View Full Version : KEF LS50s - demos?
dave2010
27-06-2021, 09:27
KEF LS50s - in various guises - have been recommended to me. Seems to me that if I'm interested the wired versions would be good enough, though there is a whole sort of eco-system with Bluetooth etc for direct connection to streamers etc - but that more than doubles the price.
I'm interested, but wondering where I can get to hear any. There don't seem to be many dealers with shops around Inverness - though I could take a trip round Guildford/Reading/Brighton area in the not too distant future.
KEF also do some speakers called LSX - which seem similar, but have the wireless features for under £1k - so I'm guessing the sound isn't as good as the LS50s.
Comments?
They're good for a miniature speaker, but they get massively over-rated IMO.
My wealthy Hi-Fi friend had them with a sub for a while and was very impressed, but that was in a small room.
dave2010
29-06-2021, 10:18
Thanks for comments. I'm still trying to find somewhere where I can actually listen to some of these.
We have several rooms - one which is small - a possible location to enhance the TV sound, or a much larger one. The small size of the speakers would be a benefit there.
The larger room is large by most people's standards, so might be hard to drive the speakers - though I feel it would probably still work if not overdone.
Pepperamip
29-06-2021, 11:12
Richer sounds have these set up in their listening rooms. In fact I listened to these very speakers in their Bromley branch. Like Macca said though, I wasn't over impressed either. Too bass heavy for my liking.
If it's just for the telly I'm not sure I would shell out almost a grand.
I use some old (1983) B&O MC120.2 speakers that cost me £175 including the stands and I'd take them any day over the KEFs.
If it's just for the telly I'm not sure I would shell out almost a grand.
I use some old (1983) B&O MC120.2 speakers that cost me £175 including the stands and I'd take them any day over the KEFs.
For the telly, I use a pair of B&W DM2a speakers. They cost me £50. Your B&O speakers look more stylish (as does all of B&O kit), and I'm sure sound just as good or better, but really I could do with a physically smaller set of speakers for the TV.
I was using JBL Control One, very small but still a big improvement on the TV's built-in sound.
Pigmy Pony
29-06-2021, 18:40
I use MA Radius LCR speaker at front, Radius floorstanders for rear, and a decent BK sub. Total cost was way less than a pair of those LS50 jobbies. And they don't take up much room.
I would be very wary of using too good a speaker for TV sound. Having gone very high end much TV speech is unintelligible and I have to use subtitles, whereas for eg. the ones on my PC would I'm sure, produce intelligible speech.
Pigmy Pony
30-06-2021, 06:00
I would be very wary of using too good a speaker for TV sound. Having gone very high end much TV speech is unintelligible and I have to use subtitles, whereas for eg. the ones on my PC would I'm sure, produce intelligible speech.
I have found this to be the case with my set up, which isn't even high end - I suppose better speakers bring up all kinds other sounds like traffic noise, music, footfalls, other chat, all competing with the dialogue. I think the problem lies with impaired hearing, I get similar issues in real life.
I have found this to be the case with my set up, which isn't even high end - I suppose better speakers bring up all kinds other sounds like traffic noise, music, footfalls, other chat, all competing with the dialogue. I think the problem lies with impaired hearing, I get similar issues in real life.
Yes those other sounds do serve to mask, but it is also that mic. technique is not really paid much attention to, and so proximity effects are often present. A high performance loudspeaker will reproduce those bass and lower mids, thus masking the speech.
But yes you are right about hearing impairment, and as with R4 just now, a woman barrister talking about children's plights, because she was not for whatever reason producing much presence range and very little top, I struggled even at 70dB to understand her. It is also possibly a new 'voice style' from people.
This is a subject I've given a lot of thought to, and there are several variables which must be considered.
In our formative years we are subject to imprinting of social norms, of which our education forms a part. We are taught the 'right' way to speak, which in my case was regarded as received pronunciation. This forms, as does much else in our environment, an internal 'template' which we regard as a reference, and much of this early imprinting is permanent, and is a reference point.
However these norms shift with the sands of time, more particularly with cultural changes, and are often adopted by the media, and hence further perpetrated, because listeners habituate to that with repeated listening, this following what I call the 'sheep function', the tendency to adopt the norms surrounding us in order to 'lubricate' social interaction.
It is also apparent that broadcast media have drifting norms for sound quality; Alan Shaw of Harbeth has recently stated that after visiting New BH in the early part of the century, and seeing all the glass lined studios there, he does not use any recordings after that date because they are so poor compared with earlier ones done with much more care from the last century. He cited an Archers episode in which someone on horseback was very wrong in quality.
If you listen to a news prog in which the BBC uses an old bit of actuality, it will be apparent that both the recording quality and enunciation are far superior in the actuality, and although some may laugh, Pathe News, though maybe a little quaint, is always intelligible.
The last variable is of course our aging hearing, and some loss of recorded presence may cause us to resultantly mishear, but often, and particularly so when lavalier electret mics. are used, it may be almost completely missing from the recording.
I think I am still very able to differentiate a good from a bad vocal recording.
If you listen carefully to speech from radio, you will notice that articulation is often poor, a result of our cultural deterioration, this contrasting with the cultural renaissance from '60 to '80. (A Dumbing down).
I think that when we have something profound to say, and which we feel strong conviction about, we tend to pronounce it well and provide clear intonational and inflectional expression. What is being churned out now is half hearted and poorly pronounced; this may help people to avoid responsibility and committal, it is difficult to pinpoint meaning from mutters and grunts.
There are also widespread types of intonation; The 'patronising Mother to child' one, in which a soppy baby-talk voice is used, a Blofeld one in which small flecks of knowledge are given with a voice of contempt and disdain, the (aren't you fortunate to have the opportunity to listen to me?), one in which every sentence is expressed as if each word contained a profound earth shaking new discovery of truth, and others.
Rarely, even if without overt egotism, is something expressed in humility, with the announcer minimising his presence but maximising his attempt to communicate clearly every aspect of an explanation. And what about this prevalent arm waving, which IMO masks an inability to express clearly? Remember Magnus Pike?
This is a subject I've given a lot of thought to, and there are several variables which must be considered.
In our formative years we are subject to imprinting of social norms, of which our education forms a part. We are taught the 'right' way to speak, which in my case was regarded as received pronunciation. This forms, as does much else in our environment, an internal 'template' which we regard as a reference, and much of this early imprinting is permanent, and is a reference point.
However these norms shift with the sands of time, more particularly with cultural changes, and are often adopted by the media, and hence further perpetrated, because listeners habituate to that with repeated listening, this following what I call the 'sheep function', the tendency to adopt the norms surrounding us in order to 'lubricate' social interaction.
It is also apparent that broadcast media have drifting norms for sound quality; Alan Shaw of Harbeth has recently stated that after visiting New BH in the early part of the century, and seeing all the glass lined studios there, he does not use any recordings after that date because they are so poor compared with earlier ones done with much more care from the last century. He cited an Archers episode in which someone on horseback was very wrong in quality.
If you listen to a news prog in which the BBC uses an old bit of actuality, it will be apparent that both the recording quality and enunciation are far superior in the actuality, and although some may laugh, Pathe News, though maybe a little quaint, is always intelligible.
The last variable is of course our aging hearing, and some loss of recorded presence may cause us to resultantly mishear, but often, and particularly so when lavalier electret mics. are used, it may be almost completely missing from the recording.
I think I am still very able to differentiate a good from a bad vocal recording.
And how does someone on horseback sound? The Archers episode would have been recorded in a studio, and I doubt if the polar pattern of the microphone would have been chosen so that it would sound as though the speaker was, say, two to three feet above the listener.
That was AS's account, but certainly a person on horseback will be out in the open when galloping, and hence no proximity effects, a thin voice, and no reflections or hard upper end.
I saw a show on telly not so long ago where a bloke visits The Archers studio. They have a sort of semi-anechoic section where people stand if they are meant to be talking from a distance away. So they do take these things into account.
Never listened to it myself, I find Radio 4 a bit weird.
I also saw that, for a second time, and conclude that with all those facilities they are lacking in ability to hear what is right.
R4 is a bit weird, sort of setting an agenda for a certain social type, and it was described 20 years ago as 'mogodon for the middle classes', to me it is a perfect index of the deterioration of the supposed middle classes.
I listen to Radio 3 and Radio 4 most of the time. It's Radio 2 that is "mogadon for the middle classes". :lol:
Pigmy Pony
02-07-2021, 18:29
I listen to Radio 3 and Radio 4 most of the time. It's Radio 2 that is "mogadon for the middle classes". :lol:
Still prefer it to R1, which "charlie for the chavs" ;)
Still prefer it to R1, which "charlie for the chavs" ;)
So do I, but that's because "I'm old, very very old". :)
Occasionally on odd glimpses of R1, there is something very good, and although the speech quality is quite good usually, I cannot bear Steve Wright as a personality, his ebullience and egotism irk me.
I often compare R1 with R1xtra on DVB, and the latter usually has exemplary vocal recordings, although the music on either is not to my taste.
Is the "Charlie" above referring to elicit substances? I thought the chav 'culture' had died, and that hipsters were the new brigade.
I used to listen to "Late Junction" on R3; mainly to be introduced to new, modern and diverse music, regardless of genre. Over the years I made dozens of (illicit) recordings: but don't do so now, partly because it is broadcast so late at night (23:00 to 01:00), and partly because I have 'retired' my Nakamichi recorders.
Pigmy Pony
03-07-2021, 06:53
Occasionally on odd glimpses of R1, there is something very good, and although the speech quality is quite good usually, I cannot bear Steve Wright as a personality, his ebullience and egotism irk me.
I often compare R1 with R1xtra on DVB, and the latter usually has exemplary vocal recordings, although the music on either is not to my taste.
Is the "Charlie" above referring to elicit substances? I thought the chav 'culture' had died, and that hipsters were the new brigade.
It probably has Dennis, I'm a bit out of touch. When I say chavs, I'm thinking of the hoodie-wearing scumbags who regularly feature on CCTV breaking into houses or running away from police dogs.
When I think of hipsters, I have a mental image of a bloke with short but tidily cut hair, a big fuck-off beard and fairly rugged looking but expensive clothes and boots. I think the look they're aiming for is "lumberjack going on a date" :)
It probably has Dennis, I'm a bit out of touch. When I say chavs, I'm thinking of the hoodie-wearing scumbags who regularly feature on CCTV breaking into houses or running away from police dogs.
When I think of hipsters, I have a mental image of a bloke with short but tidily cut hair, a big fuck-off beard and fairly rugged looking but expensive clothes and boots. I think the look they're aiming for is "lumberjack going on a date" :)
A pony tail and a soul patch is another giveaway, also seems to be a thing to wear a rucksack with nothing much in it.
walpurgis
03-07-2021, 07:52
I think 50+ hipsters look really hilarious, especially if they wear very tight jeans. (mind you, all hipsters look hilarious to me :lol:)
See a few 60+ Rockabilly/Ted types around here too, they are even funnier, it's hard to sport a quiff when there's nothing left to quiff.
I used to listen to "Late Junction" on R3; mainly to be introduced to new, modern and diverse music, regardless of genre. Over the years I made dozens of (illicit) recordings: but don't do so now, partly because it is broadcast so late at night (23:00 to 01:00), and partly because I have 'retired' my Nakamichi recorders.
That is exactly what I used to do, but I didn't record it, and the quality of the music 15+ years ago was consistently very high, one narrator in particular was good, I think Shakira, or another eastern sounding name. The lateness is very annoying, and now the programme seems to include so much of 'smart arses with samplers' who have little to say, that it is intolerable to me.
"When I think of hipsters, I have a mental image of a bloke with short but tidily cut hair, a big fuck-off beard and fairly rugged looking but expensive clothes and boots. I think the look they're aiming for is "lumberjack going on a date"
Yes Steve, and they run a coffee outlet or make chocolate.
Martin, is a "soul patch" a bald spot?
It seems to me that the youth subgrouping had largely subsided, and now getting a degree and running businesses is de rigour; not much youthful protest going on. Maybe it is the expression from David Brent, "Age and treachery will always triumph over youth and ability", now readily accepted, that has turned youth into what it now is.
Martin, is a "soul patch" a bald spot?
.
No it's a sort of beard.
A soul patch yesterday:
https://i.ibb.co/sgxkKp3/French-soul-patch-Sole-patches.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)
Pigmy Pony
03-07-2021, 13:38
A pony tail and a soul patch is another giveaway, also seems to be a thing to wear a rucksack with nothing much in it.
Mostly used for his grooming products, and occasionally to carry his dirty washing round to mums.
Pigmy Pony
03-07-2021, 13:42
Yes Steve, and they run a coffee outlet or make chocolate.
:lol: I almost included that, but thought that might just be my experience!
:lol: I almost included that, but thought that might just be my experience!
No, even if they don't actually work in coffee it will still be a big part of their lives. Along with being 'concerned' about global warming and Palestine.
This is getting to be a prime example of AoS's notorious thread drift! :eyebrows:
But to indulge in it a bit longer, I have to say I really dislike tattoos on the neck (or anywhere else for that matter). My biggest bugbear is facial piercings; I simply cannot look someone in the face if they have them.
Another bete noir with me is the current fashion of blokes having a 'samurai' style top-knot. :mental: Oh, and blokes with heavily receding hair, but sporting a ponytail. :doh:
All of those aspects annoy me also, and I wonder if as a fairly liberal person there is something wrong with me for feeling this way. I do support thee rights of the individual, but then I think it really is some sort of group identity signal rather than high art expressed in personal decoration.
The piercings to me are an unnecessary violation of the body, and often must get in the way of functioning to an extent- the tongue.
The critical parent in me says; "With all that energy and money create something worthwhile", instead of being excessively narcissistic in an inane way. I've always been very sceptical about breast implants because of health, and now we are seeing the results of 20 to 30 years of them.
All of those aspects annoy me also, and I wonder if as a fairly liberal person there is something wrong with me for feeling this way. I do support the rights of the individual, but then I think it really is some sort of group identity signal rather than high art expressed in personal decoration.
The piercings to me are an unnecessary violation of the body, and often must get in the way of functioning to an extent- the tongue.
The critical parent in me says; "With all that energy and money create something worthwhile", instead of being excessively narcissistic in an inane way. I've always been very sceptical about breast implants because of health, and now we are seeing the results of 20 to 30 years of them.
I've have had similar thoughts Dennis, but would agree with your subsequent musings.
Regarding tongue piercings, I believe dentists are concerned they can at times damage the tooth enamel.
Pigmy Pony
04-07-2021, 14:34
This is getting to be a prime example of AoS's notorious thread drift! :eyebrows:
But to indulge in it a bit longer, I have to say I really dislike tattoos on the neck (or anywhere else for that matter). My biggest bugbear is facial piercings; I simply cannot look someone in the face if they have them.
Another bete noir with me is the current fashion of blokes having a 'samurai' style top-knot. :mental: Oh, and blokes with heavily receding hair, but sporting a ponytail. :doh:
So you probably wouldn't approve of the bath plug I've got hanging from my eyebrow. But if you could just power through it, I'll try to see past the shirt, tie and cable-knit tank top in 30C heat :)
On your travels around the world you must have come across some pretty extreme examples of the stuff people can do to their faces, how did you get on with them? And what did they have to say about the tank tops?:D
Yes - the Mursi in Ethiopia, the women wear the most off-putting 'lip plates': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lip_plate . I found it very difficult to look them in the face, but not to do so would have been impolite.
It is thought by anthropologists that the size of the plate denotes the size of the herd of cattle when it come to settling on a bride price. But others have suggested it is a relic from the time of slave raiding: the women did it deliberately to make themselves look unattractive and not be taken as slaves.
It's now falling out of practice and being replaced by scarification as a means of body decoration. https://www.exploring-africa.com/en/ethiopia/clothing-accessories-and-body-modification-mursi/body-scarifications-mursi-culture
The Hamar tribe, also of the Omo valley in south Ethiopia, practice scarification for body decoration as well. https://www.larskrutak.com/ethiopias-last-frontier-the-bloody-world-of-the-hamar-tribe/ Even more alarming and puzzling is the ritual whipping of Hamar women, the welts on their backs caused by it are supposed to make them attractive to their men.
I have also seen scarification amongst the peoples of Burkina Faso.
For some reason I find I can look at that whereas I find facial piercings repellent.
Apropos 'tank tops', they had nothing to say about them, but the women who walk around bare-breasted were fascinated by the bra worn by my travelling companion. For want of a name, they called them "sucky holders" - which is as good a name as any.
all for barebreastedness and scarification but whats this nonsense about compulsary eating of asparagus :eyebrows:
edit, actually wearing of tanktops.
Pigmy Pony
04-07-2021, 21:07
I've often wondered about the point of gilets. If the weather is cold enough to require a coat, why not wear one? I can't think of an instance where having sleeves is such an inconvenience. Unless you're a country vet.
Back onto the subject of Radios 1,2,3,4 etc, does anyone else hear a whine on the O/P of R4?
(I have recently bought a new very good tuner and am sure that it is not faulty.)
My Hi-Fi friend does not, but after listening to it for many months, I heard it disappear during a programme changeover, and that must have involved a continuity or studio change.
Its nature is that of a digitally generated by product, and presumably considered to be low enough for S/N purposes. I guess it is about -50 relative to peak.
I'll try it later and report back although if it's not going on when I check that won't help. I can't listen to Radio 4 all evening, it's too disturbing for me.
dave2010
06-07-2021, 16:38
Somewhat of a drift from the opening ....
I may have found a dealer who is able to give me a demo of the LS50s. I might have a view on those by the end of the week - if things work out.
I am wondering whether some (...a lot of...) new hi-fi kit is like new cars. The value plummets as soon as one takes the kit out of the shop ... maybe. Other similar products are cameras and smartphones.
Some people reckon that buying second hand but initially "expensive" kit is the way to go. Can't say that I've really done much of that.
What seems totally bonkers re the LS50s - based on the images I've seen - is the price of the matching stands. I'll have to wait until I see more, but I thought I might have found something which would meet with domestic approval, but what I've been quoted for the stands is about 40% of the cost of the speakers.
How about the days when I used to use baked bean cans and bricks to stand kit on?
Don't know what price LS50 are new but sold listings on ebay vary from £350 to £550 unless they're a fancy pair with blue drivers.
dave2010
06-07-2021, 17:10
Don't know what price LS50 are new but sold listings on ebay vary from £350 to £550 unless they're a fancy pair with blue drivers.The price depends on the variant. The basic wired models are around £1000 new. There are also "eco system" variants which work with wireless systems, which doubles the price, plus a bit. I think they have active speakers, so don't need amplification.
So perhaps it is the case that buying a new pair of wired speakers compared with buying a used set one year old is like burning £500.
Don't know I'd go that far but I try not to buy brand new if I can help it. It is a significant savings.
dave2010
08-07-2021, 19:28
Went for demo today. Difficult to say whether the LS50s are really good or not, but they seemed a reasonable buy and met with some sort of domestic approval. Compared with some others costing four times as much - swings and roundabouts. The more expensive kit sounded very slightly better in some ways, but a also a more boxy sound. Decision - not worth a further 3 grand. Also definitely too big in "someone else's" views. I guess it's possible to spend £10k and get something really good, but if I were going to do that I'd want a more seriously listen and comparison.
Will report back in a while about how well these work in a domestic environment. These are slightly bigger than I'd thought they would be - though not a problem - and also much heavier. My thoughts about using these for a TV sound application - apart perhaps for a test run - have been knocked out of the park.
Slightly surprised about the stands - and also the colour. I thought the white would be good, but finally the thoughts of trying to keep them clean prevailed, so settled for black - and to my surprise black was deemed acceptable. The stands from Atacama are surprisingly heavy, but a heck of a lot cheaper than the matching KEF ones - which strike me as vastly overpriced - except for anyone who really wants matching style etc.
If we're all having to be very cautious again in the autumn and winter, then this spend can be justified in terms of concerts etc. which we won't be able to go to.
I would be very wary of using too good a speaker for TV sound. Having gone very high end much TV speech is unintelligible and I have to use subtitles, whereas for eg. the ones on my PC would I'm sure, produce intelligible speech.
I would agree whole hearted with this. Improving the speaker system makes every background sound cleaner and crisper, which in turn makes the dialogue less intelligable.
I've not found that at all and indeed there is absolutely no reason why that would be the case. A better speaker system will make everything in the mix clearer. That's the definition of a better speaker system.
i suppose if you think you've improved the speaker system when in fact you've actually made it worse then it would make sense.
Lawrence001
18-07-2021, 10:10
I would agree whole hearted with this. Improving the speaker system makes every background sound cleaner and crisper, which in turn makes the dialogue less intelligable.I think there's a point here. I've found that a sound bar with a DSP to improve dialogue helps, as does a 5 channel system with Dolby cinema, where you can turn the centre channel up and the L/R down. But playing the sound into the hifi as 2 channel direct from the TV makes the sound effects, music etc too loud to hear the dialogue. It might be that using the TV's built in DSP to improve speech intelligibility might help, I think my TV has one and it's not expensive.
The problem with that theory is that the centre speaker does not just transmit dialogue, in fact on a TV show as opposed to a film there is likely to be just two channels of sound, most of which will be routed to the centre speaker. Most centre speakers are rubbish (in fact a lot of speakers in general are rubbish) so it will actually make things worse.
I just use two channels, don't have any issue with hearing dialogue, but I use high quality 3 way speakers.
I've not found that at all and indeed there is absolutely no reason why that would be the case. A better speaker system will make everything in the mix clearer. That's the definition of a better speaker system.
i suppose if you think you've improved the speaker system when in fact you've actually made it worse then it would make sense.
I absolutely disagree. My reasoning is that generally broadcasters, and even film sound recordists now either do not care much about, or are not trained well enough, to understand how to record good sound.
Bill Woodman (ATC) said to me many years ago that "It's all lowest common denominator", (Macdonalds), and that they do not even have sound engineers to make sure that the sound is good. (I also have a friend who mixed for years and has said to me that the BBC could not mix a cake.)
On occasions a film comes up that is well recorded, often 60s or 70s, and a cowboy in a desert for example, sounds natural and thin voiced, not as is so often the case now, as though he is in a wardrobe.
Alan Shaw (Harbeth) does not use any BBC sound recordings from after the rebuild of BH circa 2000 to new BH, because the sound is poor and a neglected aspect, much glass being used in the studios.
My core technical reason is that poor speech is often the result of poor mic. positioning, this producing the proximity effect of bass boost, and resulting in an unnaturally thick sound, masking mid intonations and detail. Lavalier mics. on TV are dreadful, they are under the chin and even the axis is often pointing down to the lap area of the announcer, away from the mouth.
This although maybe more acceptable on say an LS3/5, is much worse on a broad band speaker, which many larger ones are, and these will produce with great clarity high Q bass eigentones which cause much prominence and masking of the mid range throat inflections and intonations. It seems to be fairly widespread, I'm currently watching "The Killing III", Danish, and the speech is poor, but the musical inserts are very good particularly so the piano.
I have heard that much sound is multi channel derived, and then mixed down to stereo, and that it does not work very well.
I don't watch much on the BBC but have to say I have never had any problems with hearing the dialogue on their shows. You may be right that it is sub-optimal but it's still not a struggle to hear it.
I did watch a film recently (the one where they go inside people's dreams, forget what it is called) and I did have to crank the volume on that to hear some of the dialogue, could well be the result of a mix-down to 2 channels as you say. I know that big Hollywood films spend a fortune on sound and use state of the art equipment so I doubt that the engineers are not up to the job, at least there anyway.
I don't recall what channel it was on but I do notice that there is a fair difference in level between some channels. Agree that old westerns and such the dialogue is very clear, but then they will be in mono for the most part.
What you are talking about does sound like so-called 'cocktail party effect.'
Maybe EQ it up in the 1-3Khz region, see how that goes?
The BBC also seems to contract out a lot of work to what I presume are fresh media studies graduates, this giving a benefit of cost reduction for the BBC, and a reputation for the newbies.
They probably lack experience and also will probably use not very expensive equipment, and the mics. are probably those fixed to the cameras which to an extent determines that audio is controlled by video needs and distances.
It also occurs to me that a major reason for the lavalier mics. sounding so bad is that not only are they off axis, but they are against a chest which is both a bass resonator, and a pressure boundary which boosts bass. Remember the Tandy PZM?
The cocktail party effect is a brain audiology function, and surely will apply to all, including sound recordists.
The big Hollywood budgets are only of use with knowledge, and to me American is often difficult to understand, but of course I have hearing loss, and the disadvantage that in my formative years I was brought up on received pronunciation, and I'm now marooned with that expectation.
I've never had any trouble understanding Americans but then I grew up watching their TV shows and my father and uncle grew up there so were completely 'Americanised'.
Have noticed when I've been over there that they sometimes had trouble understanding me, not due to my accent but because of me using words they just don't have, like 'fortnight'.
Asking for 'Twenty Marlboro' in a tobacconist also elicited blank looks.
One American woman I was chatting to insisted that my accent was not real and that I must be putting it on, and she was a Columbia graduate, not some hick.
When I was ringing up ESS, Sacramento around the turn of the century I spoke to a ldy who could not understand me, and in response I emphasised my 'correctness' of pronunciation, to which she exclaimed "What is he saying?", so my attempts made it worse.
I also struggle when dealing with corporate admin people on the phone, not only because of the varied accents, but also because IMO mobile audio standards do not meet those defined for landlines.
The other factor which probably applies to us all to an extent, is the speaker positioning and the room's coloration of it, most probably need to have them against walls.
Out of interest what speakers are you using for A/V?
For both stereo and AV, ADAM Tensor Betas.
Crikey - well they're a considerably better speaker than the 40 year old B&Os I'm using so I don't think you're problem lies there.
You could try using some rubbish speakers instead just to see if it helps but for me logic defies that approach.
The better the speaker the less distortion it will have, and the clearer the individual elements of the recording will become up to the limits of the recording (or broadcast). That's true regardless of whether the recording or broadcast has been done competently or not.
I suppose an exception might be if the recording picked up some low frequency noise that was at high enough amplitude to mask higher frequencies. Assuming the speakers could reproduce it. But then it's not a case of using worse speakers, just use a speaker that does not have low frequency capability.
The SQ quality problems I complain about were also audible on my ESS AMT 1Bs, redesigned by me using an LS 5/8 mid/woofer from the BBC, but not as pronounced because the Heil produces a lot of (arguably) inaccurate mid and HF.
But more to the point the problems were also evident on my old Sony 21" CRT with an oval, probably 4" X 2" in the plastic casing.
When you say;
"I suppose an exception might be if the recording picked up some low frequency noise that was at high enough amplitude to mask higher frequencies. Assuming the speakers could reproduce it. But then it's not a case of using worse speakers, just use a speaker that does not have low frequency capability.",
that is really consistent with a point I made earlier.
But, rather anomalously, and it has caused concern, the Betas at 100dB do produce rather high mid distortion at 3%. However I have been reading a thread on the YG acoustics Anat speaker, which claims to be the best in the world, and which is criticised for the same level of distortion but at 95dB. It costs a hell of a lot, over £100k. The discussion also says that quite a lot of high end, read expensive, do have quite high distortion, and that this factor does not really correlate with a good or bad sound.
Most of the market in TV probably uses standard speakers, necessarily of limited bandwidth I think.
Tonight I watched "Young Guns" from '88, and its sound was lifeless and lacking 'air' - openness, and what happens often on R4 is that each insert has clearly a different recording quality, the news being notably stifled.
But, rather anomalously, and it has caused concern, the Betas at 100dB do produce rather high mid distortion at 3%. However I have been reading a thread on the YG acoustics Anat speaker, which claims to be the best in the world, and which is criticised for the same level of distortion but at 95dB. It costs a hell of a lot, over £100k. The discussion also says that quite a lot of high end, read expensive, do have quite high distortion, and that this factor does not really correlate with a good or bad sound.
Most of the market in TV probably uses standard speakers, necessarily of limited bandwidth I think.
.
100 dB? That's a very high level, have to say I don't listen at anything like that, about 75dB average level. I agree 3% distortion in a speaker is not a large amount but who listens at 100dB? That shouldn't be an issue in normal use surely?
The speakers built into my TV are terrible and intelligibility was massively increased just by replacing them with some JBL Control One which can be bought new for about £70. One of the rare occasions I have heard a true 'night and day' difference.
Replacing the JBLs with the 3 way B&O MC120.2 was another step up. I just can't buy into the idea that using a better speaker will make things worse except for the edge case I described previously.
walpurgis
21-07-2021, 06:28
The speakers built into my TV are terrible and intelligibility was massively increased just by replacing them with some JBL Control One which can be bought new for about £70. One of the rare occasions I have heard a true 'night and day' difference.
Same here. My new telly was unlistenable, the worst I've ever heard. Plugging in my 'Cyruslink' 2.1 sub/sat system sorted it.
You say Martin;
"I agree 3% distortion in a speaker is not a large amount but who listens at 100dB? That shouldn't be an issue in normal use surely?
My concern is that 3% IS indeed high, the Quads are 0.1% as is the Yamaha NS1000.
It must be self evident that a restricted bass extension will benefit if it removes masking resulting from low bass noise, and many mics have bass cut switches to reduce proximity effects.
The 100dB is just an arrived at standard used to measure, as are 90 and 95, and I do not listen much above 75.
Thinking further, the commercial speech bandwidth is chosen for intelligibility and is 300Hz to 3400Hz, and is used for landlines.
The upper limit is probably chosen for economical reasons, and the bottom end to reduce bass masking.
You say Martin;
"I agree 3% distortion in a speaker is not a large amount but who listens at 100dB? That shouldn't be an issue in normal use surely?
My concern is that 3% IS indeed high, the Quads are 0.1% as is the Yamaha NS1000.
It must be self evident that a restricted bass extension will benefit if it removes masking resulting from low bass noise, and many mics have bass cut switches to reduce proximity effects.
The 100dB is just an arrived at standard used to measure, as are 90 and 95, and I do not listen much above 75.
Are you sure that NS1000M have 0.1% distortion at 100dB? I know they are a very low distortion speaker, but even so that seems unlikely.
If you look at the 95dB distortion tests on ASR most of the speakers tested have a lot of distortion at that level. The NS1000M isn't tested yet though.
Anyways if your never playing at 100dB does it matter?
In using the GE-Zenith system for FM stereo broadcasting, the absolute maximum audio frequency is limited to 15kHz.
The distortion created by the system depends on the volume of the audio, i.e. the depth of modulation. http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/BandwidthBlues/page.html
Given the levels of distortion that even the best vinyl replay system can produce (up to 12 - 15%), it is surprising what the ear finds acceptable.
It is a long time ago that I looked at it Martin, and probably at 90dB. Many small Hi-Fi Choice books back.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.