View Full Version : The Pain of Neutral Sound
This is a story of the dangers of neutral sound.
I always wanted to have that studio monitor sound.
It would be authentic and totally hifi.
I don't think this is a good idea anymore. I've owned many
speakers that had an interesting but not neutral sound.
I was happy with large Magnepans. The Magnepans
are not studio monitors, but boy they have an airy sound and fantastic sound stage.
Now, when I have the neutral and revealing monitor sound, I can't go back to the interesting but flawed speakers.
At the same time I am fiddling with equipment forever in order to make the neutral sound more interesting.
So avoid monitor speakers, if you are not actually working with sound.
I have been using large ESS AMT Monitors for some time.
They sound like monitors.
I changed my digital setup and bought the Mercedes S-Class of German sound cards, RME Hammerfall HDSP9632.
The RME is great. It has rock solid drivers for all major operating systems.
I use it with J.River and Windows 7.
This sound card is known for it's absolute neutral sound. Well, it was made for professional monitoring.
So now I keep rotating different preamps trying to break out from neutrality. I don't know if the difference between preamps
is real or imaginary.
This is why I have to do a preamp shootout. I am going to play five songs using 5 different preamps.
First adjusting sound level with a db-meter and white noise.
The preamps are not super high end. Some of them are familiar to you:
1. Beresford 7510 / mod21 optical spdif/variable output
2. Quad 33 revised Dada
3. Velleman 8020 valve preamp
4. Eumig C-1000 from Luxman design and factory (late 70's)
5. Harman Kardon HK 3470, just the preamp (early 90's, looks like discrete transistors)
Results soon with pictures of preamps.
I found that when I had the ATC100A's, driven by a late AVI S2000 MP+P preamp, I all but stopped messing with the gear and just used the set to listen to music on..
I don't know the speakers I'm afraid, but one thing I've recently discovered is that many MODERN monitors are anything but neutral (yes, even current ATC's!), having a distinctly lifted upper mid over the average bass and treble level. Exaggerated, this equates to the yamaha NS10's, which were pretty well loathed on the domestic front, but which studios adopted as their little screecher by the thousand. On the other hand, the BBC's idea of neutrality is speakers that measure pretty flat in free space, giving a gentle (in the best examples) bass lift in a UK domestic setting (US and far eastern rooms may be built differently and climate differences have a definite effect too).
I know I'm different to many on here, but I've long given up chasing the ultimate in fidelity, with exceptional clinical clarity, since the ultimate can never be achieved with a multi-tracked, mixed and "produced" source recording, which has been aneasthsetised at the mixing and mastering stage into something "domestically acceptable..."
If your speakers are active with built in amps, I'd suggest a BMC2 buffer/volume control as a minimum. My love of croft preamps is well recorded, but I don't think they like long interconnects into sub 47K input impedances myself. Old UK preamps that are neutral, cheap and able to drive long leads are such as the later Quad preamps from the 44 onwards, AVI S2000MP (later ones with processor loop on the rear as they were completely redesigned with a rather sexy class A discrete driver stage), Musical Fidelity XP-100 from the late 90's and the first discrete Cyrus preamp (with balanced output option). Of course there are loads of others (late Linn Kairn is a veiled but pleasant sounding unit and the original Audiolab 8000Q is happy used this way too), but I know these and have used them with remote amps.
Hope this helps a bit. On your travels, try to get a listen to the "BBC Legacy" models such as the Stirling LS3/6, bigger Spendors (bigger A series and SP1/2R upwards) and also my beloved Harbeth brand (M30.1, SHL5 and 40.1's). These are balanced generally with a better midrange balance than the over-etched pro models can be and believe me, these won't have you messing around with partnering gear.... The Tannoy Prestige models have been given far less coloured voices than earlier models too and I rate these highly as a range, high new UK prices aside...
Lastly, the one big pro model of quality I really want to hear is the SP Acoustics active monitor. The designer did the original AE1 and relatives from the mid 80's and is using the Illuminator drivers, regarded as amongst the best out there these days, the mid unit covering most of it, with the bass and tweeter augmenting the mid, rather than crossing over where the ear is most sensitive..
Here is the results of my preamp shootout.
The test songs were:
1. Alberto Iglesias: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy soundtrack, George Smiley
2. k.d. lang: The Air That I Breathe
3. Steely Dan: Hey Nineteen
4. George Benson & Al Jarreau: Summer Breeze
5. Gregory Porter: On My Way to Harlem
The listening room is about 40 m2. Medieval building with thick stone walls and wooden floor.
Amplifier Quad 522. Flac files from J.River and Windows 7.
http://hoone.com/setup.jpg
Here is a library picture of ESS Amt Monitors:
http://hoone.com/amtmonitor.jpg
All preamps were adjusted with white noise at 82 db / 1 meter.
This was rather loud. The big speakers need a higher listening level.
My results:
1. First price goes to Velleman K8020 valve preamp (two ECC 82)
Overall best sound on all test music. Balanced, natural on acoustic instruments. Good sound stage.
http://hoone.com/velleman.jpg
2. Quad 33 revised Dada
Super clarity, but not neutral. Somehow modifies original sound.
Good sound stage on acoustic music. No muddiness when full orchestra plays on song number 1.
http://hoone.com/quad.jpg
3. Beresford 7510 / mod21 optical spdif/variable output
This with Beresford DAC (others RME HDSP9632).
Some muddiness when full orchestra on song 1. Song 2 vocal sound too nasal.
Song 3 too much treble.
http://hoone.com/beresford.jpg
4. Eumig C-1000 from Luxman design and factory (late 70's)
Sound thin, behind a curtain. Muddiness, distortion.
Maybe needs a recap. Its Luxmann Laboratory Series cousin is very expensive.
Could be worth upgrading.
http://hoone.com/eumig.jpg
5. Harman Kardon HK 3470, just the preamp (early 90's, looks like discrete transistors)
Not very good. Muddy, too much treble, thin sound.
I did the test about three weeks ago.
After this I have used just the Velleman. It has helped to cure the neutrality of monitor speakers.
Some days I add plus 2-3 db on 6 kHz "presence" on J.River equalizer.
Nice write up
Worth going to Windows 8 to get a even better sound from JRiver special deal till end of Jan
Juha, I fully understand what you are looking for in terms of sound. I crave neutrality, resolution and imaging/soundstage but if this means a sound without substance or a stark sound then I can't live with it. It can be a very fine balancing act. The preamps you tried look ok but I'm not convinced they are the answer. If your system is otherwise not stark sounding and you don't need gain you could try a TVC (eg Promitheus) or Lightspeed LDR attenuator. If you need added warmth you will need an active preamp, arguably loosing some resolution - this is trade-off you seem to have found with the Velleman, but is it really that good?
There are lots of options......
RobbieGong
23-01-2013, 21:35
I seriously thought it was just me that didn't like the neutral, deemed as true hifi sound. Dont get me wrong, overtly trebly / sparkly and bright can be a bit much but I'd so much rather a little sparkle over neutral any day. If I feel myself hunting for some kind of adjust / tone control then the sound aint for me. I've had friends into hifi who went over to systems with literally just a volume button when they became the 'thing' and they eventually went back to tone controls. Now I know that's a different argument so to speak but I'm sure you get my jist ;) One man's meat ............
Juha,
One more thought about your neutral sound pain. If the rest of your room is as live sounding as the area in the photo then it could be that your pain is due to reflections from hard surfaces and what you are doing is deadening the sound with a particular preamp to reduce upper-mid frequencies. I have a very live room and have gone through this myself. I now have 7 carefully placed acoustic panels, this difference in SQ is massive.
There have been recent threads elsewhere about so called "neutral" speakers and I feel it best to sum it up like this...
NO SPEAKER ON THIS PLANET is really any good at all at reproducing live sounds, let alone the compressed and hideous mess that passes for recorded music. The best any loudspeaker can do is give a smaller facsimile of the original and, chosen correctly for the room and user tastes, will enable one to suspend disbelief to enable the music to move ones emotions and hopefully in a positive way.
So called professional monitors have a job to do, and that is usually to magnify distortions and noises in the programme so the engineer can deal with them. The ubiquitous Yamaha NS10M is the best example of this. Mixes that sound good on these screechers usually sound good on anything, but try using them for domestic use and your ears will fatigue very quickly I found -
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep08/articles/yamahans10.htm
I maintain that modern speaker design, including cheaper far eastern manufacturing techniques, has brought the potential for decent sound quality down in price. Some of the better KEF Q series for example and I'm informed especially the current ones, despite their cheap labour roots, are actually very good on the whole for example and I'm sure that the Chinese Wharfedales and others aren't that bad either, especially with the likes of Peter Comeau (founder co-owner of Heybrook and designer of the WD speakers) doing good things over there. I also feel that companies like Harbeth, Stirling Broadcast and Spendor, both well rooted in decent sound quality engineering, have brought their shared "BBC Research" roots very firmly up to date with their current offerings, the former company I know well, having professional levels of clarity and definition, yet with a degree of "listening comfort" unkown in some of the other little screamers out there in speaker-land. Tannoy too, did some excellent work on the DC drivers as owners of the current Prestige range will attest to, as well as others such as Marco who have had the inportant parts of their older Tannoys updated (crossovers and all) to very good effect.
On the other hand though, there is a small but VERY LOUD UK contingent who insist that the "only" way to go for accurate reproduction of music is to drive the speakers actively and that all passively driven speakers boom unacceptably and have a smeary harshness at the crossover frequency, which is made worse when the passive crossover is altered by amplifiers with poor damping factor. Fair enough, but some people want BASS, not boom and a sub-woofer isn't always the best answer, especially as two are needed for proper reproduction of hall ambience in modern stereo recordings and also to drive the room best I understand. Both their models have a brightness to the sound of great clarity, but we're just this side of having the OP's tense "neutrality" again, doe to premature bass rolloff and lack of power in larger rooms with the 6" bass unit working too hard.....
I'm rambling again - does any of the above make sense? I think anyone who cares about reproduction of music at home needs to listen to a few things first, start small I reckon and then CAREFULLY build up to a setup that suits the room it's in (no two living rooms are the same) and gives great pleasure in listening *through* it for hours on end. For some, it may well be AVI ADM9's in better current form and for others it could well be valvey driven Tannoys or antique mid-sized systems like mine :)
P.S. Just to show you what I mean a touch more objectively -
Yamaha NS10's - plot from Sound on Sound and typical shape to Linn Kans, AVI Neutrons of various models and pro Nine too, all of which are "fast" and seemingly "detailed" but bass-light -
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q8/DSJR_photos/yamahans10fig4_l_zps3dc3bdea.jpg
This is a collection of plots of the BBC LS5/9 from a Harbeth-User-Group discussion on why the LS5/8 and its later smaller sibling the 5/9 had a gentler too-easy balance, again deviuating from strictly neutral -
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q8/DSJR_photos/59_1120years20apart-sc_zps1c52a0ef.jpg
Note how the responses in what I call the "glare" frequencies differ?
I know I have the link somewhere in my "favourites," but there's a generally positive review on the Harbeth Monitor 30, which was designed to be a drop-in replacement for the LS5/9. It's responses as measured (Harbeth are quite happy for fair external measurements to be carried out, whereas AVI won't submit their current products to such scrutiny and subsequent discussion) show a gently downtilting response from mid bass to mid treble, which is hopefully less intrusive that peaks and dips in the response.
I'll post the link if I can find it.
If pretty response plots are also your "thing," there's another pdf available from Sound-on-Sound again discussing the NS10 and comparing it with the better smaller monitors from around ten years ago "NS10. Twenty years a reference monitor, why? Some fascinating measurements if you can make head nor tail of them :)
So no, most speakers are anything BUT neutral and pro models especially it seems!
I know I know, all this measurement malarky bores the pants off most of you, but as threatened, here's the link to the measurements on the Harbeth M30's (NOT the 30.1)
http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/harbeth_30_domestic/
and here's the main one -
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q8/DSJR_photos/M30plot_zps1d2b07b2.gif
These plots won't tell you how these speakers really sound, since distortion and other resonances aren't shown up here, but the general TONE of the speaker can probably be accurately predicted, along with the knowledge that a smooth response shape is far more listenable to than say a lumpy or resonant one. People like me, who like the Harbeth tonal balance (the SHL5 brings the mid over 500Hz and top up a bit to a more nominal "flat" level and the bass goes down a good bit further - check the Sterephile reviews for confirmation), find the leaner "brighter" balance of say, the AVI N5's and Pro Nines rather fatiguing, despite loads of perceived/enhanced "details" in the sound. The AVI ADM9 is similar in bass to mid balance but MUCH smoother further up I understand, in fairness and recent changes have noticeably lifted the bass further to the nominal "flat" level for a ported 9 litre box with 6" driver in it at long last...
Matching rooms to those speaker measurements is vital. Forgetting the huge issue of tuning bass for now....It's easy to believe that speakers which are forward in the 2k to 8k range will over-excite a live room but in room with deep carpet, thick curtains and lots of soft furnishings. We've got to look at the suitability of speakers for specific rooms.
realysm42
24-01-2013, 12:30
Nice write up
Worth going to Windows 8 to get a even better sound from JRiver special deal till end of Jan
Sorry I know this is a bit ot, but you think windows 8 sounds better? I've no experience but am interested to hear more... Maybe by pm?
Thanks for comments and suggestions.
Windows 7 or 8
As far as I understand the J.River Media Center uses low level Microsoft operating system libraries to play standard audio files.
These services date back to Windows Vista. How could Windows 8 sound better??
I have compared Windows audio to ASIO. Cant hear any difference.
Velleman K8020 preamp
How good is it?
This preamp is sold as a kit. Maybe this is why it is not well known.
I bought mine second hand and it was assembled.
The K8020 has a simple valve preamp with very small amount of quality components.
The pictures of Croft preamps look similar. In addition the Velleman has a good relay based input selector and audio mute when valves are heating up.
Tone controls
Computer based audio players bring back all kinds of tone controls. This is good.
I wish I could find emulators of famous audio equipment. How about a Foobar 2000 plugin to emulate good CD players.
This has been done years ago on microphones, guitar amps, tape recorders etc.
Listening room
My listening room is not very live. I have soft furniture, curtains and stone walls with bare limestone pieces.
ESS Amt quality
These were hand made in California about 30 years ago. ESS used its own components. The woofers even have BBC Bextrene cones.
Here is a scan of ESS documentation.
http://hoone.com/ESSplot.jpg
Preamp - a lot depends on the circuit design, I don't know any details.
Room - your description suggests it's more live than neutral - what sort of carpets do you have and how much of the room has bare floorboards?
Speakers - they have a rising response.
Room and speakers may not be a great match...without some room treatment.
What power amp do you use?
My amp is a Quad 522. This is a rack-size Quad amp for pro use.
The 522 version has Sowter balanced input transformers.
Many references on the 522 point to the BBC.
I have been testing the LS5/8 500 Hz to 2500 Hz 3-4 db suckout from DSJR's post on page 1.
Installed a 31 band equalizer on foobar2000 and copied the suckout.
Did a frequency response chart on my ESS AMt today with HolmImpulse software.
This was 1 meter from speaker. Uncalibrated microphone AKG C1000S
http://hoone.com/ESSplot2.jpg
PaulStewart
26-01-2013, 23:00
Lastly, the one big pro model of quality I really want to hear is the SP Acoustics active monitor. The designer did the original AE1 and relatives from the mid 80's and is using the Illuminator drivers, regarded as amongst the best out there these days, the mid unit covering most of it, with the bass and tweeter augmenting the mid, rather than crossing over where the ear is most sensitive..
Hate to contradict, but the AE1 and early Acoustic Energy stuff was designed by Phil Jones previously of Vitavox later of Wharfdale, Boston Acoustics and now Pure Sound. Just before he started AE he ran a live PA called dB Hire I was the sound engineer there at the time. One of the things about AE was the metal diaphragms and the ferro fluid, which is a concept I introduced Phill to at the time. Shortly after, he came out with the first prototype of the AE1. The SP site shows Steve Phillips as the designer.
Thanks for putting me straight. My original post is too old for me to edit now I'm afraid. Have you heard the SP monitors, as I'm told they're rather good?
PaulStewart
28-01-2013, 00:47
Thanks for putting me straight. My original post is too old for me to edit now I'm afraid. Have you heard the SP monitors, as I'm told they're rather good?
've not heard them but my Tascam VX-5s are getting long in the tooth I would like to hear a pair of the SP1MA active monitors as a possible replacement, they look tasty :)
Paul S
My joining this forum was prompted by my coming across this thread, it having a great resonance with my own path.
Please, any posters here, compare and discuss.
My joining this forum was prompted by my coming across this thread, it having a great resonance with my own path.
Please, any posters here, compare and discuss.
Have to say I was not sure what this thread was about. SQ is not satisfactory and the fact that the speakers are 'studio monitors' is to blame? Perhaps you could explain more as to why this has resonance with you?
walpurgis
07-03-2017, 12:55
Perhaps you could explain more as to why this has resonance with you?
Dennis has been an AMT user. I think that may have something to do with it.
Dennis has been an AMT user. I think that may have something to do with it.
I thought AMT drivers were meant to be really good? Is this not just a case of putting some very good, very revealing speakers in front of a less than optimal upstream combination and hearing the issues it has being unmasked? Or am I missing something?
In essence you will see from my introduction that I have had many of the bits of equipment at different times listed in the whole thread, and had hope that we could compare experiences of each.
The Heil is very revealing, but the original ESS mid/woofers were under BL'd and lacked speed and mid range, and with an under-damped bass. The Rogers was much better.
However the Heil has remained pretty well unchanged for 40 or so years, which is a shame because it has so much going for it,
hence my purchase of the ADAMs.
Opinions on the AVI and ATC preamps would also be useful to me.
I hear you, it's why in the end I stopped using Amphion Argon speakers, which incidentally did bridge the gap between studio and home. For me the ruthless transparency highlights a key problem with a lot of recordings with regard to vocal sibilance and extreme top end distortion. Am happy to take a bit off the top, bit of warmth, and gain a fuller more organic sound. I noticed the Argon2s were less explicit (transparent) at the top end, the Argon3 were better in every way, the tweeter too good for many recordings, a part of me preferred the balance of the Argon2. Yes, get Massive Attack - Mezzanine on and the benefits would be clear, but in the real world music production quality is wildly variable.
Those point are really addressed by the question;
Do I want an absolutely transparent and revealing system which reveals everything, and may 'sabotage the art' in so doing, or do I want one of sufficient resolution to hear all the artists intentions, but not one revealing the gnat on the microphone farting?
To me that differentiates the 'Monitor' from the 'Hi-Fi' speaker, and if I have the former I am distracted form the ethos of the music, and am a techno-obsessive, and if I have the latter, I am not hearing the highly resolved reality.
I suppose this points to whether or not we are in a position of producing the art, or receiving it.
The enjoyment of music is largely after all a projection of ourselves; we assign, ascribe, and attribute, to what we hear, rather than it being an objective conveyance of information.
I have also just remembered that as my system has improved in revealing, much music becomes so easily understandable in terms of events, that it may even be laughable.
Just such occurred a few years ago to me with a 'Stones track; it was bare and amateur.
RothwellAudio
08-03-2017, 10:00
I don't get any of this thread at all. The idea that studio monitors are a different beast from domestic speakers and designed to do a different job is in my opinion completely wrong and is a fairly recent idea - a product of the marketing departments of manufacturers whose target market is the the home recording/ small studio fraternity. To my mind there is only one type of speaker and that type ranges from poor at one end of the spectrum to very good at the other. There isn't one type for "listening to music" and another for "analysing the recording". Up until the late 1990s it was common for studios and domestic consumers to use the same speakers. LS3/5As, Spendors, Tannoys etc. could all be found in studios and in hi-fi shops. The Yamaha NS10s are classic example of the re-writing of history. They were never designed to be studio monitors, they were just designed to be speakers, and because there was a large market for hi-fi at the time they were sold as domestic hi-fi speakers. Now the hi-fi market is much smaller and the home studio market is much bigger and NS10s and their lookalikes are targeted at home studio owners and sold as monitors to people who believe that makes them different from other speakers. I don't believe it.
Of course, I could be wrong :lol:
BTW, I thinks NS10s sound horrible, and that isn't because they're accurate/neutral/analytical - it's because they're just horrible.
walpurgis
08-03-2017, 10:06
BTW, I thinks NS10s sound horrible, and that isn't because they're accurate/neutral/analytical - it's because they're just horrible.
Ah. The truth comes out at last. I agree. :)
walpurgis
08-03-2017, 10:13
I have a very revealing system. But there's no nastiness there. It's not ruthless and forward sounding, just very lucid, open and clear. To my ears, there a tendency for nice sounding Hi-Fi's to be using Class A amplification, but that's not exclusively so. As always, getting a sound you like is a question of careful 'mix and match' of components. And, going for a one make system is no guarantee of getting you the best sound.
Guess monitors are more for close position listening, and dont usually do big scale imaging in same way. Maybe thats what folk are ascribing to as different.
I didn't mean to imply a deliberate design divergence, just that as resolution increases we can hear more detail than the art necessities.
Alan Shaw of Harbeth says that the true test of a speaker is listening in the near field, and that almost any can sound reasonable in the middle or far field.
Newell and Holland have a thesis in their book on why the NS10 is used so much, absence of early reflections, and surprisingly low fatigue, to come to mind.
I don't get any of this thread at all. The idea that studio monitors are a different beast from domestic speakers and designed to do a different job is in my opinion completely wrong and is a fairly recent idea - a product of the marketing departments of manufacturers whose target market is the the home recording/ small studio fraternity. To my mind there is only one type of speaker and that type ranges from poor at one end of the spectrum to very good at the other. There isn't one type for "listening to music" and another for "analysing the recording". Up until the late 1990s it was common for studios and domestic consumers to use the same speakers. LS3/5As, Spendors, Tannoys etc. could all be found in studios and in hi-fi shops. The Yamaha NS10s are classic example of the re-writing of history. They were never designed to be studio monitors, they were just designed to be speakers, and because there was a large market for hi-fi at the time they were sold as domestic hi-fi speakers. Now the hi-fi market is much smaller and the home studio market is much bigger and NS10s and their lookalikes are targeted at home studio owners and sold as monitors to people who believe that makes them different from other speakers. I don't believe it.
Of course, I could be wrong :lol:
BTW, I thinks NS10s sound horrible, and that isn't because they're accurate/neutral/analytical - it's because they're just horrible.
Spot on Andrew, couldn't have put it better myself.
There is a lot of guff spouted about "studio monitor sound". Speakers are either well designed and have an accurate response, or they're not. There are various degrees of "right" dependant upon quality and cost, but even el cheapo drive units carefully selected and put in well thought out budget cabinets can be made to sound surprisingly good. Conversely, very expensive drive units put into ill conceived cabinets with ill conceived crossovers will probably sound awful. People seem to confuse inaccuracy and brightness with "transparency", which is much misaligned term in its' own right (one I don't particularly like or understand since none of us know what the live mic feed or mastered recording sounded like in the first place).
Accuracy is about an input signal at any level, at any audible frequency being output at a level commensurate with the system sensitivity, to match the same input level as all other audible frequencies at output; to do that preserving the overtones and harmonic data; to do that phase correct between drive units; to do that with a smooth roll-off of the polar response (no big dips or spikes) and to do that with acceptably low distortion (which is typically audibly 2nd and 3rd order, worse in the bass region where excursion is highest and at cone break-up/driver resonance point). The latter means picking the right drive units and ensuring they're rolled off within their smooth response envelope and/or that any break up spikes are filtered out. Many woofers use specially treated cones to help smooth response, especially at resonance. Typical THD in the bass would be as high as 1 to 2% for what most would consider well designed speakers. The best drive units will manage just under 1% at full excursion.
All this is considered prior to cabinet design and crossover design.
What separates loudspeakers is not the moniker of "studio" or "home" but of design and implementation. Bright, horribly voiced 'speakers are just that....bright, horribly forward sounding speakers .
If speakers are highlighting what's happening upstream (they're doing their job) and the sound is "off" then the answer is to change the offending component which clearly is the source of trouble. If the recording sounds awful then bin it instead of blaming the speakers. when your system is revealing you will note that there is a world of difference between recordings, good and bad, but this is one area where you have little control so it becomes a filtering exercise, sometimes over many years, to build a library of music you love. It's part of the journey.
Alan Shaw of Harbeth says that the true test of a speaker is listening in the near field, and that almost any can sound reasonable in the middle or far field.
Very true, near field you're listening mostly to the speaker, mid or far field you're listening to the room as much as the speaker.
I've never been keen on a neutral sound though recently I've tried some equipment which is very neutral but unlike some kit it's not antiseptic. There's a difference between unpleasantly neutral and pleasantly pure. Too much of what is called neutral is to my ears not that, it's often just a bit bright or lacking timbre.
Very true, near field you're listening mostly to the speaker, mid or far field you're listening to the room as much as the speaker.
I've never been keen on a neutral sound though recently I've tried some equipment which is very neutral but unlike some kit it's not antiseptic. There's a difference between unpleasantly neutral and pleasantly pure. Too much of what is called neutral is to my ears not that, it's often just a bit bright or lacking timbre.
In which case Clive, such speakers are NOT neutral but are simply "...bright and lacking in timbre".
"Neutral", "Accurate" are banded about by too many when they actually mean "bright". As above, an accurate speaker should preserve everything about the input signal to produce a timbrel-accurate natural sound. That is what "Neutral" or "Accurate" really mean.
This is one one of those hoary old chestnuts that crop up on all hifi forums from time to time. It poses a question that cannot be answered: what constitutes 'accurate' or 'faithful' sound reproduction? The answer, in theory, is an audio signal that has as little as possible added to it, or taken away from it, by the system through which it is played. Again, in theory, 'accurate' and 'neutral' would be the same thing, and we'd all want, and own, the same (type of) system. But of course, we don't.
After much to-ing and fro-ing, what all such discussions eventually boil down to is 'I like the sound my system makes, therefore it must be accurate/faithful to the recording, otherwise I wouldn't like it'.
Precicely. Everyone is different, and hence their perceptions are too. One mans beautiful whisky is anothers poison etc. If you dont like the taste then why chase after it?
In which case Clive, such speakers are NOT neutral but are simply "...bright and lacking in timbre".
"Neutral", "Accurate" are banded about by too many when they actually mean "bright". As above, an accurate speaker should preserve everything about the input signal to produce a timbrel-accurate natural sound. That is what "Neutral" or "Accurate" really mean.
Hi Paul,
In an ideal world I'd agree with you. Do you sense a "but" coming?
But...for amplifiers it's possible to design which is very faithful to the truth, ie very low distortion. Most such amplifiers sound quite similar. Loudspeakers are not similarly blessed with low distortion today so even the lowest distortion speakers are not as true to the original sound as amplifiers can achieve. Is there such a thing as an accurate speaker? Some are more accurate than others but do most notionally "accurate" speakers sound the same? Similar perhaps but isn't that as far as it goes with today's technology?
BTW, I thinks NS10s sound horrible, and that isn't because they're accurate/neutral/analytical - it's because they're just horrible.
I thought they were originally used for studio playback in order to hear what the mix might sound like through a typical, crappy, transistor radio ... which most 'pop-pickers' were using back in the day.
BTW, I think this thread has the best subject title I've seen on the site :D
Yes, I've lived with the pain, with active studio monitors, fed by a very 'correct' digital source. I used to sit there, marvelling how they dissected the music into its component sounds and noises. Least enjoyable system I ever had.
Joe,
"'I like the sound my system makes, therefore it must be accurate/faithful to the recording, otherwise I wouldn't like it'. "
This is of course sophism. (No syllogism)
I think we al; seek the perfection, and then ameliorate the nasties we get in the attempt, if we can.
I have over the last few years gradually reduced the number of CDs which I had considered as impeccable, because as my system has improved faults have been revealed in many
RobbieGong
08-03-2017, 13:46
Hi Paul,
In an ideal world I'd agree with you. Do you sense a "but" coming?
But...for amplifiers it's possible to design which is very faithful to the truth, ie very low distortion. Most such amplifiers sound quite similar. Loudspeakers are not similarly blessed with low distortion today so even the lowest distortion speakers are not as true to the original sound as amplifiers can achieve. Is there such a thing as an accurate speaker? Some are more accurate than others but do most notionally "accurate" speakers sound the same? Similar perhaps but isn't that as far as it goes with today's technology?
+1 There are indeed amps that have been built with intent towards genuine hi-fidelity - very low distortion as you say, uncoloured and so on.
Amps like these do play the music with a sense of 'accuracy' in my experience, they just seem to get out of the way.
Speakers might be harder to achieve that with in terms of that underlying character speakers all have to a greater extent than a well executed amp.
That said, 'good' speakers with said amp driving them and a good source will give you accuracy in the realistic sense not the definite sense (which no one can claim to achieve as an absolute anyway)
Therefore, It's then in my opinion good to have some idea of the speaker presentation that works for you in that context which is the trick.
Once you know, it's a good start ie: some people like a very dynamic forward speaker because of the type of music they play - hard, rocky etc
Some like me, prefer non fatiguing, musical and detailed (some call non-fatiguing polite maybe for above reason)
Either way, in the amp and source context I've mentioned, the speakers will disappear and faithful replay should be realised.
Whether it is with 'absolute' neutrality depends on the kit / ancillaries you've chosen, (as we know some kit / ancillaries are known to veer on the bright side)
Another point is that if your system has achieved a high level of hi-fidelity then 'accuracy' that comes with that will reveal that some recordings are indeed bright and that no two recordings are the same, without a doubt in my experience.
This I think is why some people go round and round and round in circles never getting 'satisfaction' because they somehow dismiss, disregard or have no notion of what happens when you achieve the above so as soon as they hear even the slightest hint of brightness they think something's wrong / isn't quite 'optimum' and therefore something needs addressing or changing :mental:
It's mad and that's why we need to understand what we are doing / trying to achieve, what's going on along the way and everything that goes with that otherwise you'll never 'get there' to that place of 'mission accomplished' and 'time to enjoy the music' - which is the real point of the whole damn thing in the first place, surely?! :)
RothwellAudio
08-03-2017, 13:50
I thought they were originally used for studio playback in order to hear what the mix might sound like through a typical, crappy, transistor radio ... which most 'pop-pickers' were using back in the day.
No, the NS10 was just another small speaker made to sell to the domestic consumer. A chap called Bob Clearmountain is usually credited with giving them credibility as a studio monitor but his reason for using them was that they were small enough to fit in his car and he could take them to whatever studio he was working in and have the consistency and familiarity of using the same speaker wherever he worked. The fact that NS10s looked so distinctive with their black boxes (not very common at the time) and white cones made them easy to recognise in studio photos and their popularity and legendary status grew from there.
Auratones were very popular in studios as a "typical crappy speaker" that would give people some idea what the music would sound like on the radio/TV and they too developed a cult following.
I'm aiming for a balance between a window on the recording and something that is still fun to listen to. It's a fine line. Marco's system manages to do achieve this, so it is do-able.
Hi Paul,
In an ideal world I'd agree with you. Do you sense a "but" coming?
But...for amplifiers it's possible to design which is very faithful to the truth, ie very low distortion. Most such amplifiers sound quite similar. Loudspeakers are not similarly blessed with low distortion today so even the lowest distortion speakers are not as true to the original sound as amplifiers can achieve. Is there such a thing as an accurate speaker? Some are more accurate than others but do most notionally "accurate" speakers sound the same? Similar perhaps but isn't that as far as it goes with today's technology?
That's true Clive. Most power amps (at any rate) manage that today, but there's a lot that don't (especially valve amplifiers and many pre-amplifiers).
On the speaker front, you may be surprised to learn that there are systems and drive units that achieve well below 0.5% THD, even at moderately high listening levels. Acuton and Scanspeak both produce some remarkable drive units in this respect. The drive unit alone doesn't determine the total THD, as that also counts on cabinet design and filter design, but it is perfectly possible to design and implement a system with 1% or less THD for the loudspeakers. The average, run of the mill budget designs might be lucky to achieve perhaps 4 or 5% at close to maximum output by comparison with a high quality well designed system.
That is the point...accuracy, naturalness, whatever you want to call it, will never be 100% achievable, but it is possible to get mighty close, although generally speaking, at a cost. Adequate performance (say close to 2% at max output) is achievable by many competent designs. Tannoy list many of their speakers as having less than 1% THD at maximum output, mainly down to limited excursion and quality filters being employed along with decent cabs (I'm referring to the likes of the Kingdom Royal BUT many vintage drivers, including MG's and HPDs in the right cabinets with the right filters are also sub 1% capable).
What polarises opinion I think is the flavour.....without added flavourings! Other factors come into play here, most notably the room the speakers are in. It's all very well theoretically describing what makes a speaker accurate, but sometimes a room will skew the FR to an extent where accuracy is out the window due to lifted or dropped HF or bass response, due to reflections and power response uneveness. So what causes this?
Well, what influences it are things like a 'speaker's polar response (its' directivity measurements), room decay response, 'speaker positioning etc etc. There's many ways to add or reduce distortion by considering these things, but generally, what sounds balanced to the ear is most likely what your hearing perceives as "accurate" based on your interpretation or experience of live sounds and timbres.
It's a massive subject. All one has to remember though is that a well designed 'speaker should not sound forward or bright or analytical or any of these descriptions, in a room which is able to get the best from that 'speaker. Dynamic response (the ability to go from rest to 110dB in an instant!) and the feeling of "realism" generally comes from larger transducers able to move a lot of air yet convey that with detail, and tonal accuracy. You can't get a kick drum to ever sound realistic from a 6inch monitor...that takes something larger. There's so much to this, that ultimately, most end up choosing what fits in with their rooms, lifestyles and hearing to produce the best overall compromise.
montesquieu
08-03-2017, 20:22
Very true, near field you're listening mostly to the speaker, mid or far field you're listening to the room as much as the speaker.
I've never been keen on a neutral sound though recently I've tried some equipment which is very neutral but unlike some kit it's not antiseptic. There's a difference between unpleasantly neutral and pleasantly pure. Too much of what is called neutral is to my ears not that, it's often just a bit bright or lacking timbre.
Near field listening can be captivating and very enjoyable but having lived with near field and with large room-filling aproaches I prefer a large room approach any day. Hearing the room effect (for classical or acoustic music at least) is quite important, because musical performance happens in space (or space-time, to get a bit Star Trek). I prefer room for sound to breathe and develop and bounce around and envelop.
I don't necessarily agree that near field you are listening to the speaker, and mid and far field you are listening to the room. Mid and far field you are listening to the speaker energise the room (in a similar way to live performance) which isn't necessarily happening near-field - and consequently I think something is lost, or at least not always found, in near-field listening.
That lack of energising the room was what pulled me back to Tannoys after a few years on the dark side listening to Quad electrostatics - the beaming effect of Quads, the crumbling of the picture if you moved your head, the 2D/window on a beautiful soundscape effect, all of this got irritating after a bit. Going back to Tannoys that seems to shake the sound into every corner of the space, even at low-ish volume, was a coming home.
I'm aiming for a balance between a window on the recording and something that is still fun to listen to. It's a fine line. Marco's system manages to do achieve this, so it is do-able.
Why thank you kind sir! ;)
All I did was try and marry what I considered was some of the best of old technology with some of the best of new stuff, as that's what experience tells me is the best approach to building a revealing, but also musically enjoyable system.
If you tip the balance too much towards one or the other, you end up either with cuddly 'pipe & slippers' or 'squeaky-clean but soulless'. Once you fundamentally 'get' how kit (and speakers) are voiced these days, compared with how it once was, blending together the right recipe is easier to achieve :)
Marco.
RobbieGong
08-03-2017, 22:21
Why thank you kind sir! ;)
All I did was try and marry what I considered was some of the best of old technology with some of the best of new stuff, as that's what experience tells me is the best approach to building a revealing, but also musically enjoyable system.
If you tip the balance too much towards one or the other, you end up either with cuddly 'pipe & slippers' or 'squeaky-clean but soulless'. Once you 'get' how kit (and speakers) are voiced these days, compared with how it once was, blending together the right recipe is easier to achieve :)
Marco.
Yep, a sterile soulless presentation is most certainly not music
And yet that is what some class as 'accurate', simply because measurements dictate so! :doh:
Marco.
walpurgis
08-03-2017, 22:37
Ah. We're back to 'trust your ears' once more. :D
Ultimately [in the final analysis] it's what has to be done! :)
Unfortunately, some folk don't seem to have the confidence to do so.... They'd rather place their faith in some piece of test apparatus or science journal.
Marco.
Well that is the avenue I am pursuing at the moment. Just get stuff based on solid engineering principles, no bull. I mean there are no easy answers. My research so far indicates that: 'If it weighs a lot then it is probably really good' seems to be an approximate rule of thumb with pretty much any bit of kit. ;)
Cables and mains and all that is still a mystery of course. Hard to see patterns there.
Hopefully I'll be testing the weight theory again very soon, if it ends up sterile and soulless I'll let youse know :)
walpurgis
08-03-2017, 22:56
'If it weighs a lot then it is probably really good' seems to be an approximate rule of thumb with pretty much any bit of kit. ;)
In that case, you want a 401 in a big, foot thick slate block plinth. :)
walpurgis
08-03-2017, 22:58
[B]They'd rather place their faith in some piece of test apparatus or science journal.
Marco.
Or dealer recommendation. Which can be OK. Just don't turn up on a day when a less scrupulous one want to shift some slow moving stock.
Well that is the avenue I am pursuing at the moment. Just get stuff based on solid engineering principles, no bull.
You shouldn't go too far wrong with that approach. In terms of electronics, anything filled with huge fuck-off linear PSU(s) has a fighting chance of sounding good, and in terms of speakers, anything big and ugly enough to be considered as 'anti-WAF', should hit the spot nicely.... ;)
Marry the two together, and say hello to audio nirvana! :D
Marco.
In that case, you want a 401 in a big, foot thick slate block plinth. :)
No, if we are talking turntables, the 401 would not be my choice. A sorted one is fantastic, don't get me wrong. I'd be more tempted by an SP10 from my schoolboy engineering point of view but what I know about turntables I could write on the back of a fag packet.
I've only ever heard serious vinyl replay in other people's systems. Anyway, that's a rabbit hole of its own and off topic... The quality of the phono stage really matters is the main thing learned from my experience there.
walpurgis
08-03-2017, 23:19
The quality of the phono stage really matters is the main thing learned from my experience there.
Well in my case big and heavy does not apply here really. I've found the smaller and lighter phono stages better as a rule. Like the Slees and years ago I had one of those tiny Bellari VP-29 valve units. That was a big surprise. I suppose the Moth Series 30 phono amp could almost be described as heavyish. Damn good sounding for the money. MC side is good too.
Well in my case big and heavy does not apply here really. I've found the smaller and lighter phono stages better as a rule. Like the Slees and years ago I had one of those tiny Bellari VP-29 valve units. That was a big surprise. I suppose the Moth Series 30 phono amp could almost be described as heavyish. Damn good sounding for the money. MC side is good too.
mine is tiny :eyebrows::eyebrows:
Two points;
Firstly the recording already carries an acoustic from the recording venue, and the listening room adds another to that, and,
Have you seen the spec of the Benchmark power amps? I thought the ATC was good at 0.005% dist. but the Benchmark is 20dB+ better, and yes it does sound very, very, good.
And yet that is what some class as 'accurate', simply because measurements dictate so! :doh:
Marco.
Actually Marco, that's not the case at all.
If the right measurements are taken, and the size and design are right for the room, then an "accurate" 'speaker system should and will sound anything but lifeless and soul-less. If you believe half the hype from some manufacturers' marketing types who make bold claims about some designs which are pretty flawed, then you might end up with something that is lifeless and soul-less. It's strange just how often how people's views on "accuracy" are skewed and slanted towards just exactly what it's not. In your case, following solid engineering principles (by your own claims) should result in something accurate and far from soul-less.
Lets all try not to be divisive when entering such debates as it doesn't help the debate :)
Not sure why you'd consider my honest opinion, Paul, as "divisive"? I certainly wasn't referring to anything you've made! :)
The fact is, I've heard numerous examples, over the years, of equipment and speakers (in terms of the latter TAD and Wilson, for example) that despite claims of being 'accurate', as supposedly evidenced by measurements, to me sound sterile, soulless and musically bereft, which I wouldn't give house room to, especially considering the bonkers prices asked!
The 'voicing' for me of a lot of stuff being produced now (and here I'm referring mostly to that of 'large concern' commercial manufacturers) is alien to how real music sounds, so I think I'm entitled to tell it as I hear it and submit reasons why I think that is so.
The accent today is placed too much on producing a 'squeaky clean'/clear sound, at the expense of tonal warmth and musicality, which the best vintage equipment has in spades: that 'listenability', which is hard to define and can be so elusive, but is crucial to allowing one to 'relax into the music' and enjoy it, without sitting there critically analysing the sound.
And for me, this has gotten worse the more that manufacturers today use computers at crucial parts of the design stage (focussing too much on specs and measurements), instead of using their ears.
Measurements of course are vitally important when designing any piece of hi-fi equipment, speakers perhaps even more so than anything else, but at the end of the day when a 'measured to buggery' design becomes a finalised product, and is listened to by a human pair of ears, if the sound produced offends and isn't considered as enjoyable to listen to, then all the measuring in the world and striving for 'accuracy', has been for absolutely nothing.
Sometimes you can measure out all the fun! ;)
Marco.
You have to be wary of a falling into the trap of blaming a bad sound, or a 'souless' sound on some particular aspect without due investigation. Like the enormous TAD system they demonstrated at Cranage Hall - it was terrible but why was it terrible? I'd suggest that it was not the design of the equipment that was at fault. That seems to me to be the least likely cause.
You have to be wary of a falling into the trap of blaming a bad sound, or a 'souless' sound on some particular aspect without due investigation.
Yup, absolutely right. But when you repeatedly hear the same thing again and again, from the 'usual suspects', at various different venues over the years, and in the company of different equipment, it sends out a message that simply can't be ignored.
Also, aside from anything I've heard at shows, I've had considerable experience of listening to some of the gear I'm referring to in home systems, some of which belong to friends, systems I know well, and so can accurately judge what's doing what - and more often than not it has the type of presentation I've described.
The reason why my system works the way it does, which you referred to earlier, is precisely because I've married the best bits of old and new technology, and it took me a long time to 'get' what that was about, what was wrong with a lot of stuff being made now, and why the sound produced by much of it was very disappointing.
The fact is, we've gone sideways or backwards much more in audio than forwards, and thus made little *real* progress, in the area that matters most (getting equipment to sound less like 'hi-fi' and more like music), since the days when all the best (genuinely innovative) stuff was born.
Marco.
RothwellAudio
09-03-2017, 09:45
In terms of electronics, anything filled with huge fuck-off linear PSU(s) has a fighting chance of sounding good...
Sorry for being blunt but that's total beau lacks. A rubbish circuit is a rubbish circuit, no matter what size of transformer you use to connect it to the mains.
Lol - did you miss the smilies attached to that post? My comments there were tongue-in-cheek.
Yes the circuit is the most important thing, but all else being equal, I'd expect a quality, well-implemented, linear PSU to sonically outperform anything fitted with an SMPS. That's certainly been my experience so far.
Btw, one of the areas where I consider that HUGE advances have been made today is in phono stages. And yours are very good! :)
Marco.
:doh: chances are it will be decent tho if they go to trouble of putting in a big decent linear though.
RothwellAudio
09-03-2017, 10:19
Lol - did you miss the smilies attached to that post? My comments there were tongue-in-cheek.
Yes the circuit is the most important thing, but all else being equal, I'd expect a quality, well-implemented, linear PSU to sonically outperform anything fitted with an SMPS. That's certainly been my experience to date.
Btw, one of the areas where I consider that HUGE advances have been made today is in phono stages. And yours are very good! :)
Marco.
Sorry, I misunderstood - I don't think I've fully woken-up yet this morning :doh:
the little audio company
09-03-2017, 15:45
I'm aiming for a balance between a window on the recording and something that is still fun to listen to. It's a fine line. Marco's system manages to do achieve this, so it is do-able.Yeah, but look at the "War And Peace" signature that has to accompany it! :D
Lol - the main reason my sig exists in that format is so that if someone asks me, say, which cables and plugs I'm using, I can refer to the info on my signature, which saves me from the hassle of going to look for it! :)
Marco.
Mine is there to annoy folk :ner:
You have to be wary of a falling into the trap of blaming a bad sound, or a 'souless' sound on some particular aspect without due investigation. Like the enormous TAD system they demonstrated at Cranage Hall - it was terrible but why was it terrible? I'd suggest that it was not the design of the equipment that was at fault. That seems to me to be the least likely cause.
Enormous TAD system? must have been at a different show, I feel you are getting mixed up up, maybe Windsor that year? I do not remember any Reference 1's or TAD 600 series equipment on display at that particular show Macca, perhaps you are confusing the evolution electronics with the CR-1's possibly.
Souless and terrible? in your opinion most probably, in a great many others a different opinion is held would be more accurate.
Let us look at what you are discussing a natural, open sound with no nasties at top and bottom of the frequency spectrum then.
I have two pairs of JR149's one brand new still sealed the other well used, they make pleasant sounds and would not offend anyone, do they offer a genuine reproduction of what has been recording not in a million years, does that make them a bad speaker of coarse not its a personal preference.
The Hello and welcome to the BBC type sound is antiquated its dates back from the late 40's where a plummy voiced Guardian reader would introduce the nights proceedings in a very limited band width fashion in a perfectly nice and polished voice, with very limited frequency extension at end of the spectrum due to the equipment (both recording and broadcast) being limited at the time.
So who cares? I mean who is really after a more realistic sound at all?, very few hifi buffs in the UK are. Which on the whole identifies with a large big fairly warm sound they can turn up to number 11 fill the room aplenty and not overly stimulate the tympanic membrane hey we are all happy job done. And if costs thrupence ha penny off e-bay then a few more ultra low PPM drift a year resistors for the passive pre amps :D
All joking aside does any know and can quantify what real nature sound is? and can you realistic replicate it?
Paul mentioned studio monitors and home styled speakers, is there a difference (taking out Yammy NS speakers :D)
I would suggest that many a genuine studio monitor is purely designed to allow the mixing engineer FULL access to what is going on in the recording booth no more no less, this will allow him or her to constructively mix the sound to enable the finished product to be listen to by a great many people of a large number of different capability systems from -10dB compression no bass below 120Hz and the top end rolled off at 9Khz to fully blow hifi system that can genuinely reproduce all the nuances and spatial information a piece of vinyl or digital recording can muster.
The other should be able to grant the listener many long term listening experiences whilst keep them ENTERTAINED and not just pacified with humm Jazz cats. Which the BBC LS3 type speaker is great at doing.
The question does the individual prefer the former or the latter, or possibly a place in the middle.
A good question with some quite bizarre answers!
Carry on guys, the chaps in the studio this afternoon have been royally entertained with this thread :)
Sorry for being blunt but that's total beau lacks. A rubbish circuit is a rubbish circuit, no matter what size of transformer you use to connect it to the mains.
A very astute observation
Enormous TAD system? must have been at a different show, I feel you are getting mixed up up, maybe Windsor that year? I do not remember any Reference 1's or TAD 600 series equipment on display at that particular show Macca, perhaps you are confusing the evolution electronics with the CR-1's possibly.
Souless and terrible? in your opinion most probably, in a great many others a different opinion is held would be more accurate.
:)
No, I am recalling correctly but i am referring to the show in 2015, not last year.
it was terrible, and not just IMO but in the opinion of everyone who I have seen comment on it. Playing Steely Dan 'My gold teeth pt 2' it was hard and unpleasant to listen to. If that is accurate I don't want accurate, but of course it is not accurate, it is just badly flawed.
Possibly the biggest con ever is to flog people expensive systems that sound bad and tell them 'this is what the music actually sounds like'. No it isn't. And yes, I have spent time in studios.
I didn't draw the conclusion that TAD gear is rubbish from their piss-poor demo, I have too much experience for that. I did draw the conclusion that the people demonstrating it didn't have a clue what they were doing, or didn't care, or both.
Not sure why you'd consider my honest opinion, Paul, as "divisive"? I certainly wasn't referring to anything you've made! :)
The fact is, I've heard numerous examples, over the years, of equipment and speakers (in terms of the latter TAD and Wilson, for example) that despite claims of being 'accurate', as supposedly evidenced by measurements, to me sound sterile, soulless and musically bereft, which I wouldn't give house room to, especially considering the bonkers prices asked!
The 'voicing' for me of a lot of stuff being produced now (and here I'm referring mostly to that of 'large concern' commercial manufacturers) is alien to how real music sounds, so I think I'm entitled to tell it as I hear it, and submit reasons why I think that is so.
The accent today is placed too much on producing a 'squeaky clean'/clear sound, at the expense of natural warmth and musicality, which the best vintage equipment has in spades: that 'listenability', which is hard to define and can be so elusive, but is crucial to allowing one to 'relax into the music' and enjoy it, without sitting there critically analysing the sound.
And for me, this has gotten worse the more that manufacturers today use computers at crucial parts of the design stage (focussing too much on specs and measurements), instead of using their ears.
Measurements of course are vitally important when designing any piece of hi-fi equipment, speakers perhaps even more so than anything else, but at the end of the day when a 'measured to buggery' design becomes a finalised product, and is listened to by a human pair of ears, if the sound produced offends and isn't considered as rewarding, then all the measuring in the world has been for absolutely nothing.
Sometimes you can measure out all the fun! ;)
Marco.
I have some empathy with your viewpoint Marco.
I have lost count of the number of times that certain companies have "designed" things using appropriate software...inappropriately. There is one company that still insists that all it requires is the driver details and it will come up with a filter solution for a sum of money. To be blunt, if I may, that's codswallop as it's impossible to do things properly that way. I have had work in to re-do some designed that way, but properly, having the whole loudspeaker here, using the proper measurements in the appropriate manner and then using computers to help simulate what will happen when trying out various filter topologies. It uses technology to great effect which vastly reduces trial and error and cost, and improves overall performance. Used correctly, it is a gift, not a millstone or anything to sneer at. Used incorrectly, it is next to useless. Rubbish in = rubbish out.
Also at shows,I have heard some pretty awful designs as well as some stunning ones.
It has been all too easy to blame the speakers and their design for mediocrity when in truth, they are only presenting the sum effect of recording, source, amplification and room response and quite often, those displaying their wares do get it wrong and do their 'speakers no favours, so it can be difficult to judge as I think many of us would agree.
In particular, I have heard TAD stand mounts and KEF blades, and Tannoy Kingdoms and some large Ushers (forget the model) all sound mediocre, even downright awful, yet on different days and circumstances, the very same speakers have enthralled me and surprised me with how good that they actually are. There's nothing inherently wrong with their design and in fact all mentioned are amongst the best I have heard. So in honesty, they are all very accomplished and decent loudspeakers, but where they were let down was that they were demonstrated with inappropriate upstream kit or recordings or the room just was wrong for them. Whilst there's little in reality some manufacturers can do about resonant stud-partitioned rooms with low ceilings, there's little excuse for not getting the rest right.
Last time (this is for Mr C!) I heard the TADs, the one's I listened to were pretty stunning, I have to say.
Measurements are essential Marco to getting these things right. I use computers, and mics, and measurement of other sorts, and my ears, and maths....and I even have a pencil sharpener somewhere (unless the dog's eaten it). Such facilities are to be embraced and used properly. The ears are vital to judge the finished article and to "visualise" in audible terms things like whether one has got things like resonant control and decay of enclosures correct, whether things are phase correct, whether the polar response is nice and smooth, yet for all this, we have measurements which tell us enough about all of those things to get it right.
Why things are often got wrong is because things start with a flawed concept (nice domestic friendly slim 2-way floorstanders trying to emulate full range performance) which is the response of the controlling marketeers within some companies to what they think people want, not necessarily to what sounds best. they have to play the market game to volume sell and make profit. To a large extent, the engineers work for the marketeers using flawed concepts and trying the make the best of them....it's all a compromise. Thankfully there are those visionary companies that still do things properly and buck the trend of stack em high, sell 'em cheap/expensive! (delete as appropriate). Things haven;t really changes since Briggs' time. A good big 'un still beats a good small 'un and for good reason, but the challenges then become technical, structural, manufacture, and domestic/marketing.
One thing we have to take care about is generalising simply on the standpoint of what is used for PART of the design. Technology allows for greater refinement and reduced R&D effort which is a good thing but ears are always the final arbiter.
Should anyone be interested in my system, they need only look at my profile and click on 'About me'.
Mine is there to annoy folk :ner:
I put mine in my sig., then took it out as it was dull reading even for me, let alone anyone else.
hifinutt
09-03-2017, 18:16
the velleman 8020 mentioned in the original thread is my back up pre and it sounded pretty marvellous in this set up
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?49910-audio-research-d70-mark-2
And for me, this has gotten worse the more that manufacturers today use computers at crucial parts of the design stage (focussing too much on specs and measurements), instead of using their ears.
Marco.
And yet were today's technologies available to Tannoy back in the day when the 15" Monitor Gold was designed I consider it a certainty that Tannoy would have fully availed themselves of the same tech and design procedure as are today's TAD, Kharma,Rockports etc.etc. transducers.
montesquieu
09-03-2017, 18:23
the velleman 8020 mentioned in the original thread is my back up pre and it sounded pretty marvellous in this set up
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?49910-audio-research-d70-mark-2
Love your definition of slumming it! lol
IAlso at shows,I have heard some pretty awful designs as well as some stunning ones.
It has been all too easy to blame the speakers and their design for mediocrity when in truth, they are only presenting the sum effect of recording, source, amplification and room response and quite often, those displaying their wares do get it wrong and do their 'speakers no favours, so it can be difficult to judge as I think many of us would agree.
In particular, I have heard TAD stand mounts and KEF blades, and Tannoy Kingdoms and some large Ushers (forget the model) all sound mediocre, even downright awful, yet on different days and circumstances, the very same speakers have enthralled me and surprised me with how good that they actually are. There's nothing inherently wrong with their design and in fact all mentioned are amongst the best I have heard. So in honesty, they are all very accomplished and decent loudspeakers, but where they were let down was that they were demonstrated with inappropriate upstream kit or recordings or the room just was wrong for them. Whilst there's little in reality some manufacturers can do about resonant stud-partitioned rooms with low ceilings, there's little excuse for not getting the rest right.
Last time (this is for Mr C!) I heard the TADs, the one's I listened to were pretty stunning, I have to say.
.
Yes exactly. No response from Mr C to my last post I notice...I think he was assuming I was saying that TAD is crap, well, assumptions again. If I could explain why it was so poor and why my system at 2% of the cost outperforms it by a country mile I would win the internet. But I can't.
Mr. C, I disagree with your assertion about the antiquated sound of the BBC, although it has now been superseded, but they were the pioneers of the high quality speaker system in Britain in the 60s and later. Things have now moved on considerably, and done so based on their freely available research which was pioneering at that time.
I remember well just how pure listening to 4038 mics. in the cubicle was in the early 70s; it was stunningly real to hear a small Indian ensemble playing three instruments live in the studio whilst in the cubicle, and was much better than anything I had heard.
The same is also true of the LS5/5 speaker, on which I remember Abraxas was far better than I had ever heard anywhere else.
Is it possible to quantify "Real nature" sound? I think not because it is as presented, and is by definition an un-adulterated original.
I also disagree with you about your assertion that few care about realistic sound; I really am aiming for that, and it is a long way off.
Studio monitors are surely designed to be revealing, but isn't that to reveal reality?
Isn't that what this pursuit is for; aren't we trying to remove errors?.
I do not know which BBC LS 3 you are referring to, but the 3/4 was very good, and the 3/6 also.
Hi Paul,
Measurements are essential Marco to getting these things right.
Sure, and if you read my last post again, I didn't say that they weren't ;)
However, we are in agreement here:
I use computers, and mics, and measurement of other sorts, and my ears, and maths....and I even have a pencil sharpener somewhere (unless the dog's eaten it). Such facilities are to be embraced and used properly. The ears are vital to judge the finished article and to "visualise" in audible terms things like whether one has got things like resonant control and decay of enclosures correct, whether things are phase correct, whether the polar response is nice and smooth, yet for all this, we have measurements which tell us enough about all of those things to get it right.
And here:
One thing we have to take care about is generalising simply on the standpoint of what is used for PART of the design. Technology allows for greater refinement and reduced R&D effort which is a good thing but ears are always the final arbiter.
Indeed. Measurements are necessary and fine up to a point, but *in the final analysis* we must trust our ears.
Essentially, after it leaves the test bench and passes technical scrutiny with flying colours, the final 'voicing' of any piece of equipment or speakers must be performed by using the ears of a human being, as whatever it is being produced will ultimately be bought and listened to by a human being, not a computer, so on that point we are in entire agreement :)
As for your other comments about certain speakers heard at shows, I have no problem with anything that you wrote. However at the end of the day, all you can do is tell it as you hear it - and have heard it on numerous occasions - and for me, regardless of anything else, the 'voicing'/presentation of a lot of modern speakers and equipment, regardless of how well it measures, leaves a lot to be desired.
Marco.
And yet were today's technologies available to Tannoy back in the day when the 15" Monitor Gold was designed I consider it a certainty that Tannoy would have fully availed themselves of the same tech and design procedure as are today's TAD, Kharma,Rockports etc.etc. transducers.
Perhaps, and if so, they may have ended up making musically inferior loudspeakers, and in that respect gone backwards more than forwards, just like, IMO, some of the products produced by the companies you've mentioned, regardless of their apparent technical prowess.
Ask yourself why forums are littered with threads where people who've never heard some of the best vintage equipment before (the likes of valve amps and turntables, from the golden era of the 1950s, and into the 60/70s, to the 1980/90s/early 2000s, for 'real' CD players), together with speakers from the early part of that era and before, and are taken aback and shocked at just how good some of that stuff sounds, which is purported as 'obsolete'?
We're preconditioned to believe that new technology always delivers genuine advances, and that in terms of equipment and speakers, newest is always best [and of course if manufacturers and dealers are to remain in business they *need* us to believe that], yet listening experience often exposes that notion for the fallacy that it is.
Marco.
Ask yourself why forums are littered with threads where people who've never heard some of the best vintage equipment before (the likes of CD players, valve amps and turntables, from the golden era of the 1950s,
CD players from the 1950s?! I've certainly never heard any of those. Seriously, almost all of the early CD players I heard in the late '80s (from the likes of Sony, Technics, Marantz and Pioneer) sounded dreadful. The only ones that didn't make my ears bleed were from Meridian, and they were well outside what I could afford. I put off buying one for several years, finally buying an Arcam Alpha in 1992 as the 'least bad' affordable option.
CD players from the 1950s?!
Did you miss this bit, daftee, from the same sentence:
...to the 1980/90s, for 'real' CD players...
I don't entirely disagree with you, in terms of the sound of some of the players you mention, but that's why I mentioned earlier about combining the BEST of old and new technology. I'm not saying for one second that in stock form all vintage CDPs were 'awesome' - far from it.
However, with the decent ones you were at least generally guaranteed a quality, dedicated CD-only transport mechanism, a nice 'chunky' linear PSU, a solidly built (often copper-clad) chassis, together with a DAC that, with some 'judicious tweakery', could make the most out of the CD format - all of which form the basis of good player, so that's the 'best of the old technology' ticked.
Enter now the 'best of the new technology', such as re-clocking circuits, which help remove jitter, optimising PSU arrangements, upgrading ancient electrolytic capacitors for the best polypropylene types, etc - and when implemented correctly and combined with the above, fundamentally transform the existing player into an entirely different, grossly superior animal - and one which in my experience allows it (and others of its ilk) to compete with, and often outperform, virtually anything that's produced now.
That's exactly what my vintage Sony CDP and DAC are about, which I've had now for nearly 15 years, and despite trying hard, haven't heard anything new better it!
The problem is (correct me if I'm wrong), you've never done anything like that, and are a strictly a 'plug it in and use it as the manufacturer intended' kind of guy, like indeed the vast majority of people, and there's nothing wrong with that.
However, that's not how you get to appreciate the benefits of applying a little lateral thinking ;)
Marco.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.