Green Mountain Audio Europas

[rich121]

Where do these fanboys come from? Ive never heard of green mountain audio until this thread.

Well, I registered here over a year ago...

Rick

 

[highfigh]

Off topic....we are all different and evolving, at least those who I know usually are. so, a little, introduction...

I am different from most in that like many here, I have my Samsung 61" HD, Sony PS3, Samsung BD/DVD-HD combi player, against the wall between my C-3 speakers.

I have vintage gear to go with my system, Accuphase C-200X, HK Citation I, and VAC CPA-1 MKIII pre-amps, Citation II amp, and a nice Sansui AU-11000A/TU-9900/Celestion 11/ system in the basement.

Rick

If you don't like the way this thread was going, why didn't you start your own? To say this post is off-topic is odd, since all discussion of the GMA speakers ended as soon as you posted your complaints.

Just saying.

Care to show the systems (probably best in a separate thread, though)?

 

[KEW]

How about something positive, why can't Jerry call Roy, find out what Roy has to say about the "fix" and go from there?

Rick

Relax! Be happy!
That is the plan!

 

[Shakeydeal]

Where do these fanboys come from? Ive never heard of green mountain audio until this thread.

After seeing what generally gets discussed around here, I'm not surprised in the least.

Shakey

 

[Matt34]

After seeing what generally gets discussed around here, I'm not surprised in the least.

Shakey

Nah boss, we just simple folk in these parts. We's can't afford those audiophilly type speakers around heres, no sir.

 

[Shakeydeal]

You can take offense if you like, but none was intended. It is only factual that typically these are things that are discussed:

Receivers
HT processors
DVD players
main/center/surround/subwoofer
Pro sound equalizers/amps
Big Screen televisions

Now all this is pretty mainstream, not too much off the beaten path. You can go into your local big box store and see most of it. What GMA brings to the table is more esoteric and the target audience for the most part is more interested in high performance gear and listening in a dedicated room, not multichannel music or movies.

Call me snooty or whatever you like, that's pretty much factual. Are you telling me that the two can't coexist? I know that some systems that are owned here would be far more capable of reproducing movie soundtracks than my system. I don't mind admitting that at all. And mine would shame quite a few at two channel music reproduction. But let's just recognize each camp for their strengths and weaknesses, cause they both have each.

Shakey

 

[Matt34]

You can assume and generalize all you want about this forum, I'm not in the least bit interested in changing your mind.

My concern is when a bunch of new users (or company shills in some cases) sign up and post in one specific manufacture's thread, it raises red flags. I seriously roll my eyes when people place so much importance on products they have purchased that they will argue with other complete strangers on how good that product is until they are blue in the face on the internet.

My underwear costs $20/ea because I found it doesn't chaff when I run, that is value to ME..... I don't sign up on the Fruit of the Looms forums because someone there doesn't like my preferred brand of briefs.

 

[Shakeydeal]

I don't need to argue with anyone here "until I'm blue in the face" about how good GMA speakers sound. I have experienced it for myself. What is comical, however, is how many people here want to argue about how they can't sound good because of this or that when they have NOT heard the speakers.

Shakey

 

[digicidal]

What is comical, however, is how many people here want to argue about how they can't sound good because of this or that when they have NOT heard the speakers.

OK - not really giving a tiny rat's about this - but there is a large difference between commenting on something from a design perspective and trashing something without experience. For example: I can say that I would hate driving an SUV without actually driving one. I've driven a truck, a van, and a station wagon. No matter what the 'special feature' is - I can conclusively determine that I would not like driving an SUV without driving one.

If someone with prior experience with time/phase coherent speaker designs found them to be inferior or problematic - they also can conclusively determine that there would be problem with the GMA speakers based on this experience. However, what is going on here is that someone with DIRECT experience listening to the speakers has found there to be some flaws (depending on who you are - significant or not so significant).

There are dozens (probably hundreds) of people on here that love Klipsch speakers - I'm not one of them. I don't feel the need to preach to them in order to try to convert them to the "horns suck" camp - because their opinion is just as valid as mine is to the contrary. I've only heard a few Klipsch lines - and owned only two sets. That's all I need personally - no matter what I see on paper, no matter what the cost - I can conclusively say that I won't like the sound coming out of a Klipsch speaker.

Doesn't make me right, doesn't make them wrong - just the way my ears are 'tuned' I guess. What you are doing in this thread is proclaiming that if someone doesn't hear the perfection of an angelic choir from the heavens each time they send a signal to their GMA speakers... either their head is stupid or their equipment is broken. The problem with this is that the final verdict in this thread hasn't even been given yet! Couple that with the fact that measurements are involved and they seemed to bear out the subjective to some extent - and it's quite silly.

But then again - what do I know. I'm just another idiot without a pair of 'golden ears' that has a rather specific (read 'messed up') expectation of how a pair of speakers should sound, that doesn't always agree with the masses.

OK... not saying more, but just couldn't hold back seeing this thread go on and on since I joined. I'm gonna go buy an SUV now - because 10 million soccer moms can't be wrong!

 

[GO-NAD!]

You can take offense if you like, but none was intended. It is only factual that typically these are things that are discussed:

Receivers
HT processors
DVD players
main/center/surround/subwoofer
Pro sound equalizers/amps
Big Screen televisions

Now all this is pretty mainstream, not too much off the beaten path. You can go into your local big box store and see most of it. What GMA brings to the table is more esoteric and the target audience for the most part is more interested in high performance gear and listening in a dedicated room, not multichannel music or movies.

Call me snooty or whatever you like, that's pretty much factual. Are you telling me that the two can't coexist? I know that some systems that are owned here would be far more capable of reproducing movie soundtracks than my system. I don't mind admitting that at all. And mine would shame quite a few at two channel music reproduction. But let's just recognize each camp for their strengths and weaknesses, cause they both have each.

Shakey

You are correct, in that we typically discuss the items you listed. However, that does not mean exclusively, as evidenced by this thread. You may call such items "mainstream", but do not deceive yourself into thinking that we aren't interested in high performance, or that multi-channel systems are by definition, less than high-performance.

There may be some multi-channel systems owned by some forum members that could put your system to shame in 2-channel mode. Multi-channel capability does not necessarily mean compromised 2-channel performance.

What GMA brings to the table is more esoteric and the target audience for the most part is more interested in high performance gear and listening in a dedicated room, not multichannel music or movies.

Let's be clear about this: "esoteric" is not synonymous with "high-performance". It often means "snake oil", i.e. poor performance from an expensive, but badly designed product. I am not accusing GMA of falling into this camp. I've never heard a GMA speaker, so I cannot provide an opinion of one.

Many of the forum members' multi-channel systems are in dedicated rooms which have been designed and treated for optimum performance - 2-channel or multi-channel. That said, "dedicated room" is meaningless as a phrase, on its own. If you make an outhouse a "dedicated room", expect the performance to stink, along with the room.

 

[digicidal]

That said, "dedicated room" is meaningless as a phrase, on its own. If you make an outhouse a "dedicated room", expect the performance to stink, along with the room.

I'm pretty sure I've heard a couple of those - I know I've smelled them.

 

[TLS Guy]

I don't need to argue with anyone here "until I'm blue in the face" about how good GMA speakers sound. I have experienced it for myself. What is comical, however, is how many people here want to argue about how they can't sound good because of this or that when they have NOT heard the speakers.

Shakey

Look Shakey here are the problems.

I have never commented on the sound of the speaker.

I have given comments and insights into the basis of the design.

The laws of physics apply to me as well as Roy.

His design approach is going (yes, for certain) to lead to problems that are impossible to solve.

One thing I do know having designed speakers for over 50 years, is that if you concentrate on one problem to the exclusion of others you invariably get a speaker that is compromised in other parameters more than is necessary.

I have said many times that good speakers happen after a lot of thought and good judgment. You have to make the best of a bad job in many competing areas. That is to say you have to be constantly aware how solving one problem may aggravate others. So it all becomes a delicate balancing act to produce a speaker that will create a plausible and believable sound stage.

There is however a pecking order of problems.

The first is a smooth frequency response, especially in the mid band.

The next is a smooth off axis response that mirrors as closely as possible the on axis response, with as far as symmetrical lobing pattern.

Of course there are many others but I highlight these. Phase and time coherence is well down the pecking order, and there is abundant hard data on that not just my opinion. This is made even less pressing as I have pointed out that there are virtually no time and phase coherent sound sources. Again not opinion, but identifiable fact. So the whole concept of striving for phase and time coherence is called into question at the outset.

Now Roy's approach puts phase and time above the first two priorities. There is third party data on one of his designs that confirms the truth of this, and documented in a previous post on this thread. Do I have a problem with Roy's design approach? You bet, and I will stand my ground.

You on the other hand are giving a totally subjective and anecdotal opinion, which has to carry lees weight.

You can continue the argument on this basis but it won't advance your cause.

 

[digicidal]

...
The first is a smooth frequency response, especially in the mid band.

The next is a smooth off axis response that mirrors as closely as possible the on axis response, with as far as symmetrical lobing pattern.
...

Which is exactly why I love a couple of my single-driver fostex speakers and think they sound fantastic! However, you won't ever find me arguing that these are inherently superior to multi-driver designs... because they simply are not. No matter how perfectly flat they may be in the mid-band or how consistent this remains as you move off-asis - there is no denying that they basically have nothing over 14kHz and next to nothing before 120Hz, and what is there is all over the place.

For certain things (female vocals for instance) I would gladly put them up against $15K full-range exotics - for everything else I would hide them in the closet and pretend I didn't know them.

I think that's the real issue here - Shakey's point seems to be from the "measurements can't describe experience" camp. Which on one hand, I'm inclined to agree with. I also love the 'Tube Warmth' - however, unlike Shakey - I don't consider it 'better' or 'right' - in fact quite the opposite. I fully admit that it is 'wrong' in every way except the way in which my brain interprets that distortion and HF rolloff. That being said, I make sure that a tube-fed, single-driver loudspeaker is NOT the only thing I try to experience.

Part of that is because although I do not always understand the math and physics involved - and despite a belief in things that exist BEYOND our current understandings of math and physics - I completely believe that given enough data and thorough understanding of anything in the physical world... it can be completely quantified and measured using them. And that people like TLS (who obviously has much, much more thorough understanding of the subject of sound wave reproduction than I) will validate the findings of others and through collaboration and deduction - hopefully find standards and practices that will advance the availability of the end result for all of us.

I guess a better way of putting it would be:

1) I believe that not everything experienced can be measured.
2) I also most certainly believe that everything that can be heard can in fact be measured.

To argue that there is some aspect of sound that the limited faculties of the human ear (even that of a child) can hear that is not measurable, or worse yet - defies observable science... is lunacy. Now on the other hand, if you were arguing that the GMA Europas were better because they looked fantastic and that their sound made you personally feel that much more 'attached' to the music you listen to - I would just a vehemently defend that position over someone that said aesthetics shouldn't have any bearing on how you feel about a speaker because it isn't sound. (Although from a purely scientific standpoint they would be right).

However, saying that you are hearing something that cannot be measured and yet should, without a doubt, be the final subjective conclusion of everyone else in the world... well... I don't know about that one.

 

[rich121]

Your not listening!

Come on, lets be fair and LISTEN to others for a change, ok?

I have commented in many of my posts in this thread, which no one seems to listen to, they rather talk down a design or company.

FACT #1:

These speakers are USED AND AGED
Jerry is NOT the original owner, so he does NOT know their history for sure.

FACT #2:

Jerry reported DAMAGE from shpping.
Who knows what these speakers went through during shippment...who knows, there could have been changes internally to the speakers themselves.

To judge a whole company by a pair of speakers that were at the bottom of their line with the above FACTS, and to not even call and talk to the gracious company owner, who said he could tell him how to "fix" whatever problem their was, after saying he would call over a month ago is ridiculous.

Because of the above, this thread as far as a "Review" of the Europa speaker line, has no credibility....it is only credible as a Review of this particular pair of speakers.

Rick

 

[jostenmeat]

Come on, lets be fair and LISTEN to others for a change, ok?

I have commented in many of my posts in this thread, which no one seems to listen to, they rather talk down a design or company.

FACT #1:

These speakers are USED AND AGED
Jerry is NOT the original owner, so he does NOT know their history for sure.

FACT #2:

Jerry reported DAMAGE from shpping.
Who knows what these speakers went through during shippment...who knows, there could have been changes internally to the speakers themselves.

To judge a whole company by a pair of speakers that were at the bottom of their line with the above FACTS, and to not even call and talk to the gracious company owner, who said he could tell him how to "fix" whatever problem their was, after saying he would call over a month ago is ridiculous.

Because of the above, this thread as far as a "Review" of the Europa speaker line, has no credibility....it is only credible as a Review of this particular pair of speakers.

Rick

Again, who are you addressing? If TLS Guy, then you are utterly missing his point. If it's me, I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. If it's Jerry, why would you speak of him in the third person . . .

If you're addressing ALL of us, well maybe you're not listening.

I don't think anyone took this too seriously as a proper review. It is however interesting to learn more about speaker design choices, thanks to forum discussion.

 

[GranteedEV]

Receivers
HT processors
DVD players
main/center/surround/subwoofer
Pro sound equalizers/amps
Big Screen televisions

Now all this is pretty mainstream, not too much off the beaten path. You can go into your local big box store and see most of it. What GMA brings to the table is more esoteric and the target audience for the most part is more interested in high performance gear and listening in a dedicated room, not multichannel music or movies.

Call me snooty or whatever you like, that's pretty much factual.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qXYjBxnteA2)

Not factual, just elitist

 

[3db]

I hope Jerry comes along soon (no pressure Jerry ) with a review to finally put some closure on this thread. Off course, the GMA proponents will pull out there audiophile golden ears trump card ( so they claim anyway )

I will hand it to Roy... He is being patient and proffessional in this whole thread whether or not people agree on the GMA design. I take my hat off to Roy for being the consumate professional.

 

[Kitsum]

Why Roy wants to give Jerry "the fix" in private? Can Jerry describe the problem here with some pics if necessary, and Roy follow with the fix in public? I don't see the point of a phone call in this case.

 

[RoyJ]

Time coherence

Look Shakey here are the problems.

I have never commented on the sound of the speaker.

I have given comments and insights into the basis of the design.

The laws of physics apply to me as well as Roy.

His design approach is going (yes, for certain) to lead to problems that are impossible to solve.

I appreciate how you believe this, for you are not alone. Since you attack my design philosophy so directly, then allow me to be very specific about those problems you cite below.

I hope you will be just as specific in any response or question. I am sure this will be educational about speakers for anyone, given your background as well, thanks very much.

There is however a pecking order of problems.
The first is a smooth frequency response, especially in the mid band.

I agree completely TLS, and I have already pointed out some of the measurement problems that arise with each placement of the mic relative to the speaker, to the room, and to the ears.

Those lead to errors, and the solution as you may know is to combine many different ways of measuring to determine if the frequency response is indeed smooth.

Each type of measurement is useful only in a certain tone range at a particular distance, and I explained the physics behind the problems in that Letter on the Trouble with Measuring Speakers to sixmoons I wrote. I can send you the link if you need it.

Then, as end users, we should all listen for a smooth response, by using the 'lifelong-familiar' sounds found in the midband, especially voices. Those are our best audible references for what happens above and below.

I know our speakers have very smooth responses, measurably and audibly. I've taken the liberty of sending you the (anechoic half-space) frequency response of Europa's raw woofer, for comparison to any other woofer/mid on the market. Darned smooth. Best I've seen to date.

The next is a smooth off axis response that mirrors as closely as possible the on axis response, with as far as symmetrical lobing pattern.

Agreed, and I would add that there is no perceived lobing pattern on our speakers on music.

Of course there are many others but I highlight these. Phase and time coherence is well down the pecking order, and there is abundant hard data on that not just my opinion.

That pecking order is your opinion. What many fail to consider is the abundant hard data that the time-domain aspect of hearing complex sounds evolving and decaying is extremely important to their perception and subsequent interpretation.

This [time-coherence for speakers] is made even less pressing as I have pointed out that there are virtually no time and phase coherent sound sources. Again not opinion, but identifiable fact. So the whole concept of striving for phase and time coherence is called into question at the outset.

I am sorry, but you are completely wrong about the time-domain aspect of the sources being lost in mixing. This is not because you are stupid or were somehow misinformed, but that 'time' is being confused with 'phase', an exceedingly common error. I'd be happy to explain why, as this seems to be your main reason 'not to bother' with making a speaker time-coherent.

I heard how important time-coherence was precisely because I'd heard it on electrostatic headphones and then in our speakers, but only after I'd gotten rid of many other issues that stood in the way of hearing it.

This is why Shakey and others were so adamant about being pleased with what they were hearing on any music, because all of us, as humans, hear the same improvements when the time-domain is not scrambled. Sonic events are faster, clearer, more distinct, more subtle, more surprising, more graceful, more dynamic, and sometime more forward than expected.

I was certainly surprised to find that we need 100 times better time-coherence on music than what others have claimed from their test-tone and single musical-instrument experiments.

Now Roy's approach puts phase and time above the first two priorities. There is third party data on one of his designs that confirms the truth of this, and documented in a previous post on this thread. Do I have a problem with Roy's design approach? You bet, and I will stand my ground.

So you think I put time-coherence above a smooth frequency response and dispersion without lobing. No.

All three are nearly equal in importance to me. Stereophile's assessment of my efforts had serious flaws in the measurement technique, not readily apparent in their review. I would be happy to explain what was being done wrong, and I'm sure you would agree.

I hope you get to hear our speakers someday! Thank you for your thoughts, now and in advance.

Best regards,
Roy

 

[RoyJ]

Why Roy wants to give Jerry "the fix" in private? Can Jerry describe the problem here with some pics if necessary, and Roy follow with the fix in public? I don't see the point of a phone call in this case.

Good question, but the 'fix' may likely depend on his physical setup and his room's acoustics (about which he has already complained). To best assist, I need a phone call and some photos. No secrets.

Best,
Roy