HiFi - Imagination, Exaggeration and Colouration?

[Vladimir]

Ajani, the high end small 2 way ported speakers excel at imaging accuracy. The 4 way corner horns excel at dynamic accuracy. The electrostatics excel at midrange resolution accuracy.

No speakers excel at accuracy in ALL aspects of sound reproduction.

I'm not aware of any high end speakers that are aimed at creating random / distorted sounds.

The manufacturers will all claim that their top of the range high end speakers are accurate.

It's just that in the real world each design will be more accurate to certain aspects of the sound reproduction than others.

And there is no real convergence in how speakers sound as they get more and more expensive. Simply because of the large variation in their designs. Because of the different approaches of the various manufacturers.

And what new tech would you propose should be used to overcome the various compromises of every speaker made so far in the known history of the universe?

No idea why you're so focused on large Horns and Electrostats. Those are not even nearly the most common type of speakers. Most speakers and statement speakers are multiple driver cone/box designs. If you think large horns and elocrostats are incapable of doing more than what they specialize in, then those designs are probably outdated. There is a reason the typical multi-driver box speaker is so popular (knowing you - I'm sure you'll write an essay to explain why that is, from your point of view). Those speakers can achieve all the specialities of the designs you mention, not as easily, but they can most certainly provide excellent dynamics and midrange clarity at statement prices.

Anyway, as usual, we disagree and clearly we will not reach an agreement on this. You think all speaker types are essentially so limited by the tech that there can be no convergence, and I think that's pure nonsense. IMO, only bad designs are so limited that they can only focus on one speciality.

You must be new.

All discussion with lindsayt end up with praising his system. Just let the man tell you why it is so great and why he loves it so much. Have some holiday spirit.

Peace and love.

Yeah, I'm not sure why I bothered continuing a debate with him so long. I gave up on trying to get a point across to him in a previous thread and I'm done here and in general. It's just not worth effort, as he believes what he believes and neither of us are going to change our minds.

He is now trying to topple you by positioning himself as the expert with many exotic audio components heard, which again will lead to why he chose his system, because it is simply superior. I've learned from other members here that getting your point across is less effective than telling him his "old rotten furniture speakers stink". I know you were trying to do this with the wind-up gramophone, but you missed the vital organs, aim at the heart (the speakers

). Or just let the man prance proudly and have his jolly time. Really no harm comes of it.

He's a a good guy otherwise. These debates skew things a fair bit.

 

[Ajani]

Ajani, the high end small 2 way ported speakers excel at imaging accuracy. The 4 way corner horns excel at dynamic accuracy. The electrostatics excel at midrange resolution accuracy.

No speakers excel at accuracy in ALL aspects of sound reproduction.

I'm not aware of any high end speakers that are aimed at creating random / distorted sounds.

The manufacturers will all claim that their top of the range high end speakers are accurate.

It's just that in the real world each design will be more accurate to certain aspects of the sound reproduction than others.

And there is no real convergence in how speakers sound as they get more and more expensive. Simply because of the large variation in their designs. Because of the different approaches of the various manufacturers.

And what new tech would you propose should be used to overcome the various compromises of every speaker made so far in the known history of the universe?

No idea why you're so focused on large Horns and Electrostats. Those are not even nearly the most common type of speakers. Most speakers and statement speakers are multiple driver cone/box designs. If you think large horns and elocrostats are incapable of doing more than what they specialize in, then those designs are probably outdated. There is a reason the typical multi-driver box speaker is so popular (knowing you - I'm sure you'll write an essay to explain why that is, from your point of view). Those speakers can achieve all the specialities of the designs you mention, not as easily, but they can most certainly provide excellent dynamics and midrange clarity at statement prices.

Anyway, as usual, we disagree and clearly we will not reach an agreement on this. You think all speaker types are essentially so limited by the tech that there can be no convergence, and I think that's pure nonsense. IMO, only bad designs are so limited that they can only focus on one speciality.

You must be new.

All discussion with lindsayt end up with praising his system. Just let the man tell you why it is so great and why he loves it so much. Have some holiday spirit.

Peace and love.

Yeah, I'm not sure why I bothered continuing a debate with him so long. I gave up on trying to get a point across to him in a previous thread and I'm done here and in general. It's just not worth effort, as he believes what he believes and neither of us are going to change our minds.

He is now trying to topple you by positioning himself as the expert with many exotic audio components heard, which again will lead to why he chose his system, because it is simply superior. I've learned from other members here that getting your point across is less effective than telling him his "old rotten furniture speakers stink". I know you were trying to do this with the wind-up gramophone, but you missed the vital organs, aim at the heart (the speakers ). Or just let the man prance proudly and have his jolly time. Really no harm comes of it.

He's a a good guy otherwise. These debates skew things a fair bit.

Yeah that's why I try not to let debates continue too long cuz they usually just get ugly after awhile. And even someone you disagree with on every point they write, might be a really cool person in real life.

He kind of reminds me of a reviewer (RGA) from a couple of American HiFi forums I used to participate on. RGA is totally in love with Audio Note systems and is convinced the High Efficiency speakers and SET amps are the solution to everything. He made the effort over the years to listen to just about every HiFI setup available at HiFi shows and his local dealer showrooms. And would preach endlessly about how terrible all Solid State and typical (low efficiency) box speakers are. Funny enough in recent years, I've seen his stance soften like melted butter and while he obviously still prefers SETS/HE, he now favourably reviews more common audiophile products e.g. Roksan Int/CD combo and KEF LS50 speakers. Items he would have tossed in the trash (figuratively at least) a few years before.

 

[lindsayt]

You must be new.

All discussion with lindsayt end up with praising his system. Just let the man tell you why it is so great and why he loves it so much. Have some holiday spirit.

Peace and love.

Vladimir, that is a disgusting slur.

Re read post #2 of this thread.

Where my stance is the opposite of the insult you have tarred me with.

IE in post #2 I'm saying that NO SPEAKERS ARE BEST AT EVERYTHING. Which of course includes all the speakers that I own and have owned in the past.

 

[lindsayt]

Yeah, I'm not sure why I bothered continuing a debate with him so long. I gave up on trying to get a point across to him in a previous thread and I'm done here and in general. It's just not worth effort, as he believes what he believes and neither of us are going to change our minds.

Ajani, if you wish to respond to any of my posts, I'd prefer it if you did it in the same thread that I made the post in.

I don't like the ad hominem insult that you've made where you infer that I am unable to change my mind.

I asked about your experience of high end speakers becuase I was hoping that you could give your experience of some designs that you felt were "Best at everything". Or that you would give some indication of where your stance on high end speakers comes from.

You don't have to answer that question if you don't want.

However I would still like you or anyone else to name any conventional coned and domed speakers that can match large corner horns for dynamics, or match original electrostatics for their midrange resolution.

If no one can name any such speakers, then wouldn't this suggest that the points that I made in post #2 of this thread may well be entirely valid?

 

[lindsayt]

Yeah that's why I try not to let debates continue too long cuz they usually just get ugly after awhile. And even someone you disagree with on every point they write, might be a really cool person in real life.

Ajani, as long as we're discussing hi-fi I don't see how the debate can get ugly in any way whatsoever.

After all, this is a hi-fi forum. And it's only hi-fi that we're talking about.

However, when someone starts using ad hominem insults, that's when the debate has turned ugly.

Play the ball and not the man. Please.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

LindsayT.

This appears to be the in thing now.

When the opposing argument has dried up vailed insults to discredit the 'winner' credibility is now in vogue.

Would be alot easier for Ajani to amend his sig or to give it a little more thought but.......

 

[manicm]

I think my system has most live venues whupped. Accuracy? No thanks, I'll take enjoyment every time. Vive la difference!!

When you say "Accuracy? No thanks." you are litteraly saying "F**k art. F**k Bach, Miles and Hendrix. Viva la me!!"  Of course you have every right to and I honestly don't judge anyone for it.?

Often tutted saying is how hi-fi can never accurately reproduce real music. I disagree with the extent of pesimism which usually accompanies that. I think people forget how close we've come compared to 50, 100, 200 years ago. First recording technology was sheet music because before it "you had to be there". It had it's significant limitations though. Prior to electronic recording technology one could say it is a matter of opinion who plays Beethoven the right way, and if we are pedantic, really no one can, regardless to what complexity musical theory and its language was developed to. However, with recordings art is captured as is and we have the luxury to reproduce it in our homes. Some can afford a system that plays as loud and accurate like a real piano, and some will have an aproximation. All of it is huge step forward than just whistling a tune out of memory. Obviously some don't care for the real deal and prefer a version, but I doubt they contemplate about art and specifically music that much.

Now, another problematic saying in the audiophile culture. "Enjoying music". Where did one get the idea music is only for enjoying and it needs to give positive and pleasant feelings? That is incredibly limiting. Music can be sad, depressing, emotionless, cerebral, though provoking, scary, confusing, any human emotion in the spreadsheet really. Try listening to Stockhausen on a $3M hi-end system and tell me how enjoyable it was. Not much I bet. Or try listening some droning minimal. It may creep you out more than any death metal track or Steven King movie. Music is about many things, even 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence, recording of the wind swishing against power lines, or banging a hammer on untuned piano.?

If you think I'm BS-ing you, I asure you I listen to music that I don't enjoy one bit, in fact it can be agonizing or confusing or anything but enjoyable and nice.?

 

Oh Vladimir, on your point 'enjoying the music' you're trying to sound more important than you are. Even I'm not so arrogant as to state I'm the only one for whom The Final Cut is one of my favourite Pink Floyd albums or Music For A New Society is one of my favourite John Cale albums. Or David Bowie's Scary Monsters either, or ANYTHING from King Crimson's latter career. The truth is that any good 'depressing' album will still possess something cathartic. Peter Gabriel's US, even though about love and relationships, is as harrowing as his 3rd record.

 

[Ajani]

Yeah, I'm not sure why I bothered continuing a debate with him so long. I gave up on trying to get a point across to him in a previous thread and I'm done here and in general. It's just not worth effort, as he believes what he believes and neither of us are going to change our minds.

Ajani, if you wish to respond to any of my posts, I'd prefer it if you did it in the same thread that I made the post in.

I don't like the ad hominem insult that you've made where you infer that I am unable to change my mind.

I asked about your experience of high end speakers becuase I was hoping that you could give your experience of some designs that you felt were "Best at everything". Or that you would give some indication of where your stance on high end speakers comes from.

You don't have to answer that question if you don't want.

However I would still like you or anyone else to name any conventional coned and domed speakers that can match large corner horns for dynamics, or match original electrostatics for their midrange resolution.

If no one can name any such speakers, then wouldn't this suggest that the points that I made in post #2 of this thread may well be entirely valid?

How is what I said an insult?

I said in this thread, exactly what I said in the other thread (so I have no idea why you say I should say it in that thread): we disagree and are not going to change each other's mind.

I didn't question your intelligence or experience. So I have absolutely no idea why you feel I am insulting you.

This is part of why I have no desire to debate with you, if you find that insulting, then I can't see how we have any kind of discussion.

As for speakers you asked me about: what would be the point? If I tell you a Magico S7 with sufficient amplification is capable of Horn level dynamics, then what? You'll say you disagree? So what's the point?

We've both said what we wanted to say on the issue. and obviously neither of us is changing our minds. If you find that insulting, then I really don't know what to tell you.

 

[Ajani]

LindsayT.

This appears to be the in thing now.

When the opposing argument has dried up vailed insults to discredit the 'winner' credibility is now in vogue.

Would be alot easier for Ajani to amend his sig or to give it a little more thought but.......

And so you attempt to discredit me by claiming that I'm making veiled insults? How is that better than what you accuse me of?

Also, why should I change my signature? Because you disagree with my opinion? I've made an entire thread so persons have a chance to agree or disagree with my opinion.

 

[Vladimir]

You must be new.

All discussion with lindsayt end up with praising his system. Just let the man tell you why it is so great and why he loves it so much. Have some holiday spirit.

Peace and love.

Vladimir, that is a disgusting slur.

Re read post #2 of this thread.

Where my stance is the opposite of the insult you have tarred me with.

IE in post #2 I'm saying that NO SPEAKERS ARE BEST AT EVERYTHING. Which of course includes all the speakers that I own and have owned in the past.

I completely understand your point about the very real limitations of transducers vs electronics, Hoffman's Iron law of speaker design etc. Although "NO SPEAKERS ARE BEST AT EVERYTHING" is a very sobering thought, this thread was about AJ venting his frustration with audiophile thinking.

What do you think audiophiles do wrong?

How is what I said an insult?

That would be me.

 

[manicm]

Also Ajani, you're in great danger of becoming another fr0g, Almighty forbid. The brutal truth, dear chap, is that after all the blind tests and analyses, you're using your ears to listen to music. We all do. And no-one 'listens with their eyes' especially when they're stumping up cash. Get over it. And I'm teasing you fr0g.

 

[Vladimir]

I think my system has most live venues whupped. Accuracy? No thanks, I'll take enjoyment every time. Vive la difference!!

When you say "Accuracy? No thanks." you are litteraly saying "F**k art. F**k Bach, Miles and Hendrix. Viva la me!!" Of course you have every right to and I honestly don't judge anyone for it.

Often tutted saying is how hi-fi can never accurately reproduce real music. I disagree with the extent of pesimism which usually accompanies that. I think people forget how close we've come compared to 50, 100, 200 years ago. First recording technology was sheet music because before it "you had to be there". It had it's significant limitations though. Prior to electronic recording technology one could say it is a matter of opinion who plays Beethoven the right way, and if we are pedantic, really no one can, regardless to what complexity musical theory and its language was developed to. However, with recordings art is captured as is and we have the luxury to reproduce it in our homes. Some can afford a system that plays as loud and accurate like a real piano, and some will have an aproximation. All of it is huge step forward than just whistling a tune out of memory. Obviously some don't care for the real deal and prefer a version, but I doubt they contemplate about art and specifically music that much.

Now, another problematic saying in the audiophile culture. "Enjoying music". Where did one get the idea music is only for enjoying and it needs to give positive and pleasant feelings? That is incredibly limiting. Music can be sad, depressing, emotionless, cerebral, though provoking, scary, confusing, any human emotion in the spreadsheet really. Try listening to Stockhausen on a $3M hi-end system and tell me how enjoyable it was. Not much I bet. Or try listening some droning minimal. It may creep you out more than any death metal track or Steven King movie. Music is about many things, even 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence, recording of the wind swishing against power lines, or banging a hammer on untuned piano.

If you think I'm BS-ing you, I asure you I listen to music that I don't enjoy one bit, in fact it can be agonizing or confusing or anything but enjoyable and nice.

Oh Vladimir, on your point 'enjoying the music' you're trying to sound more important than you are. Even I'm not so arrogant as to state I'm the only one for whom The Final Cut is one of my favourite Pink Floyd albums or Music For A New Society is one of my favourite John Cale albums. Or David Bowie's Scary Monsters either, or ANYTHING from King Crimson's latter career. The truth is that any good 'depressing' album will still possess something cathartic. Peter Gabriel's US, even though about love and relationships, is as harrowing as his 3rd record.

Your musical vocabulary seems to be also limited to happy and sad. What are your feelings about John Cage's 4'33"?

 

[Ajani]

You must be new.

All discussion with lindsayt end up with praising his system. Just let the man tell you why it is so great and why he loves it so much. Have some holiday spirit.

Peace and love.

Vladimir, that is a disgusting slur.

Re read post #2 of this thread.

Where my stance is the opposite of the insult you have tarred me with.

IE in post #2 I'm saying that NO SPEAKERS ARE BEST AT EVERYTHING. Which of course includes all the speakers that I own and have owned in the past.

I completely understand your point about the very real limitations of transducers vs electronics, Hoffman's Iron law of speaker design etc. Although "NO SPEAKERS ARE BEST AT EVERYTHING" is a very sobering thought, this thread was about AJ venting his frustration with audiophile thinking.

What do you think audiophiles do wrong?

But "best at everything" was never the point! It was simply that if all are aiming for accuracy then we should see convergence at higher prices. The gaps between speakers should get smaller, if they are all aiming for the same target. If the gaps remain the same or get wider, then clearly either the designer can't aim or they are not aiming for the same thing.

How is what I said an insult?

That would be me.

Doesn't look that way. They quote me and name me. So I have to assume they think I am playing the man and not the ball or whatever.

 

[Ajani]

Also Ajani, you're in great danger of becoming another fr0g, Almighty forbid. The brutal truth, dear chap, is that after all the blind tests and analyses, you're using your ears to listen to music. We all do. And no-one 'listens with their eyes' especially when they're stumping up cash. Get over it. And I'm teasing you fr0g.

Based on what? So all the research on sighted bias and DBT testing is straight up nonsense, because audiophiles don't like it? Are audiophiles just immune to these kind of biases?

 

[Ajani]

So, despite all differences in speaker design and the limitations of the concept, they should all be very close to razor flat frequency response, if nothing else. If they can't get flat FR in 2015, it's rubbish. This with high end professional speakers is clearly achieved. Not with audiophile high end. Why?

Because so many audiophiles would rather treat HiFi like art than science. So it's all about using fancy exotic (aka expensive) materials and then claiming night and day differences in the sound quality. Whether any of those differences can be measured objectively or even proven to exist in a simple blind test doesn't matter. Who cares about the science? I like how it sounds (when I can see it).

 

[Vladimir]

I'm the 'disgusting slur' author. No need for you to be defensive. Keep the thread on course.

So, despite all differences in speaker design and the limitations of the concept, they should all be very close to razor flat frequency response, if nothing else. If they can't get flat FR in 2015, it's rubbish. This with high end professional speakers is clearly achieved. Not with audiophile high end. Why?

Wilson Audio Specialties Alexandria XLF ($200,000 for the pair)

JBL M2 ($12,000 for the pair)

 

[Vladimir]

So, despite all differences in speaker design and the limitations of the concept, they should all be very close to razor flat frequency response, if nothing else. If they can't get flat FR in 2015, it's rubbish. This with high end professional speakers is clearly achieved. Not with audiophile high end. Why?

Because so many audiophiles would rather treat HiFi like art than science. So it's all about using fancy exotic (aka expensive) materials and then claiming night and day differences in the sound quality. Whether any of those differences can be measured objectively or even proven to exist in a simple blind test doesn't matter. Who cares about the science? I like how it sounds (when I can see it).

Art is something made for non-profit goals and in individual unique pieces.

 

[manicm]

I think my system has most live venues whupped. Accuracy? No thanks, I'll take enjoyment every time. Vive la difference!!

When you say "Accuracy? No thanks." you are litteraly saying "F**k art. F**k Bach, Miles and Hendrix. Viva la me!!"  Of course you have every right to and I honestly don't judge anyone for it.?

Often tutted saying is how hi-fi can never accurately reproduce real music. I disagree with the extent of pesimism which usually accompanies that. I think people forget how close we've come compared to 50, 100, 200 years ago. First recording technology was sheet music because before it "you had to be there". It had it's significant limitations though. Prior to electronic recording technology one could say it is a matter of opinion who plays Beethoven the right way, and if we are pedantic, really no one can, regardless to what complexity musical theory and its language was developed to. However, with recordings art is captured as is and we have the luxury to reproduce it in our homes. Some can afford a system that plays as loud and accurate like a real piano, and some will have an aproximation. All of it is huge step forward than just whistling a tune out of memory. Obviously some don't care for the real deal and prefer a version, but I doubt they contemplate about art and specifically music that much.

Now, another problematic saying in the audiophile culture. "Enjoying music". Where did one get the idea music is only for enjoying and it needs to give positive and pleasant feelings? That is incredibly limiting. Music can be sad, depressing, emotionless, cerebral, though provoking, scary, confusing, any human emotion in the spreadsheet really. Try listening to Stockhausen on a $3M hi-end system and tell me how enjoyable it was. Not much I bet. Or try listening some droning minimal. It may creep you out more than any death metal track or Steven King movie. Music is about many things, even 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence, recording of the wind swishing against power lines, or banging a hammer on untuned piano.?

If you think I'm BS-ing you, I asure you I listen to music that I don't enjoy one bit, in fact it can be agonizing or confusing or anything but enjoyable and nice.?

?

Oh Vladimir, on your point 'enjoying the music' you're trying to sound more important than you are. Even I'm not so arrogant as to state I'm the only one for whom The Final Cut is one of my favourite Pink Floyd albums or Music For A New Society is one of my favourite John Cale albums. Or David Bowie's Scary Monsters either, or ANYTHING from King Crimson's latter career. The truth is that any good 'depressing' album will still possess something cathartic. Peter Gabriel's US, even though about love and relationships, is as harrowing as his 3rd record.

Your musical vocabulary seems to be also limited to happy and sad. What are your feelings about John Cage's 4'33"?

Balls. There's much stuff I have that's inbetween. Classical stuff. As you mentioned Beethoven. Even in your avatar's The Soul Cages - I just love the album - it has the sublime All This Time. And he made one good album after that. And then he went bald, churned out largely poo, and the idiot should have just packed it in. Happy New Year.

 

[manicm]

Actually Vladimir, one of my favourites is inbetween - Steely Dan.

 

[Ajani]

So, despite all differences in speaker design and the limitations of the concept, they should all be very close to razor flat frequency response, if nothing else. If they can't get flat FR in 2015, it's rubbish. This with high end professional speakers is clearly achieved. Not with audiophile high end. Why?

Because so many audiophiles would rather treat HiFi like art than science. So it's all about using fancy exotic (aka expensive) materials and then claiming night and day differences in the sound quality. Whether any of those differences can be measured objectively or even proven to exist in a simple blind test doesn't matter. Who cares about the science? I like how it sounds (when I can see it).

Art is something made for non-profit goals and in individual unique pieces.

In theory yes.

 

[Ajani]

Even if any high end speaker sounds flat the environment of the listeners will vary so much. So what we saying, a speaker sounds too boomy or to bright only with cheaper speakers in any room?.. me think not.

Unless the room is treated high end will not sound as good or believable like pro speakers in a recording studio environment. What's the point of flat in a home environment it not treated.

So treat your home environment or use DSP to correct for it. Why would you want a speaker that isn't flat even in ideal conditions?

 

[Native_bon]

Even if any high end speaker sounds flat the environment of the listeners will vary so much. So what we saying, a speaker sounds too boomy or to bright only with cheaper speakers in any room?.. me think not.

Unless the room is treated high end will not sound as good or believable like pro speakers in a recording studio environment. What's the point of flat response Hifi speaker in a home environment if not treated.

 

[Native_bon]

Even if any high end speaker sounds flat the environment of the listeners will vary so much. So what we saying, a speaker sounds too boomy or to bright only with cheaper speakers in any room?.. me think not.

Unless the room is treated high end will not sound as good or believable like pro speakers in a recording studio environment. What's the point of flat in a home environment it not treated.

So treat your home environment or use DSP to correct for it. Why would you want a speaker that isn't flat even in ideal conditions?

I think it's very logically to me. So many homes are way off from what you call a treated room. Anyway that's my point. Too much emphasis is placed on flat. What if a flat speaker sounds bad in your house what do you do then.

Not many have the ability to treat the listening area

 

[Ajani]

Even if any high end speaker sounds flat the environment of the listeners will vary so much. So what we saying, a speaker sounds too boomy or to bright only with cheaper speakers in any room?.. me think not.

Unless the room is treated high end will not sound as good or believable like pro speakers in a recording studio environment. What's the point of flat in a home environment it not treated.

So treat your home environment or use DSP to correct for it. Why would you want a speaker that isn't flat even in ideal conditions?

I think it's very logically to me. So many homes are way off from what you call a treated room. Anyway that's my point. Too much emphasis is placed on flat. What if a flat speaker sounds bad in your house what do you do then.

Not many have the ability to treat the listening area

So why would a speaker with a skewed frequency response sound better in that untreated room? DSP is still an option and treatment doesn't have to mean ugly acoustic panels. It may just mean curtains, rugs, artwork etc... things that won't make your room look like a studio.

 

[Native_bon]

Even if any high end speaker sounds flat the environment of the listeners will vary so much. So what we saying, a speaker sounds too boomy or to bright only with cheaper speakers in any room?.. me think not.

Unless the room is treated high end will not sound as good or believable like pro speakers in a recording studio environment. What's the point of flat in a home environment it not treated.

So treat your home environment or use DSP to correct for it. Why would you want a speaker that isn't flat even in ideal conditions?

I think it's very logically to me. So many homes are way off from what you call a treated room. Anyway that's my point. Too much emphasis is placed on flat. What if a flat speaker sounds bad in your house what do you do then.

Not many have the ability to treat the listening area

So why would a speaker with a skewed frequency response sound better in that untreated room? DSP is still an option and treatment doesn't have to mean ugly acoustic panels. It may just mean curtains, rugs, artwork etc... things that won't make your room look like a studio. 

The not very flat sounding speaker may just sound right with the room in question.