe it's pointless tuning a speaker so that it has a flat frequency response in an anechoic chamber as the speaker won't have a flat frequency response in any other room. So all that work in designing fancy complicated crossovers to flatten the response was a waste of time.
+1! :)
Marco.
Quote:
However the main point I was getting at is that I believe it's pointless tuning a speaker so that it has a flat frequency response in an anechoic chamber as the speaker won't have a flat frequency response in any other room. So all that work in designing fancy complicated crossovers to flatten the response was a waste of time.
+1!
Marco.
Erm, while I agree that a flat response loudspeaker may not be ideal for everyone’s hearing and listening environment, if speakers manufacturers don’t design with this goal in mind what do you suggest they do; chuck a few drivers in an enclosure and provide a home tuning kit?
Hi John,
I think you've missed the point somewhat. Read my lengthy reply earlier to Alan, where I talked about the voicing of Celestion 66s and my Tannoy Lockwoods, for a clue ;)
It's not *all* about achieving a flat frequency response!
Marco.
HighFidelityGuy
17-08-2011, 13:08
Quote:
However the main point I was getting at is that I believe it's pointless tuning a speaker so that it has a flat frequency response in an anechoic chamber as the speaker won't have a flat frequency response in any other room. So all that work in designing fancy complicated crossovers to flatten the response was a waste of time.
+1!
Marco.
Erm, while I agree that a flat response loudspeaker may not be ideal for everyone’s hearing and listening environment, if speakers manufacturers don’t design with this goal in mind what do you suggest they do; chuck a few drivers in an enclosure and provide a home tuning kit?
They should aim for a response that works well in the average listening room. Otherwise at the very least you end up with boomy bass. Which is why so many people suffer from "one note bass".
There was a thread on here some time ago that mentioned a speaker designer from back in the day that designed his speakers to interact with the room to achieve a more natural bass response. I believe his speakers were corner loaded. Perhaps someone can remember who I mean. Anyway, my point is that that's a much more sensible approach. Having a speaker that has a ruler flat frequency response in a dead room is only useful for recording studios and other pro monitoring situations. It's pointless in the average living room. Even one that's been acoustically treated, as a listening room should never be dead like an anechoic chamber. :)
There was a thread on here some time ago that mentioned a speaker designer from back in the day that designed his speakers to interact with the room to achieve a more natural bass response. I believe his speakers were corner loaded. Perhaps someone can remember who I mean.
Unfortunately not (although I'm sure someone will), but it's an example of the 'thinking outside of the box' approach, which I admire! :)
I *so* hate 'me too' designs, which every bloody Tom, Dick and Harry uses or has... :rolleyes: I like to own something exceptional and different from the norm!!
Marco.
I did read before I posted honest Marco :lolsign:
I absolutely get your point; one which I agree with generally ;)
But, the manufacturers have to have some measurable goal to aim at and a flat response throughout seems as good a place to start as any. Whether all that trouble and expense to achieve a flat response in such artificial conditions is worth the exercise is of course debatable.
The voicing of speakers isn’t really something a manufacturer can do and hope to please all prospective buyers. Isn’t the general advice here at AoS to listen to the speakers, preferably in your own home and then decide what suits your environment and listening preferences?
Like you, I’m not overly impressed with how many modern speakers are voiced. But, to be fair I haven’t listened to very many and I’m sure there are some wonderful sounding modern speakers out there.
My speakers for example are nothing like flat response; smooth response as you recommend perhaps, but one mans smooth is another mans bumpy.
There was a thread on here some time ago that mentioned a speaker designer from back in the day that designed his speakers to interact with the room to achieve a more natural bass response. I believe his speakers were corner loaded. Perhaps someone can remember who I mean.
Probably Ray Allison. Can't find the thread though.
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
17-08-2011, 13:36
They should aim for a response that works well in the average listening room. Otherwise at the very least you end up with boomy bass. Which is why so many people suffer from "one note bass".
There was a thread on here some time ago that mentioned a speaker designer from back in the day that designed his speakers to interact with the room to achieve a more natural bass response. I believe his speakers were corner loaded. Perhaps someone can remember who I mean. Anyway, my point is that that's a much more sensible approach. Having a speaker that has a ruler flat frequency response in a dead room is only useful for recording studios and other pro monitoring situations. It's pointless in the average living room. Even one that's been acoustically treated, as a listening room should never be dead like an anechoic chamber. :)
Roy Allison
http://www.stereophile.com/interviews/105villchur
http://www.stereotimes.com/comm121501.shtml
HighFidelityGuy
17-08-2011, 13:36
Probably Ray Allison. Can't find the thread though.
Thanks, you were spot on. :thumbsup:
Here's the thread: LINK (http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=11533)
EDIT: Although it's Roy, not Ray. :)
HighFidelityGuy
17-08-2011, 13:39
Roy Allison
http://www.stereophile.com/interviews/105villchur
http://www.stereotimes.com/comm121501.shtml
Thanks Richard! :thumbsup:
Hi John,
The voicing of speakers isn’t really something a manufacturer can do and hope to please all prospective buyers. Isn’t the general advice here at AoS to listen to the speakers, preferably in your own home and then decide what suits your environment and listening preferences?
Yes of course it is. However, bespoke equipment from small, specialist, manufacturers is voiced all the time precisely in that way, where the customer is buying into the technical expertise and experienced ears of the designer.
That's how, for example, Glenn Croft and Anthony Matthews design (and voice) their amps in the final analysis, after basic electrical measurement parameters have been met, and probably why their gear sounds so bloody good, as their designs don't necessarily conform to industry 'accepted norms'.
They think laterally, in terms of audio design, and the sonic rewards of that are easily heard when listening to their equipment!
If you're talking about mass-produced mainstream equipment, however, then I agree with what you're saying, but then that's not the audio world I inhabit! ;)
Marco.
That's partly what I was getting at near the beginning of this thread, as I would agree that a perfectly flat frequency response isn't always desirable. However the main point I was getting at is that I believe it's pointless tuning a speaker so that it has a flat frequency response in an anechoic chamber as the speaker won't have a flat frequency response in any other room. So all that work in designing fancy complicated crossovers to flatten the response was a waste of time.
I don't have a problem with speakers being tested in anechoic chambers but in the end the speaker should be tuned to achieve a smooth frequency response in the average listening room. By smooth I just mean without major peaks or dips. The problem is that that's tricky as you would probably have to have different versions of each speaker model for different countries. That's because rooms are usually bigger in US homes than in the UK etc.
On the flip side of all this, buyers need to understand that the average listening room (living room) is a terrible environment to listen to music in as the acoustics are rubbish. So speaker designers can only take things so far by designing their speakers to compensate for the bass boost that occurs in most rooms and maybe a few other tweaks. We can't expect the them to be able to make speakers that are immune to comb filtering. Only acoustic room treatment can solve that and most buyers aren't prepared to treat their room. Or at least their partner won't allow them due to aesthetic concerns. That's an entirely different issue though.
As Alan said earlier, a designer uses a chamber (or MLSSA or similar) to know the general characteristics of the speaker being measured. A good designer also has good insight into what the finished product will do in room, on axis and off to one side or the other as well.
I should also say that to get even acceptable noises out of the current ranges of cheapo far-eastern made squeakers out there is a huge achievement, which I really don't think was possible many years ago.
By the way, modern made Royd edens wouldn't cost £600, since cheapo coils can be bought, together with driver chassis. crossover bits aren't expensive (not that Royds ever used them much ;)). Only the boxes might cost if they have fancy plating inside them as Sintra's did for example. The "concept," IMO, lives on in current Rega speakers, which sound so good (in the old fashioned sense), yet don't cost much and are easy to drive (IMO) as well!
EDIT: Although it's Roy, not Ray. :)
:lolsign: I knew that - I'd just been talking to someone on the phone called Ray and got mixed up!
HighFidelityGuy
17-08-2011, 14:24
:lolsign: I knew that - I'd just been talking to someone on the phone called Ray and got mixed up!
It happens to me too. I've got Mark and Martin's names mixed up a couple of times when switching between threads. I also keep calling a guy I know Marco when his name is actually Franco. :doh: :lol:
Marco wrote;
“Yes of course it is. However, bespoke equipment from small, specialist, manufacturers is voiced all the time precisely in that way, where the customer is buying into the expertise and trained ears of the designer.
That's how, for example, Glenn Croft and Anthony Matthews design (and voice) their amps in the final analysis, after basic electrical measurement parameters have been met, and probably why their gear sounds so bloody good, as their designs don't conform to all industry 'accepted norms'.
If you're talking about mass-produced mainstream equipment, however, then I agree with what you're saying, but then that's not the audio world I inhabit! ”
No, possibly not Marco and nor do a number of other contributors here, including me.
However, not everyone has either the money or the skill and dedication to buy or build custom made audio equipment and the original post was referring to commercially available products.
While AnthonyTD does as I understand it spend considerable time and effort in trying to get as good a match as possible to his customers equipment and listening preferences this isn’t a “normal” service and let’s face it, it’s not cheap.
Glen Croft on the other hand may well produce a product that you and others consider “well voiced” but there is nothing custom about it. I imagine he has his particular view of how he wants his products to sound and works towards that.
This is exactly what KEF have done with their speakers under discussion and I’m sure if other manufacturers such a Glen Croft had access to the same testing and design equipment they would be adopting a similar approach.
Yep, custom kit can be wonderful, I know, I’ve got some. But it doesn’t move the debate in a positive direction if every time the equipment many readers here might purchase gets dissed by those of us who are fortunate enough to either have the skills or money to tailor our equipment to our listening preferences imo.
I’m not digging anyone out here but there is a slight tendency by those who believe they "know" to sideline those who have to rely on what they can purchase. We are after all trying to encourage people to listen to quality audio and it seems KEF are trying to be innovative with that goal in mind albeit at a rather high price ;)
Hi John,
No, possibly not Marco and nor do a number of other contributors here, including me.
However, not everyone has either the money or the skill and dedication to buy or build custom made audio equipment and the original post was referring to commercially available products.
Indeed. However, I am simply relating the results of my experience, in terms of the subject under discussion, for the benefit of others who may be interested in doing as I have done. What should I do, shut up and keep my thoughts to myself? ;)
While AnthonyTD does as I understand it spend considerable time and effort in trying to get as good a match as possible to his customers equipment and listening preferences this isn’t a “normal” service and let’s face it, it’s not cheap.
No, but if you're at that level it's a damn sight cheaper than dropping £20k or £30k on the latest hi-end 'badge-fi', from Absolute Sounds, or whatever, to end up with, in many cases a worst result, sonically!
You seem to forget sometimes, John, that AoS doesn't just cater for those who have a limited disposable income to spend on kit, but others who can afford the best, but prefer to do it in ways which involve some lateral thinking, and the supporting of small, specialist, manufacturers whose equipment designs deliver the biggest bang for your Buck, and who are very interested in finding out ways of going down that route.
So please bear that in mind in future: on AoS we cater for ALL types of audio enthusiast, not just the 'strapped for cash crew'....
Glen Croft on the other hand may well produce a product that you and others consider “well voiced” but there is nothing custom about it.
Well, that's where you're wrong. Glenn produces his 'stock' designs, for sure, but you can also order bespoke amplifiers from him, or modify his existing designs to your own requirements. My own Charisma-X preamp, for example, has been modified by Glenn.
That's the advantage of buying your gear from a small, specialist, manufacturer, rather than mass-produced mainstream equipment, and with Croft products, you're often paying less than with some mainstream equipment, to end up with something that performs sonically at a far higher level!
That's a 'win-win situation' in anyone's book, especially those who are on a budget! ;)
Yep, custom kit can be wonderful, I know, I’ve got some. But it doesn’t move the debate in a positive direction if every time the equipment many readers here might purchase gets dissed by those of us who are fortunate enough to either have the skills or money to tailor our equipment to our listening preferences imo.
Yes, but it's not a case of 'dissing' such equipment; simply educating people as to the choices that are available, which is precisely the purpose of a specialist audio forum, such as AoS.
And also bespoke, hand-built, equipment needn't cost a fortune. There are very talented audio designers here, such as Nick Gorham, who will build equipment for anyone who wants it, that competes with, and in many areas outperforms, most commercially produced equipment from mainstream manufacturers, at a fraction of the price!
Whether you like it or not, John, on AoS we actively encourage people to think outside of the box and shun the mainstream, and that's something that others and I will continue to do, as it is at the core of Our Ethos. On AoS, we will always champion the exceptional over the mediocre, so you need to learn to live with that, even if on occasions it goes against the grain of your particular sensibilities......
I’m not digging anyone out here but there is a slight tendency by those who believe they "know" to sideline those who have to rely on what they can purchase.
That touches on what I have just written. So those of us who have gained considerable knowledge and experience over the years, which may be of use to others, and could save them money, have simply to keep that information to themselves for fear of upsetting those who are unable, for whatever reason, to go down that route?
Bollocks to that! I'm sorry to say, John, but sometimes I think that you're on the wrong forum. It wouldn't do you any harm to re-read 'Our Ethos' and thus re-acquaint yourself with what we value most here.
Marco.
My bad, I wasn’t aware that Glen Croft offered a custom service.
Marco wrote;
“Whether you like it or not, John, on AoS we actively encourage people to think outside of the box and shun the mainstream, and that's something that others and I will continue to do, as it is at the core of Our Ethos. On AoS, we will always champion the exceptional, over the mediocre, so you need to learn to live with that, even if on occasions it goes against the grain of your particular sensibilities......”
I’m good with that Marco :)
In fact the whole ethos/custom/quality audio thing is something I’ve been promoting despite what you’ve interpreted as my sensibilities. I’ll cite my interest and thread contributions regarding music servers and my interest into USB power as examples, not to mention my speaker building.
I think you’re being a bit unfair in your assessment of my view of audio matters here.
“sometimes I think that you're on the wrong forum”
That’s a shame Marco :(
Alan Sircom
17-08-2011, 17:01
You seem to forget sometimes, John, that AoS doesn't just cater for those who have a limited disposable income to spend on kit, but others who can afford the best, but prefer to do it in ways which involve some lateral thinking, and the supporting of small, specialist, manufacturers whose equipment designs deliver the biggest bang for your Buck, and who are very interested in finding out ways of going down that route.
So please bear that in mind in future: on AoS we cater for ALL types of audio enthusiast, not just the 'strapped for cash crew'....
But you don't cater for all types of audio enthusiasts. You are really only interested in those who are prepared to follow your lead.
If someone pitched up here with Spectral electronics and a pair of Wilsons, you'd pull that system to pieces for being - as you repeatedly call it - 'badge-fi'. You'd recommend they stop buying hi-end and choose something you think as 'better', no matter how much time and energy they had spent in selecting such a system.
If they went away and listened to what you recommended and came back saying they still preferred the sound of their Spectral and Wilson system, would you consider their conclusion valid, or would you dismiss it based on them not liking what you like? And I'm sorry, but you don't get to skip over this concept as impossible, because people end up liking things you don't like. People end up liking things I don't like. That's just the way of things.
Let's put it this way, give me the choice between an electrostatic driven by an OTL amplifier or a horn driven by a SET amplifier and 99 times out 100 I will choose the electrostatic driven by an OTL. Because the lack of dynamic range of the electrostatic is in part offset by the OTL design and because the lack of dynamics and bandwidth likely to be inherent to the electrostatic trouble me less than the coloration likely to be inherent to the horn loudspeakers. Give the same choice to someone else and you may get a very different result. Which one is right?
I’m good with that Marco :)
Cool!
In fact the whole ethos/custom/quality audio thing is something I’ve been promoting despite what you’ve interpreted as my sensibilities. I’ll cite my interest and thread contributions regarding music servers and my interest into USB power as examples, not to mention my speaker building.
I think you’re being a bit unfair in your assessment of my view of audio matters here.
Fair enough, John - it was just how you were coming across on this thread.
“sometimes I think that you're on the wrong forum”
That’s a shame Marco :(
Only when you give it the 'poor me' thing ("me", however, not necessarily meaning you), if you get me, and seemingly failing to grasp what AoS is about, otherwise, I lurves ya! :eyebrows: :kiss:
Marco.
Alan, that's all very well until you leave the room to make a cuppa (or summat stronger :)) and return to find at least a firework display in the OTL and at most, the room on fire :( Nearly happened to me once, and this with a beautifully made OTL that kept popping one of the line fuses totally at random and at very low volume levels. Frit me to death it did :(
Anyway, modern Klipsch-Horns don't sound coloured at all - I was very pleasantly surprised just how good modern production was - this with a Quad 99 system driving them as well :eek:
But you don't cater for all types of audio enthusiasts. You are really only interested in those who are prepared to follow your lead.
With respect, Alan, that is complete bollocks. Have a look around the place properly and you will see all sorts of system building approaches by people with various budgets, such as those who are into modifying the Beresford DAC, or who are wholly into DIY, or who run solely digital and computer audio set-ups, or hi-end 'badged' gear, and who have in turn assembled very different systems from me!
I think you need to take the blinkers off, and not allow the fact that I've touched a raw nerve with my earlier comments to cloud the reality ;)
If someone pitched up here with Spectral electronics and a pair of Wilsons, you'd pull that system to pieces for being - as you repeatedly call it - 'badge-fi'. You'd recommend they stop buying hi-end and choose something you think as 'better', no matter how much time and energy they had spent in selecting such a system.
Again that is complete nonsense, and a rather ignorant and disrespectful assumption, I must say. I would never in a million years do that!! Whilst I may not agree with their choice of equipment, I would always respect their right to choose it.
Have a good look through our Gallery and you will see systems similar to what you describe, and also the complete absence of me behaving as you have implied. As owner of this site, that would hardly be a responsible way to behave. I suggest that you research the facts first in future before accusing me of something I'm not guilty of.
If they went away and listened to what you recommended and came back saying they still preferred the sound of their Spectral and Wilson system, would you consider their conclusion valid, or would you dismiss it based on them not liking what you like?
Based on what I've just written, what do you think! :rolleyes:
Or ask anyone here who knows me.
And I'm sorry, but you don't get to skip over this concept as impossible, because people end up liking things you don't like. People end up liking things I don't like. That's just the way of things.
Of course, and I wouldn't have it any other way. But at the same time, I'm entitled to be critical and express an opinion, even if that opinion upsets people who inhabit the world that I'm criticising. I'm an opinionated person with strong views, who's not afraid to be controversial. If you can't handle that without being petulant, then perhaps you shouldn't be here?
Let's put it this way, give me the choice between an electrostatic driven by an OTL amplifier or a horn driven by a SET amplifier and 99 times out 100 I will choose the electrostatic driven by an OTL. Because the lack of dynamic range of the electrostatic is in part offset by the OTL design and because the lack of dynamics and bandwidth likely to be inherent to the electrostatic trouble me less than the coloration likely to be inherent to the horn loudspeakers. Give the same choice to someone else and you may get a very different result. Which one is right?
Neither. There is no such thing as universally "right" in audio. You create your own "right". If you think that I am in any way absolutist in my approach to audio, then you're just as badly mistaken about that as everything else you've written above!!!
Anyway, I suggest that we leave it there, stop talking about me, and get back to the original thread topic - cheers! :cool:
Marco.
Alan Sircom
17-08-2011, 18:38
Alan, that's all very well until you leave the room to make a cuppa (or summat stronger :)) and return to find at least a firework display in the OTL and at most, the room on fire :( Nearly happened to me once, and this with a beautifully made OTL that kept popping one of the line fuses totally at random and at very low volume levels. Frit me to death it did :(
Anyway, modern Klipsch-Horns don't sound coloured at all - I was very pleasantly surprised just how good modern production was - this with a Quad 99 system driving them as well :eek:
Yes, most OTLs are a trifle, er, excitable. The Bernings seem stable enough, though.
And yes, I've heard some horn systems that by-pass the coloration problem. JBL K2s especially.
JBL K2s are superb - in fact they sound rather similar to some big Tannoys ;)
The JBLs I would buy, if I moved to a bigger house, are the top-of-the-range ones with the twin 15" drivers, side-by-side (yes, I know that they somewhat break my '£5k rule' :eek:, but I think they'd be worth it), I forget what you call them......?
Marco.
BTH K10A
17-08-2011, 19:14
JBL K2s are superb - in fact they sound rather similar to some big Tannoys ;)
The JBLs I would buy, if I moved to a bigger house, are the top-of-the-range ones with the twin 15" drivers, side-by-side (yes, I know that they somewhat break my '£5k rule' :eek:, but I think they'd be worth it), I forget what you call them......?
Marco.
Marco, you mean the Everest DD6600's. Simply amazing speakers but at £44k a pair too rich for me. I recently entered into negotiations on a pair but the owner held fast on 50% of list price whereas I was thinking more like 33%. Ah well sai la vie.
The Array 1400's I use are not far off the Everest's in performance and even at circa £8.5k a pair are an absolute bargain. Tannoys do not even come close :ner: Very flat in room frequency response too. :)
Alan Sircom
17-08-2011, 19:30
With respect, Alan, that is complete bollocks. Have a look around the place properly and you will see all sorts of system building approaches by people with various budgets, such as those who are into modifying the Beresford DAC, or who are wholly into DIY, or who run solely digital and computer audio set-ups, and who have in turn assembled very different systems from me!
I think you need to take the blinkers off, and not allow the fact that I've touched a raw nerve with my earlier comments to cloud the reality ;)
Again that is complete nonsense, and a rather ignorant and disrespectful assumption, I must say. I would never in a million years do that!! Whilst I may not agree with their choice of equipment, I would always respect their right to choose it.
Have a good look through our Gallery and you will see systems similar to what you describe, and also the complete absence of me behaving as you have implied. I suggest that you research the facts first in future before accusing me of something I'm not guilty of.
Based on what I've just written, what do you think! :rolleyes:
Or ask anyone here who knows me.
Of course, and I wouldn't have it any other way. But at the same time, I'm entitled to be critical and express an opinion, even if that opinion upsets people who inhabit the world that I'm criticising. I'm an opinionated person with strong views, who's not afraid to be controversial. If you can't handle that without being petulant, then perhaps you shouldn't be here?
Neither. There is no such thing as universally "right" in audio. You create your own "right". If you think that I am in any way absolutist in my approach to audio, then you're just as badly mistaken about that as everything else you've written above!!!
Anyway, I suggest that we leave it there, stop talking about me, and get back to the original thread topic - cheers! :cool:
Marco.
Sorry Marco,
I guess I get hot under the collar about people being so quick to dismiss things just because they are new or expensive. I made a false step from there to how you might dismiss those who use those products. I apologise unreservedly for that.
However, going back to the BBC piece, regardless of the objective aims of the manufacturer, the loudspeaker should be stand or fall on its sound quality. If we rely on our ears to reject products, how come this speaker got such short shrift?
I have no idea how this loudspeaker will perform in the flesh. I can make some assumptions given the small number of KEF Reference loudspeakers I've heard, but that's largely about the dispersion characteristics of the Uni-Q driver and those assumptions may or may not be relevant here. The loudspeaker might sound good, bad, indifferent or lousy. It might need a room the size of Yorkshire or work well in a space slightly smaller than a full-stop. It might need an amp the size of a small power station to make a noise, or it might turn in a performance that would shout down a 1970s Who concert when driven from a headphone amp. Even the audio naysayers who think most things in audio sound the same would struggle to second guess the performance of a loudspeaker based on a few seconds of watching the speaker being put together.
I wish I knew how a speaker will perform by watching someone screw in a drive unit and attach a few wires to a crossover; it would make my life a lot easier.
Hi Andy,
Marco, you mean the Everest DD6600's.
That's the boys - freakin' awesome things!!
Simply amazing speakers but at £44k a pair too rich for me. I recently entered into negotiations on a pair but the owner held fast on 50% of list price whereas I was thinking more like 33%. Ah well sai la vie.
Hey, at least you tried! :eyebrows:
I think that I could just about scoop enough pennies together, but they'd need a bloody big room to work, which at the moment I unfortunately don't have. But that may change in the not too distant future ;)
The Array 1400's I use are not far off the Everest's in performance and even at circa £8.5k a pair are an absolute bargain. Tannoys do not even come close :ner:
Hahaha - lol! We'll need to have the sesh we spoke about sometime. Unfortunately our trip to France got cancelled, due to family commitments, but it's been rescheduled for October, so I'll hopefully be able to swing by your place sometime then :cool:
I can't wait to hear your JBLs and EMT turtntable, and all your lovely vintage goodies!
Marco.
Sorry Marco,
I guess I get hot under the collar about people being so quick to dismiss things just because they are new or expensive. I made a false step from there to how you might dismiss those who use those products. I apologise unreservedly for that.
No worries, Alan. Apology accepted - it's all water under the bridge, mate :)
I'll get to the remainder of your post later :cool:
Marco.
Marco, you mean the Everest DD6600's.
http://i.imgur.com/kNJGG.jpg
Don't know if I'd be comfortable with a pair of giant robot heads staring at me.
Freakin' AWESOME!! :eek: :eek: :stalks: :stalks:
Only thing is, I'm not sure if their overall internal volume is any more than my Lockwoods.... They're quite squat looking.
Marco.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.