View Full Version : I always wondered why I liked NEAT loudspeakers - now I know EXACTLY why!
http://www.neat.co.uk/p_pages/aboutus.php
From the website:
Neat's unusual take on the art of loudspeaker design involves the process of listening to many different types of music and allowing the music to govern the tuning and voicing of the loudspeaker - to the exclusion of almost all other criteria. In a world where most hifi equipment is designed by computer in order to conform to a set of widely accepted parameters, Neat's approach is very refreshing.
Indeed it is. The bit in bold is exactly what I've always said!
And:
The development of a NEAT loudspeaker invariably involves hundreds of hours of listening tests. The Neat listening room is the starting point, though a new design must prove its worth in a variety of different rooms and systems before it is signed off for production. Here the designers can be found making small incremental changes to all elements of the design until it is 'just right'.
Respect! And I've also always said that the best, usually bespoke, equipment is always fine-tuned by ear. That's exactly how ALL audio equipment should be made!! :clap:
I've also said that designing genuinely musically realistic hi-fi equipment, and building a system from components which qualify as such, was more of an art than it is a science (hence why this forum is called 'The Art of Sound'), although one needs both an artistic and scientific approach when building the best audio equipment, and it seems that certain respected (specialist) audio manufacturers are also on my wavelength....! :)
Here's something to ponder:
Musicians, based on the experience of their trained ears, instinctively *know* when music reproduced by hi-fi equipment sounds real.
In the same way, so do *some* knowledgeable audio enthusiasts, designers and music lovers, based on their extensive experience of listening to live music, amplified and un-amplified, and having assembled and listened to countless different systems over the years; and so this invaluable experience forms the benchmark from which they can accurately judge all things of a subjective nature in audio.
No test equipment can measure the judgement criteria of the trained ears of experienced and discerning musicians, who love superb sound as much as they do great music, and so hi-fi equipment which is built without its sonic performance scrutinised at length and fine-tuned by ear, as NEAT have done, will always be arguably inferior.
<Discuss> :cool:
Marco.
Lodgesound
20-10-2011, 14:48
As an aside to this but not entirely off-topic when Ray Dolby designed A-Type noise reduction he did extensive research into Human hearing and discovered that there are certain frequencies that we almost all universally have audible blind spots to.
The frequency bands at which Dolby A works upon divide at the frequencies discovered in this research hence on properly set up machinery you cannot hear Dolby A actually working unlike many other types of noise reduction systems which nearly always manifest audible side effects. Empirical research and real life testing should go hand in glove with all technical design and development.
hifi_dave
20-10-2011, 15:31
IMO, it is usually the smaller companies (or one man bands) which design and voice their products in this way. They have the passion and expertise to make good products which you either love or don't as the case may be.
The larger companies tend to design and develop by committee or (worse) by theory and computer. Sometimes, the larger companies don't listen to the products until they are on the market.
And yes, Neat make great speakers. They are beautifully put together, look elegant and most of all, sound good..:)
The philosophy appeals to me. Bunch of musicians running a hifi shop decide to make their own speaker. I think they look geat to.
Unfortunatly ive never heard a pair mores the pity.
The Motive 3 in oak finish:drool:
Marco,
Nothing to disagree with at all in your post, but surely it is a false dichotomy in that I would be very suprised if the basic parameters of any succesful speaker design aren't arrived at through calculation and measurement initially and then tuned through subjective evaluation?.
Colouration IS measurable and part of the design and development process is to minimise this if you have accurate reproduction as a goal. For me, neutrality is important as I like to listen to a wide variety of music, and I don't want a 'classical', 'jazz' or a 'rock' preference dictated by the system - it should be possible to make a good fist of ALL of it without compromise. Again, I'd hope that the programme material used for the subjective evaluation covered all the bases to ensure this even-handedness.
I'm sure noone takes issue with validation/correlation of measured results with the subjective impression from the listener as part of the development process. Neither subjective or objective evaluation approaches is likely to work well in isolation IMHO, or at least combining the benefits of both are likely to work better, faster and cost less than trial and error alone.
Cheers,
Alex
Reid Malenfant
20-10-2011, 17:45
<snip> I would be very suprised if the basic parameters of any succesful speaker design aren't arrived at through calculation and measurement initially and then tuned through subjective evaluation?.
Of course they will be, they have to make a profit after all ;)
I have no doubt that the final voicing may well be done by ear though. Looking at some of the bigger designs there is no way that a hell of a lot of number crunching hasn't been done :eyebrows:
As a for instance (http://www.neat.co.uk/p_pages/xl10.php), try designing the crossover for this without a computer :eek:
I prefer the hundreds of hours of listening spent on the likes of Harbeths and current big Tannoys I must admit. I've long gone past the stage where a peaked up treble and limited bass is "impressive, "fast" and detailed..."
jandl100
21-10-2011, 07:49
Just to play devil's advocate ... :eyebrows: ...
IMO, it is usually the smaller companies (or one man bands) which design and voice their products in this way. They have the passion and expertise to make good products which you either love or don't as the case may be.
They also don't have the £££££ to spend on a well set up anechoic chamber and measuring equipment ... much cheaper to just tweak a component by ear. :lol:
But, no, wot? Seriously now ... yes, listening should be a crucial part of the design process.
But you do end up with a particular version of The Truth that tallies with what the designer wants or prefers to hear - their own set of compromises to meet the intended price point. You may or may not agree with that particular musical balancing act. But if many companies do that you at least you get a varied range of product to choose from to meet your particular musical preferences.
In fairness Jerry, I believe software is available for not too much dosh to basically check what your speakers are doing and anechoic chambers aren't always needed if you set the test up right..
Hi Alex,
Nothing to disagree with at all in your post, but surely it is a false dichotomy in that I would be very suprised if the basic parameters of any succesful speaker design aren't arrived at through calculation and measurement initially and then tuned through subjective evaluation?
Yup, I agree, and I'm sure that NEAT will also have carried out some extensive measurements, but what I like about their design process is the emphasis they place on the importance of final tuning ('voicing') by ear, by experienced musicians, who apart from knowing what real instruments actually sound like, through playing some themselves, also know what good sound is, by being audio enthusiasts, too!
For me, if it's done right (and listening to many different NEAT speakers, over the years, confirms this), it is the ideal recipe for creating (genuinely) musically realistic sounding speakers, as opposed to ones just playing at it, through having been designed to conform merely to a set of 'widely accepted parameters', and thus as a result, often missing the 'bones' of the musical message.
For me, it's no coincidence that some of the most musically inept, anodyne sounding speakers I've heard, were produced by manufacturers with a strongly 'measurements-first' design ethos, where very little, if any, final voicing by ear is carried out by people who instinctively know when something sounds 'right', based on extensive experience of being exposed to the sound of real instruments. Quite simply, there is no substitute for those skills!
Now, when I say "musically inept" and "anodyne sounding", I don't mean, like some staunch objectivists believe (step forward Serge Auckland, of Wigwam and pfm), which is that "musically inept" and "anodyne sounding", are terms that simply portray the fact that the sound is 'transparent', through lack of coloration, and that subjectivists, such as me, prefer some form of added euphony, in order to make the sound more 'musical', and so therefore that's why we find the sound of 'transparent' equipment bland.
No, that is fundamentally NOT what I mean... We are actually after the EXACT opposite: REALISM!
What I mean, is that the blandness occurs, with this supposedly 'transparent' sounding equipment (I don't believe that ANY audio equipment it totally transparent of the music signal), because subtle timbre and natural harmonics, vital to the realistic reproduction of recorded music, is being irretrievably lost during the equipment or loudspeaker design process, simply because measurements that conform to 'widely accepted parameters', do not tell the full story in terms of ascertaining that which genuinely maintains the integrity of the music signal.
It is precisely the removal of this vital timbre and natural harmonics that is causing the blandness. Therefore, the sound is bland because it is coloured and fundamentally unfaithful to the music signal, as a result of crucial musical information having been 'measured out', so it is certainly NOT 'transparent'!
Only by listening and fine-tuning by skilled ears (and the ears of a designer who is an experienced musician and audiophile, are ideal for this purpose), is one able to make the necessary component adjustments, during the design process, which allow that vital timbre and harmonic detail to be retained, and thus realised in the final listening, simply because the knowledge of the designer, both in terms of how real instruments sound, and of course circuit design and component choice, allow him to make successful adjustments in order to achieve the desired result; hence the term 'voicing'.
*That* is why audio equipment designed the NEAT way sounds more musical, to those with discerning ears (and they are far from being the only manufacturer to employ this design philosophy), than kit which is designed merely to conform to 'widely accepted parameters', simply because intrinsically, it IS more musical!!
I'm afraid that, in my opinion, all that experienced and skilled ears can genuinely hear doesn't show up currently on test equipment, simply because the technical information provided by 'widely accepted parameters' just isn't thorough enough, therefore we are not yet able to measure all that we can genuinely hear in audio. Perhaps that will change in future when we learn more about the intricate manner of how the human ear and brain processes complex music signals, via recorded music through a hi-fi system? I hope so, as it would make the job of audio designers a whole lot easier!
I'm sure noone takes issue with validation/correlation of measured results with the subjective impression from the listener as part of the development process. Neither subjective or objective evaluation approaches is likely to work well in isolation IMHO, or at least combining the benefits of both are likely to work better, faster and cost less than trial and error alone.
Indeed, but I also firmly believe that equipment whose design ethos is simply (or mainly) to conform objectively to 'widely accepted parameters', will always be musically inferior to equipment that is designed in a similar way to that valued by companies, such as NEAT.
NEAT's design methodology largely mirrors that of my own system building, and when listening, the sonic and musical benefits of this approach are obvious! :cool:
Marco.
aquapiranha
21-10-2011, 08:19
I think Neat are great too, and I had some for a couple of years...
http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb256/aquapiranha/neat/neat2.jpg
Neat Motive 1's in oak. Powered by Arcam CD93T A85 / P85. sounded great.
jandl100
21-10-2011, 08:28
For me, it's no coincidence that some of the most musically inept, anodyne sounding speakers I've heard, were produced by manufacturers with a strongly 'measurements-first' design ethos,
:thumbsup:
What I mean, is that the blandness occurs, with this supposedly 'transparent' sounding equipment because subtle timbre and natural harmonics, vital to the realistic reproduction of recorded music, is being lost during the equipment or loudspeaker design process
I agree but I would also extend that into what I would call 'dynamic expression', without which music is bland and uninteresting to me.
In fact, I would say this aspect is the major downfall of the measurements-first brigade.
I am having some problems with the idea of a commercially produced speaker tuned by ear.
Isn’t this “we tune our speakers by ear” a largely a marketing strategy?
Having done a bit of speaker building and attempted to tune my own speakers to my ears and the environment they operate in I can’t help but wonder exactly how a manufacturers tunes by ear to satisfy a range of preferences and environments.
I know from my own experience for example that my speakers sound very different if I take them to a different environment and use a different amplifier to power them.
There is after all only so much that can be done with say frequency response before it is so far away from linear that it would be impossible to say the sound was in any way representative of the information on the media.
I’m going to assume the stated preferred differences between an ear tuned and a measurement produced speaker are subtle, or we would all be covering our ears in horror at one or the other.
The thing is we aren’t that good at picking out subtle differences tests suggest and the obvious differences I suggest are measurable.
So, how is this “tune by ear” done to please differing systems, different hearing and different environments?
I realize it may be tempting to write “ah, well there you have it my son, its an art” but it ain’t magic.
It doesn't matter how much you measure or what you measure you will never create a speaker that sounds the same in all enviroments and with all amps. It's not even worth attempting it. Better to design for a narrower range of parameters and let people take it or leave it as it suits. A specialist speaker rather than a jack of all trades master of none.
It doesn't matter how much you measure or what you measure you will never create a speaker that sounds the same in all enviroments and with all amps. It's not even worth attempting it. Better to design for a narrower range of parameters and let people take it or leave it as it suits. A specialist speaker rather than a jack of all trades master of none.
Spot on, Martin!
That's *exactly* what it's about: one buys into the expertise of the designer, and ultimately how good his ears are, based on how he or she has voiced his or her equipment or speakers.
If his or her ears are any good, and designs have been tested with a wide variety of music in a fairly neutral sounding test system, and in the case of speakers, in different environments, then the final sonic signature of the equipment or speakers in question should suit a wide variety of tastes.
And so when auditioning said equipment or speakers, either at home in your own system, or in a dealer's demo room, and you dont' like how it sounds, then you don't buy it and simply move to another manufacturer whose equipment is voiced more to your tastes.
It's that simple, John. All bespoke and much high-end hi-fi is like this, not just speakers. There's nothing new here, mate! :)
Marco.
hifi_dave
21-10-2011, 13:00
Even a speaker designed by computer and/or committee is unlikely to work optimally in all systems and all rooms. Same applies to a 'tuned' by ear design.
I often have designers/manufacturers bringing in their products to listen and tweak them in my room with a range of equipment. Often, they take their designs to other dealers and do the same there, so the products should work in a wide variety of situations.
Even a speaker designed by computer and/or committee is unlikely to work optimally in all systems and all rooms. Same applies to a 'tuned' by ear design.
Quite... Therefore as ever in audio, it's simply a matter of choosing your compromises! :)
Marco.
I think Neat are great too, and I had some for a couple of years...
http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb256/aquapiranha/neat/neat2.jpg
Neat Motive 1's in oak. Powered by Arcam CD93T A85 / P85. sounded great.
Very nice interior design.
I'm not sure what 'widely accepted parameters' means in the context of this discussion.
It sounds like a bit of advertising wibble to me, although 'we tune our speakers' by ear isn't, I'm sure, meant to suggest that they don't start by selecting or designing drivers, cross-overs, cabinets, ports etc without use of simulation tools or other means to get the paper specification to look like it works.
At the end of the day, nobody buys a speaker because it measures well (I hope) and a speaker that doesn't sound ok is unlikely to be commercially successful when it is sold to a primarily audiophile market.
Marco,
I fully agree with your point about the misconceived stereotype that say a neutral speaker being the goal of objectivists, and a euphonically coloured speaker being the choice of the subjectivist. Transparency is critical to representation to instruments as they really sound.
I'm struggling to find quite the right language to describe how I think about this, but I think that a speaker that sounds realistic is preserving more of the 'information' contained within the original recording. A less realistic speaker is somehow loosing some of this information, and that frequency response aberations, poor cross-over integration, non-linear drivers, dynamic compression, cabinet resonances all add or take away from the original signal, and contribute to a loss of realism. The influences of these diversions from a 'perfect' speaker are identifiable both by measurement and subjectively, and I think that elimination of these defects gets you closer to realism (whatever you deem that to mean!).
I think that I have heard very few systems (including my own) that can fully reproduce the impact of a trumpet, an orchestral tutti, piano or the complexity of a stringed instrument in a highly convincing manner that I would deem to be truely realistic. By inclination I prefer neutrality and transparency with the aim of getting closer to this.
Having said all of that I am not fundamentally opposed to using tone controls selectively when required to tweak the sound of the system or a particular recording should it be more enjoyable to do so!.
Cheers,
Alex
I agree but I would also extend that into what I would call 'dynamic expression', without which music is bland and uninteresting to me.
In fact, I would say this aspect is the major downfall of the measurements-first brigade.
I agree, Jerry - and one of the reasons for this is their obsession with believing that ALL distortion is bad, which of course it isn't. Some of it is necessary in order to reproduce the "dynamic expression" you refer to. Real instruments and voices are imbued with natural distortions, and the best audio equipment, in my experience, mimics those natural distortions, as closely as possible.
You can't just go chopping off what should be there because your scientific belief system tells you that it's 'wrong'! Objective analysis, like subjective assessment, is not a perfect entity. I doubt that any of us here will see they day when they both become so - if indeed it ever happens!
IMO, the mistake the measurement-first brigade make is attempting to remove as much distortion as possible, of all types, when designing equipment and speakers, and in so doing, within the distortion they're seeking to eliminate, stripping music of its ability to 'breathe', by removing some of the harmonics I referred to earlier (the stuff which mimics the natural distortions present in real instruments and voices), thus causing that 'soulless' and anodyne sound that you and I hate!
And the reason that this happens is because the 'widely accepted (electrical test) parameters' commonly used in audio design simply aren't a sufficiently accurate enough benchmark to measure ALL that needs to be measured, to ensure that the music signal arrives at the end of the reproduction chain as intact and unsullied as possible............. Hence why experienced and skilled ears are also needed, to help discern what our current test apparatus misses, in order for the best (most realistically musical sounding) equipment and speakers to be produced :cool:
Marco.
Slightly missing my point here but not having heard these speakers, or many commercial designs for that matter, certainly in a useful memory period, I would have to see if I could hear an overall improvement in speakers claiming to be tuned by ear and others who pirmarily used measurement.
I have a sneaking suspicion that a well designed speaker is a well designed speaker no matter how it was arrived at and the "by ear" bit is just some marketing chat.
It would be an interesting test.
It’s a bit like the mythical old boy who tunes engines by ear. No doubt they exists but I’ll go for a fully kitted out Ferrari computer based workshop any day.
I have a sneaking suspicion that a well designed speaker is a well designed speaker no matter how it was arrived at and the "by ear" bit is just some marketing chat.
In some cases, John, it no doubt is. However, I've watched the likes of Anthony TD, Glenn Croft and Nick Gorham, 'tune' equipment by ear, and listened first-hand to the results, so I know for a fact that, in terms of their designs, it is not "marketing chat".
And in my experience, they make some of the best sounding kit I've ever heard. I have no reason to believe that, in that respect, the designers at NEAT are any different in their approach to audio design.
Marco.
Fair enough Marco :)
We’re never going to agree on the experienced ear being more effective than accurate and knowledgeably employed measurement and of course the equipment to carry out such measurements which is where I tentatively suggest that some of the bespoke manufacturers are at a disadvantage, particularly when it comes to loudspeakers :eyebrows:
I’m not sure that being able to differentiate by ear between various types of distortion and higher order harmonics for example is realistic, maybe it’s some unconscious process that says this sounds right and this doesn’t. The thing is what sounds right to one may not sound right to another so in the end it is entirely subjective.
Anyway, I’ll keep an eye out for Neat speakers and see if I can get to listen to a set sometime :)
Forgot to add a rather important point; this is all assuming the goal is to accurately reproduce the original recording which may not sound at all musical or pleasant to listen to.
I’m not sure that being able to differentiate by ear between various types of distortion and higher order harmonics for example is realistic, maybe it’s some unconscious process that says this sounds right and this doesn’t...
Yup, I believe it is precisely that - a 'gut instinct', and the ability to instinctively *know* when something sounds right. And I'm far from being the only one who has that ability!
That's mainly how I judge the equipment I buy and how I assemble my system, and judging by the results of systems I've put together over the years at the Scalford shows, it hasn't done any harm, not to mention the outstanding results I get at home with solely my own system.........
It's a skill which either comes from extensive experience of playing musical instruments and/or of listening to the sound of live music, both of the amplified and acoustic variety, and through the years, assembling countless superb sounding systems of different types.
In my case, it's the latter. 'Golden ears' don't come into it: it's just plain old experience, and it rarely lets me down :)
*That*, my friend, is where the art comes in which so offends the sensibilities of the measurement-obsessed pseudo-scientists, simply because most of them can't do it (or rather, their painfully rigid objective belief system won't allow them to acknowledge that they can do it) - and I find that highly amusing...! ;)
Marco.
I always thought it interesting how B&W are known for computer designed speakers and yet on hearing them i found them a bit dull.
And almost anything that Meridian or AVI make these days! I'm sure that Jerry could also add a few more names to the list of blandsville hi-fi kit.... ;)
Marco.
I know what youre saying. My choice for speakers was swayed by the fact i like standmounters matched with a sub which AVI did very well with the neutron but i preferred the Spendor SA1s in my auditions. Shame there was no bass.
John,
You raise an interesting point - Is accuracy the ultimate objective of an Audiophile, or is it to recreate a hyperreal representation of a performance as one would imagine that it sounded first-hand?. Not all (if not many) recordings don't sound very good. The sound at most live performances is abysmal. What is our point of reference here?
Almost all recorded music goes through a very complex, invasive and non-minimal process during recording, mixing and mastering, with the aim of improving the perceived result. Consequently I think that slavish adherence to an absolute concept of fidelity as an absolute is chasing a chimera - the best one can hope for is that you realise the best bits of the record producer or artist's intent in your home.
Cheers,
Alex
Most music is mixed on speakers you wouldnt want any where near your listening room.
Hi Alex. :)
I don’t try to tune my system for the most accurate representation of the original for what should be one obvious reasons; I don’t know what that should sound like.
I try to tune for what I find pleasant to listen to that also gives, to my ears at least, some impression of hearing live instruments. It is in my opinion an impossible goal. Most recordings for the reasons you mention don’t sound anything like live instruments or even musical quite often.
Despite my seemingly pro measurement stance I do in fact tune by ear but I think by ear tuning is a realistic proposition in an individual system.
What is interesting is having got what I hear as a satisfactory sound, how far from the often perceived ideal of a totally flat response this is.
So, I have a stereo and not Hi Fi ;)
Hi Alex,
You raise an interesting point - Is accuracy the ultimate objective of an Audiophile, or is it to recreate a hyperreal representation of a performance as one would imagine that it sounded first-hand?. Not all (if not many) recordings don't sound very good. The sound at most live performances is abysmal. What is our point of reference here?
Well, mine is to extract maximum fidelity from the source recording, whether it be on CD or vinyl. In that respect, I'm attempting to recreate, as closely as possible, the sound that left the recording studio, good or bad.
Perhaps rather ironically, my goal is also transparency, the same as Serge's. However, his definition of the word, and his way of trying to achieve it, is the polar opposite of mine! :eek:
It is only the genuine 'no compromise' audiophile recordings I use as the benchmark from which I judge how close my system gets to reproducing the realism of live (un-amplified) instruments and voices, as only those are good enough for the job!
Does that answer your question? :)
Marco.
Those are very nice speakers in deed,I have never heard of them before.
Workmanship is tops.
Quite... Therefore as ever in audio, it's simply a matter of choosing your compromises! :)
Marco.
This statement is a definitive truth in both audio and life.:bulb:
dave2010
21-10-2011, 16:56
Of course they will be, they have to make a profit after all ;)
I have no doubt that the final voicing may well be done by ear though. Looking at some of the bigger designs there is no way that a hell of a lot of number crunching hasn't been done :eyebrows:
As a for instance (http://www.neat.co.uk/p_pages/xl10.php), try designing the crossover for this without a computer :eek:"The Neat Acoustics Ultimatum XL10 will be available in November at a cost of £15,245.00 for standard finishes and £17,080.00 for premium finishes."
Ought to be **** good for these prices!
http://www.uhes.co.uk/news/neat-xl-10.html
Reid Malenfant
21-10-2011, 17:07
"The Neat Acoustics Ultimatum XL10 will be available in November at a cost of £15,245.00 for standard finishes and £17,080.00 for premium finishes."
Ought to be **** good for these prices!
I guess they'd better be or they won't be selling many at those prices :eyebrows:
Quite... Therefore as ever in audio, it's simply a matter of choosing your compromises! :)
Marco.
I regularly use two kinds of speaker compromises, rather opposed to each other, but my gawd they work well at what they do :)
To be fair, I don't know of any speakers designed purely on specifications. All are listened to in the course of development I think - setting crossover frequencies and tuning the bass alignments etc.
Yup, but some people know what they're listening for more than others ;)
Marco.
I prefer the hundreds of hours of listening spent on the likes of Harbeths and current big Tannoys I must admit. I've long gone past the stage where a peaked up treble and limited bass is "impressive, "fast" and detailed..."
Agree, but I'd say that listening and measuring aren't mutually exclusive.
Spend weeks tinkering and listening and every audible change you make will alter the measurements. So, if you understand how measurements influence sonics you can apply that process in reverse. A designer with a good grasp of electronics and acoustics can model a change in simulation and know what effect that will have. Might not always get it 100% right, but should get close.
With loudspeakers being such a complex mix of quite strong compromises the final tuning will always come down to listening, with the measurements and understanding of the processes getting the design into the target area.
So for example when we see video footage of Alan Shaw tweaking crossovers for hours on end and listening to the results, he isn't doing this in ignorance of the circuit interactions at play. If he finds say, vocals are a touch hard and decides to swap a cap, he'll have a good idea of how much that cap needs to change in value, and he'll know that because he will have measured many, many crossover designs over the years.
Measurements and listening aren't enemies or in any way divorced, they are two sides of the same coin.
With regard to musicians I wouldn't place any more weight on their view of what constitutes a good loudspeaker. Most musicians use shite audio systems.
What's more interesting to me is that they seem far more able to listen through the imperfections of a poor system and appreciate the music.
Bring on the audiophile with the uber hi-fi system and his collection of ten CDs.
Five of them DSOTM :)
Hi Rob,
All fair points :)
With regard to musicians I wouldn't place any more weight on their view of what constitutes a good loudspeaker. Most musicians use shite audio systems.
Indeed, but there are also quite a few who don't - the guys at NEAT being a case in point. There are also a number of famous audiophile singers and musicians, David Gilmour and Kate Bush, being but two, who insist on their music reproduced with the highest standards of audio quality.
I'd be far more inclined to trust the ears of an audiophile musician, somone whom I respected, than those of any scientist, or science-obsessed audio designer. Now, an audiophile musician and scientist would be an interesting prospect - do we know of any? ;)
What's more interesting to me is that they seem far more able to listen through the imperfections of a poor system and appreciate the music.
Yes indeed - their intimate knowledge of music allows them to 'fill in the blanks', as it were. It's a nice skill to have! :cool:
Marco.
Chunky70
22-10-2011, 01:10
If we could all fill in the blanks then it would save us a few quid!
I'd be far more inclined to trust the ears of an audiophile musician, somone whom I respected, than those of any scientist, or science-obsessed audio designer. Now, an audiophile musician and scientist would be an interesting prospect - do we know of any?
Marco,
There are lots of people in science/engineering who are both audiophiles and musicians - why should you think otherwise?. I'm sure that some of them even design/build HiFi components!
Spend weeks tinkering and listening and every audible change you make will alter the measurements. So, if you understand how measurements influence sonics you can apply that process in reverse. A designer with a good grasp of electronics and acoustics can model a change in simulation and know what effect that will have. Might not always get it 100% right, but should get close.
With loudspeakers being such a complex mix of quite strong compromises the final tuning will always come down to listening, with the measurements and understanding of the processes getting the design into the target area.
Well said - I'd agree with that totally.
Regards,
Alex
I'd be far more inclined to trust the ears of an audiophile musician, somone whom I respected, than those of any scientist, or science-obsessed audio designer. Now, an audiophile musician and scientist would be an interesting prospect - do we know of any? ;)
Marco.
Hi Marco,
Anthony Michaelson of MF springs to mind.
Clarinetist and well known audio guru. Not sure I'd go so far as 'scientist' though :)
Of the old school, Peter Walker played flute once a week in a local orchestra and would tick all the boxes.
hifi_dave
22-10-2011, 17:02
I believe that Bob of Neat is a musician - plays in a band.
Hi Marco,
Anthony Michaelson of MF springs to mind.
Clarinetist and well known audio guru. Not sure I'd go so far as 'scientist' though :)
Guru???????????????????????? :eek:
Marketeer definitely ;)
Stratmangler
23-10-2011, 22:40
Heard these yesterday - astonishing sound, and a really petite box too!
http://www.whathifi.com/news/manchester-show-2011-new-speakers-are-neat-compact-and-colourful
Hi Alex,
Marco,
There are lots of people in science/engineering who are both audiophiles and musicians - why should you think otherwise
I was referring to well-known ('celebrity', if you like) audiophiles, scientists and musicians.
Rob has cited a valid example in Anthony Michaelson, although I'm no fan of modern Musical Fidelity equipment. Perhaps there are others too of a similar ilk?
Marco.
Heard these yesterday - astonishing sound, and a really petite box too!
http://www.whathifi.com/news/manchester-show-2011-new-speakers-are-neat-compact-and-colourful
Sorry I missed those - I bet they sound a damn sight better than ADM9s, too!! :eyebrows:
It certainly shows that NEAT's 'ears first' approach to loudspeaker design is paying significant sonic dividends.
Did Guy Sergeant and Puresound exhibit at the Manchester show this year, Chris?
Marco.
Sorry I missed those - I bet they sound a damn sight better than ADM9s, too!! :eyebrows:
Marco.
Now stop it Marco. No way is a 12L box going to impress you unless the port is tuned to bump the mid bass up to make it "funky" perhaps? Wouldn't work with a sub properly then and you couldn't place the speakers on a desk-top either. I couldn't live ultimately with the N5's I had and wondered what the heck I'd done when the Pro-Nines arrived (Alex and Dave W know the whole sorry tale). It took me a while, but the clarity in these latter is breathtaking in the office system and the lean, not artificially extended bass suits their siting perfectly, which a bonky boomer certainly wouldn't :lol:
Anyway, there's a soooooper doooooper ADM9 standmount coming shortly and of course, although the cheaper one is to continue I understand, it'll be interesting to hear just "how" much "better" the new one will be.........
P.S. Those Neats are £650, 86db/W, no amps and a 2L box? - madness :eyebrows:
You can't judge properly whether they're worth that money unless you hear how they treat the accurate reproduction of recorded music :)
If I were in the market for a pair of quality stand-mounts to go with a computer streaming system, based on the design principles of the both NEAT and AVI, I know whose speakers I'd be most predisposed towards buying! ;)
Marco.
Predisposition is summat you've accused me of at times mate... It would still be worth a genuine listen to both options either way, before jumping to the one your heart tells you to buy :)
I dare say I'll get a listen to the Neats before too long. I wonder if they're designed for a Unitqt?
Dave, I wouldn't give Ashley James one penny of my hard-earned money, on principles alone (I don't like him or how he does business), on top of the fact that people whose ears I trust have told me that ADM9s sound shite! ;)
Marco.
bobbasrah
31-10-2011, 16:27
As I am prone to ask dumb questions, and this particular kettle came to the boil again, again, I will..... Do the musicians become consulted at the concept, design, build, QC or install stage? If I buy a set of NEAT speakers may I expect the London Philharmonic round with saws, soldering irons and assorted bits to do final tweaking?
I doubt that any hifi product does not go through vigorous auditioning at various stages, and it is only in the final user environment that it will prove musical or otherwise.
I have no doubt these are very well made speakers, and bloody well should be at the price, but are we not in danger of losing perspective a la Linn, however scientific that may appear?
fiddlemaker
03-11-2011, 09:09
I believe that Bob of Neat is a musician - plays in a band.
he's a superb guitarist: one of the most naturally talented musicians I've ever come across....
P.S. Those Neats are £650, 86db/W, no amps and a 2L box? - madness :eyebrows:
Have you actually heared them? Dont take the piss until you have.
I have heared them at the manchester show and they were astounding for the size.
I wouldnt mind hearing them again in my room! I like dinky boxes :cool:
Butuz
Pedanticpete
19-04-2012, 21:10
Hmmm. This is my first post, so I hope you'll be gentle with me. :)
I find it interesting that one should assume that somebody who plays a musical instrument should know what it actually sounds like to listen to it! (and breathe:lol:)
For the prosecution, I call upon everybody who has ever listened to a recording of their own voice. :eek:
But, to balance the equation, it's to be expected that a proper musician would naturally encounter more REAL music than your average geezer.
So, perhaps it's the exposure to the musical environment that gives him the experience to judge, rather than the playing of the instrument.
Can you imagine what the tape-recording would have sounded like if you had tweaked it so that YOUR voice sounded right to YOU? :lol:
Right-on Marco! This is why certain manufacturers appeal to me more than others.
Amphion select all of their tweeters by ear and reject / send back huge amounts of them, which probably end up finding their way into other manufacturers' speakers.
Another interesting thing that Amphion have mentioned with their now Argon 7L speakers: "Argon7L has ruler flat response. But it does not sound like that." There is so much more to "life" and musicality than measurements...
I know this is an old thread but I was offered a used pair of Neat Acoustic Elites today and they were a bit more than I wanted to pay but after reading these comments I shall contact the seller and set up an appointment to see him. I reckon they might just be a bit special.
This has reminded me to get a rare pair of petites i have in the loft fixed.
This has reminded me to get a rare pair of petites i have in the loft fixed.
Would you say they are delicate? I understand the set I was offered have been repaired as well.
Right-on Marco! This is why certain manufacturers appeal to me more than others.
Amphion select all of their tweeters by ear and reject / send back huge amounts of them, which probably end up finding their way into other manufacturers' speakers.
Another interesting thing that Amphion have mentioned with their now Argon 7L speakers: "Argon7L has ruler flat response. But it does not sound like that." There is so much more to "life" and musicality than measurements...
Hehehehe... I love that quote - and so true! Sorry, I missed this post the first time round, however, I'm glad that some people have found the thread of use recently! :)
Marco.
dave2010
03-07-2013, 18:37
Dave, I wouldn't give Ashley James one penny of my hard-earned money, on principles alone (I don't like him or how he does business), on top of the fact that people whose ears I trust have told me that ADM9s sound shite! ;)
Marco.I guess he's probably not one of these, then - http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?_adv_prop=image&fr=moz35&va=Ashley+James
Yup, he's the old git, sixth along!
Marco.
Would you say they are delicate? I understand the set I was offered have been repaired as well.
No not at all.
The mid/bass froze due to being in a garage sometime ago.
Just need to buy 2 new drivers.
To be honest, I've always admired the design and build quality of Neat speakers - but I'm yet to hear a pair I actually thought sounded good :(.
Have had about 4 pairs.
My favourite by far where the mystique 2s.
Didn't get on with the motives.
The petites i have i still have never heard,must get them sorted to sell on.
Andrew B
04-07-2013, 08:44
Lost count of how many I've had over the years. Petite 3s were my favourite. I always like to be a bit further back from Neats. Near-field they can be a bit full-on.
Alan Sircom
04-07-2013, 08:46
While there is an exaggerated 'cult of the designer' in home audio, I find those that go down the 'no humans involved' line of reasoning, usually go too far.
Measurement - like any scientific endeavour - should be considered a nearly-complete view of a thing. The best measurement can do is the most thorough objective view of the device under test as can be performed today. As the corpus of measurement expands, refines and changes over time, so the measurements performed should create an ever closer correlate to what we actually hear. This is precisely what has happened and continues to happen.
In solid-state digital and analogue electronics, the modelling and design programs available have made it possible to create a device in the virtual world that correlates almost perfectly with the real-world device. This still relies heavily on the skill of the designers involved, but it's notionally possible to design, develop and prototype an electronic product without ever having to build a sample. The key words here are 'almost' and 'notionally' - the last stages of design should still rely on listening tests to confirm just how close the virtual and physical worlds correlate. It's just that with the current state of the electronics designer's suite of programs, those 'last stages' can be very close to putting a logo on the box.
In some respects in the electronic domain, what separates the good designers from the so-so designers today is a thorough understanding of those programs, and knowing what will require fine tuning through listening test as a result.
When it comes to thermionics and transducers, the limits of the objective aspects of design are more constrained. It's still possible to design a working prototype based entirely on inputting parameters into a program, and end up with something that produces a fairly good sound, but the difference between where the programs stop and the end-user's product starts is greater.
This is why not only do broadly similar loudspeaker designs (from an objective standing) sound very different, but why it should be expected that not everyone likes the same loudspeaker. They have to be voiced, because the end result from the programs and the cookbooks only get you so far. It's why Adam, ATC, Genelec, Harbeth, K+H, PMC and more are all used in studios and yet all have a different (although usually not that different) take on the sound of a monitor. Domestic loudspeakers have more variation than studio monitors, because the requirements in the home are different from the studio (aside from personal taste demands shaping the look and sound in the home, we don't need a strong presence region required in the studio for example, because we aren't using the loudspeakers to listen out for problems, and dynamic range is an issue of 'taming' in the control room, where it's frequently an issue of 'highlighting' in the home). But it's why some people will listen to Neat and love what they do, while others won't but love ProAc or Avantgarde or Quad or Avalon or any one of hundreds of brands that voice speakers in a slightly different way.
This all reminds me a bit of F1 racing cars, where testing is tightly governed by championship rules. They are designed on computers and tested in wind tunnels with vast amounts to data to show how they ought to perform on track but nobody really knows for certain until the first race of the season whether they will be front runners or a dogs dinner. At the end of last season McLaren had arguably the fastest car on the track but they went for a radical redesign and so far it has been a disaster. No doubt that would have been fixed if they had been allowed to conduct more track testing before the start of the season.
Some of the nicest speakers I've ever heard have always used measurements to set the basic performance right, followed by hours of listening to fine-tune what's there to suit different room positions and typical usage. Some 'problems' are inaudible whereas others which hardly measure can be a problem and I think that all the better speakers out there will be designed and 'voiced' that way, a good designer knowing what to deal with and what to ignore.
Some of the nicest speakers I've ever heard have always used measurements to set the basic performance right, followed by hours of listening to fine-tune what's there to suit different room positions and typical usage. Some 'problems' are inaudible whereas others which hardly measure can be a problem and I think that all the better speakers out there will be designed and 'voiced' that way, a good designer knowing what to deal with and what to ignore.
I agree very much with that Dave.
The "measurements only" brigade would not include MOST serious loudspeaker manufacturers;
The "subjective design/tuning only" brigade would have no reference to begin with so could not design a set of speakers properly.
People who consider all designers as people with no subjective reasoning/listening skills or no knowledge of music are actually being very dismissive and arrogant in a sort of reverse snoberry way and had they that knowledge they would soon change their tune.
Every single pair of good loudspeakers I've listened to were designed using conventional design theory and calculation, be that using computer aided design or longhand; developed anechoiically or semi-anechoiically then fine tuned by literally 100's of hours of listening tests conducted by a cross section of people/employees whos comments are accounted for. Harbeth spring to mind immediately as well as Neat.
My own speakers, the Reference Fidelios, were arrived at after 100's of hours of design, buried in maths and acoustic physics, from the study of Tannoys electronic circuits for their crossovers and adaptation to modern fixed value versions, from testing and measuring semi-anechoically and from (now) 100's of hours of listening using many different amps and source components (the "real world" scenario that HifiDave mentioned) followed by fine tuning of internal damping, ports and crossovers until I had them "just right". This whole process has taken 6 months of intensive work and that's for a relatively simple design at cottage industry level. There's far more to arrival at the final product than I think most people might credit.
Of course there are many exceptions to the rule. I have bought and reverse engineered many speakers and been appalled at the shoddy nature of the design and finish which were generated to make profit and little else (what I call profit driven fashion boxes). These rarely sound right though so are relatively easy to weed out.
I listened to a few speakers when buying a new pair about 6 months ago, and the stand out ones (which I now use) were the Neat Motive 2 SE's. The SE spec has just that bit more 'life' in them than the standard motives. Fabulous speakers for the money, great for a smaller room, and they get better as you use them. Very well balanced. Heard them against speakers ten times the price, and while others may have had a deeper bass or a sweeter treble, the balance was just right with the Motives. As you say Marco, designed by ear rather than spec sheet may just have worked in getting the mix right.
Love 'em.
While there is an exaggerated 'cult of the designer' in home audio, I find those that go down the 'no humans involved' line of reasoning, usually go too far.
Measurement - like any scientific endeavour - should be considered a nearly-complete view of a thing. The best measurement can do is the most thorough objective view of the device under test as can be performed today. As the corpus of measurement expands, refines and changes over time, so the measurements performed should create an ever closer correlate to what we actually hear. This is precisely what has happened and continues to happen.
In solid-state digital and analogue electronics, the modelling and design programs available have made it possible to create a device in the virtual world that correlates almost perfectly with the real-world device. This still relies heavily on the skill of the designers involved, but it's notionally possible to design, develop and prototype an electronic product without ever having to build a sample. The key words here are 'almost' and 'notionally' - the last stages of design should still rely on listening tests to confirm just how close the virtual and physical worlds correlate. It's just that with the current state of the electronics designer's suite of programs, those 'last stages' can be very close to putting a logo on the box.
In some respects in the electronic domain, what separates the good designers from the so-so designers today is a thorough understanding of those programs, and knowing what will require fine tuning through listening test as a result.
When it comes to thermionics and transducers, the limits of the objective aspects of design are more constrained. It's still possible to design a working prototype based entirely on inputting parameters into a program, and end up with something that produces a fairly good sound, but the difference between where the programs stop and the end-user's product starts is greater.
This is why not only do broadly similar loudspeaker designs (from an objective standing) sound very different, but why it should be expected that not everyone likes the same loudspeaker. They have to be voiced, because the end result from the programs and the cookbooks only get you so far. It's why Adam, ATC, Genelec, Harbeth, K+H, PMC and more are all used in studios and yet all have a different (although usually not that different) take on the sound of a monitor. Domestic loudspeakers have more variation than studio monitors, because the requirements in the home are different from the studio (aside from personal taste demands shaping the look and sound in the home, we don't need a strong presence region required in the studio for example, because we aren't using the loudspeakers to listen out for problems, and dynamic range is an issue of 'taming' in the control room, where it's frequently an issue of 'highlighting' in the home). But it's why some people will listen to Neat and love what they do, while others won't but love ProAc or Avantgarde or Quad or Avalon or any one of hundreds of brands that voice speakers in a slightly different way.
Excellent post, Alan. I may even include it in our ethos! Your views on measurements, in particular, encapsulate perfectly my stance on the position technical measurements occupy in audio.
This all reminds me a bit of F1 racing cars, where testing is tightly governed by championship rules. They are designed on computers and tested in wind tunnels with vast amounts to data to show how they ought to perform on track but nobody really knows for certain until the first race of the season whether they will be front runners or a dogs dinner. At the end of last season McLaren had arguably the fastest car on the track but they went for a radical redesign and so far it has been a disaster. No doubt that would have been fixed if they had been allowed to conduct more track testing before the start of the season.
Spot on, Ashley! :clap:
As I wrote earlier in a discussion on pfm, what you've just written proves almost beyond question how it's a total fallacy assuming that what's been developed, no matter how meticulously in a test environment, is what will be realised in 'real world' conditions - and the same applies when designing audio equipment or assessing the recordings of music produced from such.
Marco.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.