The Pain of Neutral Sound

[Mr. C]

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

[Macca]

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.

[Reffc]

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.

[Barry]

Should anyone be interested in my system, they need only look at my profile and click on 'About me'.

[Joe]

Mine is there to annoy folk

I put mine in my sig., then took it out as it was dull reading even for me, let alone anyone else.

[hifinutt]

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/showt...rch-d70-mark-2

[TheMooN]

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]

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/showt...rch-d70-mark-2

Love your definition of slumming it! lol

[Macca]

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.

[Pharos]

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.