Speaker Quest By Eddie

[haraldo]

I must ask: how is the Swift better as compared to the 802D? What is your definition of "perform very well"? In accordance to known important characteristics to human audibility, the 802D can be quantified as to performing superbly.

802D 3rd Party Measurements

Swift 3rd Party Measurements

I'm looking at the 3rd party measurements, and as far as what is better on the Swift......

It's not the cabinet. The Swift has a substantially resonant cabinet that distorts the timbre of the sound. The B&W 802D has a nearly inert cabinet that has no audible contribution. Resonance is an important characteristic as shown in credible perceptual studies.

It's not the crossover or driver combination. The Swift has very poor linearity, demonstrating a crude response. A smooth response on axis is important as demonstrated by credible perceptual studies. The waterfall plot also demonstrates substantial delayed energy in a wide band of the mid-range on the Swift, where as the 802D has little in the way of delayed energy.

It's not the off axis response. The Swift has abysmal off axis vs. on axis frequency response characteristics. Off axis response being more similar to on axis is a very important parameter as demonstrated in multiple highly credible perceptual studies.

It's not efficiency. The Meadowlark Swift requires about 2x the input power to reach the same SPL as compared to the B&W 802D.

So, what is better? The only thing I can presume is that one may prefer the built-in coloration of the Swift as compared to an actual high-fidelity speaker.

The 802D is a nearly ideal neutral reference monopole. You can use it with a precision DSP EQ and achieve any sound signature so desired, because it is neutral to begin with. The Swift is not neutral in any way - it has severe colorations in several areas. This will result in not being able to customize the sound to one's preference - using a precision DSP EQ with the Swift would result in mediocrity - as you could only attempt to mask the inherent flaws in the Swift.

-Chris

You can't compare the swift's with 802d, the swifts are $900 speakers, and the 802d's are what?
Would you compare a Toyota Aygo with a Mercedes SL500?

Even so, John Atkinson's measurements are seriously faulted. I have had a long phone conversation with Pat Mc Ginty (who made the swifts) on this subject. Stereophile measures at 50", while you need something like 10 feet to get reliable measurements from speakers with 1st order crossovers, like the Meadowlarks. John Atkinson knows this, but he ignores it and by providing such measurements, I believe he's actually misleading the readers of Stereophile.

Pat Mc Ginty claims that he could easily present measurements of all his speakers with ruler flat responses, but he has always refused to publish these, because it's his opinion that it takes our focus away from what's important. How the speakers really perform and what musical pleasure they may provide.

I have listened extensively to 802d and been quite unimpressed, these are my opinions, and I respect anyone having different opinions. I bought Meadowlarks Kestrel2's for myself and I wouldn't ever trade them for 802d's, The Kestrel's are better in every aspect that counts, except that it doesn't have the bass weight of larger speakers because it's only got a 6'5 bass/mid driver

But that's my opinion, I respect anyone with different opinions, but I refuse to take John Atkinson's word as the truth when he's actually making serious errors.....

 

[WmAx]

You can't compare the swift's with 802d, the swifts are $900 speakers, and the 802d's are what?
Would you compare a Toyota Aygo with a Mercedes SL500?

You made the initial choice of claiming that the 802D is an inferior performer as compared to the Swift.

Even so, John Atkinson's measurements are seriously faulted. I have had a long phone conversation with Pat Mc Ginty (who made the swifts) on this subject. Stereophile measures at 50", while you need something like 10 feet to get reliable measurements from speakers with 1st order crossovers, like the Meadowlarks. John Atkinson knows this, but he ignores it and by providing such measurements, I believe he's actually misleading the readers of Stereophile.

Atkinson uses as close to the NRC standard as possible, which is 2 meters. Due to the fact Atkinson does not have an anechoic chamber, 50" is about the maximum distance that can be used and still get a reasonable mid-band resolution capture in a room, and gate out the reflections from the room. Atkinson's results closely match the NRC ones, when he has measured the same speakers. As such, I have no reason to fault him in this particular issue. In an anechoic chamber, measuring at 10' compared to what is normally used would simply make the high end response drop off more, since high frequencies are more readily absorbed and converted to heat by air molecules. If you measured at 10' in an actual room, then this could be an advantage for the Swift -- the room acoustics would mask the actual (and poor) response of the speaker.

Pat Mc Ginty claims that he could easily present measurements of all his speakers with ruler flat responses, but he has always refused to publish these, because it's his opinion that it takes our focus away from what's important. How the speakers really perform and what musical pleasure they may provide.

I'm sure he could provide ruler flat responses - by using cheating tactics. Much like AV123's measurements of the Srata Mini - which look flat on the manufacturer website - the NRC measurements demonstrate that the AV123 measurement in this case is a work of fantasy. Such cheating tactics are not that uncommon - and I can refer to a major respected manufacturer that uses them. But NRC/Stereophile measurements are designed to show a realistic response.

Judging by the measurements vs. what is known to be perceptually relevant - I would have to assume that Meadowlark appears to lack the knowledge to design a speaker that adheres to these important known characteristics.

I have listened extensively to 802d and been quite unimpressed, these are my opinions, and I respect anyone having different opinions. I bought Meadowlarks Kestrel2's for myself and I wouldn't ever trade them for 802d's, The Kestrel's are better in every aspect that counts, except that it doesn't have the bass weight of larger speakers because it's only got a 6'5 bass/mid driver

But that's my opinion, I respect anyone with different opinions, but I refuse to take John Atkinson's word as the truth when he's actually making serious errors.....

I don't doubt that you prefer the Swift - but you make appear to make huge assumptions that go beyond you simple preference when you accuse the 802D, a superbly engineered device, of being an inferior performer. Even if you only meant this to apply to your personal preferences, I still had to respond in case anyone made an incorrect assumption.

I do not prefer the inherent response(flat) of the 802D. I prefer to use a precision DSP EQ to apply a slight gradual taper off of high frequencies on such a speaker. One can use any combination of tonal sculpting using a precision DSP EQ when a highly accurate, neutral speaker such as the 802D is used. This tonal sculpting is not going to be very successful on a speaker such as the Swift.

-Chris

 

[haraldo]

You made the initial choice of claiming that the 802D is an inferior performer as compared to the Swift.

I have never said that, I wrote that I prefer the Kestrel2

Atkinson uses as close to the NRC standard as possible, which is 2 meters. Due to the fact Atkinson does not have an anechoic chamber, 50" is about the maximum distance that can be used and still get a reasonable mid-band resolution capture in a room, and gate out the reflections from the room. Atkinson's results closely match the NRC ones, when he has measured the same speakers. As such, I have no reason to fault him in this particular issue. In an anechoic chamber, measuring at 10' compared to what is normally used would simply make the high end response drop off more, since high frequencies are more readily absorbed and converted to heat by air molecules. If you measured at 10' in an actual room, then this could be an advantage for the Swift -- the room acoustics would mask the actual (and poor) response of the speaker.

I totally agree, but the measurements are still faulted when he does it that way

I don't doubt that you prefer the Swift - but you make appear to make huge assumptions that go beyond you simple preference when you accuse the 802D, a superbly engineered device, of being an inferior performer.

Never said that 802d is inferior, I say I and quite a few people that I know of don't like them, that doesn't mean they are inferior

This tonal sculpting is not going to be very successful on a speaker such as the Swift.

Why is that?

 

[WmAx]

I totally agree, but the measurements are still faulted when he does it that way

Faulted by perhaps a 5 percent error; or some similar small degree of error. Not significant. The results to the NRC tests demonstrate the error is not significant.

Why is that?

Because the Swift clearly is not a high-fidelity(using this term in it's literal sense) loudspeaker. It has substantial colorations in several key areas, where as the 802D does not. The EQ can not remove the colorations - it can only try to mask them. Using the EQ with the 802D, however, you only add which colorations you prefer, and you do so in a controlled manner. I will be certain that I make this clear: by EQ, I mean a precision DSP EQ, not the traditional equalizer that may be envisioned by many when the term 'EQ' is used. Refer to the Behringer DCX2496 and Behringer DEQ2496 as examples of precision DSP EQs.

-Chris

 

[haraldo]

Faulted by perhaps a 5 percent error; or some similar small degree of error. Not significant. The results to the NRC tests demonstrate the error is not significant.

Here you are actually incorrect... With most speakers this may be the case, but not when it comes to speakers with 1st order crossovers. They sound totally different at 50" as opposed to 10 feet, and this you may very easily hear.

Because the Swift clearly is not a high-fidelity(using this term in it's literal sense) loudspeaker. It has substantial colorations in several key areas, where as the 802D does not......

- Have you listened to the Swifts? I have not, so I can make no assumptions on the Swifts....
- Do you know they have colorations, or do you just assume that's the case because John Atkinson measures them incorrectly?
- Still it's very unfair to compare $900 speakers to 802d
- Have you seen the level of engineeing going into speakers like Kestrel2? They look like they cost 3 times more than what they do, and performance is stunning

My main point, You should not buy speakers based on reviews but what you really like, use a lot of time and listen to as many speakers as you can, then you will have a better backgrounder for making the correct choice.....

 

[WmAx]

Here you are actually incorrect... With most speakers this may be the case, but not when it comes to speakers with 1st order crossovers. They sound totally different at 50" as opposed to 10 feet, and this you may very easily hear.

Feel free to demonstrate this. A 1st order cross over has no significant differences that qualify it for a special distance vs. measurement function as compared to say, a 2nd order cross over. The difference in a 1st order crossover is simply the degree of phase angle modification(in which, a transient-perfect phase response as allowed by a 1st order design has never been shown to be of any significant effect for musical playback [1]), the off axis response characteristics, as well as the degree of energy that breaches past the crossover point.

- Have you listened to the Swifts? I have not, so I can make no assumptions on the Swifts....
- Do you know they have colorations, or do you just assume that's the case because John Atkinson measures them incorrectly?
- Still it's very unfair to compare $900 speakers to 802d
- Have you seen the level of engineeing going into speakers like Kestrel2? They look like they cost 3 times more than what they do, and performance is stunning

I have seen no evidence demonstrating that Atkinson measured in such a way as to substantially alter the results. I am some what knowledgeable in the realm of loudspeaker engineering, and see no significant problem(s) in his measurement methods in respect to FR and waterfall/CSD plot acquisition.

My main point, You should not buy speakers based on reviews but what you really like, use a lot of time and listen to as many speakers as you can, then you will have a better backgrounder for making the correct choice.....

Much of my knowledge is in the area of perceptual research of this field - as such - I can determine many things related to audibility from a specific data set of sufficient detail that would not be possible for a normal hobbyist to determine. So while I understand that you and many other people like to conclude things with statements such as "just go listen", much of this field is quantifiable and audible results of many specific measured characteristics can be correlated to credible scientific research that cross-references known audibility thresholds and subjective results under blinded conditions of trained listeners vs. measured characteristics. The massive resonance seen in the waterfall is most certainly within the audibility thresholds as outlined in credible research[2][3], as well as the poor off axis response[4], demonstrated as being a negative influence on perceived sound quality by Toole(NRC/Harman) and Paisley(NRC/Mirage) in carefully controlled double-blinded testing scenarios of hundreds of subjects. In regards to the cabinet resonances - the amplitude measured is quite high - and considering the substantial cabinet wall surface area - it is not safe to presume that this is not going to be an audible contribution to the room, where as the 802D has levels of such low magnitude, that they barely register in the measurements.

-Chris

Foonotes

[1]On the Audibility of Midrange Phase Distortion in Audio Systems
Stanley P. Lipshitz, Mark Pocock and John Vanderkooy
JAES, Vol. 30, No. 9, September, 1982, Pages 580-595

[2]The Modification of Timbre by Resonances: Perception and Measurement
Floyd Toole, Sean Olive, JAES, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1988, March, pages 122-141

[3]Loudspeaker Distortions, Can We Hear Them?
P.A. Fryer, Hi-Fi News Rec. Rev., vol.22, pp. 51-56, 1977

[4]Loudspeaker Measurements and Their Relationship to Listener Preferences: Part 2
Floyd E. Toole
JAES, May, 1986, Vol. 34, pages 227-235

 

[haraldo]

Feel free to demonstrate this. A 1st order cross over has no significant differences that qualify it for a special distance vs. measurement function as compared to say, a 2nd order cross over. The difference in a 1st order crossover is simply the degree of phase angle modification, theoff axis response characteristics, as well as the degree of energy that breaches past the crossover point.

Looking back at the material, it's not really about 1st order or 4th order x over's but wavelenght related to driver separation and measuring distance.
This is not related to the swifts, but provides some backgrounder on measuring distances from a world class designer
http://stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/166/index8.html

Clearly Pat Mc Ginty was very very very clear that it's in his opinion incorrect to measure speakers at 50"

Still, my speakers sound very different at 50" as opposed to 10'

We agree on one thing, I presume: Use you ears and trust yourself )

-Harald N

 

[Penny]

In my humble opinion the B&W products are overrated and overpriced and does not perform very well... Never liked them, they seem slow, floppy bass and not musical (in my opinion)

Every now and then these speakers are out there on the second hand market, outperforms 802D at a considerably lower pricetag
http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?spkrfull&1209255073

Running for cover ==:-O

I guess when you've wasted your money on those other speakers you need to defend your choice to the end.

 

[haraldo]

I'm sorry, I've read over this thread several times and I can't seem to find where you've stated that you actually owned any of these speakers.

I never did......

I have listened extensively to 802d with a series of Classe amps, quite expensive ones and should be more than powerful enough with a wide margin.
The music did not come alive the way it should do, I just could not get the the feeling that this was music, but merely something synthetic and artificial. I could say that this is to blame the speakers, but it could of course be the case that the amplifiers was never able to properly handle the 802d's
I listened once again later to the 802d's with a Lyngdorf TDAI 2200 digital amplifier with a Class-D power stage. Much cheaper amplification and it actually performed way better.

It could of course be that my non-positive experiences with those speakers are colored by that fact that I have never heard them with electronics that may get the best out of them..... But if the dealer cannot demo the speakers properly, who else could?

I guess when you've wasted your money on those other speakers you need to defend your choice to the end.

Couldn't be further from the truth....

fact is, I have heard and read about quite a few people that have bought B&W speakers because they have been getting nice reviews. I am NOT by any means suggesting that anyone of you have done that. But such a fact scares me......

Main point: Forget about me and my opinions, USE YOUR EARS AND TRUST YOURSELF, and not the reviewers. You shouldn't really trust them....


Regards

Harald N

 

[WmAx]

Looking back at the material, it's not really about 1st order or 4th order x over's but wavelenght related to driver separation and measuring distance.
This is not related to the swifts, but provides some backgrounder on measuring distances from a world class designer
http://stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/166/index8.html

Clearly Pat Mc Ginty was very very very clear that it's in his opinion incorrect to measure speakers at 50"

Still, my speakers sound very different at 50" as opposed to 10'

We agree on one thing, I presume: Use you ears and trust yourself )

-Harald N

To be fair, while Dunlavy is a technical expert, he has never demonstrated knowledge in regards to the perceptual research that is critical to design a loudspeaker system of the highest quality for human hearing.

Dunlavy's nitpickings are over minor differences as compared to measuring at 10' vs. a shorter difference. The main perceptual difference found was high frequency balance, which is no surprise, and I mentioned this earlier. Now, due to the large vertical size, other tonal balance issues can also persist, as this is related to the effective wave source size vs. distance - that is - the very large Dunlavy speaker may effective act in a near-field manner at a farther distance as compared to most speakers. Also, if a speaker designer spaces drivers that cross over to one another at a very large distance relative to wavelength, this can effect measurements to some degree - but not substantially at the distances mentioned unless it is a gross difference that would result in a poor loudspeaker system design. The NRC 2 meter standard was chosen for a specific reason - and it allows virtually any speaker to integrate it's driver response by this distance to an acceptable degree. If the mid-range/treble band actually could not integrate by 2 meters, then the speaker system would clearly ignore virtually universal design standards used by virtually every designer. The Swift certainly does not apply to the unusually large size qualification. Dunlavy makes reference to his on-axis anechoic measurements demonstrated a +/- 1dB response, while the response indicated by Atkinson did not. Atkinson's response is clearly a +/- 30 degree horizontal window average response set. Since Dunlavy speakers usually have very poor off axis response, then they would reflect poorly in the a horizontal window average in this very manner. Dunlavy speakers only excelled for heavily treated rooms that removed much of the off axis reflections - a requirement due to the very poor off axis response of his speaker systems. If off axis response had been identical on axis, then the reflections can actually increase perceived sound quality by human subjects, assuming proper distance from the walls, and assuming a symmetrical left and right reflection pattern. With excessive room treatment, the inherent cabinet resonances are also reduced, a good thing considering the Dunlavy speaker at subject in the linked article was measured as being moderately resonant.

-Chris

 

[haraldo]

To be fair, while Dunlavy is a technical expert, he has never demonstrated knowledge in regards to the perceptual research that is critical to design a loudspeaker system of the highest quality for human hearing.....

Guess we're going way beyond what this thread is about now.....

You clearly know a lot about this stuff

While we'll never agree on what speakers we like, but that's fair......

 

[haraldo]

I must ask: What is your definition of "perform very well"? In accordance to known important characteristics to human audibility, the 802D can be quantified as to performing superbly.

Am I opening Pandoras Box here....

In my opinion, There is one definitive area where many speakers fail, they do not preserve the input signal, but distort the phase and timing of the signal.
This is recognizable by looking at measurements of step responses, which, for instance, stereophile provides.

For instance: A speaker with a 4th order X-over will have a 360 degree full phase shift at the crossover frequency, this means that some parts of the signal will be delayed, some frequencies of the signal is in opposite phase to other frequencies. Any electronic product, like an amplifier would be stamped broken if it provided such a distortion.

The only speakers that are free from these artifacts are time aligned designs with 1st order crossovers....

Most people claim that this is irrelevant and inaudible. Well, is a complete 360 degree phaseshift irrelevant, I disagree....

The following provide some more backgrounders on this:
- http://www.thielaudio.com/THIEL_Site05/Pages/FAQs/faqtimephase.html
- See attached paper

Technicality asides, I believe you should listen and experience this for yourself. This makes a difference, but perhaps other aspects may be more important to you.

You have to decide for yourself

Regards

Harald N

 

[WmAx]

The only speakers that are free from these artifacts are time aligned designs with 1st order crossovers....

Most people claim that this is irrelevant and inaudible. Well, is a complete 360 degree phaseshift irrelevant, I disagree....

Mr. Theile is not supported by credible research. Double-blinded methodology experiments using carefully controlled test conditions were performed in response to such claims. This research was published and peer-reviewed into the JAES.

On the Audibility of Midrange Phase Distortion in Audio Systems
Stanley P. Lipshitz, Mark Pocock and John Vanderkooy
JAES, Vol. 30, No. 9, September, 1982, Pages 580-595

The research demonstrated that a 'transient perfect' design had no substantial audibility difference for musical playback as compared to the phase distortion present in the standard higher order (2nd, 4th) crossover design. I have repeated the experiments for myself under double-blinded control conditions by playing back computer modified files over transient perfect transducers, using a randomized comparator(Foobar ABX Plug-In).

-Chris

 

[haraldo]

Mr. Theile is not supported by credible research. Double-blinded methodology experiments using carefully controlled test conditions were performed in response to such claims. This research was published and peer-reviewed into the JAES.

On the Audibility of Midrange Phase Distortion in Audio Systems
Stanley P. Lipshitz, Mark Pocock and John Vanderkooy
JAES, Vol. 30, No. 9, September, 1982, Pages 580-595

The research demonstrated that a 'transient perfect' design had no substantial audibility difference for musical playback as compared to the phase distortion present in the standard higher order (2nd, 4th) crossover design. I have repeated the experiments for myself under double-blinded control conditions by playing back computer modified files over transient perfect transducers, using a randomized comparator(Foobar ABX Plug-In).

-Chris

Do you say that reversing the phase of parts of the signal is of absolutely no relevance, whatsoever?
What about 1000 Degrees phase shift? or 10.000 degrees phase shift?

Would that also apply to an amplifier, or a CD player?

Can you please provide URL's to your references, these are not freely available.....
Which transient perfect transducers were you using?

To be fair, while Dunlavy is a technical expert, he has never demonstrated knowledge in regards to the perceptual research that is critical to design a loudspeaker system of the highest quality for human hearing.....

Is that why his speakers received A+ ratings in Stereophile
Have you ever listened to any Dunlavy speakers to back up your claims?
Do you have any idea why Steven Stone in a Stereophile review wrote the following:

What is important is that the Dunlavy SC-VI represents a landmark in loudspeaker design.......
It gets an A+ with at least five gold stars, a bullet, and couple of dollar signs to designate them a stone-cold bargain. Anyone, no matter how tweaky, who purchases any other more expensive large speaker system without at least hearing a pair of properly set-up Dunlavy Signature VIs is an utter fool.

You are constantly referring to research, but you are not providing any references that's freely available, why not?

 

[jaxvon]

You are constantly referring to research, but you are not providing any references that's freely available, why not?

Like most scientific journals, the JAES is only available if you pay for a copy or have access to a university library that keeps it on hand. This is an unfortunate reality of journals.

 

[WmAx]

Do you say that reversing the phase of parts of the signal is of absolutely no relevance, whatsoever?
What about 1000 Degrees phase shift? or 10.000 degrees phase shift?

No one is talking about reversing phase - which sounds much like using two drivers in the same bandwidth, but operating in opposite phase/polarity; this would result in substantial cancellation effects. I don't think that's what you meant - but it needs to be clarified any ways. I refer to relative phase shift. And, the degree of shift found on a 4th order crossover is not of substantial audible relevance: that is the conclusion of scientifically valid research.

Would that also apply to an amplifier, or a CD player?

If an amplifier or cd player had the same degree of phase shift as a multi-way loudspeaker, it would be a very odd/poor design, indeed. However, if the total phase shift of the system does not exceed the audibility threshold, it matters not where the shift took place, as far as the human hearing system is concerned.

Which transient perfect transducers were you using?

It really matters not what I was using: I have a large number of transducers and test systems that I can and do set up for specific testing: my main interest is loudspeaker engineering after all.

Is that why his speakers received A+ ratings in Stereophile
Have you ever listened to any Dunlavy speakers to back up your claims?
Do you have any idea why Steven Stone in a Stereophile review wrote the following:

My claims - you seem to misunderstand - my claims are merely reflections of the modern state of loudspeaker design research as concluded in the credible scientific journals as a result of randomized, blinded perceptual tests. Dunlavy's speakers did not address one of the most important aspects of speaker design: off axis response linearity. The excessive focus on transient perfect response was a wasted one, according to the credible research. Based on these two factors - I base my conclusion that Dunlavy did not demonstrate designing speakers using the known perceptual research in the field. I do not care what a random reviewer states, as you refer to in Stereophile magazine. The only part of Stereophile that I refer to are the measurements, which are usually done reasonably well, and thus useful for many data reference points. Credible research has shown that if his speakers had featured a flat off axis response, as well as on axis response, that the perceived audio quality would have been substantially increased in a reflective environment. Dunlavy speakers actually require substantially more absorption treatment than normal due to the poor off axis response patterns.

You are constantly referring to research, but you are not providing any references that's freely available, why not?

Much of the research I refer to is published in scientific/engineering journals. This is typically the most credible/highest quality information, but it's not usually free. I have had to dish out hundreds of dollars for these papers - so I don't like having to pay either - but that's just the way these journals currently operate.

-Chris

 

[haraldo]

Mr. Theile is not supported by credible research. Double-blinded methodology experiments using carefully controlled test conditions were performed in response to such claims. This research was published and peer-reviewed into the JAES.

There are credible research and tests proving otherwise.
If you read audio perfectionist journal, Richard Hardesty has proven to many many people in double blind tests that phase and time distortion really matters and that it makes a significant difference.
(www.audioperfectionist.com)

I am not sure how the tests you refer to are performed, but I believe some of this research was performed by having individuals listen to combinations of sinus tones, in such a setup we may possibly not hear a difference. Who listens to sinus tones, not mee...

While similar tests have been performed double blind by Mr Hardesty, every single member of the test board was able to tell the difference reliably. This is not published through JAES, but in my opinion just as reliable.

There have also been double blind tests using B&W801 speakers where the phase time distortion was corrected with dsp so that they presented a phase/time accurate response. Every single member could hear the difference and the preference was on the corrected system. I may not provide links to this at the moment, but I will try to locate this at a later time.
To say that a speaker is faulted because it doesn't adhere to your standards or the research that you believe in is something that surprises me. Many studios around the world used Duntech's and Dunlavy's from the hand of MR Dunlavy, I'm not sure how many still does... I Don't really think studios would make such choices if those speakers were seriously faulted?

I'm not saying those speakers are perfect, certainly not, or I would have bought them, I made different choices, but I would not pick a speaker pair that's not phase/time coherent for a high-end rig.

Regards

Harald N

 

[WmAx]

There are credible research and tests proving otherwise.
If you read audio perfectionist journal, Richard Hardesty has proven to many many people in double blind tests that phase and time distortion really matters and that it makes a significant difference.
(www.audioperfectionist.com)

Credible by scientific methodology? Not likely. No one can successfully refute the data in the journals so far - so why should I accept some non-published, unknown information? This area has been extensively researched and published in the audio engineering journals.

I remembered, a lot of the phase distortion audibility research was covered in some detail on an old article on this site. Here is a link:

http://www.audioholics.com/education/acoustics-principles/human-hearing-phase-distortion-audibility-part-2

I am not sure how the tests you refer to are performed, but I believe some of this research was performed by having individuals listen to combinations of sinus tones, in such a setup we may possibly not hear a difference. Who listens to sinus tones, not mee...

The tests I refer to used music and test signals, in a large variety of conditions in order to assess practical relevance on loudspeaker quality.

There have also been double blind tests using B&W801 speakers where the phase time distortion was corrected with dsp so that they presented a phase/time accurate response. Every single member could hear the difference and the preference was on the corrected system

It's actually quite easy to invalidate such a test by using an incorrect methodology in how the phase distortion is applied. And you say it used a double blinded methodology? I am surprised that I have not read about it, if it was really performed in a manner that was difficult to refute. If you find the specific source/reference, be certain to let me know.

To say that a speaker is faulted because it doesn't adhere to your standards or the research that you believe in is something that surprises me. Many studios around the world used Duntech's and Dunlavy's from the hand of MR Dunlavy, I'm not sure how many still does... I Don't really think studios would make such choices if those speakers were seriously faulted?

To be blunt, it seems as if many audio/studio engineers do not know, or do not care, what is truly high fidelity in all respects. It is also a case of combating ignorance: many are set into their ways and do not either have the time, patience, or perhaps common sense to keep up with the perceptual research in these areas and how it relates to sound quality.

A Dunlavy or Duntech would make a great near-field 'style' speaker[by this, I mean, they can provide high fidelity on axis sound, but can not interact with an environment] used in far field position; but this does not replicate the conditions of a normal home listening environment. Nor is such a speaker ideal for sound quality to human subjects, since it can not take advantage of what qualities can be added by the room when used properly.

-Chris

 

[haraldo]

Credible by scientific methodology? Not likely. No one can successfully refute the data in the journals so far ........
-Chris

Do you listen with your ears or do you only rely on the "scientific" journals?
Why do you say that No one can successfully refute the data in the journals so far, what's the evidence behind this?
I believe you are wrong here, I have provided the backgrounder for that....... A number of people can genuinely claim your findings to be incorrect.

Why do people stubbornly say that a serious phase shift is of no relevance whatsoeever.
While it's over and over and over again claimed that phase shifts is one of the reasons about what ruins the fidelity of digital CD playback. The brickwall filter of a CD player ruins everything, while a serious phase shift is perfectly fine with a speaker.

I listen with my ears, not scientific journals............

 

[Sheep]

Do you listen with your ears or do you only rely on the "scientific" journals?
Why do you say that No one can successfully refute the data in the journals so far, what's the evidence behind this?
I believe you are wrong here, I have provided the backgrounder for that....... A number of people can genuinely claim your findings to be incorrect.

Why do people stubbornly say that a serious phase shift is of no relevance whatsoeever.
While it's over and over and over again claimed that phase shifts is one of the reasons about what ruins the fidelity of digital CD playback. The brickwall filter of a CD player ruins everything, while a serious phase shift is perfectly fine with a speaker.

I listen with my ears, not scientific journals............

I lost count how many times WmAx disproved all your "arguments". For your sake, give it a rest, you will NEVER win.

SheepStar