Paradigm S8 VS ????

[PENG]

Fair enough Peng, there may be some truth to that.
So the next time someone states that their Bose cubes sound superior to the B&W 802's or their $10 plastic computer speakers "sounds best" compared to a Paradigm Sig, you dare not scoff or chuckle, correct?
And the next time someone states that their $10k wires make a huge and astonishing improvement and "sound best" compared to lamp cord, "regardless of graphs and measured data", you dare not snicker or object correct?
Wouldn't want to be totally hypocritical when the same exact statements are used by others, right...??

cheers,

AJ

Hello AJ, you may or may not recall I often said I like speakers that sound more like what I hear in live classical music concerts. I think it is still subjective because I have to rely on memory, but I believe it is less subjective than if I simply go by whether the speaker sounds good to me or not. I know it is kind of silly but I really do prefer speakers that sound live/neutral/accurate than speakers that may sound great to me but did not sound live/neutral/accurate. Sorry if I confuse you but right now I am too tired to try and find better words.

The analogy you made using 10K wire does not really apply to what I said because most people cannot hear the difference between $100 and $10K wires yet most people can hear the difference between just about any speakers.

 

[AJinFLA]

Okay this is a comparison between B&W 802D vs. Revel Ultima Salon2 from Stereophile:
View attachment 8533
Please explain the big difference.

Those graphs explain it better than I ever could . One show competent engineering and knowledge, the other none whatsoever, unless we are talking about Marketing Engineering, in which case you can clearly see the results on the susceptible .
The Revels very smooth off axis at increasing off angles, follows the smooth, linear on axis. This means that the spectra of what impinges upon the reflective surfaces (side walls) will a near copy the origin "source" (albeit with lower very HF content). Our brains will perceive this as a more realistic illusion of reproduction, than if the spectra of the reverberation was anything but a "copy" of the source. It's the same reason not to use so called "acoustic" treatments (what I refer to as bandaids and gauze for poor speakers/design). The "treatment" is non-linear in absorption and will assure that the reverberation is perceived as anything but a spectral "copy" of the source. It's also kills spaciousness...but that is yet another topic

cheers,

AJ

 

[PENG]

It's statements like these that make it clear you don't even know what anyone said or care to(such as your statement above that I said DSP can correct polar response characteristics) - and your overly-aggressive and demeaning manner is quite unusual, I must say. And my meaning of over 8kHz in reference to, is exactly in reference to a lot of important spatial information is contained in these higher frequencies. While you are busy attempting to capitalize off to a perhaps improper single word (primary) use I may have made, you do everything you can to pull off an argument style I have not seen used in 'intelligent' debate; try respectful and proper conversation for a change. This is just a simple observation of your replies, and I am not going to lower myself to the same type of replies. I can certainly appreciate a very rare sarcastic remark or similar - I sometimes will make such a remark - but certainly not in a repeated or consistent manner in a real conversation/exchange with someone.


-Chris

Good for you Chris, finally!

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Those graphs explain it better than I ever could . One show competent engineering and knowledge, the other none whatsoever, unless we are talking about Marketing Engineering, in which case you can clearly see the results on the susceptible .
The Revels very smooth off axis at increasing off angles, follows the smooth, linear on axis. This means that the spectra of what impinges upon the reflective surfaces (side walls) will a near copy the origin "source" (albeit with lower very HF content). Our brains will perceive this as a more realistic illusion of reproduction, than if the spectra of the reverberation was anything but a "copy" of the source. It's the same reason not to use so called "acoustic" treatments (what I refer to as bandaids and gauze for poor speakers/design). The "treatment" is non-linear in absorption and will assure that the reverberation is perceived as anything but a spectral "copy" of the source. It's also kills spaciousness...but that is yet another topic

cheers,

AJ

Thanks for the explaination!!!

So in other words, the Revel Ultima2 Salon2 appears to be more "accurate" and "natural sounding" than the B&W 802D in reproducing the sound?

That is my goal - speakers that sound as close to the REAL, NATURAL ORIGINAL UNAMPLIFIED SOUND as possible.

 

[Alex2507]

Good for you Chris, finally!

Good call PENG.

Chris did make the distinction of a pot shot and a sustained barrage
of that crap but both these guys are on the Science-of-Sound Santa's Sh!t List.

That is my goal - speakers that sound as close to the REAL, NATURAL ORIGINAL UNAMPLIFIED SOUND as possible.

Then you will need room treatments and an EQ.




... just messin' with ya.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

then you will need room treatments and an eq. :d

... Just messin' with ya.

whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.....:d

 

[AJinFLA]

Speakers sound so different it can be a highly subjective thing to say which one sounds best to a particular individual, regardless of graphs and measured data.

The analogy you made using 10K wire does not really apply to what I said because most people cannot hear the difference between $100 and $10K wires yet most people can hear the difference between just about any speakers.

Hi Peng,

The analogy fits, because the people who buy the $10k wires do "hear" the difference between $100 wires...and they also say "regardless of graphs and measured data". That's the key. When your subjectivist preference starts to rely on anything but your personal choice, like measured data, then it's always "regardless of graphs and measured..."
When the "graphs and measured data" match your subjective preference, they are all good and to be regarded. When they don't, they are no good and "regardless"...

you may or may not recall I often said I like speakers that sound more like what I hear in live classical music concerts. I think it is still subjective because I have to rely on memory, but I believe it is less subjective than if I simply go by whether the speaker sounds good to me or not. I know it is kind of silly but I really do prefer speakers that sound live/neutral/accurate than speakers that may sound great to me but did not sound live/neutral/accurate. Sorry if I confuse you but right now I am too tired to try and find better words.

The concert (production of live acoustic music) is purely subjective. There is nothing to measure or graph there (except maybe your enjoyment ).
When you capture the soundwaves of the concert electro-acoustically, store them on electronic media, then reproduce them via an electro-acoustic system, then it's no longer "regardless of graphs and measured". Its electronic and acoustic....measurable and graphic, no longer "regardless". The entire system used (your stereo) is based entirely on scientific principles, not subjective dreams. Your perception of it is subjective, but the reproduced soundwaves from the system are very much measurable and objectively quantifiable. Regardless of your understanding and ability to interpret them.

cheers,

AJ

 

[PENG]

Hi Peng,

The analogy fits, because the people who buy the $10k wires do "hear" the difference between $100 wires...and they also say "regardless of graphs and measured data". That's the key. When your subjectivist preference starts to rely on anything but your personal choice, like measured data, then it's always "regardless of graphs and measured..."
When the "graphs and measured data" match your subjective preference, they are all good and to be regarded. When they don't, they are no good and "regardless"...


The concert (production of live acoustic music) is purely subjective. There is nothing to measure or graph there (except maybe your enjoyment ).
When you capture the soundwaves of the concert electro-acoustically, store them on electronic media, then reproduce them via an electro-acoustic system, then it's no longer "regardless of graphs and measured". Its electronic and acoustic....measurable and graphic, no longer "regardless". The entire system used (your stereo) is based entirely on scientific principles, not subjective dreams. Your perception of it is subjective, but the reproduced soundwaves from the system are very much measurable and objectively quantifiable. Regardless of your understanding and ability to interpret them.

cheers,

AJ

Thank you for taking the time to explain it so clearly. Yes, now I see your point and agree the analogy is valid. It is subjective for the individual who thinks a particular speakers sound the best, just like those who thinks the 10K sounds the best among others. That's close enough to what I said and I assume you agree.

I don't know about you but I do believe graphs and measured data are important elements that help people stay being objective in their selection process. In fact in my profession I must rely on theories as well as measured data, or I would have been out of a job long time ago. If I think a pair of speakers sound accurate to me I will certainly investigate further by checking out any reviews with measured data. I would purchase my next upgrade only after I have done enough comparison listening and checking all availlable data/inform on the subject speaker(s).

 

[GO-NAD!]

....The concert (production of live acoustic music) is purely subjective. There is nothing to measure or graph there (except maybe your enjoyment ).
When you capture the soundwaves of the concert electro-acoustically, store them on electronic media, then reproduce them via an electro-acoustic system, then it's no longer "regardless of graphs and measured". Its electronic and acoustic....measurable and graphic, no longer "regardless". The entire system used (your stereo) is based entirely on scientific principles, not subjective dreams. Your perception of it is subjective, but the reproduced soundwaves from the system are very much measurable and objectively quantifiable. Regardless of your understanding and ability to interpret them...

Might I add, that the recording of a concert may take place in a poor acoustic venue. The recording methodology and subsequent mastering can have an adverse impact as well. Then, you have to play it back in your own room, which will impact what you hear. Plus, with hundreds, or thousands, of seats in the venue, what you hear live will vary with where you sit. I may be wrong, but I believe it is virtually impossible to hear a recording that will even come close to sounding like the live performance.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

AJ, where were you and Sean Olive when I was getting by butts kicked & name-called by just about everyone here after I auditioned the B&W 800D at a local dealer?

I blamed that bad experience to room acoustics.

But according to you, it was not the room acoustics?

So anyway, what do we know about the graphs & data on the Paradigm S8 speakers? Are they also a polar disaster like the B&W 802D?

Just to help me learn more, so based on this graph of the $68K Wilson Audio speaker, would you say this speaker has bad polar characteristics:

View attachment 8536


Here are 2 graphs for DefTech Mythos STS. They look even better than B&W & Wilson Audio??

View attachment 8537

View attachment 8538

 

[PENG]

Might I add, that the recording of a concert may take place in a poor acoustic venue. The recording methodology and subsequent mastering can have an adverse impact as well. Then, you have to play it back in your own room, which will impact what you hear. Plus, with hundreds, or thousands, of seats in the venue, what you hear live will vary with where you sit. I may be wrong, but I believe it is virtually impossible to hear a recording that will even come close to sounding like the live performance.

That's pretty much what I thought too. I referred to how the instruments sound to me (by memory, and subjectively), and I was talking about relatively speaking. I do not care about those blurbs people used to describe the difference between a $5000 amp and a $20,000 amp. I still hold the view that judging a loudspeaker that way is more objective than just to say the speaker sound great to me so it must be good regardless of the graphs and test data. If the graphs and data looks good to me, and I like what I hear, than the speaker is good for me, otherwise not. If the speaker sounds good to me but the graphs and data don't look bad, I would consider it too but I would not be too sure in that case.

 

[PENG]

[/QUOTE]

AJ, where were you and Sean Olive when I was getting by butts kicked & name-called by just about everyone here after I auditioned the B&W 800D at a local dealer?

I blamed that bad experience to room acoustics.

But according to you, it was not the room acoustics?


View attachment 8536

I think you were right and he was wrong but those who.....your.... were wrong too. Good thing it seems like you are the rare kind of people who don't hold grudges..

 

[Alex2507]

AJ, where were you and Sean Olive when I was getting by butts kicked & name-called by just about everyone here after I auditioned the B&W 800D at a local dealer?

I blamed that bad experience to room acoustics.

Wow, that's the $20,000 wonder speaker that even TLS likes IIRC. I think you have firmly established yourself as a 25 percenter in the preference pie. It seems to me like you did the work and earned the distinction. The thing of it is that the 75% portion of the pie is mostly homogeneous while your slice is heavily marbled with wide ranging preferences that can vary from day to day (not saying yours do). I don't think (actually I would bet on it) that the normal predictors don't apply to you ... or your wife for that matter. Doesn't she dislike bass frequencies?

... but you probably had the butt kicking and the name calling coming so suck it up.

Be a sport and give us a link to "The Incident".

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Wow, that's the $20,000 wonder speaker that even TLS likes IIRC. I think you have firmly established yourself as a 25 percenter in the preference pie. It seems to me like you did the work and earned the distinction. The thing of it is that the 75% portion of the pie is mostly homogeneous while your slice is heavily marbled with wide ranging preferences that can vary from day to day (not saying yours do). I don't think (actually I would bet on it) that the normal predictors don't apply to you ... or your wife for that matter. Doesn't she dislike bass frequencies?

... but you probably had the butt kicking and the name calling coming so suck it up.

Be a sport and give us a link to "The Incident".

Link to the incident?

Are you kidding me? It was embarrassing enough the first time. I don't want to go through that again.

Yeah, my wife hates bass below 100Hz.

 

[GO-NAD!]

That's pretty much what I thought too. I referred to how the instruments sound to me (by memory, and subjectively), and I was talking about relatively speaking. I do not care about those blurbs people used to describe the difference between a $5000 amp and a $20,000 amp. I still hold the view that judging a loudspeaker that way is more objective than just to say the speaker sound great to me so it must be good regardless of the graphs and test data. If the graphs and data looks good to me, and I like what I hear, than the speaker is good for me, otherwise not. If the speaker sounds good to me but the graphs and data don't look bad, I would consider it too but I would not be too sure in that case.

Your methodology makes sense to me.

But, the problem is, you won't get complete graphs and data for all speakers that may be legitimate contenders. It all depends on testers with the correct equipment and competence to measure them. And, with hundreds of models out there how can we ensure that allare given a fair shake. Most "professional" reviews are very subjective and I don't give them much weight as a consequence. Comprehensive measurements are not taken during the vast majority of reviews.

Then there are the consumer reviews. 99% of consumers couldn't properly review a speaker if their life depended on it - and I would include myself in that category. Yet many people take them seriously, i.e. if hundreds of people think a particular speaker is fantastic, it must be good.

Picking speakers to purchase can be a veritable minefield to navigate....

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

AJ, where were you and Sean Olive when I was getting by butts kicked & name-called by just about everyone here after I auditioned the B&W 800D at a local dealer?

I blamed that bad experience to room acoustics.

But according to you, it was not the room acoustics?

View attachment 8536

I think you were right and he was wrong but those who.....your.... were wrong too. Good thing it seems like you are the rare kind of people who don't hold grudges..

It's too boring to hold grudges. It's more interesting to just let it all out and then apologize later.

I did specify how the listening room was laid out in details and everything, but people were stilling kicking my butts just for saying that I was disappointed with the B&W 800D.

 

[Alex2507]

Link to the incident?

Are you kidding me? It was embarrassing enough the first time. I don't want to go through that again.

Fair enough. I've been running around talking about that preference pie thing. Secretly I was hoping to reach you with the message that we don't all hear differently. It's 25% of us that prefer different sound signatures from the 75% majority (my understanding anyways). I guess if we're going to call into question the validity of the research or the integrity of the researchers then it's all out the window but my take is that that research and these researchers are front and center before a global community that is packing and loaded for bear. They wouldn't last a minute with indefensible positions. Even their agenda seems transparent; identify majority preference, build to suit and make profits ... or am I just being a simpleton? ... don't answer that.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I don't know if I belong to that 25% pie.

I mean I like DefTech, MartinLogan, Dali Ikon, & NHT speakers. I would say that is > 25%.

 

[AJinFLA]

identify majority preference, build to suit and make profits

Fortunes are made that way

...because measurements and graphs don't matter...

 

[Alex2507]

Fortunes are made that way

...because measurements and graphs don't matter...

Are you implying that I think that graphs don't matter?

I meant identify what type of FR curve the majority prefers through DBT's ... through scientific research. I've done my very best to learn a little about this hobby (starting from nothing) and I hope you're not trying to make a chump out of me unfairly for sport.