Green Mountain Audio Europas

[rich121]

I'm curious to know your speaker company?

Rick

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]

He may not reply to you but I will - what difference does that make?

Are you saying because a chemist works in a lab researching a cure for cancer but does not own and operate a pharmaceutical company that their research is any less valid?

Just curious as to what your opinion is here. It seems obvious from your post that you are trying to imply that if TLS is not the secret forum account for Paul Barton or Joe D'Appolito then he can't possibly know anything of value. I spent all of my years in higher education studying architecture and fine arts - I have worked for 20 years in IT as a systems administrator and application developer. Are you saying that I know nothing about color theory or impressionism or girder stressing under various wind conditions?

I, and I think most here (despite your assumptions), don't think Roy must be wrong simply because you and he both use some very suspect terms in describing the superiority of his speakers. At least in Roy's case he seems to have a reasonable approach - however, your motivation is confusing.

Anyway, although I don't know TLS from Adam - based on the posts he's made and the equipment he has in his media room... I'm going to assume that he's worked (or perhaps is currently working - don't know how old he is either) as a recording engineer or studio systems integrator and along the way has come across multiple situations in which a custom solution has been deemed a better fit than an off-the-shelf solution. I can relate to this since I never wanted to become a programmer... I just got sick of getting crap back from sub-contractors and decided to 'roll my own'.

I know for a fact that there are hundreds of people I've met on various forums that I consider to be at least as knowledgeable if not much more so than the presidents and founders of many successful audio companies. In fact I know of about 3 guys in Denmark that if they ever decided to start building amplifiers as a business I would sell my car to buy whatever they were selling... but as one of them is a MD, one is a professor, and the other owns a retail outlet (but not for electronics) - I'm not holding my breath.

I'm not really picking sides here - perhaps the GMA speakers are truly the greatest single loudspeaker design on the face of the earth. However, there are many things in the discussion that I consider 'red flags'. Perhaps there is innovation here, and perhaps not. The real question is that if it is so obviously wrong (other speaker designs) - then why is it that almost none of the speakers designed by companies with truly deep pockets (Focal, Sonus Faber, Wilson, etc...) are designed that way? And why must a different and very specific testing methodology be applied so that these speakers test positively and (assumedly) then all others will test poorly.

True innovation does show itself from time to time, and often from the hard work and dedication of a single individual - however, rarely does it take special glasses for everyone else to see it once it's presented.

 

[majorloser]

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

Rick

November 16, 2009

24 total post of which 16 are in this thread

 

[TLS Guy]

Its no secret on these forums that I'm a retired ICU physician. I'm posting from a hospital room today following a flare up of my longstanding current problem.

I have build many speakers over the years including a time and phase aligned set, above 180 Hz anyway.

I have made many professional recordings over the years, especially for the ND Public Radio system.

I could and did make many phase and time aligned recordings. So that was the motivation behind the time aligned set. It was the most difficult design that took 10 years.

It is not a path I choose to go down again even though the speakers have been in the end successful.

The real big issue is the lack of phase and time coherent recordings, and that alone makes the design of phase and time aligned speakers a questionable endeavor as far as its application.

Consumers forget far too often that the recording process is over 50% of the ball of wax. This is a case in point as there is no way a phase and time coherent speaker can correct a recording full of time and phase anomalies. The vast majority of recordings are awash in phase and timing errors.

Really that fact alone makes this discussion interesting and entertaining but of dubious relevance.

 

[KEW]

Roy,
Below is your response to TLS Guy (bold is mine):

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.

About here I was getting very interested because, I, clearly, do not have a good understanding of the differences between time and phase coherency.
It would be great if you could explain the differences!

 

[TLS Guy]

Roy,
Below is your response to TLS Guy (bold is mine):


About here I was getting very interested because, I, clearly, do not have a good understanding of the differences between time and phase coherency.
It would be great if you could explain the differences!

The situation is like this. If you have a group with several mics spread around a group of musicians making a recording, the mic nearest the instrument in question will have the loudest signal from what instrument is in front of it. Unless the musicians are in an isolation chamber every mic will hear every instrument, but with varying intensity depending on location. There will be varying time delays to all the other mics depending on the distance from various instruments. Those are time delays which can be calculated for every instrument for every mic which is a function of the distance from various sources and the speed of sound.

Now the phase of a note from any particular instrument source will be random depending on the position of the cycle it hits the diaphragms of the various mics, that is the phase shift.

You can only make a time and phase coherent recoding with a single pair of figure of 8 or cardioid mic one right above the other at right angles.

Any other arrangement will have time and phase shifts.

Then there is dummy head recoding where mics are placed in the ear canals of a dummy head. Then time and phase are as they would be for a human head. This obviously only works for headphone listening. I hope this helps.

 

[digicidal]

Roy,
About here I was getting very interested because, I, clearly, do not have a good understanding of the differences between time and phase coherency.
It would be great if you could explain the differences!

I would also love to be further educated on this principle - specifically in relation to the variances in recordings and how one set of loudspeakers can subsequently make all of them sound that much better without out making half of them better and half of them worse.

I guess I may be confused on a more basic premise of audio reproduction (which wouldn't be the first time) but to my reasoning, and as supported by the information on the GMA website: A recording is a waveform which represents a sound. An audio system comprised of a source, some form of amplification and a set of loudspeakers - reproduces that waveform. Now I have no problem believing that a given source is more capable than another in extracting this waveform and 'sending it downstream' in it's original format and how a particularly good or bad driver selection or crossover in a speaker can reproduce that waveform well (or not as the case may be).

What I can't seem to get my head around is how any one design of a loudspeaker can uniformly create a better sound from a singular technology - regardless of recording specifics. I can, on the other hand, easily understand "time aligned" speaker designs - i.e. those that sound like a single point-source as opposed to multiple individual drivers. I can also understand (although to a somewhat lesser extent) how a recording can be more or less time-coherent - similarly in the way that I can (much more simply) understand that a higher sample rate with more bits per sample can digitally represent a more realistic analog waveform.

I would definitely like a thorough explanation - or if you have some resources you could point me to, I'm definitely open to spending a few hours (or days if necessary) researching the topic myself.

 

[digicidal]

You can only make a time and phase coherent recoding with a single pair of figure of 8 or cardioid mic one right above the other at right angles.

Any other arrangement will have time and phase shifts.
...

Thanks TLS... that's helping but I have a couple more questions (this really has turned into a pretty fascinating thread) if you don't mind.

Even if one has a recording that is time and phase coherent... and speakers that are also time and phase coherent - wouldn't such a setup, by it's very nature have a 'sweet spot' no bigger than the distance between said microphones. Or, now that I think about the recording process and reproduction process - wouldn't they have a sweet spot located only at the exact mid-point and the exact distance from the speakers that the instrument recorded was from the mic array? And wouldn't this time coherence create MORE smearing for instruments in the same session that were placed farther or closer from the mics than my listening position?

Maybe I'm missing something basic, but to me it seems similar to FR on and off-axis. The sound didn't change in nature, but my ears stopped being able to 'collect' all of the different frequencies due to the directivity of the driver and the length of the wave itself...

I guess the bottom line is that I do understand how it might be really amazing to hear if the speaker setup and design perfectly matched that of the recording session - however, I also consider that to be one of the smallest issues with sound reproduction... specifically that which doesn't have the luxury of ocurring in a listening environment which also mirrors the acoustics of the studio in which said recording occurred. I know for sure that my livingroom has much bigger problems than simply not being 'time coherent' enough.

 

[KEW]

Thanks, that does help quite a bit!

I really hope Roy will explain why he believes time and phase coherence are not lost in recordings - I presume he means a typical recording rather than a specialized subset of recordings.

 

[JerryLove]

FWIW: I was taking care of my Father over Christmas, because my mother was away looking after my Grandmother (last surviving grandparent). So that tied up mid to late December. For anyone interested, she died, so there's been everything related to that to deal with. Add to it all, work decided to ship me off to 2-weeks training; so I haven't really been home.

I haven't re-setup the GMA's since they were taken down around Christmas. Roy hasn't been contacted because there's no point doing that until the speakers are setup and I have time to play with whatever he wants to adjust at the time.

If you don't like the delay: I'll refund you every penny I took from you in exchange... wait: I owe you nothing.

But believe what you like. It's a free country. How do your pair sound? Why don't you bring them by another audioholics (BTW: I know some of you are in Tampa / Orlando. I can make these available if someone else is curious) house or him by yours and offer something constructive.

Unlike some posters, I have been here for more than a year without discussing GMA and this thread and topic are the vast minority of my posts. I really wish these speakers had just blown me away. That would have been awesome (and I'd be working to get those C3's off audiogon).

Honestly: no matter what my final review looks like, I've made GMA a discussion point and offered an opportunity for fans and owners alike to voice their opinions. That's certainly a favor to GMA whether my actual remarks about the speaker itself are or not.

 

[digicidal]

FWIW: I was taking care of my Father over Christmas, because my mother was away looking after my Grandmother (last surviving grandparent). So that tied up mid to late December. For anyone interested, she died, so there's been everything related to that to deal with. Add to it all, work decided to ship me off to 2-weeks training; so I haven't really been home.
...
If you don't like the delay: I'll refund you every penny I took from you in exchange... wait: I owe you nothing.
...
Honestly: no matter what my final review looks like, I've made GMA a discussion point and offered an opportunity for fans and owners alike to voice their opinions. That's certainly a favor to GMA whether my actual remarks about the speaker itself are or not.

I'm sorry to hear about your Grandmother - I'm in the same boat right now... I'm afraid it won't be very long at all.

I personally don't want to refund that nothing - because I'm happy waiting for whatever your final analysis is - since I expect it will be pretty objective based on your other posts on various speakers.

It seems that most truely exceptional products weather much initial criticizm - and that many fans of products (exceptional or not) do not. Some aspects remind me of an Apple vs. PC debate.

 

[GranteedEV]

Sorry to hear about your grandmother, Jerry.

It seems that most truely exceptional products weather much initial criticizm - and that many fans of products (exceptional or not) do not. Some aspects remind me of an Apple vs. PC debate.

What's a PC? Is that, like, a macbook with windows?

 

[rich121]

And your problem with that?

Oh...I get it... I'm a Green Mountain Audio mole...

November 16, 2009

24 total post of which 16 are in this thread

 

[rich121]

First of all, TLS seemed to come across, or try to come across as a commercial speaker designer, so I was curious as to what company?

I have no idea what your talking about with the "suspect terms" speech...I don't know why all the emotion over me asking a simple question?

The only one here making "assumptions" or 'implying" anything is you...

Are you always this paranoid and negative?



Or is it because I don't normally post on this site and this is your "hospitality"?

He may not reply to you but I will - what difference does that make?

Are you saying because a chemist works in a lab researching a cure for cancer but does not own and operate a pharmaceutical company that their research is any less valid?

Just curious as to what your opinion is here. It seems obvious from your post that you are trying to imply that if TLS is not the secret forum account for Paul Barton or Joe D'Appolito then he can't possibly know anything of value. I spent all of my years in higher education studying architecture and fine arts - I have worked for 20 years in IT as a systems administrator and application developer. Are you saying that I know nothing about color theory or impressionism or girder stressing under various wind conditions?

I, and I think most here (despite your assumptions), don't think Roy must be wrong simply because you and he both use some very suspect terms in describing the superiority of his speakers. At least in Roy's case he seems to have a reasonable approach - however, your motivation is confusing.

Anyway, although I don't know TLS from Adam - based on the posts he's made and the equipment he has in his media room... I'm going to assume that he's worked (or perhaps is currently working - don't know how old he is either) as a recording engineer or studio systems integrator and along the way has come across multiple situations in which a custom solution has been deemed a better fit than an off-the-shelf solution. I can relate to this since I never wanted to become a programmer... I just got sick of getting crap back from sub-contractors and decided to 'roll my own'.

I know for a fact that there are hundreds of people I've met on various forums that I consider to be at least as knowledgeable if not much more so than the presidents and founders of many successful audio companies. In fact I know of about 3 guys in Denmark that if they ever decided to start building amplifiers as a business I would sell my car to buy whatever they were selling... but as one of them is a MD, one is a professor, and the other owns a retail outlet (but not for electronics) - I'm not holding my breath.

I'm not really picking sides here - perhaps the GMA speakers are truly the greatest single loudspeaker design on the face of the earth. However, there are many things in the discussion that I consider 'red flags'. Perhaps there is innovation here, and perhaps not. The real question is that if it is so obviously wrong (other speaker designs) - then why is it that almost none of the speakers designed by companies with truly deep pockets (Focal, Sonus Faber, Wilson, etc...) are designed that way? And why must a different and very specific testing methodology be applied so that these speakers test positively and (assumedly) then all others will test poorly.

True innovation does show itself from time to time, and often from the hard work and dedication of a single individual - however, rarely does it take special glasses for everyone else to see it once it's presented.

 

[GranteedEV]

First of all, TLS seemed to come across, or try to come across as a commercial speaker designer, so I was curious as to what company?

I have no idea what your talking about with the "suspect terms" speech...I don't know why all the emotion over me asking a simple question?

The only one here making "assumptions" or 'implying" anything is you...

Are you always this paranoid and negative?

Or is it because I don't normally post on this site and this is your "hospitality"?

All you have done since your first post is instigate and incite hostility. What do you expect? Either

1) Quit complaining until there's something complete to actually complain about.
2) Quit expecting people to take broad comments like "Too bad this forum has closed minded individuals who preffer to attack those with different ideas and background. No wonder few manufacturers post to these boards... " lying down.

Regarding TLS Guy, he is a DIY speaker designer. No commercial designer would ever criticize another commercial designer's design publically - it's poor ethics.

Please just drop the subject until you've actually got something useful to add. This can include

-Measurements of your own Continuums
-Measurements of your own Continuums
-Measurements of your own Continuums
-Measurements of your own Continuums
-Measurements of your own Continuums
-Measurements of your own Continuums
-Measurements of your own Continuums
-Measurements of your own Continuums
-Measurements of your own Continuums

But isn't limited to measurements of your own Continuums... you could also post pics and negativity. We get it that you like GMA and Jerry hasn't had the same magical experience as you therefore his speakers must be damaged. Now just be patient, please.

Roy: If I was ever negative and disrespectful towards you or GMA, I apologize. I don't want rich over here to get the wrong impression and stress about it. I can only comment on things I know. I don't know what the GMAs sound like so I haven't commented. I apparently don't know what sort of or how measurements are taken in the GMA facility, so I will reserve judgement. I don't know if Jerry's pair is damaged or not. I was mistaken in assuming your website was a bunch of typical fluff that the owners seem to represent as I did not happen across the specs page easily. Please accempt my humble apologies so that rich can have peace at night.

 

[KEW]

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.

Best regards,
Roy

Roy,
I believe you are correct in identifying retention of time coherence in the recording as a major concern (for more of us than just TLS Guy) regarding the premise of manufacturing time-coherent speakers. Please do explain when you get the time!
Thanks!

 

[Matt34]

And your problem with that?

Oh...I get it... I'm a Green Mountain Audio mole...

Either contribute to the topic at hand or don't post. Roy is a big boy and can/has shown he can post rebuttals to the points being made.

If you have been anywhere else on this forum besides this thread you will see TLSguy is a avid DIY'er with a lot of knowledge that he has freely contributed throughout the years he's been here.....which is more than I can say about you.

Edit: Off topic posts will be deleted.

 

[digicidal]

I have no idea what your talking about with the "suspect terms" speech...

From the GMA site:

"Some 30 years after building his first pair of speakers, in 1999 Johnson gained control over the generation of sound waves at all frequencies -- and today remains the only speaker designer in the world with this achievement."
Source

"Upon listening to the playback through most speakers available today, you probably would recognize your baby's cry, but you might not identify that your baby is hungry. Through our time-coherent speakers, you would know your baby was hungry and also that he needed a new diaper."
...
"...why our owners report life-changing experiences, wonderment, and awe. Their minds no longer work to fill in the energy of the performance or soundtrack. Listening has become an out-of-body experience."
Source

"While those characteristics cannot be measured, they are clearly audible from any recording when those other aspects of the speaker's design have first been addressed."
Source

"Exclusive High Definition CopperMatrix™ wire by Marigo Labs: 18-gauge, 500+ strand Litz wires of six-nines purity, single crystal, oxygen-free copper with proprietary winding geometry; double cryogenically-treated, organic dielectric insulation; proprietary internal vibration damping system. Pure metals love to ring. They do so sideways and also along their lengths. Because of their design, these CopperMatrix™ wires do not and can not ring."
Source

Rich - for clarity sake I'm not debating whether or not Roy is truly the singular genius that his bio makes him out to be - he's definitely a hell of a lot smarter than I am I'll gladly admit. I'll also not debate how good his speakers sound - since haven't heard them (what I can say is that they are very beautiful - at least the Calypso-HDs are... the others not so much).

What I can say are two things for certain and I'll be happy to debate those with you via PMs if you would like - since they would be better suited there:

1) Your position since the beginning has been that if anyone, for any reason, under any circumstances is not running to change their pants after hearing these speakers - they are either stupid, deaf, or have bad equipment.

2) Many of the descriptions and verbage used to describe their products sound extremely similar to those used to sell $2000+ power cords, $300 cable elevators, even $230 rocks that capture stray cosmic rays (ok just EMI but still).

And to be totally fair, Roy may indeed have developed a speaker which eclipses any and all loudspeaker designs from every other designer or acoustic research lab in since the beginning of recorded sound... heck, people who considered themselves scientists at one time believed the earth was flat.

Your attitude is consistently abrasive, and I just love to 'tweak' people like you - sorry it's a hobby, but it is one that I should avoid because it wastes time and I wind up having far too much fun.

On the other hand - I really enjoy, respect, and fully support with my hard-earned dollars - companies that sell a product based on simple, straightforward product descriptions with full specifications and measurements... and avoid like the plague, products that explain a lack thereof as a failing of available scientific knowledge, etc.

I do at least see specifications on most of the GMA speakers - but similar specifications can be found for many other speakers... all of which are apparently totally inferior to them.

And yes... although I'm not always this negative... or maybe I am because I didn't consider myself to be very negative at all. But I most certainly AM that paranoid all the time - because they are always watching!

 

[rich121]

Give me a break, you obviously haven't been reading the posts, especially mine!

All I asked about TLS guy is what speakers he manufactured, as he seemed to be putting himself off as a manufacturer, so I was curious about what speaker company....nothing more.. tell me, what did I say about him other than that, huh? Othere than your "buddies" assumptions?

You need to follow the thread closer if your going to start "deleting off topic posts" because the majority of them are not coming from me!

Such as the post above "Digicidal"...which again, if you have been following the thread, this guy is manufacturing crap that was never said...he is instigating and if your going act your part, I suggest you start with his post.

Like you said, this thread needs to stay on topic, and last I looked, the topic was Europa speakers, not me!


Rick

Either contribute to the topic at hand or don't post. Roy is a big boy and can/has shown he can post rebuttals to the points being made.

If you have been anywhere else on this forum besides this thread you will see TLSguy is a avid DIY'er with a lot of knowledge that he has freely contributed throughout the years he's been here.....which is more than I can say about you.


Edit: Off topic posts will be deleted.

 

[rich121]

"1) Your position since the beginning has been that if anyone, for any reason, under any circumstances is not running to change their pants after hearing these speakers - they are either stupid, deaf, or have bad equipment"

"What I can say are two things for certain and I'll be happy to debate those with you via PMs if you would like - since they would be better suited there"


After you write that crap, which is not true, the only thing I have been saying about the speakers, is in consideration of the condition of the speakers, age, unknown past, and reported shipping damage and unknown about other damage, a judgement of these speakers should have no bearing on anything other than these speakers, as they are probably not representative of what they would have sounded new or in good shape...I have not said what you are implying or said...

Because you find more enjoyment in being negative, and fabricate statements..basically a liar, as anyone can see after reading my previous posts...I have nothing more to say to you.

From the GMA site:

"Some 30 years after building his first pair of speakers, in 1999 Johnson gained control over the generation of sound waves at all frequencies -- and today remains the only speaker designer in the world with this achievement."
Source

"Upon listening to the playback through most speakers available today, you probably would recognize your baby's cry, but you might not identify that your baby is hungry. Through our time-coherent speakers, you would know your baby was hungry and also that he needed a new diaper."
...
"...why our owners report life-changing experiences, wonderment, and awe. Their minds no longer work to fill in the energy of the performance or soundtrack. Listening has become an out-of-body experience."
Source

"While those characteristics cannot be measured, they are clearly audible from any recording when those other aspects of the speaker's design have first been addressed."
Source

"Exclusive High Definition CopperMatrix™ wire by Marigo Labs: 18-gauge, 500+ strand Litz wires of six-nines purity, single crystal, oxygen-free copper with proprietary winding geometry; double cryogenically-treated, organic dielectric insulation; proprietary internal vibration damping system. Pure metals love to ring. They do so sideways and also along their lengths. Because of their design, these CopperMatrix™ wires do not and can not ring."
Source

Rich - for clarity sake I'm not debating whether or not Roy is truly the singular genius that his bio makes him out to be - he's definitely a hell of a lot smarter than I am I'll gladly admit. I'll also not debate how good his speakers sound - since haven't heard them (what I can say is that they are very beautiful - at least the Calypso-HDs are... the others not so much).

What I can say are two things for certain and I'll be happy to debate those with you via PMs if you would like - since they would be better suited there:

1) Your position since the beginning has been that if anyone, for any reason, under any circumstances is not running to change their pants after hearing these speakers - they are either stupid, deaf, or have bad equipment.

2) Many of the descriptions and verbage used to describe their products sound extremely similar to those used to sell $2000+ power cords, $300 cable elevators, even $230 rocks that capture stray cosmic rays (ok just EMI but still).

And to be totally fair, Roy may indeed have developed a speaker which eclipses any and all loudspeaker designs from every other designer or acoustic research lab in since the beginning of recorded sound... heck, people who considered themselves scientists at one time believed the earth was flat.

Your attitude is consistently abrasive, and I just love to 'tweak' people like you - sorry it's a hobby, but it is one that I should avoid because it wastes time and I wind up having far too much fun.

On the other hand - I really enjoy, respect, and fully support with my hard-earned dollars - companies that sell a product based on simple, straightforward product descriptions with full specifications and measurements... and avoid like the plague, products that explain a lack thereof as a failing of available scientific knowledge, etc.

I do at least see specifications on most of the GMA speakers - but similar specifications can be found for many other speakers... all of which are apparently totally inferior to them.

And yes... although I'm not always this negative... or maybe I am because I didn't consider myself to be very negative at all. But I most certainly AM that paranoid all the time - because they are always watching!