Vienna Acoustics Music

[haraldo]

I don't agree with TLS Guy because some of Stereophile's measurements are incorrect...

Trouble is that Stereophile measurements are not really 100% credible because they are made incorrectly by measuring at 50", nobody listens at 50", to be done correctly is should be done at a much greater distance, so these measurements are probably incorrect and not representative

Perhaps we should look at credible measurements before stating things with such certainty

Ref John Dunlav's comments about John Atkinsons measurement techniques:
http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/166/index8.html

We are equally indebted to John Atkinson for his measurements of the SC-IV/A, but only wish that Stereophile possessed a more extensive array of laboratory test equipment and a large anechoic chamber. Such a facility is necessary because loudspeakers having the physical size of the SC-IV/A must be measured "anechoically" at the normal listening distance of 10' if the measurements are to convey any relevance as to how accurately they will reproduce complex musical sounds and transients in a typical listening room.

For example, we measure loudspeaker performance at a distance of 10' in one of our two 24' long by 20' wide by 16' high anechoic chambers (accurate to within ±0.1dB above about 200Hz). In our chambers, the SC-IV/A yielded an on-axis frequency response of ±1dB (without "smoothing," etc.) compared to JA's measurements, which showed ±1dB variations at distances up to about 100" (within a nonanechoic room environment, replete with reflections). Likewise, JA's measurements of impulse response and step response (at 50") hardly portray the loudspeaker's nearly "textbook-perfect" performance as seen from DAL's measurements.

Further, since few audiophiles are likely to listen to loudspeakers the size of the SC-IV/A at only 50", we believe that our measurements provide a much more accurate indication of how they will sound in a real listening room at the average listening distance of 10'.

 

[Boerd]

...........

• Measuring the performance of a loudspeaker involves subjective choices.

• All measurements tell lies.

• Most important, while measurements can tell you how a loudspeaker sounds, they can't tell you how good it is.
..............................

WOOOOW!

Love his logic ...


• Measuring the performance of a loudspeaker involves subjective choices.

I love how the words subjective and measurements are put together... Any hidden interests Mr Atkinson?
Measuring means you have to make some subjective choices... ??? So what? As long as you clearly state the conditions and methodology you use they are at least something... That's how progress is measured - improving REPEATABLE AND MEANINGFUL measurements. Repeatable - keyword. Meaningful - this comes from common sense.

• All measurements tell lies.

What a crook! That's it. This one crosses any line. Crook. Why does he bother measuring then???
ALL measurements tell lies ...I am speechless.

• Most important, while measurements can tell you how a loudspeaker sounds, they can't tell you how good it is.

Really??? Let StereoPhool tell you how good a speaker is. Don't use your brain. Just read the prostitution gazette called Stereophile. So - when you design a speaker do not bother with measurements - fu^& science... Flip a coin, then choose a driver; flip another coin and choose cabinetry - Stereophile KNOWS measurements do not tell you anything.


Patrick - I hope you understand I am NOT referring to you above - I am talking about Stereophile (John Atkinson); you just happened to copy from their website.

 

[GranteedEV]

I'd be interested in seeing an Audioholics takes on Vienna Acoustics.

 

[Boerd]

I'd be interested in seeing an Audioholics takes on Vienna Acoustics.

+1 here............

 

[Patrick Butler]

WOOOOW!

Love his logic ...


• Measuring the performance of a loudspeaker involves subjective choices.

I love how the words subjective and measurements are put together... Any hidden interests Mr Atkinson?
Measuring means you have to make some subjective choices... ??? So what? As long as you clearly state the conditions and methodology you use they are at least something... That's how progress is measured - improving REPEATABLE AND MEANINGFUL measurements. Repeatable - keyword. Meaningful - this comes from common sense.

• All measurements tell lies.

What a crook! That's it. This one crosses any line. Crook. Why does he bother measuring then???
ALL measurements tell lies ...I am speechless.

• Most important, while measurements can tell you how a loudspeaker sounds, they can't tell you how good it is.

Really??? Let StereoPhool tell you how good a speaker is. Don't use your brain. Just read the prostitution gazette called Stereophile. So - when you design a speaker do not bother with measurements - fu^& science... Flip a coin, then choose a driver; flip another coin and choose cabinetry - Stereophile KNOWS measurements do not tell you anything.


Patrick - I hope you understand I am NOT referring to you above - I am talking about Stereophile (John Atkinson); you just happened to copy from their website.

I understand where you are coming from, and without reading an extensive history of his reviews and articles on how he measures it would appear to be a self-negating endeavor. However, this is not the case.

He frequently makes mention of the limitations of his own measurement techniques and the corresponding issues that it causes with measurements that have little or no correlation with what you hear. As an example, lets take the excellent Thiel CS 3.7 as an example.

With a speaker such as the CS3.7, which has a sloped baffle and first-order crossover filters, it is important to measure its frequency response on the optimal axis, which is where the outputs of the multiple drive-units arrive at the ear or microphone at the same time. I use a speaker's step response to investigate this aspect of a speaker's operation; fig.3, for example, shows the CS3.7's step response at a distance of 50" on its tweeter axis. The sharply defined, positive-going attack at 3.8ms is the output of the coaxial tweeter and midrange unit, but its output is rapidly dropping back toward the time axis by the time the output from the woofer arrives at the mike (the slower-rising, rounded peak between 4.2 and 5ms). This axis, which is 40" from the floor, is too high for the drive-unit outputs to integrate properly.

Fig.3 Thiel CS3.7, step response on tweeter axis at 50" (5ms time window, 30kHz bandwidth).

Moving the microphone down by 6" gives the step response shown in fig.4—though there is still a touch of overshoot evident on this axis, the outputs of all three drive-units arrive at the microphone at the same time, resulting in an excellent, time-coincident, right-triangle shape to the step response. Moving the microphone down even farther eliminates the overshoot, but slows the rise of the step's leading edge, due to the woofer's output now arriving a little earlier (not shown). I therefore used the axis 34" from the floor, where the speaker's output is time-coincident, for all subsequent measurements. This height is also close to the average listener ear height, which was investigated by Home Theater's senior editor Tom Norton when he worked for Stereophile in the mid-1990s. (Remarkably, he found that both tall and short people have their ears within a couple of inches of 36" from the floor when sitting in typical lounge chairs.)

Fig.4 Thiel CS3.7, step response on tweeter axis at 50" (5ms time window, 30kHz bandwidth).

Fig.5 shows how the speaker's response changes above and below this axis. Basically, the higher you sit, the more you'll be bothered by a lack of energy in the crossover region between the woofer and midrange; the more you slouch below 34" from the floor, the more the speaker's balance will favor the lower mids rather than the treble.

So while he seeks to have consistency in his measurement techniques by measuring at 50" on the tweeters axis, this is not what you actually hear in a listening chair therefor the measurement "lies" due to the technique involved.
Another example is the rise in bass response a little under 100hz where he will frequently point out that this is because of a limitation in his nearfield measurement technique. As he does not have access to an anechoic chamber, these are the compromises made in the attempt to have useful, but flawed measurements.

Best,

Patrick

 

[Boerd]

I understand where you are coming from, and without reading an extensive history of his reviews and articles on how he measures it would appear to be a self-negating endeavor. However, this is not the case.

He frequently makes mention of the limitations of his own measurement techniques and the corresponding issues that it causes with measurements that have little or no correlation with what you hear. As an example, lets take the excellent Thiel CS 3.7 as an example.

With a speaker such as the CS3.7, which has a sloped baffle and first-order crossover filters, it is important to measure its frequency response on the optimal axis, which is where the outputs of the multiple drive-units arrive at the ear or microphone at the same time. I use a speaker's step response to investigate this aspect of a speaker's operation; fig.3, for example, shows the CS3.7's step response at a distance of 50" on its tweeter axis. The sharply defined, positive-going attack at 3.8ms is the output of the coaxial tweeter and midrange unit, but its output is rapidly dropping back toward the time axis by the time the output from the woofer arrives at the mike (the slower-rising, rounded peak between 4.2 and 5ms). This axis, which is 40" from the floor, is too high for the drive-unit outputs to integrate properly.

Fig.3 Thiel CS3.7, step response on tweeter axis at 50" (5ms time window, 30kHz bandwidth).

Moving the microphone down by 6" gives the step response shown in fig.4—though there is still a touch of overshoot evident on this axis, the outputs of all three drive-units arrive at the microphone at the same time, resulting in an excellent, time-coincident, right-triangle shape to the step response. Moving the microphone down even farther eliminates the overshoot, but slows the rise of the step's leading edge, due to the woofer's output now arriving a little earlier (not shown). I therefore used the axis 34" from the floor, where the speaker's output is time-coincident, for all subsequent measurements. This height is also close to the average listener ear height, which was investigated by Home Theater's senior editor Tom Norton when he worked for Stereophile in the mid-1990s. (Remarkably, he found that both tall and short people have their ears within a couple of inches of 36" from the floor when sitting in typical lounge chairs.)

Fig.4 Thiel CS3.7, step response on tweeter axis at 50" (5ms time window, 30kHz bandwidth).

Fig.5 shows how the speaker's response changes above and below this axis. Basically, the higher you sit, the more you'll be bothered by a lack of energy in the crossover region between the woofer and midrange; the more you slouch below 34" from the floor, the more the speaker's balance will favor the lower mids rather than the treble.

So while he seeks to have consistency in his measurement techniques by measuring at 50" on the tweeters axis, this is not what you actually hear in a listening chair therefor the measurement "lies" due to the technique involved.
Another example is the rise in bass response a little under 100hz where he will frequently point out that this is because of a limitation in his nearfield measurement technique. As he does not have access to an anechoic chamber, these are the compromises made in the attempt to have useful, but flawed measurements.

Best,

Patrick

Thanks Patrick.
I do understand there are nuances and limitations in measurements; some measurements are more or less meaningful than others. Some are closer or further from "average Joe's" listening conditions.
Still, to say something like "All measurements lie" is a good reflection of what Stereophile stands for.
Plus - not having access to an anechoic chamber makes them even less credible.
Are they serious? They review VERY PRETENTIOUS/EXPENSIVE speakers yet they don't have an anechoic chamber??? That's like writing a review about car that pretends to be a Porsche GT2 RS yet you do not lap the Nurburgring to clock it? Ha ha...

Anyway - back to Vienna Acoustics - I really enjoyed them for awhile. They were my first expensive speakers and of course an eye opener. I just wish I took my wife with me when I went to purchase - she'd have told me they didn't sound that great (she has classical music training).
One thing I can say about Vienna Acoustics - it is clear they don't use cheap materials/drivers/crossovers/cabinetry which again begs the question: Why don't they make better SOUND? At their price they should measure better.
Look at the measurement from HT magazine:

http://www.hometheatermag.com/completesystems/506vienna/index2.html

This shows 10db interval for frequency range BETWEEN 1Khz and 3Khz...
So - you see - more than one magazine measured them and again - 4k$ for what???

Of course - according to Stereophile - measurements don't tell you how good a speaker is

 

[Alex2507]

I fear that TLS may have been added to somebody's ignore list.

 

[KEW]

For example, we measure loudspeaker performance at a distance of 10' in one of our two 24' long by 20' wide by 16' high anechoic chambers (accurate to within ±0.1dB above about 200Hz). In our chambers, the SC-IV/A yielded an on-axis frequency response of ±1dB (without "smoothing," etc.) compared to JA's measurements, which showed ±1dB variations at distances up to about 100" (within a nonanechoic room environment, replete with reflections). [/I]

What am I missing?
This looks like they are arguing against JA's methodology, but in fact, they seem to be proving the validity of measuring closer to the speaker to decrease room effects. If you were to measure at 10' in a "typical" listening room, would not the effects of the room become an issue?

I know this is not your argument, but do you understand the point he is trying to make?

 

[Patrick Butler]

I did read the review, but you told us people don't want to understand measurement, so I went straight to the bottom line. However since you ask?

First off the listening evaluator is one of the arch priests of the audiophools. He has promoted more over priced dubious products over the years than you can shake a stick at. One of the main reasons I stopped subscribing to Stereophile years ago when he spouted misleading information about CD technology. He did not even have an elementary grasp of the technical issues.

Now to the measurements. First the impedance curve.

The impedance curve shows a drop below 3 ohms at 90 Hz. The angle between current and voltage is not stated, but the load to the amplifier is going to be at least 30% less than measured given a crossover second order at 160 Hz. So that speaker will stress all but the most robust and powerful amplifiers.

Then we come to phase, there is a huge phase swing between 2 and 4 kHz.

This is coupled with severe frequency response aberrations in the mid band. This indicates cancellation between mid and tweeter, with serious unresolved crossover design problems. This is further indicated by a huge peak of impedance at that crossover. That crossover is just plain badly designed and not acceptable in a speaker of any price.

In regard to phase, the woofers are wired out of phase to the rest of the drivers. While this is of no great matter when used as a stereo pair, it will preclude using this speakers in a multi Channel HT environment. That is a situation that a responsible speaker manufacturer should strive to avoid at this time.

The next issue is the placing of a passive second order filters at 160 Hz. That is just a bad plan. I have been over this numerous times. But the huge inductors and caps involved just cause huge problems for the amplifier. The high inductor values upset the Q of the driver and the whole thing is downhill from then on. If you want a crossover in that region, then the speaker needs to be active period. The situation is made worse by the fact that iron cored chokes and electrolytic caps are used compounding the felony.

The spectral delay plot is indicative of cabinet resonances not addressed. Fair enough for a cheap speaker, but not one at this price.

I have already alluded to the disastrous mid band response, but the bass response comes in for special criticism also.

There is a 5 db peak centered on 70 Hz, then the bass rolls off fourth order. If the peak were not there, then the f3 would be close to 60 Hz and not around 35 Hz. The functional F3 really is around 60 Hz. However you disguised it with the shameful old trick of a peak just below 100 Hz. Michael Fremer obviously fell for it. To the uninitiated a response like that sounds like 'lots 'a bass". To the well trained ear its awful and in my view one of the biggest sins of commission a speaker can commit.

The strongest suit of this speaker is its off axis response.

All of the serious deficiencies above lead to a damning waterfall plot, as you would expect, with major disconuities

Now a speaker with the above attributes has zero chance of producing a reasonable facsimile of a piano. It is an absolute physical impossibility. So the classical trained pianists observations are entirely validated by the evidence.

I can well understand why you are railing so hard about publishing measurements, but these measurements did not lie to the classically trained pianist.

Now this really does highlight the damage the audiophools have wrought on audio development. Time and effort wasted on nonsense. The ascendancy of anecdotal subjective bilge reigning supreme and unfettered.

Peter Walker spotted this years ago and spoke up loud and clear against it. He gave accurate warnings about what was to come to pass. Vienna acoustics is a prime example of what he was warning about.

Peter's voice is now silenced, but his designs and numerous contributions speak for themselves. Those of us who knew him are required to carry on the fight against the superstitions that have done so much to limit the true progress that could have been made.

So Patrick, you can continue to post all you want, but the data shows you are defending a highly compromised design and prompting it as a design serious music lovers should aspire to own, when in fact they should run fast in the other direction.

Hi TLS Guy,

As I have pointed out from previous posts, the measurements are there for the public to see. Nothing to hide here. Aside from some issues with measurement techniques employed by John (who I greatly respect) the data is what the data is.

A few comments on the measurements:

The impedance curve. Yes, the design can stress an amplifier. People who have purchased cheap junk may have an issue and the rest not so much. I have happy customers with Integra, and others with Bryston. All pleased.

Regarding the cancellation between the tweeter and mid, sure- you will hear a suck out if you sit at the tweeters level, 50" from the speaker. However, people do not sit 50" from a floor standing speaker and the design is intended for you to sit below the tweeter where the tweeter and the mid sum. As the late John Dunlavy pointed out in a manufacturers letter found earlier in this thread, measuring a speaker at 50" does not tell you much about what you are going to hear 10 feet away. But then you cannot use John's measurement technique at that distance and hope to window out the room.

Home Theater. No idea where you are coming from there.

Off axis response. Designer must have just gotten lucky there- right?

Bass. Re-read a few of John's measurements for various speakers and you will see a consistent bump exactly in the same place where as Beethoven in the supplied measurement. As John states many times, that is a measurement artifact due to the measuring technique (2pi coupling.) In other words- it doesn't exist.

Actually the measurements did lie to two classically trained pianists that I know who own Beethoven. Perhaps it's because the speakers were properly integrated with a room to provide optimal response. Perhaps it's personal preference. Perhaps they had better amplifiers to deal with the nature of the Beethovens impedance swings. In any case, to the listener both stories are true and valid in their experience.

The part that most concerns me about your post (and it is obvious that you have done some of your homework) is the part about "audiophools" and the "arch priests of the audiophools" who has "promoted more over priced dubious products over the years than you can shake a stick." That combined with the "vile evils that people settle for" and other quasi-religious comments such as "accurate warnings about what was to come to pass" and " Those of us who knew him are required to carry on the fight against the superstitions that have done so much to limit the true progress that could have been made" seem to indicate a kind of orthodoxy to your approach that precludes the ability to deal with information that does not conform to your rigid beliefs. The label "audiophool" seems to be a convenient label for anybody who likes anything that does not fit into your belief system about what is proper.

As for Michael Fremer, I can only comment on my personal experiences with him. All have been completely above board, professional and hilarious. I set up the products- he listens and writes. The man has an encyclopedic knowledge of music and a keen listening facility. Whether or not the products that he reviews are over-priced are solely in the eyes of the beholder. I'm reminded of colleague who recently attended RMAF and met an ex-NASA engineer who was displaying his turntable. The man had spent the last year of his life building it from scratch, and when asked what he thought the price should be for the table responded $145k. Why? Well, the man had spent a year building the table and that was the labor tied up in the endeavor. Overpriced? Who the hell knows.

So if Michael is an "arch priest" of the "audiophools" who buy and enjoy what he writes about, I'm not understanding the problem. The subjective exists because the objective still does not accurately describe the whole picture.

Best wishes,

Patrick

 

[GranteedEV]

Patrick. The issue isn't whether sterephile's measurements are accurate. We don't know that because quite frankly no one here even bothers with garbage that reviews cables, or their methodologies, or even their measurements. I don't even consider them to be an independant third party. 2nd party would be more accurate. The fact is that whatever their review methods, which are surely standardized: the Viennas measured poorly. Not "all speakers measure poorly". I'm sure the exact same review method has had far more positive results for some speaker out there - and excellent "subjective performance" correlating to that.

What I know is, it's possible for a reviewer to get good measurements out of a loudspeaker and have that correlate to good performance.

Over here at audioholics, check out Tom Andry's review of the Salk HT2-TL or Gene's review of the $800 EMP Tek e55ti.

Given that their review methods proved favorable results for those speakers, would you still contend that Audioholics review methods would be greatly insufficient for any given Vienna Acoustics speaker should you submit it to them for a real review.

If so, then I would have to contend that the Vienna Acoustics speaker is what's insufficent. It's not a matter of some designs being more difficult to measure properly either. More difficult =/= impossible.

Surely, if you can get good measurements out of your speaker given your test conditions, then someone else can get good measurements given your test conditions. The only caveat is the validity of said test conditions. I'd contend that these publications, yes, even 2nd party ones like Stereophile, use valid test conditions - that yes, mic placement can alter effect, but determining proper mic positioning isn't rocket science.

If Stereophile's measurements in fact do not portray the right picture, then how can you argue that "independant third party measurements are more trustable than first-party measurements"? If Vienna Acoustics has internal measurements which show much more transparency than the Stereophile ones, which is possible given that you guys may have a better testing conditions, then what exactly is the flaw in displaying them/ making them public? The matter of "trusting a manufacturer" is moot considering many of us certainly don't trust these so-called 3rd parties.

The matter of "valid business choice" on the other hand suggests that because vienna acoustics' speakers measure poorly, displaying them would hurt the company. This in turn brings us right back to the very first page of this thread. The fact that there's plenty of poor measuring commercial speakers being sold - which are in fact displaying undesirable colored response.

 

[Patrick Butler]

Patrick. The issue isn't whether sterephile's measurements are accurate. We don't know that because quite frankly no one here even bothers with garbage that reviews cables, or their methodologies, or even their measurements. I don't even consider them to be an independant third party. 2nd party would be more accurate. The fact is that whatever their review methods, which are surely standardized: the Viennas measured poorly. Not "all speakers measure poorly". I'm sure the exact same review method has had far more positive results for some speaker out there - and excellent "subjective performance" correlating to that.

What I know is, it's possible for a reviewer to get good measurements out of a loudspeaker and have that correlate to good performance.

Over here at audioholics, check out Tom Andry's review of the Salk HT2-TL or Gene's review of the $800 EMP Tek e55ti.

Given that their review methods proved favorable results for those speakers, would you still contend that Audioholics review methods would be greatly insufficient for any given Vienna Acoustics speaker should you submit it to them for a real review.

If so, then I would have to contend that the Vienna Acoustics speaker is what's insufficent. It's not a matter of some designs being more difficult to measure properly either. More difficult =/= impossible.

Surely, if you can get good measurements out of your speaker given your test conditions, then someone else can get good measurements given your test conditions. The only caveat is the validity of said test conditions. I'd contend that these publications, yes, even 2nd party ones like Stereophile, use valid test conditions - that yes, mic placement can alter effect, but determining proper mic positioning isn't rocket science.

If Stereophile's measurements in fact do not portray the right picture, then how can you argue that "independant third party measurements are more trustable than first-party measurements"? If Vienna Acoustics has internal measurements which show much more transparency than the Stereophile ones, which is possible given that you guys may have a better testing conditions, then what exactly is the flaw in displaying them/ making them public? The matter of "trusting a manufacturer" is moot considering many of us certainly don't trust these so-called 3rd parties.

The matter of "valid business choice" on the other hand suggests that because vienna acoustics' speakers measure poorly, displaying them would hurt the company. This in turn brings us right back to the very first page of this thread. The fact that there's plenty of poor measuring commercial speakers being sold - which are in fact displaying undesirable colored response.

Hey GranteedEV,

I think the real issue is that the measurements do not jive with the listening experience of the reviewer. Read the conclusion, and then look at the measurements. If you believe the measurements, he should have panned the product in the review. If you believe TLS guy, if he didn't pan the product and if people buy the product it is because they are fools fooled by a high priest. Naturally, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Some products will measure well with standardized measuring protocols, others will not. Products designed to sum at 50" on tweeter axis will have better measurements than products designed to sum at 108" at a point below the tweeter. That's a fact. In either case, the measurements do not always correlate with what is heard, and it is important as a consumer who reads reviews and attempts to interpret measurements to realize this. If you are interested in a speaker that has a suckout that can be measured and heard on the tweeters axis, but disappears when you sit down in a chair- it is important to know that as well.

I have an issue with the notion that if the product measures well and is well reviewed, then the review is validated by the measurements while if the product is well reviewed but measures poorly, surely the reviewer must have some agenda. As the axiom goes, if it measures well and sounds bad- you are measuring the wrong thing. If it sounds good and measures bad- you are still measuring the wrong thing.

What I respect about Stereophile's review process is that John lays it all out there when it comes to the limitations of measurements, the primacy of listening in deciding the value of something and the necessity of measurements in advancing the art. The question is not who has the best measurements, but rather who has the measurements that best describe what a listener will hear. Prediction. Ultimately, we do not publish measurements or put them in our advertisements because it is mostly irrelevant to the task of selling loudspeakers. Companies with great measurements like Infinity had to discontinue products because nobody wanted them even though in blind listening tests they were clearly preferred to everything else. Other companies like Dunlavy became irrelevant to most buyers and it was not the fault of their engineering. Still others like Vienna Acoustics, Wilson, Magico etc have published measurements that look less than perfect, yet continue to sell product quite well.

Best wishes,

Patrick

 

[Boerd]

............................
Ultimately, we do not publish measurements or put them in our advertisements because it is mostly irrelevant to the task of selling loudspeakers.
...........................
Still others like Vienna Acoustics, Wilson, Magico etc have published measurements that look less than perfect, yet continue to sell product quite well.

Best wishes,

Patrick

Patrick,

One other company that doesn't believe in measurements is AudioQuest - they sell cables with batteries reviewed somewhere on audioholics.
You're in the wrong forum Patrick - these guys from audioholics do take measurements seriously.
Just because you're able to sell products that measure mediocre doesn't make it good engineering.
If you decide to stay around audioholics forums (which I hope you do) please send the Music or Beethovens for review to these guys from audioholics.
PLEASE.
I can't wait to see a review.
Then convince them how measurements don't matter to the "task of selling speakers"

Sorry - it is hard to swallow this "good sound/engineering with mediocre measurements" thing.

 

[Alex2507]

I'm not understanding the problem.

With Stereophile? The problem is that if as an uninformed/budding audio enthusiast you can pick up that publication and walk away dumber than when you got there. I'm going to say it's like telling kids that 2+2=5. Yeah, on some level that is hilarious but you can rest assured that it pisses the kids off. However Stereophile's measurements are well regarded.

Thanks for mentioning that Infinity did well in blind tests. I bet they measured well too. I've got a bunch of Infinity stuff and I like knowing stuff like that. The fact that nobody wanted it explains all the Bose costumers.

 

[TLS Guy]

If you are a major manufacturer an anechoic chamber and rotating platform are or should be part of the price of entry.

However John D'Appolito has written extensively on Impulse measuring techniques such as CLIO that give excellent repeatable results without resorting to a chamber.

John Atkinson has provided quite sufficient evidence that the Beethoven speaker is way wide of being considered a reference speaker or even a good one.

Joseph D'Appolito does his measurements with close mic techniques and has written extensively on loudspeaker measurements.

The fact is they are important and lack of measurements is contributing to the free for all we have now, with very few good products available at any price range.

I regard the current state of the commercial loudspeaker scene as wholly unacceptable. It is unnecessarily degrading the performance of most systems. The consumers could get, and deserve a better deal.

 

[GranteedEV]

I regard the current state of the commercial loudspeaker scene as wholly unacceptable. It is unnecessarily degrading the performance of most systems. The consumers could get, and deserve a better deal.

As much as I fully agree with you that the average consumer does not deserve the garbage of speakers which industry passes as good, it`s a two-way street, though. The consumer in turn fails to put any real thought into the function of what they`re buying... and it`s not loudspeakers alone... it`s the entire electronics industry. The information does not exist because there is simply not enough demand for it. Most people I know still can`t comprehend my interest in Hi-Fidelity sound to begin with... being content with such audio masterpieces as these. and declaring them superior for `being 200 watts`.

As much as I want a revolution in the electronics industry, it doesn`t start with the professionals. It has to start at the consumer level. THere is always going to be capitalists, as you full well know. Only educating people properly on how poor their speakers are can create a de facto boycott of garbage. It would take someone influential, knowledgable on the subject, and widely scrutinized to catalyze this. It won`t be happening on internet forums.

 

[shadyJ]

If room and distance will throw the FR of even perfectly flat speakers out of whack at the listening position, why wouldn't Patrick have a good point? Since even the best measured speakers have to be EQ'd to achieve flatness at the listening position, how is that better than Vienna's speakers, which would also have to be EQ'd for a flat FR? As much as you can acoustically treat your room, no one here is casually enjoying to their speakers in an anechoic chamber.

 

[TLS Guy]

As much as I fully agree with you that the average consumer does not deserve the garbage of speakers which industry passes as good, it`s a two-way street, though. The consumer in turn fails to put any real thought into the function of what they`re buying... and it`s not loudspeakers alone... it`s the entire electronics industry. The information does not exist because there is simply not enough demand for it. Most people I know still can`t comprehend my interest in Hi-Fidelity sound to begin with... being content with such audio masterpieces as these. and declaring them superior for `being 200 watts`.

As much as I want a revolution in the electronics industry, it doesn`t start with the professionals. It has to start at the consumer level. THere is always going to be capitalists, as you full well know. Only educating people properly on how poor their speakers are can create a de facto boycott of garbage. It would take someone influential, knowledgable on the subject, and widely scrutinized to catalyze this. It won`t be happening on internet forums.

I agree with pretty much everything you have to say here. The problem is that as you can see from many posts, for many it's buy first and then buyers remorse.

Also a lot of people on these forums seem to be buying speakers sight unseen, which is another problem. I suspect they have little option with the damage the big box and Internet stores have done to local retailers.

 

[TLS Guy]

If room and distance will throw the FR of even perfectly flat speakers out of whack at the listening position, why wouldn't Patrick have a good point? Since even the best measured speakers have to be EQ'd to achieve flatness at the listening position, how is that better than Vienna's speakers, which would also have to be EQ'd for a flat FR? As much as you can acoustically treat your room, no one here is casually enjoying to their speakers in an anechoic chamber.

Good speakers stay coherent over a large listening area. I have pointed out before that speakers over fussy about room and placement issues have problems.

In this case though it is not just the FR graph that shows the severe problem at the mid/tweeter crossover, there is corroborating evidence as you will see if you read my discussion of the the measurements. That crossover has major flaws that show up multiple ways and ways that have nothing to do with mic placement and don't even require a microphone.

 

[haraldo]

I'd be very interested to see the VA Mahler or Music measured by Gene or Clint

 

[Alex2507]

I'd be very interested to see the VA Mahler or Music measured by Gene or Clint

Get use to disappointment.