[Tyson]

I guess my point was this - the difference in accuracy between a good tube amp and a good SS amp is miniscule compared to the cone/dome drivers coupling to the air.  And that is even more minimal than the speaker's interaction with the room.  The distortion introduced by the drivers and by the room is massive vs the distortion introduced by the electronics. 

I think this is why so many people are looking at constant (narrow) directivity speakers (box speakers) and more people are going open baffle.  Both designs couple better with a typical room.  A step in the right direction I think, but even the best CD and OB speakers are still by far the biggest sources of distortion in the system.

[AJinFLA]

I prefer to replicate the recording the best as possible.

Replicate? Of what?

[Randy]

I've spent more money on music than I've ever dreamt of spending on gear. That's the buy; the gear is just fine. 

You and me both. I shudder to think how much money I've spent on my collection of 5,000 CDs, and I can only listen to one at a time.

[Folsom]

I guess my point was this - the difference in accuracy between a good tube amp and a good SS amp is miniscule compared to the cone/dome drivers coupling to the air.  And that is even more minimal than the speaker's interaction with the room.  The distortion introduced by the drivers and by the room is massive vs the distortion introduced by the electronics. 

I think this is why so many people are looking at constant (narrow) directivity speakers (box speakers) and more people are going open baffle.  Both designs couple better with a typical room.  A step in the right direction I think, but even the best CD and OB speakers are still by far the biggest sources of distortion in the system.

You have to recall there's distortion we hear, and that we measure. The overlap isn't half as high as we'd like to be true.

My room is small, and when I step out of it and I eliminate it as a factor aside from some bass boost, I can tell I'd be better off with an improved room (and that most recordings weren't cut as well they could have been for FR compression). But not once anywhere did I find a treated room or CD speaker made up for all the other problems electrically and in the speaker construction. Those problems become amplified in an untreated room. As those problems are minimized an untreated room becomes less significant. Suffice to say you can't put a dumpy stereo in a treated room, or hookup a nice CD speaker to it and expect it to be magically good. But on the otherhand I think a very good stereo can sound good in about any room where the speakers aren't against the wall, or are designed to be against the wall.

There's so few stereos I think that have dealt with most issues, or have very good electronics, it's sorta mind boggling.

[Folsom]

Replicate? Of what?

For simplicity's sake imagine at the studio they have a funnel that everything feeds into, I'm hooking up at the other end of the funnel somewhere else. My goal isn't to shape my side of the funnel like theirs, but to shape it so I can always hear what's going in and the shape they have to their side of the funnel.

I hope that helps, and sounds maybe a bit dumb, because I think your question is as well.

[AJinFLA]

I hope that helps, and sounds maybe a bit dumb

Yes.
You're not replicating anything. Just taking electronically encoded media and transducing into some acoustic soundfield of your liking. Like everyone else.

[Early B.]

It's these kinds of threads where we're all quite adept at saying "a whole lot of nuthin'." Still interesting to read, though.

[goskers]

I wouldn't say I entirely agree with that. Distortion figured are only in the voltage domain, for one. It's basically impossible to make the best speaker ever be truly good if the electronics can't keep up.

For speakers we've been working on compensating for the electrical problems in crossovers, in ways not used by anyone yet (that we are aware). That's the first goal before we get carried away with developing crazy speakers. We are planning to make a speaker. For example it's not that we think CD is wrong, but we aren't focused on that first because frankly there's so much else going on that it's not our first concern. Working with a cone and dome, so to say, has been very fruitful thus far, to lead us into something. In my mind without compensating for crossover and driver electrical issues you are faced with squeezing whisky from rocks in terms of room treatment etc. But that's coming from having electronics that can back it up.

Active setups may or may not work around the issues. With driver feedback it should be possible and that's something we're interested in for active speakers in the future. Right now it seems easier to get what we want from passive, as the crossover allows you to work with the woofer driver, almost like a reactive shield, instead of just changing the load on the amp without the driver changing. That's a bit premature to say... But so far it's true.

What Do we actually hear? Well IMD sound you're use to is something you have to search for... every album sounds totally different. Stand up bass, well, is standing, banjo's speed is natural. You just give up on needing to reason with half the stuff you listen for, because you're hearing music. Things aren't standing tall saying "look at me". But it's very easy to understand how much you hear the studio between you and the music. That's why some stuff sounds extremely natural, in the room, and other things clearly are adjusted and changed a lot. I'm blabbing on when the most concise way to describe the goal and sound is that it's very natural when the album has the ability to sound that way. Some album's sound very raw, which is usually optimal as then a guitar has the sound size you would expect from a real one, not the fake outline of a guitar you often hear in systems saturated with noise to make the imaging unreal.

I am sorry but this sort of rhetoric is exactly why I am so tired of this hobby.  So much talk about something which all eventually leads back to the discussion of perceived sound. 

I apologize for the insult.  I just don't feel like anything outside of metrics and standards based focus is going to provide any real improvements going forward.

[G Georgopoulos]

Folsom, good replication = HiFi,you're on the right path,regards,George

[goskers]

Folsom, good replication = HiFi,you're on the right path,regards,George

How does one define 'replication'?

[G Georgopoulos]

How does one define 'replication'?

Sorry no insult intended,as of the definition of replication,Folsom's posts are good enough for me

Best Regards

[goskers]

Sorry no insult intended,as of the definition of replication,Folsom's posts are good enough for me

Best Regards

I guess I was wondering as to how I can judge the quality of my replication to know if I am also on the right track? 

[G Georgopoulos]

I guess I was wondering as to how I can judge the quality of my replication to know if I am also on the right track?

Get an education on the subject...

[Folsom]

I am sorry but this sort of rhetoric is exactly why I am so tired of this hobby.  So much talk about something which all eventually leads back to the discussion of perceived sound. 

I apologize for the insult.  I just don't feel like anything outside of metrics and standards based focus is going to provide any real improvements going forward.

While I wouldn't use your words, I understand. I think it's so fruitless to describe when one can hear.

Now if a simple graph held all the answers, then everything would be easy wouldn't it. Sadly you basically have to be deep into the knowledge to know when someone is pulling a fast one or not. Hell, even a lot of people that are engineers don't really get the whole picture. So the best option is simply to listen and pick what you like.

[AJinFLA]

I guess I was wondering as to how I can judge the quality of my replication to know if I am also on the right track?

Just crank up your imagination like the rest.
Oh and in 2017, science illiteracy helps too.
Especially with Blumleins creation

[jtwrace]

Just crank up your imagination like the rest.
Oh and in 2017, science illiteracy helps too.
Especially with Blumleins creation

[poseidonsvoice]

Just crank up your imagination like the rest.
Oh and in 2017, science illiteracy helps too.
Especially with Blumleins creation

You are on a roll! Science? Meh! 

Best,
Anand.

[Folsom]

Just crank up your imagination like the rest.
Oh and in 2017, science illiteracy helps too.
Especially with Blumleins creation

If you're implying I don't do a bunch of research projects, like a large university, you're correct.

Thing is, I get the impression what you erroneously mean to say is engineering.

Now that's worth a . By all means start telling me about how you work to improve the complex-impedance in speakers. Oh and don't forget how you work to meet Ott. specifications or exceed them... would love more ideas there. But really I'm being facetious, truth is I'd be colored impressed if anyone even was familiar with the concept of complex-impedance and the things actually affecting it in a speaker. (or electronics, that's even more interesting)

[AJinFLA]

If you're implying I don't do a bunch of research projects, like a large university, you're correct.
Thing is, I get the impression what you erroneously mean to say is engineering.
Now that's worth a . By all means start telling me about how you work to improve the complex-impedance in speakers. Oh and don't forget how you work to meet Ott. specifications or exceed them... would love more ideas there. But really I'm being facetious, truth is I'd be colored impressed if anyone even was familiar with the concept of complex-impedance and the things actually affecting it in a speaker. (or electronics, that's even more interesting)

You conjured all that from my quote to Goskers?
Miss Cleo's got nothing on you man.

Well, good to know you fancy yourself a loudspeaker designer (won't insult you with engineer) now. Or maybe you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night?

[rollo]

   Actually what are we all trying to achieve ? For me and my customers it would be emotional impact. The feeling of singing or dancing when a cut is played.
  There are a multitude of reasons how the reproduction is achieved. We all can argue which one or ones contribute the most. At the end of the day we need to listen to such achievements and judge for ourselves if in fact it boogies.
    For me tonality, harmonics and timbre are key in sound reproduction in our homes. Dynamics and the ability of the system used to imitate the natural sound we hear live in either acoustic or electric music.
    If we have an educated consumer who frequents live music events or plays an instrument we make more sales. We all can assume that most all Hi end gear is well engineered and designed. When said component or speaker is inserted ito one's system only then can a determination o that piece be evaluated. Yes perceived sound is a personal matter to us since it is our system being used.
   Some systems get really close however not the whole deal. Presence and dynamics elude us the most. so in the intrum stick to whatever gives your system more natural tonality and harmonic structure.


charles