Green Mountain Audio Europas

[Shakeydeal]

So? Why not spec the speakers if there is science behind them? What is being hidden?

What models have you heard from Paradigm? What's so bad a about a receiver when playing well within its power enevlope? I doubt very much you would be able to tell between that and seperates level matched in a DBT?

 

[3db]

Ypu brought this upon yourself with your "better than Audiholic members" attitude referring to Paradigm and other very solid and reputable manufacturers as being midfi. The classification you call it is irrelevant. It shows you rnarrow mindedness and belief in voodoo over science is alll. I find your attitude condescendiong to say the least. The difference between an audiophile and audiophool is an audiophile doesn't blindly believe the hype and BS that plagues the audio industry as a whole. An audiophool swallows this hype and BS hook, line and sinker.

Don't let the door slap your *** too hard on the way out if you don't like the skepticle attitude shown here on this site.

 

[JerryLove]

I don’t mind some derailment, but let's try to avoid mud slinging and name calling here shall we?

 

[Shakeydeal]

The world doesn't revolve around DBT and measurements. Not everything we hear CAN be measured. And my attitude towards your equipment choices are no less condescending than yours of mine.

You call me "marrow minded" (sic) for not drinking your kool aid, but what are you for not drinking mine? You see the difference is I know that measurements can be meaningful in some respects. But you claim to disallow anything that can't be proven thusly. And time coherence is NOT voodoo. Solid non-resonant cabinet construction is NOT voodoo. Simple first order crossovers are NOT voodoo. Choosing the appropriate driver for the job is NOT voodoo.

Where is this voodoo you speak of?

Shakey

 

[jamie2112]

I don’t mind some derailment, but let's try to avoid mud slinging and name calling here shall we?

Well Jerry this dude is now slinging cowpies here. The go back to your receiver and Paradigms quote has him in my sights even though its not relavent to this thread I must pursue the truth,and this guy is in a fantasy world.I am sure he uses oxygen free cable risers.You "audiophiles" out there should listen to Shakeydeal he will cost you thousands of dollor's and you will have a mediocre system.Nice one expert speaker guy.

 

[Dr. Parthipan]

The world doesn't revolve around DBT and measurements. Not everything we hear CAN be measured And time coherence is NOT voodoo. Solid non-resonant cabinet construction is NOT voodoo. Simple first order crossovers are NOT voodoo. Choosing the appropriate driver for the job is NOT voodoo.


Shakey

If it can't be measured how can we be so sure it's there? We need evidence that it's not voodoo or how can it be proven?

 

[jamie2112]

The world doesn't revolve around DBT and measurements. Not everything we hear CAN be measured. And my attitude towards your equipment choices are no less condescending than yours of mine.

You call me "marrow minded" (sic) for not drinking your kool aid, but what are you for not drinking mine? You see the difference is I know that measurements can be meaningful in some respects. But you claim to disallow anything that can't be proven thusly. And time coherence is NOT voodoo. Solid non-resonant cabinet construction is NOT voodoo. Simple first order crossovers are NOT voodoo. Choosing the appropriate driver for the job is NOT voodoo.

Where is this voodoo you speak of?

Shakey

You are spewing madness here.Most of us believe it or not, ARE edumacated in the speaker world.Everything you say is true to a point but the way you come across in trying to make everyone see your views is combative and you putting down members who have been here for 8 years longer than yourself is not going to stand in my book. "go back to your Paradigms and your receiver " comment makes me want you gone from here.

 

[KEW]

From Wikipedia on Bose:

Unlike other audio product manufacturers, Bose does not publish specifications relating to the measured electrical and objective acoustic performance of its products.[21][22] This reluctance to publish information links back to the classic Amar Bose paper presented in 1968 to the Audio Engineering Society: "On the Design, Measurement and Evaluation of Loudspeakers". In the paper, Bose rejects these measurements in favor of "more meaningful measurement and evaluation procedures",[20] and defines himself as a subjectivist, not an objectivist, in terms of audiophile beliefs; he considers the human experience the best measure of performance.[20]

Sound familiar?

The subjective experience is invaluable, but why reject measurements instead of using measurements in combination with subjective experience.

 

[KEW]

The world doesn't revolve around DBT and measurements. Not everything we hear CAN be measured.

Sorry, but a double blind test is a purely subjective experience! All that is being measured is whether the subjective experience is repeatable when free from external/inaudible influences.

 

[3db]

The world doesn't revolve around DBT and measurements. Not everything we hear CAN be measured. And my attitude towards your equipment choices are no less condescending than yours of mine.

You call me "marrow minded" (sic) for not drinking your kool aid, but what are you for not drinking mine? You see the difference is I know that measurements can be meaningful in some respects. But you claim to disallow anything that can't be proven thusly. And time coherence is NOT voodoo. Solid non-resonant cabinet construction is NOT voodoo. Simple first order crossovers are NOT voodoo. Choosing the appropriate driver for the job is NOT voodoo.

Where is this voodoo you speak of?

Shakey

I can't think of anything more objective or subjective than a DBT? The voodoo is not publishing what is preached. Don't get me wrong, I would not disregard a speaker from an audition if I don't know its specs but I would be leary of it. As far as measuring sound/loudspeakers, everything is measureable, from phase, amplitide, and time. What can't be measured is how the brain interprets the electrical impulses from the ears.

 

[GranteedEV]

From Wikipedia on Bose:


Sound familiar?

The subjective experience is invaluable, but why reject measurements instead of using measurements in combination with subjective experience.

Bose and Green Mountain are right I guess. All these brands with objectively measured design like Salk and Revel are way mid-fi. I should go buy an acoustimass 10

 

[KEW]

Bose and Green Mountain are right I guess. All these brands with objectively measured design like Salk and Revel are way mid-fi. I should go buy an acoustimass 10

Just get one of those memory erasers like they had in MIB and wipe the last 8(?) years, then make sure you don't pursue factual audio knowledge that might put a wrinkle in your belief system, and you'll be in good form!

 

[InTheIndustry]

I usually avoid threads like this one because, well, they just aren't a lot of fun. And that's what this hobby is all a.... fun. Fun for all budgets "high & low" (which in & of itself is in the eye of the beholder ) and all types of music & movie systems. Threads that turn down this path... well, not so much fun really.

But I guess it's kind of like in the movie "The Godfather" when they were sending Michael away and told him not to worry & that every few years the families had to go to war to hash out all of the bad blood (or whatever the line was). This one seems to be another classic battle between the "Audiophools" & "Theoryophools". Neither side ever "wins".

Really, I just wanted to say KUDOS to Jerry! Way to go out on a limb with your own funds and try something different! That's a hardcore enthusiast for everyone to admire! It's fun to read your impressions of a speaker that I've never had the chance to demo. Reviews & impressions from end-users are invaluable to me. I much prefer that to a magazine review. Thanks again for being an example to the forum!

 

[TLS Guy]

Go back to your Paradigms and receiver. This isn't your thing.

Shakey

BTW, here is some science for you.

http://www.greenmountainaudio.com/time-coherent-sound/

That's not science.

I would submit that you don't know if your speakers are time and phase aligned or not. In fact they won't be, as with spaced drivers theory works out far from perfectly.

As far as I'm aware there is only one almost phase and time perfect speaker in the world, that is FRED the Quad ESL 63.

It is easy to tell if a speaker is time aligned and that is with an impulse and a square wave. The only speaker EVER documented to produce a passable semblance of a square wave is the ESL 63. In fact two out of phase will cancel a square wave in free space. I know because Peter Walker personally demonstrated it to me.

Here is the Quad ESL impulse response.

Now that is time aligned!

Here is a Quad ESL reproducing a square wave.

Now I challenge Green Mountain to do the same. I can guarantee their impulse and square wave response won't be anything like that, because of the separation of the drivers.

If you really think time alignment has to be very close to perfect, then buy Quad ESLs.

 

[Dr. Parthipan]

Those graphs are misleading. We don't know where they came from, or how the measurement took place. I would also like to hear what Green mountain has to say in response to this though.

 

[3db]

Those graphs are misleading. We don't know where they came from, or how the measurement took place. I would also like to hear what Green mountain has to say in response to this though.

Misleading??? How?? The only thing mileading is throwing out "Green's Equations" and then showing no evidence to support the claim. Now that Doc is misleading.

 

[highfigh]

Go back to your Paradigms and receiver. This isn't your thing.

Shakey

BTW, here is some science for you.

http://www.greenmountainaudio.com/time-coherent-sound/

From that link, "Given that we hear only when our eardrums move, under the impact of the air molecules right next to them, then our goal really is to move those particular molecules the correct sub-microscopic distances at the right times. Each molecule knows only that it was hit from behind, and so on... all the way back to the speaker."

This is correct if the sound is purely air-borne and not impacting any other part of the body but extreme low frequencies are usually perceived through the body itself. Bone conduction and body size help to augment what comes in through the ears and in fact, hearing isn't only from the ear drum moving. "Hearing" is stimulation of the auditory nerves through movement of the cilia, whether that's by vibrating the tympanic membrane & the rest of its mechanism or through the vibrations traveling through the body.

Also, the molecules can move by being "hit from behind", or being "hit" from any other angle. Remember vectors? Time alignment is nice, but it's really hard to implement correctly. Point source? A piano isn't a point source, neither is a piccolo. A speaker manufacturer who claims to make speakers that are a point source can't succeed. They can come close but even if they come extremely close, a piano can't sound absolutely accurate because the low notes come from one side and the high notes from the other, almost 6' away. If a speaker makes a piano sound like a point source, either the speaker/reproduction system or the recording process has failed to be completely accurate (single mic to record a large instrument).

All of this being said, even if a speaker can reproduce the input waveform with absolute accuracy at close distance, the room will affect it unless the sound is completely directional and even then, we'll hear it differently from the way the mic picked it up because we have two ears that aren't coincidental in space. I agree that time/phase alignment are critical but I haven't seen any real evidence that these speakers accomplish this. Claiming "The result? You hear what we hear --the smallest inflections of music, the slightest sound effects, the grandest dynamic expressions, the subtle sways and surges, ever-changing timbres and full range of emotions."- that's just marketing, not science. The smallest inflection of music coming through a dynamic speaker system that may be 5% efficient isn't going to allow tiny inflections to be reproduced with absolute accuracy.

 

[InTheIndustry]

From that link, "Given that we hear only when our eardrums move, under the impact of the air molecules right next to them, then our goal really is to move those particular molecules the correct sub-microscopic distances at the right times. Each molecule knows only that it was hit from behind, and so on... all the way back to the speaker."

This is correct if the sound is purely air-borne and not impacting any other part of the body but extreme low frequencies are usually perceived through the body itself. Bone conduction and body size help to augment what comes in through the ears and in fact, hearing isn't only from the ear drum moving. "Hearing" is stimulation of the auditory nerves through movement of the cilia, whether that's by vibrating the tympanic membrane & the rest of its mechanism or through the vibrations traveling through the body.

Also, the molecules can move by being "hit from behind", or being "hit" from any other angle. Remember vectors? Time alignment is nice, but it's really hard to implement correctly. Point source? A piano isn't a point source, neither is a piccolo. A speaker manufacturer who claims to make speakers that are a point source can't succeed. They can come close but even if they come extremely close, a piano can't sound absolutely accurate because the low notes come from one side and the high notes from the other, almost 6' away. If a speaker makes a piano sound like a point source, either the speaker/reproduction system or the recording process has failed to be completely accurate (single mic to record a large instrument).

All of this being said, even if a speaker can reproduce the input waveform with absolute accuracy at close distance, the room will affect it unless the sound is completely directional and even then, we'll hear it differently from the way the mic picked it up because we have two ears that aren't coincidental in space. I agree that time/phase alignment are critical but I haven't seen any real evidence that these speakers accomplish this. Claiming "The result? You hear what we hear --the smallest inflections of music, the slightest sound effects, the grandest dynamic expressions, the subtle sways and surges, ever-changing timbres and full range of emotions."- that's just marketing, not science. The smallest inflection of music coming through a dynamic speaker system that may be 5% efficient isn't going to allow tiny inflections to be reproduced with absolute accuracy.

While I totally agree that their marketing approach is cheesy & hilarious on it's own level, which is more damning?

- Waxing too poetic over how sound works in relation to how their speakers work?
- Or fudging a test to show better specs?

Yes, companies like GreenMountain tend to roll out copy that reads like a grocery store romance novel, but that's what they perceive their prospective endusers to be into. But there are other, much more mainstream brands (the receiver article had some & we've all seen it in the speaker industry) that are just flat out misleading & lying to people on the capabilities of their product just to take their money.

 

[Shakeydeal]

Ad hyperbole aside. I don't think one should cast aspersions at equipment they haven't personally heard. Graphs are nice, but the proof is in the listening. That is why we go to all this trouble, no? I wouldn't comment on speakers I haven't personally heard myself, so I wonder why the peanut gallery here feels the need to do so. I have heard Paradigms. How many Paradigm owners here have heard the C3s?

Shakey

 

[highfigh]

While I totally agree that their marketing approach is cheesy & hilarious on it's own level, which is more damning?

- Waxing too poetic over how sound works in relation to how their speakers work?
- Or fudging a test to show better specs?

Yes, companies like GreenMountain tend to roll out copy that reads like a grocery store romance novel, but that's what they perceive their prospective endusers to be into. But there are other, much more mainstream brands (the receiver article had some & we've all seen it in the speaker industry) that are just flat out misleading & lying to people on the capabilities of their product just to take their money.

I think equipment manufacturers would be hard pressed to prove that they have actually surveyed users of the type of equipment they make, to find out what they really want or need, their listening habits, whether they critically listen, how they describe the sound and distill it to settle on clear ways to communicate this. . The words I have read and heard, to describe sound, make very little sense. Loading the product literature with flowery descriptions that can't be understood is probably as bad as being dishonest. That's why it's important to come up with commonly acceptable descriptions and accurate specs. For those who want objective info, the specs should be accurate and useful. I wouldn't mind seeing oscillograms from sine/square waves after they pass through the speakers, compared with the input. I wouldn't mind seeing how pulses align in the crossover range of speakers that have multiple drivers. Since both drivers are producing the pulse to some degree in that range, it would be easy to see how much one is delayed, relative to the other. At the HP transition, this could eliminate a lot of harshness, IMO. Standard testing methods need to be adopted by people who know what needs to be tested, not the marketing department.

TV/radio/recording industry engineers/producers don't read gushing reviews of equipment. They look at the specs and watch/listen to the equipment with specific input signals. They also refer to others who are familiar with the equipment and THEN make their buying decisions. You usually won't find the esoteric brands in most recording studios and many of the brands would never be familiar to consumers but they are what is used to produce the movies & music we listen to. I have said it many times before- if someone wants to hear it the same way as the record producers and engineers did, they have to go to that control room, with the same equipment, with the same number of people in it, with the same temperature/humidity/barometric pressure. Recreating this in someone's house is impractical, very expensive and won't yield the same results.