| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Horn-Loaded Speakers» Aporia - Silbatone Acoustics speaker (108 posts, 6 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 2 of 5 (108 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 4 5 »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Truth stretched out via Feastrex prism...  Goodbye Chris Witmer...  Audio Discussions  Forum     26  233251  01-21-2006
  »  New  Western Electric reproduces 0Hz + some literature…..  Re-set...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     2  39545  07-24-2006
  »  New  Learn to differentiate between Imaging and Soundstage...  Learn to differentiate between Imaging and Soundstage....  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     0  11366  03-07-2007
  »  New  Klangfilm: actual knowledge is better then fetish imagi..  Klangfilm Kl51...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     18  174984  03-15-2007
  »  New  The unintended consequences of binaural things in Hi-Fi..  Re: Binaural -- or what ever the case was......  Playback Listening  Forum     1  22699  08-04-2009
  »  New  Munich High End 2010..  The retarded open baffle...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     39  275179  05-16-2010
  »  New  The CES's 2011 horns..  Reviewers and table radios...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     21  133043  01-07-2011
  »  New  A Moscow setup with Horns/Lowther..  A new reiteration of the Moscow setup....  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     33  260436  02-27-2011
  »  New  A new kid in the block: Sadurni Acoustics..  Axpona 2015...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     21  96221  08-22-2011
  »  New  Aries Cerat Contendo - the newest "fat" kid i..  Stavros Danos from Cyprus.......  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     2  31031  09-08-2011
01-22-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 504
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 26
Post ID: 9486
Reply to: 9484
Good Sound Club
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Joe Roberts wrote:
In accordance with my deeply felt philosophy that one should do with audio whatever makes one happy, I certainly recognize and defend your right to think and do what you please.
So what is the difference between the two viewpoints if both are interested in a connection to the Sound on a higher level?

 Joe Roberts wrote:
I think this site is an interesting spot on the map and it is what it is. I'm certain that some people get a lot out of poking around here. On that note, good job Mr. Cat.
The very good things about this site are:

1. We have a group of people with similar alignment about audio.
2. There are plenty of very experienced people who contribute good ideas.
3. The flame wars that make up 99% of most other columns do not happen here too often.
4. Thin skinned people (who I think are taking it way too seriously) don't stick around.

Hooray!
Adrian
01-23-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,655
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 27
Post ID: 9495
Reply to: 9376
Some Silbatone images and about the deal with front filtration
fiogf49gjkf0d

Audio Federation have publish some images from the Silbatone room at CES, even it is in their new idiotic format of the “magazine” but they still visible.

http://spintricity.com/445/public/Vol1-3/page182

What attracted me in the images is to see what Silbatone did with this front filter on this driver. It looks like they wanted to cut some front response proportionally to the back response. In past I played a LOT with all imaginable methods to do it. It is quite complex as any front filtration never does what you what but the filtration does also what it wants/ This is kind of complicated ballet to play, balancing the cons and pros. In case of the light cones of compression drivers and front filters it is VERY tricky as any acoustic impedance front-damps the diaphragms. I never was able to found a good solution and then learn to resolve my needs without employing the front filtration.

Sp, here is what I am thinking. Let pretend that Silbatone folks wanted to kill 3dB from their Manger front radiation. They made up a front filter, sort of bandwidth matched acoustic divider, but what if they do not do it? (Let presume that the Manger’s front radiation do not need any front correction) What might be interesting to try is to put behind the driver, right before the horn throat, a chamber, using the back-loaded Manger as a compression driver. The compression chamber might add a few db of the horn gain and by playing with chamber resonances and compression ratio it is possible to do “some” frequency corrections that Silbatone front-filter I am sure doing.

I have to note that it is very tricky to play with but if the right configuration found then I think it “might” get rid the necessity to throw a white flag of the front filters…

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-23-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Joe Roberts
Posts 48
Joined on 01-12-2009

Post #: 28
Post ID: 9496
Reply to: 9495
Back is part of the front (the back part)
fiogf49gjkf0d
Interesting concept but let me point out a few considerations.

The diffusor does performs a mild "equalization" function if you want to call it that but it is also an aid to dispersion. It is light "EQ"...3dB might be about right.

Without any diffusor, the front radiation of the Manger gets up in your face a bit and stands out from the horn. I believe that this is independent of frequency response issues and more to do with radiation angle characteristics and the perceptible texture of front vs. Backhorn radiation.

I tried taking it off and forget it. Ruins the coherency of the speaker and you can then hear front radiation + horn radiation.  At the upper range of the horn, the speaker is fairly wide in directionality. At 150hz, the Manger unit beams. The illusion of a single source is lost.

Furthermore, the Manger driver is extremely fragile. There are small wires on the front and if these are disturbed, the $500 each (in large quantity) driver is finished. The diffusor protects the driver from mechanical damage.

A pic of naked driver is here:
http://spintricity.com/458/public/Vol1-3/page195


My Korean bud has the factory Manger system with 3 drivers per side in his bedroom. His wife likes their sound quite a bit and kidnapped these for her own listening pleasure (she is not a WE fan) while she is at the computer.  One day his housekeeper decided to dust the speakers and that was the end of SIX Mangers in a single attack.

And the most important thing...IT LOOKS COOL!! Cant make any hair dryer jokes about a naked Manger.

Finally, as mentioned above, there are a number of issues with the back wave radiation that require playing with filters in that back pipe already. How this would interact with the compression chamber notion, who knows?

All in all, the diffusor is a decent practical solution in a number of ways. I fear that no matter what is done behind the driver, there is the issue of beaming and getting up in your grill that the front radiation poses. A bit TOO immediate and direct without the diffusor.

With this appliance screwed on the transparency of the Manger is maintained and the effective coherency of the system is enhanced.

Much practical experimentation and listening testing went into this diffusor design and, as you can see, it is a bitch to make with around 40 precision machined parts per side, so it is hard to play around with. I agree that such an approach would be near impossible to model or predict by pure mathematics and rests in the domain of "cut and try" experimentation.

Silbatone was formerly in a marketing partnership with Loth X, whose advance in Lowther-type back horn design involved a realization that the back chamber behind the cone must be roomy for optimal front radiation. The front and back of a cone are rather intimately related, after all. Most Lowther backhorns had a small chamber behind the speaker, which raised the Q of peaks and messed up the subjective character of the front radiation, while constricting low end response.

I don't remember the details of this argument, but the point is that you mess with the back, you're also messing with the front. The Manger front radiation is so fine and well behaved that I'd be worried about interfering with what the Manger does best.
01-23-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,655
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 29
Post ID: 9498
Reply to: 9496
The West-Silba LochTone Ness Manga-Electric?
fiogf49gjkf0d

 Joe Roberts wrote:
Interesting concept but let me point out a few considerations.

The diffusor does performs a mild "equalization" function if you want to call it that but it is also an aid to dispersion. It is light "EQ"...3dB might be about right.

Without any diffusor, the front radiation of the Manger gets up in your face a bit and stands out from the horn. I believe that this is independent of frequency response issues and more to do with radiation angle characteristics and the perceptible texture of front vs. Backhorn radiation.

All my experiments with diffusers, screens, refractors whatever it might be called convinced me that it has absolutely nothing to do with radiation angles and widening of dispersion. It is ONLY about the specific attenuation at specific frequency. All those “in your face” feeling are cured not by widening of dispersion here and there and poetic take about acoustic lenses but juts running sound at fractions dB more or less at specific frequencies. What they do is matching the fixed character of Manger’s front radiation to the accidental and most likely very much not optimal sound Manger does from back. There is nothing wrong with it but it would be absolutely not necessary if the back horn would be loaded with own properly selected driver.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
I tried taking it off and forget it. Ruins the coherency of the speaker and you can then hear front radiation + horn radiation.  At the upper range of the horn, the speaker is fairly wide in directionality. At 150hz, the Manger unit beams. The illusion of a single source is lost.

It nothing to do with “single source”. The “single source” is absolutely idiotic concept that was a pure verbal invents of Moron who sell single-drivers speakers in the past and who made week peoples to feel that the “single source” is a meaningful trim.  The “single source” neither is a fact a byproduct of a specific sound reproduction method but it has no existence in LIVE sound and there is not need for it pursue in sound reproduction.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
All in all, the diffusor is a decent practical solution in a number of ways. I fear that no matter what is done behind the driver, there is the issue of beaming and getting up in your grill that the front radiation poses. A bit TOO immediate and direct without the diffusor.

I think diffuser is a brutal solution. I would like to see more elegant solution, like an introduction of some kind of directional pressure beams that would act upon the Manger cone and to jolt or comforting it what it is necessary. The mind back chamber might (or might not) be one of the way to do it, it would also add some dB to the back loading the looks like needed in this design.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
Silbatone was formerly in a marketing partnership with Loth X, whose advance in Lowther-type back horn design …

You probably better shall not mention it as Loth X were absolutely idiotic in design and in sound. Knowing that your Korean flaks are satisfied with their Manger single driver it was not hard to predict where their formers audio experiences came from. Ah, was it Western Loch X Ness Electric?

 Joe Roberts wrote:
I don't remember the details of this argument, but the point is that you mess with the back, you're also messing with the front.

If course you do but this was exactly the point: not to “mess” but to trey make the NECESSARY impact. I did not say that it is easy but it more noble and more elegant, not to mention that it might help to the bass horn that always a plus.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
The Manger front radiation is so fine and well behaved that I'd be worried about interfering with what the Manger does best. 

Apparently the Manger front radiation is NOT fine, particularly in context of the back horn. If it were fine the Silbatone would not create a federal case around the diffuser. It is so self-evident that it you need to deny it then you are self-delusional or too marketingly-academic.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-23-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Joe Roberts
Posts 48
Joined on 01-12-2009

Post #: 30
Post ID: 9499
Reply to: 9498
The age old problem of choosing the wrong evaluation system
fiogf49gjkf0d
I would like to see more elegant solution, like an introduction of some kind of directional pressure beams that would act upon the Manger cone and to jolt or comforting it what it is necessary.


THAT would be cool. If anybody knows how to introduce "comforting directional beams to act upon the Manger cone," please let me know.

We just punked out and settled for a diffusor.


The “single source” neither is a fact a byproduct of a specific sound reproduction method but it has no existence in LIVE sound and there is not need for it pursue in sound reproduction.


Hence, the qualifer "illusion" as noted above. The problem is two or three identifiable frequency-dependent sources has no reference in live music either and when you can hear this in reproduction, you are really losing the game.

The whole project of reproduction is, of course, about illusions.

And yes, delusions too.

We are working with reproduction, not live music. Nothing sounds like live music, except live music. Since this is obviously the case, any attempt to rank our failed attempts at perfect recreation as more or less "like" live music involves arbitrary judgments, taste, and an underlying delusion that reproduction is even possible.

A better term than "reproduction"  might be  "pale imitiation."

Trying to characterize everything in terms of frequency response is a dead end, having to do with physics and meters and whatnot, not music. I always wondered how all these Romy/Harry Pearson type "absolute sound" guys don't see the disjunct between dry technical evaluation and sensuous musical experience.

Oh yeah, I covered "delusion" already.

If we shift evaluation schemes to subjective emotional responses (which is the reason we listen to music),  then we are standing on common ground between live music and playback.

Emotional response takes into account factors such as taste, musical preferences, differences in individual hearing capabilities, and so on. The "human sound meter" delusion pretends that such factors do not intervene, when in fact they are the most relevant and vital aspects of the audio illusion. Why else have a stereo?

If you want to talk technical measurements, that's cool with me...just don't pretend that you are talking about musical bliss. There ain't no LCD readout bliss meter.

The real solution:  hire a band.
01-23-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,655
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 31
Post ID: 9500
Reply to: 9499
Where your interests and experiences lay.
fiogf49gjkf0d

 Joe Roberts wrote:
The problem is two or three identifiable frequency-dependent sources has no reference in live music either …

 It is true, so the amount of the channels is not mandatory or necessary qualifier for sound reproduction and therefore the single point radiation is not better of worse then multiple points of radiation or cloud-point of radiation. The amount of channels is responsible for OTHER things but NOT for the geometry of radiation, at least as far as the single point of radiation concern… 

 Joe Roberts wrote:
…and when you can hear this in reproduction, you are really losing the game.
You can hear multiple radiation points only if the thing are done badly but it still would be very far from “losing the game”. In many instances you do not hear multiple radiation points but the badly made integration have “finished the game” – you just do not know it. So, the point is that the sonic identification of the independent channels is not too important factor as you are trying it to make. Sure, it is nice when the channels are not self-demonstrable but there is so much more to it… Anyhow, a properly implemented multi-channel installation has immense among of advantages against single-channel including the geometry of imaging.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
We are working with reproduction, not live music. Nothing sounds like live music, except live music. Since this is obviously the case, any attempt to rank our failed attempts at perfect recreation as more or less "like" live music involves arbitrary judgments, taste, and an underlying delusion that reproduction is even possible.

A better term than "reproduction"  might be  "pale imitiation."

And based upon this preamble I am sure that you feel that since your Korean lobbyee made a single-driver speaker then a proper audio delusion is possible only by the bogus single-point radiation? The importance of single-point radiation is as false as importance of speaker orientation toward the North Pole.  It makes good talking points for uninformed people and it is about it. BTW, I disagree with the whole concept of “perfect recreation” and “underlying delusion” that you trying to advocate. I know it is a convenient concept to sell toys for hoi-polloi public but it is not where my interests and my experiences lay.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
Trying to characterize everything in terms of frequency response is a dead end, having to do with physics and meters and whatnot, not music. I always wondered how all these Romy/Harry Pearson type "absolute sound" guys don't see the disjunct between dry technical evaluation and sensuous musical experience.

I think you need to read my site bit to educate yourself about what you are asking. There is not Romy/Pearson association. BTW, I use frequency response in different way then you apparently understand it. Yes, my view of horns is very different than anybody’s else as I refuse to recognize horns as pressure transformation device. In my view horn are equalization devise: how and why I see it this way - you need to do some reading – I have written about it extensively. Also, with all do respect, I do not think that you need to lecture me about the meters of music in context of playback. Considering that you are uninformed about the inherited musical limitation of a single-driver topology it is very predictable what kind music you use for your audio appraisals. I do not what to go there but be advised that touching an elephant’s tail you might have a wrong impression what elephant is all about. 


 Joe Roberts wrote:
Emotional response takes into account factors such as taste, musical preferences, differences in individual hearing capabilities, and so on. The "human sound meter" delusion pretends that such factors do not intervene, when in fact they are the most relevant and vital aspects of the audio illusion. Why else have a stereo?

If Junior Wells is a reference point of what music is all about then you might be right but I would wonder THEN: why to have any more the table-radio audio objectives to begin with…

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-23-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
el`Ol
Posts 225
Joined on 10-13-2007

Post #: 32
Post ID: 9502
Reply to: 9500
Manger active plus horn
fiogf49gjkf0d
I once visited a Manger addict who had an active system with Mangers and corner horns (equipped with four eightinchers, not heavy pro stuff). I found the Mangers and the horns very well-matching, and one should be glad about every Watt that doesn´t need to be done by the Mangers themselves (they are fragile not only in the mechanical sense).
01-23-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Joe Roberts
Posts 48
Joined on 01-12-2009

Post #: 33
Post ID: 9503
Reply to: 9500
Snatch it back and hold it
fiogf49gjkf0d
Anyhow, a properly implemented multi-channel installation has immense among of advantages against single-channel including the geometry of imaging.


Imaging...another hi-fi delusion. I used to record the Philadelphia Orchestra. The orchestra does not image.

Imaging is a fun hi-fi special effect but very difficult to assess in a musical frame, except when the 3-D portrayal of a stereo is so whacked out (or overly foregrounded) that it interferes with the flow of musical enjoyment.


I am sure that you feel that since your Korean lobbyee made a single-driver speaker then a proper audio delusion is possible only by the bogus single-point radiation?


Not at all. Satisfying illusions can be achieved by various topologies. I do think that unnatural sound effects that are the artifacts of technology can interfere with the illusion. Which artifacts interfere is a matter of taste and preference and, perhaps, acquired listening habits. Some can listen through artifacts that bug other listeners to no end.

Remember that individual ears and brains are on the receiving end. This is a matter of perception and phenomenology.

I disagree with the whole concept of “perfect recreation” and “underlying delusion” that you trying to advocate [...]it is not where my interests and my experiences lay.


Precisely my point. If you are advocating perfect reproduction judged by standard of live music, this interest entails some serious logical difficulties, unless you believe that perfect reproduction is indeed possible.

The "live music" standard injects value judgments and taste into the evaluation procedure, even though it advocates an ostensibly "objective" standard. If all systems fail to achieve the standard, how can we choose among imperfect results?

Think about that dilemma.

Major failure of Aristotelian logic is illustrated here, basically the failure of essentialism: In short, summarizing experience in terms of logical categories, and believing that performing mathematical and logical manipulations on these invented notions is equivalent to living in the world of experience.

This is a deep cultural presumption in Western societies for the past 2000+ years, so there is plenty of company in this misguided mode of thought.

There is not Romy/Pearson association.


Lord, I hope not. But face the fact that both are dreamers and believers in technological perfection that can not be achieved. Idealists thinking they are objective scientists. Segmenters of the continuum. Confusers of two different domains of endeavor.

Until I hear a really solid objective way to choose among imperfect systems, this will be my assessment of the devotees of "the absolute sound."  Sadly, there is nothing inherent in the live music standard that contains hints on how to perform the task of choosing among our shitty imperfect attempts at reproduction. This will always be a value judgment, as it should be.

Considering that you are uninformed about the inherited musical limitation of a single-driver topology it is very predictable what kind music you use for your audio appraisals.


Should I chuck my Buddy Guy records and listen to only Cantate Domino? Last time I heard that record, I vomited on my shoe.

If Junior Wells is a reference point of what music is all about then you might be right but I would wonder THEN: why to have any more the table-radio audio objectives to begin with…


I thought you said you liked blues harp?

If you can't enjoy Junior Wells on a half-decent table radio, you must be lost in audio la la land.

Sure, I'd rather be listening on something that enhances the experience for me a little bit more, but a table radio or stock Volvo car radio will certainly do in a pinch.

The way I know that some systems are better than my radio is that the emotional impact of the master harp blower, Mr. Wells, is more powerful and engaging. Here I am working from musical experience, rather than the technical superiority of the more elaborate setup.

I know very well what a harmonica played through an amplifer sounds like in my room, even though I suck compared to a master blues player. NO stereo can do this. It is neither fair nor reasonable to expect it.

If  blues reproduction is a low standard, as you seem to imply,  larger scale or wider-range inputs or whatever it is that you are talking about are even more elusive targets of ideal reproduction.




01-23-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,655
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 34
Post ID: 9504
Reply to: 9503
Do your Korean guy pay traveling refund?
fiogf49gjkf0d

 Joe Roberts wrote:
Imaging...another hi-fi delusion. I used to record the Philadelphia Orchestra. The orchestra does not image.

Would it be in 80 sunder Riccardo Muti? No wonder that it did not image. To be more serious I have to say that denying orchestra imaging is a very sad thing to do. The dynamic of tone propagation between the individual instruments of sections and the artistry of tone delivering from one group of instruments to another is so much valuable that to deny it is demonstrate an absolute blindness in my view. Even a single well-trained first violin section with 16 pair of chairs can do some leading edge run across the whole section that if it properly used in context of music might be absolutely wonderful to experience. I do not know even what to start to argue this point. There is so much music specific written for space separated instruments and instrumental groups what wiping it all out…  is kind of strange… Are you sure that you recorded the Philadelphia Orchestra?

 Joe Roberts wrote:
Remember that individual ears and brains are on the receiving end. This is a matter of perception and phenomenology.

I would say that it is the mater not of individual ears and brains but rather the mater objectives and reference point. There are some people out there who feel that “100 year is solitude” is a book about incest and Inbreeding…

 Joe Roberts wrote:
  The "live music" standard injects value judgments and taste into the evaluation procedure, even though it advocates an ostensibly "objective" standard. If all systems fail to achieve the standard, how can we choose among imperfect results?

I disagree with the whole premises of this formulation. Read my site, I have written a lot about it, advocating both sides of the view BTW.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
  Until I hear a really solid objective way to choose among imperfect systems, this will be my assessment of the devotees of "the absolute sound."  Sadly, there is nothing inherent in the live music standard that contains hints on how to perform the task of choosing among our shitty imperfect attempts at reproduction. This will always be a value judgment, as it should be.

Actually do not substitute the topic. Initially it was not a debate about the “perfect” or “imperfect” systems. The single-driver topology is very far from the position where this debate might be even started. The “perfect” or “imperfect” view and the philosophy about perception my kick in where the elemental and kindergarten question of rudimental audio problems are more or less resolved at the level of low announce. The single-driver topology is actually fails at the level of the simplistic announces. Therefore I do not think there is any need to look at the dead rat and envision a giant unicorn… unless you get prepaind….

 Joe Roberts wrote:
  I thought you said you liked blues harp?

If you can't enjoy Junior Wells on a half-decent table radio, you must be lost in audio la la land.

Sure, I'd rather be listening on something that enhances the experience for me a little bit more, but a table radio or stock Volvo car radio will certainly do in a pinch.

The way I know that some systems are better than my radio is that the emotional impact of the master harp blower, Mr. Wells, is more powerful and engaging. Here I am working from musical experience, rather than the technical superiority of the more elaborate setup.

I know very well what a harmonica played through an amplifer sounds like in my room, even though I suck compared to a master blues player. NO stereo can do this. It is neither fair nor reasonable to expect it.

If  blues reproduction is a low standard, as you seem to imply,  larger scale or wider-range inputs or whatever it is that you are talking about are even more elusive targets of ideal reproduction.

Do not take me wrong. I have nothing against blues and I might even listen it from time to time. However, it has absolutely no relation to my audio objectives. It is very simple to make playback installation to play very convincingly and very presentable a simplistic music and 99% of audio systems out there are specially made for it.  (Not necessarily “specially-made” but they made to serve the primitive demands of their system designers). Here is what all that single-driver foolish idea comes from with the people who swear that they had multiple orgasms when they heard their “girl with banjo”. The Loth X association of your Korean friends is a powerful indicator to me what they were looking for before they were trying to make their new speaker. Anyhow, I never made a secret that I discard any audio accomplishments if they are not match with “Content –Loaded music” ™ and synchronized with person’s advancement in understanding of more evolve nature of musicality than “it does give me a pressure”.

If you do not understand it then you do not understand it, but you are not alone, unfortunately.

The caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-23-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Joe Roberts
Posts 48
Joined on 01-12-2009

Post #: 35
Post ID: 9505
Reply to: 9504
Darwin is still dead, last time I checked
fiogf49gjkf0d

Would it be in 80 sunder Riccardo Muti? No wonder that it did not image.


You guessed it....say no more. I was not a huge fan of Maestro Muti, but the society babes who had season tickets definitely liked the leather jackets and the faint whiff of Euro cologne.

Imaging as it is known to hi-fi does not apply. The orchestra in the Academy of Music was the biggest sound blossom imaginable. Perlman on violin creates a sound bigger than a house that can contract to a tiny sharp slice. The direction he points the violin shifts the whole harmonic register. Hifi is an entirely different experience. Yet, I feel that the lack of imaging precision and precise localization would keep the orchestra off the Editors Choice list.

If the 3-D portrayal of an orchestra in a good hall is the goal, ALL audio gear is a joke.

Like I said, hifi can't even do Joe Roberts on the Marine Band harmonica in the key of C.

I have often wondered what I would hear if I set a good system on that stage and fired it up, then went to the balcony and listened. I could have done it back when we had the Academy keys, but did not have the foresight. Now I would be arrested if I tried it.

Incidentally, many professional classical players I met still had their Radio Shack systems from when they were in college. Most couldn't care less about hifi and were more than happy with a pair of old Advents or KLH. They were music listeners not hifi freaks like us.


The “perfect” or “imperfect” view and the philosophy about perception my kick in where the elemental and kindergarten question of rudimental audio problems are more or less resolved at the level of low announce.


OK then, address the question when various systems that beat the obvious failures are compared. Is there any criterion outside of personal taste?



Anyhow, I never made a secret that I discard any audio accomplishments if they are not match with “Content –Loaded music” ™ and synchronized with person’s advancement in understanding of more evolve nature of musicality than “it does give me a pressure”


Actually you are still talking about your "woody" and it it seems some highly specific, personal notion based on tastes and objectives that not all of us share is what gets you off.

Cool with me as long as I don't have to watch.

In all sincerity, I think what you are doing...chasing your own special pornographic ideal, is what we all should be doing. It is just that tying it to some scientifically verifiable objective standard is part of the particular fetish in play, not a human universal.

The "objectivism fetish" is on the order of desiring ladies with shaved heads wearing black rubber SS uniforms, except that it is perhaps more widely shared (see comment above regarding unrefective tendencies of Western civilization).

If you really want the black rubber, go for the black rubber. I'm not gonna stop you. But if you ask me my opinion, I prefer cotton underwear with little Sesame Street characters on it.


more evolve nature of musicality than “it does give me a pressure”


Huh? That is the highest evolution of musicality. You're talking about music right?

On that notion, props are due to old Gizmo Rosenberg. He nailed the ultimate goal: Musical Ecstasy.

Otherwise, why bother?

If you look at notions of human evolution, all of them end with the creatures who came up with the notions. Evolutionary theories are ways of convincing ourselves that we are the coolest, not that most of use need the theoretical and historical justification to arrive at those beliefs.

01-23-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,655
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 36
Post ID: 9506
Reply to: 9505
The Silbatone Acoustics Review.
fiogf49gjkf0d

Well, I see where this dialog is going and what the essence of the dialog is all about. I think it is the point where the sings are comprehensible -enough, at least on the subject of the Silbatone Acoustics new speakers. I told or implyed everything that I thing needed to be said on the subject and I presume Joe Robbers from another side have expressed what he would like to. With all said, and from all that from my point of view Joe did not understand about the said, I think the 35 posts of this thread turned out to be a very good review of Aporia speakers. At least it did work out for me and I feel it perfectly set the level of my expectations from the Silbatone new speaker. Well, I had my judged premonitions but Joe brought so sensory in this subject material and tangible evidences.  Something suggests me that Aporia might not even have such a profound “review” in future. It might be more empty adjectives  expressed about them in future by the industry cheerleaders but I think it might be not as much public discussion about this  speaker that would such indicatively demonstrate what the foundation of Aporia might be all about. I would certainly wish them better than that but knowing how the audio products born, live and die I think all the rest about Aporia will be the typical single-driver chitchat of the Loth X magnitude and single-driver eyes-rolling intelligence.

I do not know if in Korea exists the presumption of innocence but how valuable the presumption of innocence would be if Aporia listeners absolutely voluntary, even without understanding it, admit the guilt? The human evolution in context of a girl with banjo, the scientifically verifiable objective standard and accused objectivism fetish, the Western civilization and racism, the “long time no see” and lightly vaselined Musical Ecstasy, the swinging the lasso of subjective justifications of what a kilogram is… I do not think I even seen it all before together, or didn’t I? Well, I thought that Silbatone’s Aporia might be a “new” speaker as Joe promised. But it turning out that it is just another Botox of the damn single-driver idea. The circus has moved to another town…

Rgs, Romy the Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-24-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Joe Roberts
Posts 48
Joined on 01-12-2009

Post #: 37
Post ID: 9507
Reply to: 9506
My sentiments exactly...
fiogf49gjkf0d

Another reviewer who can write the review without hearing the product. Now THAT is something new.

Don't expect anything new from me because I have been saying the same thing for 20 years. That's why you don't see me around much because I said what I have to say 100 times.

"Listen then decide for yourself"   That's about all I have to say. That's all I said here.

"Decide for your self then you don't have to listen" is one of the traps audio geeks often lay for themselves, then fall right in. It is a deep hole.

I was not expecting much novelty in this discussion either and I was not disappointed. I keep hearing the ghost of Harry Pearson and a bit of Peter Aczel echoing back to my statements, just like 1987.

It is too easy to lose sight of musical enjoyment when the discussion is about non-musical factors that pollute audio dialogues. This is especially when non-musical concepts masquerade as profound musical insights. Music is sound, but sound is not music.

Musical ENJOYMENT is not a bad thing. I don't get it. What is the problem?

How familiar is this: "But you're not talking about MUSIC" ...when all the while I'm the one talking about music..."Yes I am." "No that's not music, only CLASSICAL MUSIC is music worth of high fidelity reproduction." "But I like Blues." "HAH! No wonder you have such low standards in high fidelity reproduction. You are not SERIOUS about reproduction"

Is the goal to come up with a dogmatic program of technical evaluation and system design, tangentially rooted in some arbitrary, objectified notion of perfect reproduction,  then use it as a saber to joust with the less sophisticated (basically everybody else on the planet, except butt-smooching acolytes)?

The appeal to the highest level of evolution is particularly odious and perfectly typical. It is implied in the notion "well if you don't like it, then you have bad taste" but some just come out and state it plainly.

Dude, this is one corny worn out 1980s act. Go find some foreclosed property in Sea Cliff and get yourself some first pressing Mercury SRs. I think they suck myself but they go with the routine.

At least good horns have more credibility than the Infinity IRS. That is one reason that I think there is some value here...the reference gear is probably better than average.

Anyway, Romy, everybody...do what you wanna do, while it's still legal.

I'll be here chilling out listening to the sound bar on My DELL monitor, listening to WWOZ New Orleans on live stream--and enjoying it pretty well too.

And where did YOU hear Loth-X backhorn speakers? Nowhere probably. I'll bet you reviewed them off of a photo too.

Keepin it real,

Joe Robbers
01-24-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,655
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 38
Post ID: 9508
Reply to: 9507
We Cats have different means to get the things…
fiogf49gjkf0d

 Joe Roberts wrote:
Another reviewer who can write the review without hearing the product. Now THAT is something new.

There is nothing new in it. There are thousands reviewers and audio users who even after spending 40 years with a audio elements are still do not know what they were listening and still clueless about the aptitude of the given audio tool. Also, I did not write the review, you did. I just listened you not the speaker and listening you, along with correlating with what I know, it did help me to put the things in a perspective.  BTW, I have a incredibly accurate record of sniffing those thoughts. I am not trying to sell my record for others, but my record is good enough evidence for me.  Good luck with Harry Pearson and Peter Aczel, that made me really to laugh, Joe.

Anyhow, if you have Ku Klux Klan members who very enthusiastically encourage you about their new candidate in Congress, claiming that the candidate has a “new view on racism”, then how serious would you consider to pay attention to this candidate? 

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-24-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Joe Roberts
Posts 48
Joined on 01-12-2009

Post #: 39
Post ID: 9509
Reply to: 9508
Don't sniff my thoughts, sniff my speaker
fiogf49gjkf0d
BTW, I have a incredibly accurate record of sniffing those thoughts.


Thought sniffing is precisely the problem. Too much thought sniffing.

You have not heard Mangers, Aporia, or Loth-X speakers yet you thought sniffed yourself into an incredibly accurate picture of what they sound like. Great trick!

I admit I do this about, say, plastic cone mini towers. But while at CES I went and heard about ten plastic cone mini towers. They BLEW. But, at least I gave them a listen. Who knows, maybe somebody finally came out with a one that I liked. They didn't.

I point to your discussion about the Aporia diffusor. You denied that it affected the directionality of the speaker, yet I actually heard it with and without, moved across the room while listening to each configuration, and I HEARD the reduction in beaminess with the diffusor.

I have had round Edgarhorns and Lowthers so I understand what narrowing radiation as a function of frequency is about. Even in midbass there was a reduction in response at 50 degrees off axis. With the diffusor this was mostly gone. Yes, this does involve frequency response (EQ) but there is another factor (angle).

You yourself intially said it is impossible to predict what such obstructions will do, yet in the next post you turned around and thought sniffed it.

In my view, experimental evidence, even casual experiential evidence, trounces thought sniffing.

I say that as a highly practiced thought sniffer myself.

I look at your manifesto and gear choices and I really can't know if this stuff sounds great or you are just another experimenter with mediocre sound who thinks he found heaven. HOW COULD I KNOW? It could be good, so I give you the benefit of the doubt, but your saying so don't make it so.

My thought sniff tells me Romy's rig is good enough that even if there is some component of self-delusion, as is usually the case, at least it is not embarrasingly delusional. Otherwise, I'll not be impressed without hearing it and feeling impressed at the time.

I could say that I had similar setups in the late 80s and early 90s so I KNOW what it sounds like, but that would be stupid.

I see you have a REL tuner. I had three and they were all totally different. Two were accurately aligned by the same tech. One was stunningly great, the others were good-very good.  Do I know what yours sounds like? No idea.


Anyhow, if you have Ku Klux Klan members who very enthusiastically encourage you about their new candidate in Congress, claiming that the candidate has a “new view on racism”, then how serious would you consider to pay attention to this candidate?



I would pay attention. Actually, I have a strong interest in racist and nationalist movements and rhetoric used in such political programs. I fear that this (or any) country can head that way in the coming hard times, as history demonstrates. This is one of my personal concerns and something that I study a lot.

As for the relation of this metaphor to the ongoing dialogue here, I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. Enlighten me.


Harry Pearson and Peter Aczel


Were you here in the States in the 80s? The points above were not a random stab.

Much in your rhetoric dovetails with themes in 1980s audio criticism. The "absolute sound of unamplified live music (i.e. classical)" as the only valid reference, the transference of objective criteria of musical sound to listening evaluation of musical performance, the notion that the "objective" nature of the evaluation program yields an unassailable platform.

And worst, the idea that if somebody disagrees or has different preferences they are WRONG, not serious, and somehow less evolved. This is total ethnocentricism and outlandish snobbery.

This is corny and discredited stuff to me, but perhaps you missed it the first time around. This kind of rhetoric can be very evil in the way it sets up fake authority and an us vs. them mentality. I saw this first-hand in the 80s. I worked in a high-end store at the peak of this stupidity. You claim to be against the morons, yet practice the very techniques of the shepherds of audio morons.

Laugh all you want, but I see a quasi HP in cat suit.

At least you insist that it is only for you, but I wonder since you have a website and all.

To your credit, you are way funnier then these 80s jokers and appear to have better taste in gear, but your thought sniffing patterns are remarkably consistent with the 80s ideologies. At least you don't get into elaborate photographic metaphors to describe imaging like 80s TAS writers did. That would be going too far.

I like independent perspective and I appreciate this site on that level. Otherwise I wouldn't be here. I now have more posts here than on all audio forums since the web started combined and I have been online since 300 baud modems.

Hovever, I do not get responses to the questions I posed about gaps in your evaluative logic and the lack of direct experience, but only a thinly veiled personal attack and a self-fulfilling thought sniff that takes you back to where you started. If your mind is already made up, why bother going through the exercises?

If you think you are telling me something new that triode, horn, and single driver guys can be totally mindless too, you're not. Some of them do give me hope for the human race though...mainly they ones who experiment, listen, and progress.

Take my advice: Don't listen to what I say, listen for yourself.

Or... Don't sniff my thoughts, sniff my speaker.


Joe Rob
01-24-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
tuga


Posts 174
Joined on 12-26-2007

Post #: 40
Post ID: 9510
Reply to: 9507
Not-so-wide-range single-driver
fiogf49gjkf0d
Joe,

Since this topic is about a particular single driver speaker, but still a monodrive, let me ask you a question.

One of the fundamental shortcomings of the not-so-wide-range single-driver class is, as you know, a not so wide frequency range. You say that it doesn't matter, that you can enjoy music without f.e. low frequencies, but my question is: would you accept a photograph from a camera if it didn't do "blacks" and "extreme darks"? I'm sure you wouldn't, and although more difficult than with sound reproduction I am sure it would be possible to make a few uneducated (or just plain) souls believe it's magical properties...

I could enumerate a few other, but I will add just two more: inability to play loud and intermodulation distortion.
Why these two?
You mentioned that you enjoyed "backwater" music and this simple (as opposed to complex) music, with only a few instruments, is easy to reproduce. This makes it inappropriate for evaluating a system or a component from a technical point of view when compared to jazz band or, even better, to a symphonic orchestra which are far richer in diversity, scale or any other parameter that you can think of.

And then there's what Romy calls Content...

My only doubt now is whether you don't recognize these facts because you want to believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth or because it would hurt your marketing goal.

Cheers,
Tuga


"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira Pascoaes
01-24-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,655
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 41
Post ID: 9511
Reply to: 9509
The blues would actually do it…
fiogf49gjkf0d

 Joe Roberts wrote:
You have not heard Mangers, Aporia, or Loth-X speakers yet you thought sniffed yourself into an incredibly accurate picture of what they sound like. Great trick!

It is not correct. I did not report the “incredibly accurate picture of what they sound like” but based upon my experiences with single drivers and based upon the level of comment by the people who do appreciate them I do experience the incredibly low interest in those speakers. It would be less applicable to Mangers thsme that might be a good MF driver in right application.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
I admit I do this about, say, plastic cone mini towers. But while at CES I went and heard about ten plastic cone mini towers. They BLEW. But, at least I gave them a listen. Who knows, maybe somebody finally came out with a one that I liked. They didn't.

And I am sure that you will found a zillion people who report multiple orgasms and the sensation of rebirth just after they heard those plastic cone mini towers.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
I point to your discussion about the Aporia diffusor. You denied that it affected the directionality of the speaker, yet I actually heard it with and without, moved across the room while listening to each configuration, and I HEARD the reduction in beaminess with the diffusor.

Of course I did not deny the affected the directionality, looking at the geometry of Manger the radiation directionality is obvious. I said that to fight with this directionality by the means of external diffuser is not what attracts me, not to mention that they used diffuser not to fight directionality but primary to EQ front/back response.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
As for the relation of this metaphor to the ongoing dialogue here, I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. Enlighten me.

This has to do a lot with the “sniffing” that you misunderstood. I have to tell honestly that I was very much disappointed with your general comments about your expectation and your demands from audio. I do not mean to be judgmental, let say that you and I have different gold in sound reproduction. Let juts throw a comment that it hate very deferent audio to render the task if elevator music listening and the other tasks.  I do not what to discuss this subject, you had to discover it long time ago and if you do not them you seem in very shallow audio water. I do not mean to sound offensive and to express the “veiled personal attacks”; it is just how I see the things and I say it openly. I think if you discover “other” interests in audio then what you currently have then you suddenly might realize that some topologies are fundamentally by dealt dead for any more of less “higher” tasks…

 Joe Roberts wrote:
The "absolute sound of unamplified live music (i.e. classical)" as the only valid reference, the transference of objective criteria of musical sound to listening evaluation of musical performance, the notion that the "objective" nature of the evaluation program yields an unassailable platform.

And worst, the idea that if somebody disagrees or has different preferences they are WRONG, not serious, and somehow less evolved. This is total ethnocentricism and outlandish snobbery.

This is corny and discredited stuff to me, but perhaps you missed it the first time around. This kind of rhetoric can be very evil in the way it sets up fake authority and an us vs. them mentality. I saw this first-hand in the 80s. I worked in a high-end store at the peak of this stupidity. You claim to be against the morons, yet practice the very techniques of the shepherds of audio morons.

Laugh all you want, but I see a quasi HP in cat suit.

I do not what to argue this point. I just would mention that it requires different tools to accomplish different goals.  It is very simple to make audio to play well pop music. To seriously play serious classical repertoire is way more complicated task that demands very different means. I told you before that you might try to read my page dedicated to Macondo Acoustic System (on home page’s left nav.) but you ignored it.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-24-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,655
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 42
Post ID: 9512
Reply to: 9510
The misery of peripheral frequencies
fiogf49gjkf0d

Tuga,

I do not think we spoke about the specific problem of the single-driver class and one of the reason why I never brought it up was because I presume that every person with sane knows them and those problems are not even arguable.

However I would like to make a correction, in my view very important. You said that one of the fundamental shortcomings of single-driver class as they do not do wide frequency range. It is true but I would like to inject a twist into it. The problem with single-drivers is not that they can’t do peripheral frequencies – they do it. However they do it very badly and THIS is the problem. Pretend that you have two more complimentary channels above and below and you do the evaluation at which point the MF channel do worth then the peripheral channels. You will eventually lock the single-driver class into a very narrow NF band-pass or exactly where it shell be. Everyone bitch about the Lowther but look how wonderful the Lowther wok in Horings where it sits in MF only range.

Anyhow, my point was not what the single-driver speakers do not do (or as Joe is willing to present it) but rather that while they do what they shall not be doing they poison so much that the only thing that does not lose value with them is to play Patricia Barber with flute, thank Got she can’t blow the flute and to sing at the same time.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-24-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Telus
Posts 10
Joined on 08-05-2006

Post #: 43
Post ID: 9513
Reply to: 9512
Perspective
fiogf49gjkf0d

“I do not what to go there but be advised that touching an elephant’s tail you might have a wrong impression what elephant is all about.”

More accurately this should read as follows: “I do not what to go there but be advised that touching a horse’s ass gives you a pretty good idea about what the horse’s ass is all about.”

Your prose paints a better picture of your vanity than any artist could.

Then there’s this:

JR: “The problem is two or three identifiable frequency-dependent sources has no reference in live music either …”

RTC: “It is true…”

No, it is not true.  You’re both dead wrong.  All instruments are “frequency dependent sources.”  Do you really think that a bass drum and a piccolo produce an equivalent frequency spectrum? 

My takeaway from this thread is that the two main contributors to it enjoy postulating and posturing about what constitutes “proper music reproduction” yet have virtually no interest in actually listening to music itself.  If this were not the case, they’d be doing exactly that this very minute instead of spending every waking hour on this site doing what's really important to them: preening.

01-24-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 504
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 44
Post ID: 9514
Reply to: 9498
Validity of a point source?
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Joe Roberts wrote:
The illusion of a single source is lost.
 Romy the Cat wrote:
The “single source” neither is a fact a byproduct of a specific sound reproduction method but it has no existence in LIVE sound and there is not need for it pursue in sound reproduction.
In a way it is like saying that since most recordings are not done with a strict binaural method with two microphones unmixed, therefore the idea of stereo is meaningless, and stereo does not exist in live sound either. The sounds come from everywhere. Well, I think we all like stereo. And I think we all can clearly hear the low frequencies coming from down by our feet and the high frequencies coming from up by our ears in the standard multi-driver installation. There is absolutely meaningfulness to the idea of the point source (but this meaning may or may not have anything to do with connection with the Sound)!

I would like to hear the opinions from people who have heard good point source/single driver installations (ignoring the shortcomings). What does the point source add to the audio reproduction?

Adrian
01-24-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 504
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 45
Post ID: 9515
Reply to: 9509
What a shame...
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Joe Roberts wrote:
I have had round Edgarhorns and Lowthers so I understand what narrowing radiation as a function of frequency is about. My thought sniff tells me Romy's rig is good enough that even if there is some component of self-delusion, as is usually the case, at least it is not embarrasingly delusional. I could say that I had similar setups in the late 80s and early 90s so I KNOW what it sounds like, but that would be stupid.
It is ironic that we have so many words written by Joe essentially to debate with Romy over attitudes toward audio evaluation, not much about audio itself. This is sad, considering Joe has listened to a lot more audio equipment than anyone else here probably. With all this experience, I would like to be hearing some constructive criticism instead (e.g., with the EdgarHorns, I found that it worked better if... , when I built the 2A3 DHSET for my midrange, I found that.., etc.)

More sharing, less ego.

Adrian
01-24-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
tuga


Posts 174
Joined on 12-26-2007

Post #: 46
Post ID: 9517
Reply to: 9514
Point source test.
fiogf49gjkf0d
 drdna wrote:
I would like to hear the opinions from people who have heard good point source/single driver installations (ignoring the shortcomings). What does the point source add to the audio reproduction?

Adrian


Adrian,

If you have a midrange driver you can try that for yourself.
BTW, do you consider electrostatic speakers to be single point sources?
I am an Audio Neanderthal so I will restrain from commenting on my experience.

Going back to the Silbatones, I wonder whether or not the back-loaded horn should be considered a point source...

Cheers,
Tuga


"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira Pascoaes
01-24-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 504
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 47
Post ID: 9518
Reply to: 9517
Point sources: what are they?
fiogf49gjkf0d
 tuga wrote:
If you have a midrange driver you can try that for yourself.
In this case the lack of "full-range" audio is so glaring it overwhelms any advantage of the point source, I think.

 tuga wrote:
BTW, do you consider electrostatic speakers to be single point sources? Going back to the Silbatones, I wonder whether or not the back-loaded horn should be considered a point source...
In my mind, anything that has a design goal of the point source (e.g., electrostatics, Lowthers, d'Appolito arrays, etc.) all qualify because they are all imperfect approximations but they all have the design goal in mind of the point source. I question whether the benefit outweighs the intrinsic problems. How important is it? What compromise gets us closest to the Sound.

I personally never thought the point source gained more than it lost; I always have felt the unbalanced frequency distribution lost more in the lifelike sound than the vertical integration added. But I have perhaps never heard the ideal expression. Could it be the Silbatone?

Adrian
01-24-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,655
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 48
Post ID: 9519
Reply to: 9513
It is not about the single source but the simple source.
fiogf49gjkf0d

 Telus wrote:

JR: “The problem is two or three identifiable frequency-dependent sources has no reference in live music either …”

RTC: “It is true…”

No, it is not true.  You’re both dead wrong.

Although I do not disagree with you but you need to view Joe’s view about live music from a certain simplistic single-source point of view. Mostly his pop music is single event music and played mostly by a single instrument a time. So, from a certain perspective I do see why he considers that live music has single source radiation nature. (Let forget at this point about reflections).  So, I do not think that Joe would take any consideration about intermodulations, Doppler of exertion desideration seriously – it gives him a “pleasure” and it is all that counts. The definition of complexity for those people is be able to hear a phonogram and be able differentiate Willie Dixon from Patricia Barber and it is about it.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-24-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Joe Roberts
Posts 48
Joined on 01-12-2009

Post #: 49
Post ID: 9520
Reply to: 9511
Spelled out for the cats and other mammals in the audience
fiogf49gjkf0d

would you accept a photograph from a camera if it didn't do "blacks" and "extreme darks"?


CRITICAL POINT 1


VISUAL PERCEPTION AND AESTHETICS ARE NOT VALID MODELING SYSTEMS FOR MUSIC

This is why imaging is a screwed up way to talk about music. The more specific it gets, the more screwed up it becomes.


CRITICAL POINT 2

LANGUAGE IS NOT A VALID MODELING SYSTEM FOR MUSIC

Linguistic semantics are entirely different than musical semantics. Tone in language is entirely different from tone in language. There is no connection in the way they signify. Just because hearing is involved does not imply that meaning works the same way in both domains.

This is why your Asian linguistics theory is bogus (although an interesting amateur attempt), because music is not referential and when it is is is based on iconicity not conventionality. BTW-Japanese and most dialects of Korean are not tone languages in a technical sense, unlike Mandarin.

CRITICAL POINT 3

Objective physics notions of sound (bandwidth, frequency response, dynamic range, etc.) do not exhaust or clearly characterize those features of musical sound that matter for subjective enjoyment of musical sound.

If it did, there could be a LCD readout musical enjoyment meter.

When I was in Nigeria, I had to ask why people like to turn up the music to where the speaker sounded like it was ripped (often it was ripped)...they responed, that the awful (to me) distortion made it sound more powerful. To them, it sounded better. Who am I to argue?


SUMMARY

MUSIC IS ITS OWN THING, NOT REDUCABLE TO OTHER SONIC PRACTICES.

Beyond that, different traditions in music can have radically different coding of meaning via sound characteristics. This is one reason the orchestra-centic view is STUPID, it is not all-inclusive.

DIIFERENT KINDS OF MUSIC ARE THEIR OWN THING.


inability to play loud and intermodulation distortion


Try listening to a WE15A compression driver "full range" with a 8 foot square mouth. It plays so freaking loud you can hear it for blocks. Not full range by modern standards (80-5000) but nearly there when listening.  Yeah, Diatones don't play loud. Try something else if loud is your thing.

In my experience, most single-drivers play loud enough for me.

The Aporia played loud enough to be uncomfortable on 8W in that CES stall. With a more powerful amp, might get much louder--Mangers are rated for high power. I don't need anything louder.

The notion of intermodulation distortion is dependent on a number of factors, the most critical of which is doppler distortion caused by a moving cone. Well, the Manger does not employ in a piston cone. I mentioned that the mids do not shut down in this driver when loud bass passsages occur.

I only had a week with the Aporia/Manger so I am still learning it, but something is very different here.

Also, some of my fave fullranges don't have much cone displacement, eg. 755A, so I think that the intermod is less. Of course, they don't put out much below 60hz. It is all a question of balance and generalization is of limited utility in critique.


This makes it inappropriate for evaluating a system or a component from a technical point of view when compared to jazz band or, even better, to a symphonic orchestra which are far richer in diversity, scale or any other parameter that you can think of.


Or you can listen to circus music on the mighty Wurlizer pipe organ, Planet Drum (hate that fcking record), or the HFN&RR garage door record for bass and dynamics.

But what if like me, you really don't fire up orchestra too much. What if I mostly listen to Washboard Sam?

I can't agree that a system optimized for orchestral is automatically better for all music. Many traditions stress timbre and tonal color over scale. Even chamber music, which I prefer to grand orchestral, is better served by a speaker that does the color, texture, and sparkle right even if it can't do the cannons in 1812.

Frankly, although  technically "easy" by some measures, vocal reproduction is the thing that really captivates me. Here is one area where single drivers can really deliver.

And I am sure that you will found a zillion people who report multiple orgasms and the sensation of rebirth just after they heard those plastic cone mini towers.


Amazingly, yes. I wish life was so easy that I could be happy with  a pair of Totems...but his only goes to illustrate the point that one man's gourmet meal is another man's Pizza Hut 2 for 1 special.

I heard the sales pitch at CES..."Listen to that bass folks, it's clean, it's natural, It's deep, and its precise..."

It was none of the above..it was pure mud... 120hz bump like I never experienced, flabby, and fake as a Thai rolex.  But it was loud and people were like "WOW! THAT'S FANTASTIC!!"

I presume that most of us are on a different island, but I'm somewhat jealous of the mid-fi crowd who can find happiness in a plastic cone mini tower.

I do not mean to sound offensive and to express the “veiled personal attacks”; it is just how I see the things and I say it openly. I think if you discover “other” interests in audio then what you currently have then you suddenly might realize that some topologies are fundamentally by dealt dead for any more of less “higher” tasks…


Of course, I recognize this is a let it rip kind of forum, so I am not witholding my insights either. I like this crazy forum, even though I disagree on many levels with the corny 80s mindset updated with better equipment...but I know what you are saying.

 I mainly object to the idea that this is a "higher" task in any universal way. One or more people might see it as "higher" for them but there is no basis to assume that anyone else should agree.

I totally object to snobbery and advanced evolution as an argument tactic. I spit on the silk tie of all audio snobs. If you're not wearing a tie, then I'll spit a greenie on your shirt where the tie would be.

I believe that there is no point in arguing taste and what other people enjoy. To do so is to be a bore and, put frankly, a real dick. I like to see people happy, whatever it takes for them to get there.

And I really believe that you cant make all these decisions via logical reasoning, prior experience with similar but different equipment, or mathematical calculations. You must hear the item in question before you have anything valid to say. Even then it is only valid from a certain perspective.

In the case at hand, the Aporia, it was VERY DIFFERENT from what I expected and QUITE DIFFERENT from anything else I have heard. How could YOU know what it sounded like? How could you even guess? You can't, bro.

You seem to agree with this "to each his own" philosophy in your last post, but the other 386 posts in this thread you do a lot of the opposite.

Basically, I heard a lot of speaker systems, elaborate multi-horn to 4" single driver. I had a 10x20 foot locker full of gear. OF COURSE, I can recognize performance differences, even very slight differences because I was a picky-ass mega geek too--one of the worst. Nothing is perfect, nothing totally sucks. The question becomes what matters to me. That is the only question that I am left to answer, all that I really care about.

Who cares what matters to Harry Pearson, Romy, Jonathan Scull, or the guy selling the mini-towers? Why should you care what I think makes a valid listening system? And if you recognize that my tastes are different, does that mean that something I like automatically won't meet your standards? That is totally stupid logic.

So, as you can see by a careful reading of my posts, I don't criticize others taste. I criticize the notion that one goal is superior and I criticize the lame, worn-out, misguided rhetoric that is often used to support this reasoning.

I saw it and LIVED it all 1000 times. Remember that I was the first to promote some of these topologies as a full-time effort, so I took a lot of attempted shots. I feel like I have heard every argument on the planet and I am not getting any new intellectual challenges here.

In fact, most of what you are doing, I promoted in 1988. Glad you are taking it to the next level, likely beyond where I went with it, because I moved on to other things. And thanks for buying my PDF CD.

In this thread,  I went into a bit more philosophical/academic detail than I usually do, but I am VERY SECURE in my thinking on this, because I did my fieldwork.


THE JOE-MAN



01-24-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Joe Roberts
Posts 48
Joined on 01-12-2009

Post #: 50
Post ID: 9521
Reply to: 9520
Correction on above post
fiogf49gjkf0d
Tone in language is entirely different from tone in language.


OOPS... should read "Tone in language is entirely different from tone in music."

Where's the edit button on this thing?....

-----------------------------
On single drivers and point sources...I don't think the important thing is point source, I mentioned "single-source" above, which I meant to imply that the noise comes from the same driver, thus avoiding the problems of matching a reflex-loaded cone with a compression driver and similar challenges, big cone with small cone, Manger with piston cone, etc.

These mixes can work but there is no guarantee. In the case of the Manger, I think it would be hard to find a cone that has an identical character. Those who have actually heard Mangers with woofers might agree.

Sinngle drivers do usually have a certain pleasing coherence of character in their range.
Page 2 of 5 (108 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 4 5 »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Truth stretched out via Feastrex prism...  Goodbye Chris Witmer...  Audio Discussions  Forum     26  233251  01-21-2006
  »  New  Western Electric reproduces 0Hz + some literature…..  Re-set...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     2  39545  07-24-2006
  »  New  Learn to differentiate between Imaging and Soundstage...  Learn to differentiate between Imaging and Soundstage....  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     0  11366  03-07-2007
  »  New  Klangfilm: actual knowledge is better then fetish imagi..  Klangfilm Kl51...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     18  174984  03-15-2007
  »  New  The unintended consequences of binaural things in Hi-Fi..  Re: Binaural -- or what ever the case was......  Playback Listening  Forum     1  22699  08-04-2009
  »  New  Munich High End 2010..  The retarded open baffle...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     39  275179  05-16-2010
  »  New  The CES's 2011 horns..  Reviewers and table radios...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     21  133043  01-07-2011
  »  New  A Moscow setup with Horns/Lowther..  A new reiteration of the Moscow setup....  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     33  260436  02-27-2011
  »  New  A new kid in the block: Sadurni Acoustics..  Axpona 2015...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     21  96221  08-22-2011
  »  New  Aries Cerat Contendo - the newest "fat" kid i..  Stavros Danos from Cyprus.......  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     2  31031  09-08-2011
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts