[JohnR]

I am not sure why dipoles are even brought into comparison? Dipoles are directional pointed speakers. OBs are directional but they behave completely different IMO.

When you say "dipole," you mean a planar speaker?

[Quiet Earth]

Hi studiotech,

I understand what you are saying in your last post and I have no argument with it, but I think you may be confusing the enjoyment of recordings for the assessment of recordings. Your post suggests that we hold all recordings up to the highest level of quality that is possible, and then grade all other recordings against that reference. I think this is a disastrous habit to develop as a listener because you will end up with the idea that all recordings should sound the same. Also, when you constantly compare things by reference the outcome is disappointing because there is only one "best", and everything else can never be as good as the best.

Why spend so much time looking for what is not there rather than appreciate what is there? We often overlook the real quality in something when we are only looking for the ideal.

Even if you don't agree with this crazy idea, why would you expect the Beatles to sound like they were cut from the same cloth as Brahms? Van Cliburn or Van Halen?? Jimmy Eat World or Jimmy Smith???

As a listener, and as a regular guy looking at gear to enhance my listening experience, I think that it is a good idea to learn how to enjoy recordings for what they are instead of what you think they should be.




(* This is just food for thought, not looking to stir the pot. I liked most of the OB speakers that I heard at the last two shows I attended.  FWIW, YMMV, and all of that other friendly stuff.  )

[studiotech]

Hi studiotech,

I understand what you are saying in your last post and I have no argument with it, but I think you may be confusing the enjoyment of recordings for the assessment of recordings. Your post suggests that we hold all recordings up to the highest level of quality that is possible, and then grade all other recordings against that reference. I think this is a disastrous habit to develop as a listener because you will end up with the idea that all recordings should sound the same. Also, when you constantly compare things by reference the outcome is disappointing because there is only one "best", and everything else can never be as good as the best.

Why spend so much time looking for what is not there rather than appreciate what is there? We often overlook the real quality in something when we are only looking for the ideal.

Even if you don't agree with this crazy idea, why would you expect the Beatles to sound like they were cut from the same cloth as Brahms? Van Cliburn or Van Halen?? Jimmy Eat World or Jimmy Smith???

As a listener, and as a regular guy looking at gear to enhance my listening experience, I think that it is a good idea to learn how to enjoy recordings for what they are instead of what you think they should be.




(* This is just food for thought, not looking to stir the pot. I liked most of the OB speakers that I heard at the last two shows I attended.  FWIW, YMMV, and all of that other friendly stuff.  )

Very nice post Quiet Earth.  I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying.  It is the enjoyment of the music that IS most important, but since this thread is picking nits, I am too.

If all recordings sounded the same, it would be boring.  Different styles of music suit different styles of production.  I would never want or expect all my music to have a similar sound, BUT one can make the argument that if we were to have only 2 piles of CDs and we were to sort them into "well done" and "poorly done" piles, my poor pile would be much larger than my well done one.  Not that it stops me from enjoying the music except for the most extreme cases where I find something so bright or compressed it's unlistenable. 

Have a look at Bob Katz CD honor roll here:

http://www.digido.com/honor-roll.html

or the Dynamic Range Database here:

http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/

Search for someone like Michael Jackson on the database.  See how his older releases, prior to remastering scored well on the list while newer, remastered versions are poor?  Kinda sad.  Thx MP3 and Ipod.

Greg

[Quiet Earth]

Thanks man.     Yes, I have read all of those links. Good info, but only a piece of the puzzle, IMHO. Again, I think there is a bias towards one way being the right way, and all others being wrong. Maybe that is why your stack of bad recordings is so high?

Just out of curriosity, do you listen to music (for pleasure) with your  monitoring gear, or do you have a non pro audio home system?

[fredgarvin]

It's only as controllable as all the other variables being discussed here. You would need to choose and position speakers and room treatment just as much, but with different goals. Toole would I believe suggest that the best way to accomplish it is with multi-channel. However there is also the multichannel ambiophonic synthesizer that would be interesting to try.

I've only used it in my home theater, multi-channel, and on my desktop system. I don't care for it in the near-field, it definitely blurs or smears the imaging, but it's great for movie soundtracks. I could see though, that some might prefer the artificially increased 'live' soundstage over having precise imaging.

[bigbang]

As someone who's played, listened to, and mixed live music for more years than I'd like to admit, I'd have to say it's ALL FAKE, but that is not to say there is anything wrong with that.

Listen to whatever system makes you and your ears happy 'cause there is no "right way" IMO. Who cares if it is fake or not the same as someone elses taste if it sounds good to you?

Off topic a bit - Most of the music I listen to sounds horrid live in most venues appropriate for the genre, so I'm happy to hear a preconceived notion of what someone else thinks it should sound like be it in a studio or live mix. This is assuming it's not a totally over compressed, over engineered mess, of which there is plenty of out there. But if it's a great music, it still outshines the poor recording.

How cool would it be with all the available technology if artists would offer raw tracks to mix to your own liking!!!

End of ramble.

[doug s.]

People like our beloved DougS make this experience ecclesiastical. It's a religion to him and any sacrifice is justifiable for the sound goal he envisions.

huh?  sorry to take this off topic, but i am not sure where this comment came from.      with the exception of my fm tuna fetish, i am probably among the least obsessive, least "religious" audiophiles around:  i have had the same analog and digital front end and preamp for >10 years.  while i do strongly believe in active subwoofing, i have had my same active subwoofer set-up, also for >15 years.  (yes, about 4 years ago, i upgraded my active x-over to dsp - a great upgrade, imo.)  i don't obsess w/cabling; many folks have a single pair of ic's and/or speaker wires that cost more than all my cables combined.  i have absolutely zero acoustical treatments, and i never have had any.

there is one "sacrifice" i have always made for audio, that has been true ever since i have left my parent's nest - wherever i have lived, i have always made sure there was a room large enough to set up a decent stereo.     imo, the room is the single-most important piece of audio equipment, and it cannot ever be too big. 

yes, i also like to try different speakers, but this is because the speaker/room interface is the single largest wariable in the end-result of the sonic presentation you will hear.  but, over the last 5 years, i have pretty-much been listening to two pairs of speakers - my present living situation is simply not conducive to changing out speakers.  i actually have a third pair i bought two years ago, that have never been unboxed - it is simply not practical to set them up, as i have no place to put my horns - either in my living space, or in storage, and i am loathe to part with them.  this made me realize the futility in trying different speakers in my rig; maybe if/when i move in a year or three, this will change.  i am set for amps - i have amps to match my speakers, and that's sufficient.

yes, i am an admitted tunaholic, but this is solely due to the fact that most of my serious listening is to fm, and i simply enjoy hearing the small differences of different tunas.  and yes, the differences are small.  there are literally dozens of tuna that can offer a fantastic presentation, and i could happily live w/only one, if something mysteriously happened to my excessive tuna stash.

macro, i have absolutely no idea what you are talking about regarding your comments about me - perhaps you have mistaken me for someone else.   

doug s.

[doug s.]

tyson, i have read your recent comments regarding accuracy and musicality, and it is something i agree with 100%.  in fact, i have often gotten into discussions where i have said that if it sounds more like the "real event" - live music - is not that more accurate, even if it might not technically reproduce the recording itself in as exact a manner?  after all, don't we want music, not a recording of it?  isn't that what drives most of us to spend time and money on an audio system?

the only area where i do not agree w/you is that dipole speakers can get you there.  well, maybe i should be more specific - they obviously get you there, but they don't get me there.     and in fairness, i have not experienced ob speakers, only planars; maybe i would prefer the ob presentation, as it is not exactly the same presentation as a true planar dipole...  i am disappointed that the gr-research super-v's will not be at the capitol audiofest this july...  even tho i am unlikely to ever set up a room the way danny does, to get the best sound from his super-v's, i would sure love to hear it...

doug s.

[macrojack]

You're right, Doug. Everybody looks alike in print.....except for your w thing. It's kind vierd.

[doug s.]

You're right, Doug. Everybody looks alike in print.....except for your w thing. It's kind vierd.

vierd?  don't you mean veird?   

doug s. 

[macrojack]

You are correct. I wonder why spell check didn't catch that.

[studiotech]

Thanks man.     Yes, I have read all of those links. Good info, but only a piece of the puzzle, IMHO. Again, I think there is a bias towards one way being the right way, and all others being wrong. Maybe that is why your stack of bad recordings is so high?

Just out of curriosity, do you listen to music (for pleasure) with your  monitoring gear, or do you have a non pro audio home system?

I'm not sure what bias you refer to...please elaborate.

I listen at home on these open baffles, but as mentioned earlier, I ALSO have absorption at the first reflection point along the side walls and quite a lot of it behind the speakers to attenuate much of the rear wave, at least in the midrange.  Augmented below 60Hz with a pair of sealed Rythmik 15" servos.

The build thread is here:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=85662.0

The studio is a collection of forgettable nearfield monitors depending on the engineers preference and the mains I built. 

Greg

[Tyson]

tyson, i have read your recent comments regarding accuracy and musicality, and it is something i agree with 100%.  in fact, i have often gotten into discussions where i have said that if it sounds more like the "real event" - live music - is not that more accurate, even if it might not technically reproduce the recording itself in as exact a manner?  after all, don't we want music, not a recording of it?  isn't that what drives most of us to spend time and money on an audio system?

the only area where i do not agree w/you is that dipole speakers can get you there.  well, maybe i should be more specific - they obviously get you there, but they don't get me there.     and in fairness, i have not experienced ob speakers, only planars; maybe i would prefer the ob presentation, as it is not exactly the same presentation as a true planar dipole...  i am disappointed that the gr-research super-v's will not be at the capitol audiofest this july...  even tho i am unlikely to ever set up a room the way danny does, to get the best sound from his super-v's, i would sure love to hear it...

doug s.

I hate planar speakers as the make everyone seem 10 feet tall and 4 feet wide!!!!

[jimdgoulding]

Quiet, I don't know anyone who is looking for the same sound on all recordings if I understand what you are saying.  What fun would that be.  Rather, I think the majority of the people that you and I know just want the recording to sound as it is at its best.

Big John, now that I've gotten planers out of my head I think I'm beginning to see more of what is under discussion.  But, foward firing box speakers are not mere boxes these days as you seem to have forgotten.  A lot of effort is going into waveform behavior once the energy leaves their respective drivers, hence, funny looking cabinets.  I'll take my chances with these until I hear some proper OB speakers.  I did hear Dannie's V2's at a show and was most impressed with their bass response to my ears.  T'was better than mine.  For you to generalize about the sound, not to mention in my room at my seat, of my speakers seems a little short sighted on your part.  They don't sound much like there is any enclosure involved* in part because of my treatment around my tweeters and in part cause of their reinforced cabinets.  And if there is ambience in a recording, I'm gettin it, have no doubt.

*Well, there is a matter of scale, I suppose.  I can imagine better bloom, too, tho they seem pretty convincing in my room depending on the recording.  Both could be bigger.

[JohnR]

Big John, now that I've gotten planers out of my head I think I'm beginning to see more of what is under discussion.  But, foward firing box speakers are not mere boxes these days as you seem to have forgotten.  A lot of effort is going into waveform behavior once the energy leaves their respective drivers, hence, funny looking cabinets.  I'll take my chances with these until I hear some proper OB speakers.  I did hear Dannie's V2's at a show and was most impressed with their bass response to my ears.  T'was better than mine.  For you to generalize about the sound, not to mention in my room at my seat, of my speakers seems a little short sighted on your part.

I guess I've grown a few sizes? Jim, I said nothing about the sound of your speakers, just about their radiation pattern. Felt and cabinets don't change that fundamental nature of the speaker. BTW your speaker is not "forward firing" - not in the least. I'm not trying to persuade to buy some other speaker, just trying to explain how dipoles/OB work.

[Bob in St. Louis]

Listen to whatever system makes you and your ears happy 'cause there is no "right way" IMO. Who cares if it is fake or not the same as someone elses taste if it sounds good to you?

Off topic a bit - Most of the music I listen to sounds horrid live in most venues appropriate for the genre, so I'm happy to hear a preconceived notion of what someone else thinks it should sound like be it in a studio or live mix.

I like this guy. 

At the end of the day, the culmination of these two comments are what make me happy after a long hard day, and I've got a cocktail in my hand while listening to music in my favorite chair.
The rest of all this bullshit.......meh......whatever.

Bob

[Trismos]

The rest of all this bullshit.......meh......whatever.

Bob

Well Bob, I have liked your straight shooting in most regards ... but how is it said? Some peoples garbage is another's diamond mine?

The rest is not "all bullshit". Everyone has a valid opinion. Everyone's opinion is worthy of some respect. They may be wrong (for you ... or me) but it's always good to hear another's perspective.

Regards
Dave

[jimdgoulding]

I guess I've grown a few sizes? Jim, I said nothing about the sound of your speakers, just about their radiation pattern. Felt and cabinets don't change that fundamental nature of the speaker. BTW your speaker is not "forward firing" - not in the least. I'm not trying to persuade to buy some other speaker, just trying to explain how dipoles/OB work.

That you did.  How I came away with anything other than that at first reading .  And I know that my speakers are not literally forward firing as that at some frequency they become omni.  What is it about OB's that you prefer?  I really liked the in-room bass of the OB V2's.  On some AV123's, those have enclosed bass drivers, the construction of a full orchestra and the stage in the recordings I brought, however, lacked the precision and imagery of what I'm used to.  I'm sure there are better examples.

Actually, the use of felt and the way I use it does change the radiation pattern somewhat when you realize that cabinets can be a source of radiation, also, and after the fact (i.e. diffraction).

[Quiet Earth]

I'm not sure what bias you refer to...please elaborate.

The tendency to compare everything to a reference as I described earlier. But don't sweat it, it was just a thought. Maybe you are just more picky about recording quality like you said earlier. Or I am less picky.

Nice job on your speakers btw! 

[jimdgoulding]

Quiet-  You still have those acoustically time aligned Met 7's?  Have I misunderstood your post, too?  I think you are in Britain. That right?  Made my wonder tho after you said "don't sweat it".