Green Mountain Audio Europas

[Shakeydeal]

Now, if Shakey wants to bring his C3's by

That would surely be a more interesting and fair shootout....


Shakey

 

[JerryLove]

A point of concern is how the non-time-aligned subs might obscure this core aspect of the GMA speakers. I don't know how you could assure it met the level of accuracy purported by GMA.

I suppose I could re-purpose my Behringer DCX to the task. It does allow for phase coherency adjustments (and they are in use on my modified Primus's)

 

[clouso]

Wow...this thread has been quiet...whats going on i was educating my self!??...

 

[JerryLove]

Jerry has a life so has not yet called Roy so is unlikely to present results as there's an assertion from the builder that the results will change once something is done.

What's up in your neck of the woods?

 

[clouso]

Jerry has a life so has not yet called Roy so is unlikely to present results as there's an assertion from the builder that the results will change once something is done.

What's up in your neck of the woods?

uhmm...neck in the woods im not sure about that expression and even if it was for me since you didnt quote but right now im having a beer listening to RUSH!!..hehe...another great thing from Canada!...

 

[highfigh]

uhmm...neck in the woods im not sure about that expression and even if it was for me since you didnt quote but right now im having a beer listening to RUSH!!..hehe...another great thing from Canada!...

Or, Max Webster.

 

[jamie2112]

Or, Max Webster.

Or The Barenaked Ladies.........

 

[3db]

Or The Barenaked Ladies.........

Do you mean the group?

 

[GO-NAD!]

uhmm...neck in the woods im not sure about that expression and even if it was for me since you didnt quote but right now im having a beer listening to RUSH!!..hehe...another great thing from Canada!...

"Neck of the woods" means the area you live in. Which album were you listening to and which beer were you drinking?

 

[3db]

"Neck of the woods" means the area you live in. Which album were you listening to and which beer were you drinking?

Man its only 7:30 EST.. I'm really partial now to Rickard's White. Growing up in NB, I was a big fan of Alpine ..but as I grow older..Alpine doesn't do it for me anymore. You being a Bluenoser, is Keith's you're prefered choice?

 

[clouso]

"Neck of the woods" means the area you live in. Which album were you listening to and which beer were you drinking?

All RUSH's album on ipod on ramdom lol...and budweiser of course!..

 

[Shakeydeal]

Jerry,

You should have had ample time to discern what these speakers can or can not do. Let us know.

Shakey

 

[RoyJ]

Answers to questions posed, Part 1

I apologize for not answering some questions from here sooner.

Yes, cast marble... rather like a Corian counter.

Our cast marble is completely unlike Corian. Our composition is stone and polyester resin. Corian is a different type of polyester resin, more flexible for one, and with only colorful plastic chips embedded. It is much more resonant and flexible unfortunately, as it is less expensive per pound and can be handled like wood panels. And somewhat lighter than our formula.

Two drivers. Fabric dome-tweeter and paper-cone mid. I haven't measured but I'd guess a 1" and 5" give or take.

It looks like the one in the middle: http://www.greenmountainaudio.com/europa/

The tweeter is 28mm and the woofer is 6-inch. The bass port is tuned to 54Hz, with 4th-order Butterworth alignment. BTW, don't trust a closeup mic measurement above 600-800Hz, for the mic itself interferes.

Nah! The guys who buy these are not interested in the kind of assessment Jerry would give - too factual and not filled with hyperbole.

Actually, they do the same as Jerry- set them up nicely and have a listen in order to decide, by playing all sorts of music on any amp I would add (unlike how most reviewers operate). So I am totally with Jerry on this. Regardless KEW, I do agree that there is a large segment of the market apparently so eager 'to consume' that they are easily swayed by hyperbole.

We have never appealed to that crowd, perhaps because we do not appear hi-tech. We don't attract their attention and I prefer it that way.

Jerry,

Glad to see the speakers arrived (somewhat) safely. I will say that like any GMA, the Europas need a little work to get the particular listening distance dialed in. Roy recommends- and I concur- with what he calls an "equal legged T".

Measure the distance from the outside rear corners of the speaker. Then duplicate that distance from the center of that rear plane to your ears. That is a good starting point and you can move in or out accordingly. I ended up a few inches back from that position. That sharpness you hear will go away completely when you are in the right spot. Actually, recordings that you thought were on the edge of being "sharp" will probably sound more "right" with the Europas. When you hear the time alignment done correctly, instruments and voices will seem to have more proper location in the soundstage and be more easily discernable.

In the end, you may not like them. And surely you won't like them from 3' away. But keep us posted of your progress, or lack of.

Shakey

I agree completely. I would add that the same setup arrangement does work down to five feet away, and that the triangle Shakey describes is as wide as one would ever want to spread the speakers. This is also in the Europa's Owner's Guide, as Jerry likely knows.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy
cause we know they have that "special something"

I have never written anything like that, sorry.

The corners won't flex and as long as the areas of highest deflection (the mid-points between intersections) are well-braced, the resonances should be outside of the woofer's range or at least diminished enough that they'll be as inert as anything else out there.

FYI to all speaker builders-- On any speaker, simply put on a $40 stethoscope and have a listen to the sidewalls of the cabinet. On thin-wall wood cabinets, no matter the bracing, one hears the low bass come right through, assuming the speaker-design itself puts out anything below ~55Hz. I don't know why reviewers don't employ one to verify manufacturers' claims about cabinet construction. Tells me much more than any vibration-sensor test, such as performed by Stereophile.

Jerry that's cool that you picked up a pair to try out. I used swear by time coherent speakers - For home I listened to Vandersteens and Meadowlark Audio, and in the studio Duntech, Lipinski and Sequerra. I liked the open, natural (and usually) neutral sound from those speakers.

Lipinski is not time-coherent. In fact, the tweeter is wired with inverted polarity. This is evident in its test results: Lipinski 707 measurements

THIS IS JUST PRELIMINARY

But here are three measurements of FR

Pink is very nearfield at the woofer center
Blue is very nearfield at the tweeter center
Black is from about 1m back

Pink looks just about right below 1.5kHz, but does not include the port's output.
The other two traces do not look flat at all in the upper midrange and low treble because of several problems that arise with being so close, including not being able to find the time-coherent axis.
Even if one disconnected the woofer and then the tweeter, to measure each on its own, there are still irregularities above 1.5kHz, created by a mic's close-up presence in the soundfield of either driver.
Any perceived harshness comes from not being on the time-coherent axis, which at seven feet away is easy to slip into when setup properly.

There is much to do. For one thing I'm currently trying out various with-sub configurations.

Jerry, figure 50Hz for the sub's crossover point to start, keeping the sub near one of the speaker stands, 'normal' polarity, and let the Europas run 'full-range'.

Test for dynamic (transient) alignment on steady kick drum, moving the sub forwards and back by ~6 inches. You will hear when its output lines up with the kick-drum output from the Europa. This is because kick drums are tuned to about 50Hz.

Test for tone-balance blending on plucked string bass going 'boop, boop, boop" up and down the scale, as those notes do not last long enough to set up standing waves in one's room. If a few notes are too loud as they pass through the crossover range, try reducing the crossover point a little (don't trust the numbers on the sub's dial to be exact).

The above seems to be good advice for setting up most well-designed subs with any speakers, (i.e., subs that are not 'too-small boxes' with heavy bass-EQ built in).


Best regards,
Roy

 

[RoyJ]

Second half

It is important to listen to a wide range of music to get the overall picture of the speaker.

Entirely agree.

On a professional level, we still use time coherent speakers where I work. One room has a pair of Lipinski monitors, which are one of the best studio monitors I've ever heard.

Good speakers, but not time-coherent. They are only 'phase coherent' across their crossover range, which all speakers must be to avoid cancellations between woofer and tweeter. Phase coherence is not the same as time coherence.

I can't speak for anyone else, but he's my 2 cents:
Waterfall plots and frequency response graphs will get us a know good sounding speaker.
With that, a graph or plot of our latest hearing test, to see how they coincide.
What good is the perfect speaker, if our hearing exaggerates or minimizes certain frequencies?

If one does not have substantial hearing loss, it seems we all compensate internally (mentally) for any peaks or dips that a hearing test might measure. Otherwise, musicians would not agree on the sound of different brands of the same instruments, like Yamaha versus Steinway. Still does not mean they have the same preference between them, only on the sounds they produce, such as bright, dull, slow, full, thin, brilliant... one has to chose words that somehow make sense to others is perhaps the most difficult aspect of agreeing on what is heard.

Do know that headphones of any type set up standing waves between the ear and themselves, and since they are so close to our ears, those will be in the upper range (short wavelengths) and narrow in width. Thus, this affects the precision of any hearing tests and even shows up in tests on music headphones which are performed with the headphone mounted to an ear-shaped rubber coupler containing a microphone where one's eardrum would be.

Actually, I was specifically thinking of my own experience where a slight amount of coloration (I think from cabinet resonance - but do not have the gear to measure that) caused speaker A to outperform speaker B on something like a jazz trio. Based on that experience, speaker A was clearly superior to speaker B. However if I played a music which was very busy with lots of instruments, speaker A got a bit congested and speaker B was clearer. I would love to see a accelerometer measurement on these two speakers like John Atkinson uses to get a better understanding of specifically what causes the difference. In the end, both of these speakers have their "shining moments" however, I would not have made intelligent comments had I not taken the time to listen to more music before publicizing my thoughts.

I think the general consensus on this board is that measurements provide a useful way of assessing the quality of a speaker to determine if it is a good candidate for further consideration. I'm not sure anyone here would consider measurements a replacement for listening.

I agree and would like to add that many different tests can be performed, each measuring only SOME of the differences you heard on music. But none of these tests are performed anywhere, likely because those doing the testing do not know of them.

That means you take your subjective experience (say "fatiguing") and try to understand where that's represented in the measurements.

Conversely, if you find a measurement that looks like another speaker with a known trait (say "weak midbass") then you put on some appropriate music and listen for that trait.

In particular: I am not a trained listener. That is to say: I don't have the vocabulary and expertise to say "I'm getting harmonic distortion". So the measurements are, for me, a way to explain what I am hearing.

Vocabulary is always lacking, like describing what you see in a painting or taste in your meal, or smell or touch. It's a left-brain, right-brain issue (Read the book 'Blink' sometime).

However, the tests we see publicly do not tell us all of why a speaker sounds the way it does. Partly that is because these common tests, including the ones conducted by Harmon and at the Canadian Research Facility, are too simple (unlike music). Another reason is because no microphone 'hears' the way we do, including how we mentally ignore many of the reflections from the room at upper frequencies and combine them with the direct sound at lower frequencies.

How will you be able to pin it down to a particular variable(s)?

As you may suspect, it takes an understanding of physics (to know how things move and will thus likely distort, for example) and of the way recordings are made (which have their own distortions unlike what speakers do wrong), and of how we hear music, not test tones (which is quite unlike what a measuring mic picks up). Complex, and why I have always been fascinated with speaker design.

You've discussed the importance of getting the proper configuration (position, lean in, etc) of these speakers. If all you did was sit and listen, how do you know if you are hearing a speaker at its best?

In the case of GMA, by following the advice on our Owner's Guides.

I've already discussed the results of "just sat and put on some music". But "do I like it" is only one of the several questions in front of me. My experience with the Europa's in a large room vs near-field is, for example, very different.

Like all bookshelves (and most towers) there's limited bass response in the Europa's. In fact, the floor is higher than I think any other bookshelf I have (would have to check on the PSB's). As such, without a subwoofer that's been properly setup for them, they will sound inferior to other bookshelves due to poorer bass response.

All of our two-way speakers were designed to be fine with no subwoofer in rooms less than 17 feet wide with average-height ceilings, on classical, jazz and all else but heavy rock. Yet, a sub is always nice to add, even in smaller rooms.

That's not entirely correct.

The *minimum* crossover point may be different; but a speaker that can crossover at 80Hz can also crossover at 100Hz. In the worst case, I will be disadvantaging the lower-crossover-capable speaker.

How so?

Because the phase blend obtained between sub and the same speaker is different at 100Hz compared to 80Hz.

non-over-driven tubes sound the same as SS unless mis-calibrated.

I disagree until one compares very good examples of either type. Then their sound qualities do start to converge. I think the differences are most audible on music that really swings or is otherwise highly emotional, perhaps even subtle in the way it is played. Most solid-state misses those aspects of the music, and most tube gear gets that part more 'right'. Which of course, one does not really know until it is experienced. Hence, a lot of listening to different music, and to live performances by great bands is required to know what might be missing.

probably it's got to do with the vertical power response?

The 'right height' for Europas places one ears on their time-coherent axis. Power response only affects how the room itself 'sounds', such as 'dark' or bright', since we hear the off-axis performance of any speaker through the sound of the room's reflections, when we are in 'the best seat'. Off-axis, the power response tells something about the tone balance when off in the kitchen or sitting/standing off to one side.

Is that right?....they were meant to be heard at 6 1/2 to 13 feet away......does that eliminate them as choices in large rooms?

As with any small speaker Tom, it depends on the music. If it is not bass heavy, then a large room is fine. Otherwise, add a sub. They will play loud enough to fill any large room, given 100+Watts for the amplifier's 8-Ohm rating. Remember, 13 feet wide still corresponds to the optimum separation in rooms wider than 18 feet and therefore deeper than 20 feet.

Best regards,
Roy

 

[RoyJ]

Third half??

I don't know about seedee players, but I think all CD players that are at least $50 sound the same.

I think Digital is usually similar to Analog in performance.

I think SS is usually similar to Tube in performance.

I think all cables, amps, & preamps (DIRECT mode) sound the same.

I think the biggest difference is the loudspeaker.

Great loudspeakers will sound great in most rooms, even without room treatments.

I agree with the last two sentences. I do NOT agree with the crap most reviewers spout- no matter how enchantingly they describe what they hear. Many seem to not even know what real instruments sound like, revealed to me anyway by their choices of music and seeing a picture of the room and setup.

What I'd look for in each component is

Loudspeaker
- this is far more complex and would take an essay to explain because loudspeakers simply introduce the most distortion, plain and simple. As a general rule, if a speaker does not even measure relatively flat on axis in frequency response in a good measurement location (ideally an anechoic chamber but also outside), then it's simply too poor a speaker to even bother auditioning, as it introduces too much coloration to ever sound right without EQ. Some dumb audiophiles try to EQ their speakers with specific cables and amplifiers which intentionally introduce their own colorations. These dumb audiophiles think that by mixing the right components they can get the right "synergy". These same people wouldn't touch a GEQ or PEQ if their lives depened on it, even though that is a far more effective route in controlling a poorly measuring speaker. Frequency response isn't the only important measurement out there. Group Delay, Cabinet measurements, polar response, etc are all important in their own ways. This brings us to this thread: Jerry probably bought the Europas to determine for himself how important the measurable concept of absolute time coherency is.

Agree completely.

Obviously most speakers have some level of time coherency, but the claims of the Green Mountains is that they're absolutely time coherent.

Most speakers do not have any sort of time coherency. Time-coherency at its most basic definition is that the tweeter move when the woofer moves, at all frequencies where they are blending above and below the crossver point. That is the 'coherency' as time passes.

Most all speakers start the tweeter too soon (and by different amounts at different frequencies) because of their crossover circuit design. In them, the tweeter leads the woofer by exactly one full cycle at the crossover point, or by exactly one-half cycle in which case, the tweeter's polarity gets flipped. This is not my opinion, but what is revealed in tests and shown in the 'filter-theory math' used for designing any filter or any crossover circuit.

I'm also not seeing how a screen in the middle of two speakers has any effect on fidelity. Particularly modern wall mount televisions and projection screens.

If any-size screen or a fair amount of stereo gear is right between the speakers, then the speakers have to be at least three feet away, laterally, to begin to minimize their influence on music. If it is hung on the wall and the speakers are at least three feet out, then the screen has only a modest effect compared to a bare wall.

Someone who actually bothers to understand how and why something works properly instead of believing in magic.

I would point out that Shakey has never stated he believes in magic, but only that he listens before forming his opinions.

Do you realize that those statements ooze pomposity?

Believing that you can gauge a person's comments based on what audio equipment they have, is equivalent to saying you can gauge a person's knowledge of cars, based on what they drive. So, a lawyer driving a Mercedes automatically knows more about cars than a mechanic who drives a Honda Civic? Can you now see how ridiculous your statement is?

I would say that a mechanic likely has driven all sorts of cars and thus knows the differences, even if he chooses to drive a Civic. Just because one owns a Mercedes or a fancy amplifier does NOT imply expertise, sorry.

If what you say is true, surely more people would have started raving about time coherent speakers? The reality is that there are only a handful of companies selling them and there isn't an overwhelming consensus about it among audiophiles to my knowledge and I would ask why.

Time-coherent speaker design is very difficult, and proper tweeters and woofers often cost a lot- and are rarely found at any price. Those are the two reasons it is not prevalent. Our Owners' comments are very consistent in how they phrased their 'raves' because they hear and respond to the same things that time-coherency permits to emerge in music.

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

Nothing at all. Have a look at the specs page on our website for any model, please.

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?

Listen for yourselves, on all sorts of music, in a decent room, with the speakers positioned as the manufacturer directs. If you cannot hear the difference, then obviously there isn't one, or at least not anything to worry about. However, the great gear does reveal itself, so no worries. This is the problem with a lack of competent retailers anymore, at least in the USA, as there is nowhere to sit and compare. Bummer.

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

Shakey clearly stated he did not reject measurements, but looks at them and also listens. I certainly do not reject measurements, but only realize the limitations inherent in any measurement.

While I totally agree that their [GMA's ] 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.

So we are cheesy in what way? By trying to explain what time-coherent sound is to the non-technical? Perhaps there is a better way to write about it but I've not found one. Are we too poetic in our description about how it sounds on music? Well, what words would you choose sitting in front of our speakers? I tried to use the least hyperbole possible on our website, and I apologize to those I cannot please. On the other hand, think of how many manufacturers tell us little about how and why their products sound the way they do, and further, what one should expect to hear. Don't buy them if you don't hear 'those things', but do not fault us for trying.

I believe almost all criticisms have been targeting their advertisement and approach to marketing which show great similarity to Bose.

Really? READ OUR SPECS PAGES, please, as one example.

I'm not even criticizing the green mountains, as they're speakers I know absolutely nothing about (thanks to their brutal subjective marketing).

What subjective marketing? On our website or in the zillions of ads we (don't) run. Seriously- you object to the info on our website? That's OK- but I am sorry you do not find it useful in knowing more about our speakers.

You are beginning to smell suspiciously like a Green Mountain plant. Not publishing speaker specs is hiding behind a marketing veil and in most cases is hiding something period.

I have no idea who the Dr. is, and to the latter- READ OUR SPECS pages, please. We hide nothing.

My point is that manufacturers need to communicate with potential customers in a way that they understand and this means not talking over their heads, not making up words and phrases that sound A) intimidating, B) really, really technical to the point that they feel stupid if they ask for an explanation or C) too flowery.

Exactly my thoughts when I wrote our website. To some I have succeeded, to others it seems I have failed.

So I'm soliciting opinions. Should I audigy the Europa's or continue to run them flat? Which information would seem more useful?

I advise no EQ for now, Jerry, since you are trying to determine the basic nature of the speakers. BTW, there is no rise in the middle range, but only what you hear as the 'more-present' sound of time-coherence. Do know that one cannot measure the flatness of the middle range in anything but a rather large room with a microphone placed at the listening distance. In a medium-size or smaller room, one can only inaccurately judge the flatness of response via a mic. Again, because a mic does not sense sound the way we do.

Best regards,
Roy

 

[RoyJ]

Part four

Why not market to both camps? ... You could join this endeavour by simply publishing your specs for your products and help raise the bar for the industry. Let the science shine through and enlighten those that live in the world of audio voodoo.

Please read our specs pages, thanks! I feel I have raised the bar and that our specs show that.

I have two comments in response to this. Firstly Jerry took his own measurements of the Europa and discovered a rise in frequency response precisely in the range which prior to the measurement, perceived a rise.
This is not consistent with your claim and hence calls for an explanation. Secondly it is often said that the use of first order crossovers makes the frequency response difficult to correct and control, which suggests a possible explanation for the rise that Jerry heard?

I thought I was clear earlier, in how there is no rising midrange response which is responsible for any 'forwardness' perceived. That perception depends on the record played, and turns out to be the more-direct (less out-of-phase) sound of a woofer and tweeter working together in time across the tone range where they are usually far out-of-time.


By the way, anything we (I, specifically) have discussed on this forum has only been about speaker models we have long retired from production, but I can imagine how that could be construed as marketing, instead of trying to clarify and enlighten wherever possible.

And a question to Green Mountain Audio: Looking at the picture Jerry posted up I can see that a small part around the tweeter on the baffle is covered in some foam. Why didn't you cover the entire baffle leaving only a small hole for the dome of the tweeter? Wouldn't this minimize diffraction even more?

Yes, it would. But felt placed symmetrically right next to any dome acts as a form of loading, through the confinement of the active-airspace to be right next to the dome. The other issue is that wool felt removes some of what is measured as the 'low-end' of the tweeter (which are the surface reflections that always occur from a dome tweeter below ~5Khz. When I designed Europa (more than ten years ago), that was as close as I could place the felt to this particular tweeter without upsetting its tone balance.

A point of concern is how the non-time-aligned subs might obscure this core aspect of the GMA speakers. I don't know how you could assure it met the level of accuracy purported by GMA.
GMA does sell subs, so maybe it isn't that big of a deal.

Good question. It does not obscure what is happening throughout the mids and highs, where the heart of the music lays. But most all well-designed subs can only be made phase coherent, mostly because of the phase shifts induced by the slopes of their electronic crossovers. And that, for most of us, is 'good enough', primarily because it is bass and so 'doesn't hurt our ears' when not made time-coherent.

We have made subs time coherent with our main speakers, and the first effect was always the sense of being in a much larger room. This I and others attribute to how we use the sound of the bass to determine a room's size. We also perceived changes in the rhythm and pace of the music more easily.


My thanks to all who read this. I shall refrain from posting anything else unless specifically requested or blatantly challenged by half-truths or mis-statements.

And Happy New Year still! I hope it's a good one for all of us.

Best regards,
Roy

 

[3db]

Roy...How long did that take you to respond to the last two posts?

 

[GranteedEV]

I apologize for not answering some questions from here sooner.

I have never written anything like that, sorry.

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?aamps&1056603967&read&keyw&zzgreen+mountain

So that would be an imposter?

 

[highfigh]

However, the great gear does reveal itself, so no worries. This is the problem with a lack of competent retailers anymore, at least in the USA, as there is nowhere to sit and compare. Bummer.

I have been in the business since '78 and the one thing that hasn't changed at most retail audio stores is that the listening rooms aren't very good. I know of one that cost the dealer over $200K- the sales people didn't use it much because most people said "Sure, they sound great here because you have a special room". At another dealer, a theater space designed by Cinema Design Group- walls and ceiling with membrane and added mass behind the drywall (particle board) and acoustic panels was installed. From what I have heard, they never used it much in the 5 years since it was built. A third dealer had one store designed by an architect who studied at Taliesin, under Frank Lloyd Wright. Not much sounded good in that place. Looked OK, though. Then, there's the issue of mechanical systems making noise that can't be controlled easily. The place that blew $200K+ had been located in a mall and the "high end" room had a really bad rumble at all times and the air rushing out of the diffusers made a lot of noise. They couldn't hear any bass because it was being obscured by, as it turned out, the air handler that ran any time the store was open. They couldn't even sell K-horns.

The schools of thought on listening room design/treatment that I hear are 1) "The room needs to be great, acoustically, for speakers to sound their best" and at a Vandersteen dealer, "The speakers sound so good that they don't need to be played at such a high level (SPL), so the room's acoustics don't cause as many problems" and "I'm not going to do anything with it because nobody will have the same room".

IMO, all three are correct-

1) If the room's acoustics will come into play, the seating placement and diffusion/reverberation/bass traps must be capable of handling the problems without erring on the side of absorbing everything that hits any surface. That's not only impractical, it's also not a real-world situation. One store I know of had a lot of glass walls in the listening rooms. Nothing sounded good there, but the shoplifting problem was reduced.

2) If the SPL is low enough, the amplitude of the reflected sound won't be sufficient to be a distraction. However, it can't be at anything approaching realistic performance level. A room with high RT60 is not going to sound good at high SPL, no matter how good the speakers are and if the instruments on the recording were in a room that wasn't reverberant, it has no hope of sounding "real".

3) It's best, from the "Will I make more sales?" and "Can I afford it" perspectives, to just leave the demo space alone and use rugs/carpeting, furniture, wall hangings and drapery to show how the equipment can sound in a real house. That's what people want to see because most will never have a "listening room" at all, let alone an acoustically treated room. People generally listen and watch in rooms that are used for other things when the movies and music aren't the central focus, so this makes the most sense for retailers, especially since price has become the main reason people buy from anyone.

Sure, they say they want the best but they don't want to take the time to go to several stores, they don't trust the people who work at the stores, they don't have all of the information they would need and they'll often have "buyer's remorse" after popping for something that was special-ordered for them and the thing that makes it impossible for these people to buy locally- the retailers can't sell at the prices available online and stay in business. People don't like to see someone make money on what they bought. Ask around- it's very common. OTOH, if they have questions and issues with the product and the dealer has matched a lowball price, watch those same people try to bend the dealer's ear for hours, on end.

Lacking demo spaces, consumers have to rely on specs, reviews and word of mouth. Marketing only whets their appetite but actually listening is the only way to make a decision that's not speculative. Dealers are in the same boat- I won't spec a speaker unless I have heard it. Electronics are a much safer bet because the differences are much more subtle- at that point, it's more about functionality and ease of use but listening for a little more "airiness", "chocolatey" or "syrupy" sound is more difficult. Unfortunately, I know of one distributor in the MKE area who has any kind of demo space and that makes it more expensive and time consuming for dealers like me to find out if something will be good enough to be placed in our product mix.

 

[RoyJ]

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?aamps&1056603967&read&keyw&zzgreen+mountain

So that would be an imposter?

I see- you had found a quote about cables in which I still hear a lovely difference, a statement I made in 2003. So I am right, I never said this about our speakers. Thank you for reminding me, and I am sorry for any confusion here. I do hope you found some of my responses useful.

Roy...How long did that take you to respond to the last two posts?

About an hour to respond to everything that needed clarification, thanks.

Best,
Roy