Vienna Acoustics Music

[KEW]

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.

Perhaps such an anomaly as we have here with Audioholics' honest reviews of audio gear is not too bad of a start?

No doubt the prose of may magazines discussing how chocolaty the sound of component X is will always build a following, but as time passes and the internet continues to become the mainstream media format and with articles like the forthcoming "Ultimate Subwoofer Shootout" to capture the average "wanna buy a nice stereo" Joe's mouse clicks, there is room for progress.

I think the Audio magazines who act as if they are unbiased are the real villain here.
So we ask why are measurements so important? Because despite the lack of reliability of anything written in the article, data such as JA's gives us truth. It may not be the ideal format (I would much rather see the conclusion of the article addressing the true pros and cons of a particular component), but it is the only thing we have.

Personally, I have listened to or own enough of the components Audioholics has reviewed to respect their articles as honest. I have experienced the short comings and the strengths they portray, rarely finding problems not detected in the review, even after several weeks. That means a lot to me.

 

[3db]

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'.

I think Stereophiles measurements are considered in the near field eliminating room reflections from skewing the measurements. This IHO is a correct way of measuring as no one's room acoustics are even remotely the same. My measuring near field, the only variable becomes the speaker and perhaps the floor but not the walls.

 

[TLS Guy]

I think Stereophiles measurements are considered in the near field eliminating room reflections from skewing the measurements. This IHO is a correct way of measuring as no one's room acoustics are even remotely the same. My measuring near field, the only variable becomes the speaker and perhaps the floor but not the walls.

The greater the distance the more the room will interfere.
John Atkinson is following very closely Joe D'Appolito's advice. His stature by far aces Dunlav's.

 

[haraldo]

There's different opinions about validity of Stereophile's measuring processes, The late John Dunlavy was not so happy with these.... Pat McGinty of Meadowlark Audio was even more critical, there's probably many opinions about this....

When I auditioned Mahler I compared them to a whold bunch of speakers on the market here, I am quite allergic to resonances and deviations and such big deviations as shown in Stereophile measurements are very clearly audible... I regard these measurments of Mahler as very questionable....

There are others who have measured Mahler to be quite linear, I have seen measurements of these being almost ruler flat except for the bass... they may be quite bass heavy in smaller rooms....
http://www.viennaacoustics.at/reviews/Heritage_Mahler/Stereoplay_MAHLER_Germany_199906.pdf
(Well still not perfectly flat according to Stereoplay)

I think it's strange to read bombastic comments about speakers based on questionable measurements and about speakers people have not listened to....

I had the opportunity to verify against Duntech PCL-15's that are +/- less than 2 dB from 80Hz to 20 KHz, those speakers do not play load but are extremely linear.... and at not loud levels plays music as musical as I have ever heard from any speakers....

The list of speakers that I auditioned includes:
Dynaudio Contour S3.4, Audio Physic Spark III, Audio Physic Tempo IV, Von Schweikert vr4 Jr and Sr, Meadowlark Kestrel 2, Vienna acoustics Beethoven, Dynabel S33, Avalon Ascendant, Vienna acoustics Mahler, Audio Physic Virgo III, Audio Physic Avanti III, Dynaudio Contour S5.4, Audio Physic Avanti III + 4 * Audio Physic Minos subwoofers, Dynabel Euforia, Mårten Design Miles III, Audiovector S6 Avantgarde, Bowers & Wilkins Nautilus 801, Bowers & Wilkins Nautilus 802, Bowers & Wilkins Nautilus 802d, Bowers & Wilkins Nautilus 803, Bowers & Wilkins Nautilus 804, Revel Performa F50, Respons Grande Artist, Energy Veritas V 2.8, Proac Future Point two... (more recently also some others including Avalon Acoustics Indra)

And in my opinion.... Out of which Generally, the Von Schweikert, Audio Physic models, Dynaudio S3.4 and Vienna Acoustics Mahler clearly was the most natural speakers... all the other ones had more or less colorations, resonances or other deviations... worst ones was in my oppinion the higly regarded B&W and Avalon Acoustics speakers.....

So are the Mahler's so horrible speakers as many around here believe... it's up to you to have your opinion... I have my opinion
Amongst the speakers mentioned above, they are probably the best of the bunch......

So it's one out of two:
- Either my hearing is horribly skewed, or
- The Mahler's are fantastic speakers

One out of the two above is correct, wonder which?

I think Stereophiles measurements are considered in the near field eliminating room reflections from skewing the measurements. This IHO is a correct way of measuring as no one's room acoustics are even remotely the same. My measuring near field, the only variable becomes the speaker and perhaps the floor but not the walls.

Well yes, if the speaker allows for this but many speakers are not coherent at this distance... and if you blindly measure at tweeter axis you may not get the correct balance... some speakers will not jist sound correct like this.... ref previous discussion about Dynaudio Consequence UE

JA has to measure this way coz he doesn't want to measure his room but the speakers

 

[3db]

Well yes, if the speaker allows for this but many speakers are not coherent at this distance... and if you blindly measure at tweeter axis you may not get the correct balance... some speakers will not jist sound correct like this.... ref previous discussion about Dynaudio Consequence UE

JA has to measure this way coz he doesn't want to measure his room but the speakers

Coherent in what way? Also, do you not listen to your speakers on axes? Think of all the tower designs that aim the tweeters at ear height while at the sitting position. The anomolie you read in Stereophile about the Vieena speakers may have been a duffed measurement for all we know.

One thing I might add..if you like the Mahlers but they don't measure well according to some magazine, does that really matter to you? Hell I would enjoy them if I were you and turn a blind eye to all of this. To put it another way, I love vinyl recordings and prefer it over most CDs because I like the involvement it brings. People can tell me to the moon and back the inaccuracies of vinyl but that doesn't diminish by enjoyment of this medium at all.

 

[haraldo]

Coherent in what way? Also, do you not listen to your speakers on axes? Think of all the tower designs that aim the tweeters at ear height while at the sitting position. The anomolie you read in Stereophile about the Vieena speakers may have been a duffed measurement for all we know.

One thing I might add..if you like the Mahlers but they don't measure well according to some magazine, does that really matter to you? Hell I would enjoy them if I were you and turn a blind eye to all of this. To put it another way, I love vinyl recordings and prefer it over most CDs because I like the involvement it brings. People can tell me to the moon and back the inaccuracies of vinyl but that doesn't diminish by enjoyment of this medium at all.

Coherent in which way.... I'm not skilled enough to explain this but late John Dunlavy explained this in manufacturer's comments on the review of Dunlavy SC IV, now the Dunlavy's are designed very very different from the Mahler's so the effect's that's relevant for these speakers may not be relevant for others.....

If I really like speakers I don't care at all what magazines write about them and.... I was a dedicated Stereophile subscriber, but lost my interest in them, perhaps also some of my respect for them... But please be awara that my criticality to Stereophile measurements doesn't really mean that JA does a bad job.... hell no, an anechoic chamber is way out of reach from what Stereophile can get hold of, guess it's way too expensive....

Perhaps it's time to get Mahler or The Music later
Read somewhere that distortion in critical midrange area is much less in Vinyl than on redbook CD

I was very close to get the Mahler's .... kind of made up my mind but I didn't have money for them then

Perhaps it's time to get Mahler or The Music later.... if Peter can give me a good offer

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?

As mentioned in a previous post by me JA has to do it this way or he will just measure his own room

 

[haraldo]

You probably mean Patrick ... but his realm is North America. You never know though.

No I mean Peter (Gangsterer)
But he's the designer, not the reseller.....

 

[Patrick Butler]

I'll give you my two cents advice on reviews. First, they are all biased. Some people make their biases clear to readers, some people don't. All the same, it is a condition of being human and it exists in writings about history, economics and audio. Second, you have to be a bit crazy to write professionally about audio. While I don't mean that in an institutional sense, people who stake their livelihoods on writing about audio products are passionate and committed people who could be working in any number of professions that offer greater monetary rewards and less obscurity.

Best wishes,

Patrick

 

[Boerd]

I'll give you my two cents advice on reviews. First, they are all biased. Some people make their biases clear to readers, some people don't. All the same, it is a condition of being human and it exists in writings about history, economics and audio. Second, you have to be a bit crazy to write professionally about audio. While I don't mean that in an institutional sense, people who stake their livelihoods on writing about audio products are passionate and committed people who could be working in any number of professions that offer greater monetary rewards and less obscurity.

Best wishes,

Patrick

Well - at least we agree on one thing - one gets crazy (in a pasionate and any other sense but not institutional sense) to get into hifi.
Hey - I agree with you (I'm there )
BUT - clearly stated measurements (and conditions of the measurements) are not part of the subjectiveness in any review
So pleeease send some VA gear for review to audioholics.com

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I'll give you my two cents advice on reviews. First, they are all biased. Some people make their biases clear to readers, some people don't. All the same, it is a condition of being human and it exists in writings about history, economics and audio. Second, you have to be a bit crazy to write professionally about audio. While I don't mean that in an institutional sense, people who stake their livelihoods on writing about audio products are passionate and committed people who could be working in any number of professions that offer greater monetary rewards and less obscurity.

Best wishes,

Patrick

Patrick,

so I assume that giving too much details like on-axis & off-axis frequency response will somehow hurt the sales number in the long run?

I guess market research has shown this effect?

 

[Patrick Butler]

Hi AcuDefTechGuy,

I'm not aware of any studies done on the topic, but then I've not been looking for any either. During my last twelve years selling Vienna Acoustics I have received a request for more detailed technical information beyond what is published on our website exactly once. This was for a sales area that covers all of Canada outside of Vancouver and all of New England including New York City. Further, it was my experience in retail and continues to be my experience that most consumers get more confused that deeper you go technically into loudspeaker design.

I remember during my early sales days at Tweeter in 1994 (back when they were a specialty chain) losing any number of sales by getting too technical and trying to educate customers beyond the point where they had interest. Turned out that I was dead wrong, and after eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for most meals during my first six months on the sales floor, I decided I should change my tact with customers unless I wanted to continue barely getting by. It was at that point that I learned that a customer's listening experience validated the technology and not the other way around.

The resulting change in my thinking had a practical application in going from situations where people asked "what do you think about Bose" and my standard response of "crap" to "they have the best marketing in the industry, but if you want to hear something really special- you should come with me." You know what? My sales increased and I had many more happy customers. The people who needed the validation of buying Bose bought the product and were happy. The people who discovered that there was so much more to Audio than they expected bought something that they never even considered and were thrilled.

So how does all of this apply to what Vienna Acoustics is doing? If you need measurements, there are some available online from many and varied sources. Have they done anything for our sales that I can quantify? Who knows. What I can say is that we continue to grow, the people who like what we are doing buy our products and Peter continues to impress my with his creativity and holistic approach to design. My advice continues to be buy what you love, and if you don't then you probably won't be satisfied long term.

Best,

Patrick

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Patrick,

Are the Frequency Response in the on-line brochures +/-3dB?

 

[Boerd]

Patrick,

Are the Frequency Response in the on-line brochures +/-3dB?

The (ambiguous) way they are posted IS VERY MISLEADING.
Looking at measurements in ANY review one can see they (V/A) LIE. The sort of "half" true - we are not saying how in the world we got these numbers but nobody else can get the same numbers...
Best example of "measurements are subjective"...
Of course they are subjective when you do not post the clear and complete conditions.
When I bought my Beetovens I looked on sumikoaudio.net (the distributor in US at the time) for the specs and I thought - they're pretty good.
Later (too late, I should have known better) I realized the specs posted are what Patrick calls "subjective" (a lie, a bunch of bull).
The most favorable measurement for Beethovens shows 10 db swing in the 1khz-3khz range. 500$ speakers from any honest manufacturer will beat that.

 

[Patrick Butler]

The (ambiguous) way they are posted IS VERY MISLEADING.
Looking at measurements in ANY review one can see they (V/A) LIE. The sort of "half" true - we are not saying how in the world we got these numbers but nobody else can get the same numbers...
Best example of "measurements are subjective"...
Of course they are subjective when you do not post the clear and complete conditions.
When I bought my Beetovens I looked on sumikoaudio.net (the distributor in US at the time) for the specs and I thought - they're pretty good.
Later (too late, I should have known better) I realized the specs posted are what Patrick calls "subjective" (a lie, a bunch of bull).
The most favorable measurement for Beethovens shows 10 db swing in the 1khz-3khz range. 500$ speakers from any honest manufacturer will beat that.

Hi Boerd,

The quoted spec is 28-22000. Did you read something that I did not on Sumiko's site? You also might want to take a look at that review again and compare the "quasi anechoic" response versus the in-room response in Michael's room. They are a bit different, particularly the lack of a "10db swing."

Let's say we posted a 28-22000 spec with +/-3db. You still wouldn't know where the speaker is +3db or -3db unless you had a response graph. Even if you had one you still would only get part of the picture because the on axis frequency response measurement is one component of what you hear in a room, but not the entire picture. Part of the limitation in relying on a particular measurement such as on axis response is that off axis horizontal and vertical measurements are not taken into consideration, nor is finding out where a designer intended a product to perform optimally. And this is before we even begin to talk about the room.

Now I'm curious about your past system. Evidently you thought highly enough of your Beethoven Baby Grands to purchase them, a Primare I21 and an R-505, all equipment that I am familiar with. What was it about the sound of the system that you liked when you purchased the system?

Best wishes,

Patrick

 

[Boerd]

Hi Boerd,

The quoted spec is 28-22000. Did you read something that I did not on Sumiko's site? You also might want to take a look at that review again and compare the "quasi anechoic" response versus the in-room response in Michael's room. They are a bit different, particularly the lack of a "10db swing."

Let's say we posted a 28-22000 spec with +/-3db. You still wouldn't know where the speaker is +3db or -3db unless you had a response graph. Even if you had one you still would only get part of the picture because the on axis frequency response measurement is one component of what you hear in a room, but not the entire picture. Part of the limitation in relying on a particular measurement such as on axis response is that off axis horizontal and vertical measurements are not taken into consideration, nor is finding out where a designer intended a product to perform optimally. And this is before we even begin to talk about the room.

Now I'm curious about your past system. Evidently you thought highly enough of your Beethoven Baby Grands to purchase them, a Primare I21 and an R-505, all equipment that I am familiar with. What was it about the sound of the system that you liked when you purchased the system?

Best wishes,

Patrick

I'll try to keep it short and positive (talking about VA Beethovens ONLY)

1. killer built quality from drivers and cabinet to binding posts. NOBODY cannot notice that
2. a lot of details at low/mid volume - on par with more expensive gear but not as good as some planars (at low/mid volume)
3. killer looks - all my friends liked them

And - I thought "they're Austrian, these guys MUST know a thing or two about music".

I will not repeat (other) things I said before.

 

[Alex2507]

Now I'm curious about your past system. What was it about the sound of the system that you liked when you purchased the system?

You sir are slicker than Greg Gable ... and that is some slick.

 

[TLS Guy]

There's different opinions about validity of Stereophile's measuring processes, The late John Dunlavy was not so happy with these.... Pat McGinty of Meadowlark Audio was even more critical, there's probably many opinions about this....

When I auditioned Mahler I compared them to a whold bunch of speakers on the market here, I am quite allergic to resonances and deviations and such big deviations as shown in Stereophile measurements are very clearly audible... I regard these measurments of Mahler as very questionable....

There are others who have measured Mahler to be quite linear, I have seen measurements of these being almost ruler flat except for the bass... they may be quite bass heavy in smaller rooms....
http://www.viennaacoustics.at/reviews/Heritage_Mahler/Stereoplay_MAHLER_Germany_199906.pdf
(Well still not perfectly flat according to Stereoplay)

I think it's strange to read bombastic comments about speakers based on questionable measurements and about speakers people have not listened to....

I had the opportunity to verify against Duntech PCL-15's that are +/- less than 2 dB from 80Hz to 20 KHz, those speakers do not play load but are extremely linear.... and at not loud levels plays music as musical as I have ever heard from any speakers....

The list of speakers that I auditioned includes:
Dynaudio Contour S3.4, Audio Physic Spark III, Audio Physic Tempo IV, Von Schweikert vr4 Jr and Sr, Meadowlark Kestrel 2, Vienna acoustics Beethoven, Dynabel S33, Avalon Ascendant, Vienna acoustics Mahler, Audio Physic Virgo III, Audio Physic Avanti III, Dynaudio Contour S5.4, Audio Physic Avanti III + 4 * Audio Physic Minos subwoofers, Dynabel Euforia, Mårten Design Miles III, Audiovector S6 Avantgarde, Bowers & Wilkins Nautilus 801, Bowers & Wilkins Nautilus 802, Bowers & Wilkins Nautilus 802d, Bowers & Wilkins Nautilus 803, Bowers & Wilkins Nautilus 804, Revel Performa F50, Respons Grande Artist, Energy Veritas V 2.8, Proac Future Point two... (more recently also some others including Avalon Acoustics Indra)

And in my opinion.... Out of which Generally, the Von Schweikert, Audio Physic models, Dynaudio S3.4 and Vienna Acoustics Mahler clearly was the most natural speakers... all the other ones had more or less colorations, resonances or other deviations... worst ones was in my oppinion the higly regarded B&W and Avalon Acoustics speakers.....

So are the Mahler's so horrible speakers as many around here believe... it's up to you to have your opinion... I have my opinion
Amongst the speakers mentioned above, they are probably the best of the bunch......

So it's one out of two:
- Either my hearing is horribly skewed, or
- The Mahler's are fantastic speakers

One out of the two above is correct, wonder which?



Well yes, if the speaker allows for this but many speakers are not coherent at this distance... and if you blindly measure at tweeter axis you may not get the correct balance... some speakers will not jist sound correct like this.... ref previous discussion about Dynaudio Consequence UE

JA has to measure this way coz he doesn't want to measure his room but the speakers

I have been away from this thread for a while.

I see we are now onto the measurements of the Mahler from those of the Beethoven.

When I went to review the Mahler measurements, I see that it was the Mahler's that Terry at Hi-Fi sound asked my opinion about.

The thing that dominated those speakers was the very tubby bass that clouded everything. Also there was a lack of detail, I also did not care for the sound of the high strings. A lot of this wight well have been due to the bass dominance. This is the type of bass in a speaker that I abhor, and the speakers sounded to me as if the total system Q was far too high,

This is the first time I have looked at measurements. The measurements are a not better than the Beethoven, but a disappointment for a 10K speaker.

The frequency response curve only partially explains the sloppy bass performance. There is a peak around 100 Hz and peaks here don't have to be very high to be highly objectionable. I suspect however that a high total Q is the main reason for the bass presentation. This is likely because of the low frequency of the passive crossover. I have never had success with low frequency (below 350 Hz) passive crossovers. The components inserted between amp and driver badly upset driver Q and tuning. I never got a a good result with this and never was satisfied to use it in a completed system. I abandoned even trying 25 years ago and determined that if you want a crossover that low, then a speaker must be at least partially active.

There is a suck out at the mid tweeter crossover, however it is very narrow and probably not highly audible,

Of greater significance is the fact that the tweeter is reverse phased. Now in these days of multichannel audio, designing crossovers to avoid a driver phase reversal is crucial. The reason being is that those drivers will then be out of phase with other speakers in the system that do not have phase reversal. Remember you reverse phase a driver to correct phase at crossover, however above crossover phase is reversed and so will cause phase problems with the rest of the system. This issue prevents auto Eq systems doing working correctly. So in this day and age it is something to be avoided.

The waterfall plot is a long way from as bad as it gets, but not stellar for a speakers of this price.

There is a significant discontinuity in associated with the mid/tweeter crossover and a little excess HF energy. This probably accounts for the fact that I did not like the sound of the high strings.

In the room I was auditioning it against a range of B & W speakers, the best of which was the 802D. There was also a range of Dynaudio speakers. The Mahler in my view was odd man out to the other speakers.

By way of comparison here is a waterfall plot of the B & W 802D

There is slight discontinuity just above the mid/tweeter crossover of 4 kHz. You always get the odd glitch. However it is s superior plot to the Mahler.

There were three of us auditioning and all three of us regarded the sound of the 802D superior by a highly significant margin. Granted the 802D was slightly higher in price but not by much.

 

[haraldo]

Well we are allowed to have different opinions

 

[Patrick Butler]

Ah. Back to a discussion about measurements. Here are a few Mahler measurements to peruse. The first is an additional measurement from Stereophile from the same review in 2000 that TLS noted before as well as a quote from JA:

"However, the Mahler's tweeter is high, some 47" from the floor, and I suspected that the speaker's designer had aimed the primary axis below the tweeter. This is confirmed by fig.4, which shows the Mahler's family of responses in the vertical plane. As long as the listener sits with his or her head level with the midrange units, he or she will perceive a basically flat response."

The second image is quite small (100kb limit), and dates back to 1999 when Mahler was introduced, courtesy of Stereoplay. You'll notice that they also placed the microphone in front of the mid-range drivers "listening height" and produced a measurement similar to Stereophile above. The waterfall plot also looks different because it was taken from the same place, not the tweeter height.


So why did JA take measurements from the Tweeter? "I always take my primary measurement on a speaker's tweeter axis for consistency."

Best,

Patrick

 

[haraldo]

You probably used the Wrong equipment for auditioning Mahler, it need very good amplification....

Well I heard the bass from the Mahler's being sloppy and poor, but that's the case if the amplifier is unable to keep the basses under control
Using a pair of Electrocompaniet AW180 made them sound not good at all, sloppy and poor bass
Changing to Electrocompaniet Nemo (AW600) which is much more powerful and with lower output impedance changed this dramatically, with the Nemo blocks the bass from Mahler is out of this world quality