[plaf26]

Maybe this was asked already while I wasn't looking, but what do they use for monitor speakers in broacast and recording studios?  Don't they have to be really good so that the recording or the broadcast comes out right?  Wouldn't that work in the home?    

[Aether Audio]

...but what do they use for monitor speakers in broacast and recording studios? Don't they have to be really good so that the recording or the broadcast comes out right? Wouldn't that work in the home?

http://www.4sptech.com

Our products were designed for professional use first.  It's only by a quirk of marketing and lack of sufficient resources for advertising that our products happen to be selling mostly in the audiophile market to begin with.

Not only that, but I just read Frank's design concerns via the URL he posted earlier and they are very close to those of Brian's new Constant Directivity Wave Guide.

Frank, I'm not going to get into the debate regarding the true definition of a waveguide vs. that of a diffraction slot, but if you're interested in a product that unquestionably fulfills the standard definition and is free of any controversial issues, then try:

http://www.4sptech.com

Sorry, I don't mean to be contentious, it just seems to me that many of the products being mentioned do not possess the accuracy, controlled dispersion and bandwidth Frank needs from a product requiring true reference level performance.  That's who we are and that's what we do.  

The only products I've seen mentioned other than our own that falls within the same catagory of performance were those of ATC.  The other products may be good for home use and very enjoyable with regard to many audiophiles' tastes, but the need for a true reference monitor goes beyond opinion.  Such a product must deliver from a verifiable, quantifiable and repeatable standpoint.  If such a product cannot fulfill the scientifically verifiable requirements of a reference monitor, issue of subjective taste and preference become secondary.  Once the scientific requirements have been met, then the debate regarding subjective preference holds merit.  

With regard to the highly subjective view many audiophile take regarding product performance, I beg to differ.  Audio is a  branch of science and as such is governed by basic rules and laws that investigators through the years have shown to be provable and repeatable.  It is not governed by "black magic" and opinion.  What differences that do exist between what science can identify and what individuals hear, are a result of science's present inability to identify every possible parameter and obviously, the internal workings of an individuals ear/brain mechanism.  As time passes, science will continue to home in on the finer parameters and help us to more succinctly define what constitutes good sound.  Until then, we must take into account that which it is able to tell us now - at least if we want to develop true reference level performance.  That's my $0.02 worth.

-Bob

[ctviggen]

Bob, I agree with you on the science aspect, although I'm not sure you'll find many here who do.

[Karsten]

Well science is always a good place to start, when the fundamental stuff is as it should be then is the time to experiment and tweak.
Fortunately Bob has good ears and this is also why all the options are available to the SP speakers.
To most professionals wire is wire and a cap is a cap, so why should they pay for the more expensive stuff? The audiophile approach is to put the construction through listening tests to hear the perceived audible differences between various components, of course without sacrificing the basics like flat response etc.

I really like the simplicity obtained through applied technology in the SP speakers, a full range 2-way design with a 600 Hz cross over point, well that is unique! On paper the low frequency response may not look that impressive, but comparing the performance with other speakers with similar or even better specs really makes you wonder, what the heck is going on here? These 8” woofers really perform (with capital “P”) in their ideal piston range, even the “little” Timepieces outperforms most constructions with 2 pcs. 6.5” woofers and that is with a good margin.

As reference speakers, I doubt there is anything more revealing than these. Amplifiers, cables etc. you throw in front of them really reveals themselves quite clearly and it does not take long to hear the differences. I think that the absence of cone break up modes and resulting distortion for a god part is responsible for the transparency of these speakers. I also believe that getting the distortion down is the real challenge in speaker design.

Brg,
Karsten

[Daedalus Audio]

[What differences that do exist between what science can identify and what individuals hear, are a result of science's present inability to identify every possible parameter and obviously, the internal workings of an individuals ear/brain mechanism. As time passes, science will continue to home in on the finer parameters and help us to more succinctly define what constitutes good sound. ]

"Define what constitutes good sound"...  isn't 'good sound' the sound of the real instrument and voice? That to me is the true reference. Science doesn't create a great musical instrument, it takes experience, intuition and good ears. The same is true of  audio equipment. As for sudio reference monitors, they run the gamut from sterile JBL's to smooth, silky Genelec's. The engineer then compensates their ears to their speaker so they can produce a recording (facsimile of real music) that will sound good on most systems. One of the interesting facets here is that the specs on these various speakers are so similar yet they sound so different....

   Frank can use any number of speakers so long as he is comfortable with them and they don’t provide a coloration that will limit his ability to ‘hear’ what his amplifier designs are doing. I don’t believe there is any scientifically perfect speaker, and whatever speaker is chosen should only be one of several references used for evaluation of the amplifier designs.  

Lou

[/quote]

[ctviggen]

Many people on this board will read a book or two about speaker design and then determine that they know everything about speaker design, even though they've never personally built a speaker.  To me, that's ludicrous.  

On the other hand, I realize that good speaker design is more than a function of parameters.  It's as much of an art as it is a science.  However, as science and understanding improves, the "art" needed will lessen.  For instance, speakers considered commonplace today are such because of the work of others who described crossovers, orders therefore, etc.  Heck, 75 years ago, we didn't know what (for instance) Qtc, fc, and fs were; today, these are well characterized parameters of speaker design.  I remain hopeful that characterization of speakers will continue to improve.

[Daedalus Audio]

thanks Bob, that helps clarify what i was trying to say... we're not at the point where we can build a speaker on just science.
 having been designing and building speaker systems including the drivers for professional musicians  since '92 i've learned these lessons the hard way  ; )
there's no perfect speaker or system and all we do is at best an aproximation of real music.

Lou

[zybar]

thanks Bob, that helps clarify what i was trying to say... we're not at the point where we can build a speaker on just science.
 having been designing and building speaker systems including the drivers for professional musicians  since '92 i've learned these lessons the hard way  ; )
there's no perfect speaker or system and all we do is at best an aproximation of real music.

Lou

Which Lou does very well I may add...  

George

[Aether Audio]

Lou, et.al.,

"Define what constitutes good sound"... isn't 'good sound' the sound of the real instrument and voice? That to me is the true reference. Science doesn't create a great musical instrument, it takes experience, intuition and good ears.

Exactly! - as far "good sound" being that of the sound of a real musical instrument having been reproduced faithfully.  My comment regarding "what constitutes good sound" was in reference to science's ability to identify those physical parameters and effects of various audio devices (amplifiers, speakers, etc.), that must be in place and of sufficient fidelity necessary to reproduce the sound of a real, live instrument or voice - or any combination thereof.

If you try to say that science doesn't matter, it's the final sound that counts - you're only half correct.  It's a matter of nothing more than the means to and end.  I will prove my point.  

With my "science" I will construct a speaker that has a flat response and in the end, let's say that because of whatever combination of variables it posseses, it just so happens that it is determined to deliver a very high level of performance by a majority of individuals - both experienced and inexperienced listeners.  ( I should get rich$$$ - right?)

Now, I will take this wonderful speaker back in my lab and, using the same brands and quality of components, I will alter its frequency response such that my instruments tell me that I have produced a 30dB rise in its frequency response at 1kHz, that exhibits a "Q" of "1."

Now, how many of those original individuals that had determined this speaker provides excellent sound, will continue to hold that view?  Wanna bet?  I would venture to say virtually none.  Through "science" I have managed to ruin a perfectly good speaker.  I could accomplish similar effects by altering the enclosure construction such that it resonates terribly, or selecting different drivers that exhibit very high levels of distortion even at low drive levels. and be able to verify those effects via science and instrumentation.

So... isn't the opposite just as true?  Can I not first identify parameters that seem to have correlation with perceived "good sound" and then optimize them to the best of my ability?  Of course I can, this is the essence of all good product design and understood by any designer of quality products.  Don't think so? Just look inside your CD/DVD player.  There's enough "science" in there to make your head spin - and by God it better work or you won't get so much as a "peep" out of it.

The above dissertation is obviouse to all but the most willfully ignorant of the facts and should not even have to be pointed out.  We start with the science and optimize it to the limit of our abilities - then we engage in subjective analysis in order to refine what our science cannot tell us.  Nevertheless, the parameters that science cannot as yet identify are orders of magnitude below those that it can.  If we optimize the science, then adjusting for the finer paramters that science can not help us with should only bring about further refinement of an otherwise already excellent product.  Changing from copper to silver wire inside a "scientifically verifiable and subjectively perceived" lousy speaker, will not transform it in to an excellent one - period.

Whether or not the market perceives it to be a good thing or not, many designers "whistle past the graveyard" of science and then try dismiss its value publicly.  Ironically, behind the scenes they still use it to the limit  of their ability (and often very limited at that) to achieve a design that is marketable.  To me, the whole notion smacks of hypocrisy.

I propose a challenge.  In order for the scientific naysayers to validate their stand, I suggest that whatever designers that are out there that feel this way... try this:

Design a speaker (or amplifier for that matter) without using any formulas or instrumentation whatsoever.  Design the thing on paper using only mechanical construction drawings and then build it.  Then tweak and adjust it totally by ear until you have what you perceive to be an excellent product.  If you ever get done within our life-times, then submit it to various members of AudioCircle for review.  If the majority feel it is a superior product, I'll take it all back.  I'll eat my words and admit I'm wrong.

Any takers?  I didn't think so.  Only a fool would consider this, let alone attempt it.  Hey Frank, throw out all you RC time constant calculations and phase margin measurements and build us an amp, will ya? Oh yeah, just to make it a bit of a challange, I want it to be at least 500W/ch. Never mind all the smoke and fire, that's just the price you have to pay in order to develop a truly supperior product.  

Frank knows better - and so does any REAL engineer.  Anything less is a hack - and I don't think Frank is looking for a "hack job" speaker. I rest my case.

At SP Technology, we optimize every scientifically identifiable parameter possible within the limits of the applied technology and cost limits of a given dsign.  Frequency extension, frequency response linearity, frequency response matching between pairs of enclosures, THD, IMD, horizontal and vertical dispersion, phase error, diffraction, dynamic linearity, power handling, electrical impedance, enclosure resonance - you name it!  All of these things are identified by science and are quantifiable with the proper instrumentation.  Only after all of these areas are optimized, do we then subjectively evaluate internal wiring and crossover component quality effects - which are essentially un-measurable.  Do these un-measurable variable have a sonic effect?  You bet they do!  And its funny, they seem to make a lot more difference once the scientifically measurable paramaters are optimized.  Go figure.

-Bob

[Bear Heath]

Frank,

Suggest listening to Vandersteen speakers. They a couple speakers in your price range that go deep enough to be a test instrument for your amplifiers. There is a local dealer on Lyndale Avenue in Richfield.

Thanks

[Daedalus Audio]

hey Bob,  relax man  

[Bill Baker]

Wow, this thread is really getting off track. We can recommend speakers all day long and I don't think any speaker mentioned here will be "wrong". Nobody knows exactly what Frank likes or is truly looking for. Most of us don't know how Frank voices his products. I am quite sure no speaker mentioned here will sound "wrong". I know what I like, everyone knows what they like. It's now up to Frank to decide what will best suit his needs.

 As far as all the science behind speaker design?? Maybe this isn't the place for all this but since it has already taken over this thread, I am going to put my two cents in. I will keep it very simple.

Well science is always a good place to start, when the fundamental stuff is as it should be then is the time to experiment and tweak.

 I think this sums it up in a single sentence. I truly believe speaker design must start out with science to at least get things on the right track. It is then that the human ear comes into the picture to finalize the "voicing" of any given speaker design. Everyone claims to have the best in design. Who's right? If you ask, we're all right, then again we're all wrong. Every speaker out there (at least those of established integrity) have their place and reasoning in the market. There is not one speaker design that will fit the preferences of everyone. Obviously, this debate will go on forever.

 The same holds true for the electronic end of things. Again, everyone claims to have the best design. Guess what people, you don't. There are far too many variables that come into play.

 It boils down to this: There is no such thing as perfect!! so let's stop arguing about it.

 Damn Frank, see what you started

[Aether Audio]

Lou,

hey Bob, relax man

I'm cool I wasn't picking on you man.  I know you already understand my point.  Its just that this subject sticks in my craw and it gave me an opportunity to point out what I perceive to be the obvious, but apparently many others don't.

Bill,

It boils down to this: There is no such thing as perfect!!

I agree completely. But...the devil is in the details.  Certainly science cannot dictate what sounds "good."  It can only quantify parameters that have direct correlation to what is subjectively claimed to sound good.  Science cannot tell us that a 360 degree radiation pattern at all frequencies sounds "better" than a radiation pattern that is limited to 90 degrees in the forward hemishere of a listening room.  That is for us to decide and/or debate (if we're of a mind to).

Once we have made determinations about what type of radiation pattern works best, science can then quantify whether or not a cetrtain loudspeaker more closely fulfills our requirement for that parameter. Science determnes nothing - we do.  It just helps us with the qualification and quantification process.  If we decide that 5% even-ordered harmonic distortion sounds "good" then science can help us to achieve that effect.  If science shows us that our system is only generating 1% of the above type distortion, then we know we have some work to do in order to improve things.  We may know by listening that the sound we are trying to acjhieve is not "right" yet, but our ear/brain system probably won't tell us that we have another 4% of distortion to add before we are likely to achieve our desired results.

If, by definition, the word "reference" is to be applied to any device, then we must define what the word "reference" means.  I submit that it has been standard engineering terminology to use the word "reference" within the context of ultimate fidelity.  A "reference" amplifier is one that comes the closest to exhibiting a "straight wire with gain" transfer function.  It adds as little in the way of distortion or other colorations that the present "state of the art" in amplifier technology  and science is able to achieve.  At the very least, a reference amplifier would rank within the top 10 or so amplifiers in the world with regards to meeting the above requirement.

The same would be true of a loudspeaker, but our definition would obviously be a little more complex.  We would have to not only define minimum  distortion as a requirement, but we would also have to define minimum bandwidth and a preferred radiation/polar response.  These variables ar more open to interpretation and would be a function of the intended usage and listening environment.  In the realm of loudspeakers, the recording studio monitor typically sets the criteria for the word "reference," as all other applications in professional sound are highly venue dependant - i,e., concert hall sound reinforcement for either a heavy metal act, or conversely, a small chamber music ensemble.  The requirements for each vary widely and so there is little possibility to establish a '"reference" set of criteria.

Much effort has been put into establishing standard criteria for proper recording studio control room design though.  Hence, a certain minimum standard for monitoring loudspeakers can be derived from this effort.  Many studios do not adhere to these guidlines, but nonetheless, many do and they have set the pace for the rest of the industry.

I submit that, in lieu of the unlimited combinations of criteria that would result from the subjective opinions of all possible posters here, a deifinition of the word "reference" would be required from Frank in order to more succinctly define his needs.  If he were to adopt the de facto standard definition as it applies to studio monitors - then fine, we can proceed.  If not, then whatever his definition happens to be will set the course.  There is little point in directing someone to a Bose 901 when his needs are that of a Klipschorn.  Likewise, a Sony jambox would likely not suffice in a Lucasfilm screening room.

In the end though, if he interprets the term "reference" to be more along the lines of the professional definition, then I stand by my opinion.  Science and measurements first will and /or should be the guiding light in fulfilling his quest.  Subjective opinion should then follow within the context of the products identified as being able to meet the pre-established scientific criteria.  The alternative is chaos.

-Bob

[Bill Baker]

HI Bob,
 You are preaching to the choir with me. I am a true believer in your designs and the science behind them. You should know by our phone conversations that I agree, understand (mostly) and respect everything you and your products stand for.


 It is for this soul reason that I choose the Waveguide as the heart of the Bella speakers that carry my name on them. I have been approached in the past by other manufacturers asking me if I would be interested in having them "OEM" designs for me. I felt that most of these were too conventional for such a saturated market. I am anything but conventional. When you, Bob Smith, offered this oppurtunity to me with the Bellas, I felt that this was a design that would stand out from the norm. Further evaluation only clinched the deal.

 The whole point of my previous post was to point out the fact that I can still understand, appreciate and respect other's design theories. And I do.

 Being a dealer, I am exposed to many speaker designs and can honestly say that there is more than one that I could happily live with for a long time. I am one who tries to look at things with an unbiased approach.

[Rocket]

Hi,

I know i'm going to get flamed for making the following statement.

A "reference" amplifier is one that comes the closest to exhibiting a "straight wire with gain" transfer function

Hi Bob, i'm sure you build a very very nice quality speaker and in fact i congratulated another ac member for purchasing a pair today.  Unfortunately we all have different tastes when it comes to music and how it is presented.  The guys at my local shop raved about the bel canto amps (although i've been told the new icepower bc's are very good and affordable) and although they sounded excellent i.e. transparent, wonderful top end.  After about 10 minutes they sounded damn boring to me.

I went thru 4 different amps in my system this year i.e. aksa 100 nirvana plus, modded ps audio hca - 2, odyssey khartago and finally i purchased the spread spectrum technologies son of ampzilla.  None of the amps were perfect in all areas but i had to stick with one eventually.

I typically like neutral to warmish sound, it must be relatively transparent, quick, refined and extended top end with moderate levels of bass.  Probably i'd like your speakers but not everyone has my taste or experience to know what they want from their system.

Just my 2 cents worth from an untalented audiophool   .

Regards

Rod

[JLM]

plaf26,

The present conditions in most recording studios should make us all hang up our audio spurs.  

First consider the audience.  Most music is bought by the 10 - 25 demographic who are listening to gangsta/pop on headphones via MP3.  Imaging, bass response, and fidelity in general takes a backseat.

Second think about the motivation.  Time and money.  Producers barking at the "engineer" and precious little input from the artist.

Third imagine the studio.  A cramped room with poorly located mini-monitors.  98% of us here have better speakers and 99% of us have better rooms.  The only saving grace is that the monitors are usually bi-amped, designed to be accurate, and at least in free space have a flat response.

[plaf26]

JLM:

QED.  Your last sentence proves my point.

[JoshK]

I am completely in Bob's camp when it comes to my philosophy on audio design, even though I am not a designer.  As a diy hobbiest, I like to learn what science can help me understand better, what guides it can give you, what we know and what we don't know.  From there the subjective comes in to make sure it all works and sounds as it should.  I wish more hi-fi companies would take this approach, but I don't think enough of the audience is ready to listen and understand this rationale.

[Daedalus Audio]

Bob, no problem, like you I have my own pet peeves.  don't get me wrong, I know you understand this and as has been mentioned you've got good ears.
 my issue is that in audio (pro and home) certain terms like 'reference' have been overused and 'scientific' specs are often relied upon instead of good judgment.  People forget we're reproducing music not test tones.  science is how we get from point A to point B, and I'm glad the science is getting better.... makes my job easier.
   The issue is that we are still a long way from being able to measure all the parameters of sound that make music. We can listen to a dozen 'reference' speakers and amps that all have 'flat' response and all sound very different from each other. This is where I keep going back to the source, real live instruments and voice, and whichever speaker and amplifier comes closest to that for me is my reference. of course I still test it to be sure... ; )    Anyone who's been in this industry knows there are a wide range of 'test' capabilities.  The really big studios which do have 'real reference' monitors spend more on testing the room/speaker than most audiophiles spend on their systems.  I don't even bother with serious in house testing, I send everything to Vertek which has one of the best test labs in the country.  The point is for most of us to rely on our ears, and to go to the source for our reference. That reference source is not some 'great' stereo,  go sit four feet from a grand piano, or other live instruments, then use to that as a reference. That reality is very, very different from what most of us have become used to.

Okay, this has gotten a bit off the track of helping Frank find new speakers, or maybe not as this all relates to how one can make that choice.
best of luck,
Lou

[JLM]

Unfortunately monitors in recording studios are not used in free space as they're designed to be and being quite small, have limited bass.  As the studio setups are small/cramped imaging is a matter of guess work.  But yes, a few here have heard and love the highly analytical/detailed sound active studio monitors can provide.