A response to misleading information posted on Zaph Audio

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic. Read 61425 times.

whippersnapper

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 17
Re: A response to misleading information posted on Zaph Audio
« Reply #260 on: 9 Mar 2007, 10:05 am »
So you have a desktop computer running 1 meter away from the mic and you are *presumably* sitting at that computer. That's supposed to represent the emvironment that John K uses? Come on man. Now I understand the comment about strawmen being setup to be knocked down. This is behavior I'd expect from a politician.

As someone pretty new to speakerbuilding and an owner of Rocket 760's I've been following this thread. And as a strictly neutral observer I've got to say this all pretty ugly. I won't be buying any GR drivers and will no longer recommend any av123 speakers you've designed to friends anymore. And I feel bad about that, Mark S. has always been a great guy and I have nothing but the utmost respect for him. It's a shame.

shep

Re: A response to misleading information posted on Zaph Audio
« Reply #261 on: 9 Mar 2007, 10:26 am »
This is the Manufactureres Circle so I guess the rest of us don't have a say, but just for the record I'm finding this whole thing has gone from bad to worse. It just drones one, serving no ones interest and puts my teeth on edge. I have learned exactly nothing except how stubborn and inexorable some things get to be. Would the major participants please realize they are going in ever-narrowing circles and please put this thing to rest!

JAD2

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 6
Re: A response to misleading information posted on Zaph Audio
« Reply #262 on: 9 Mar 2007, 12:29 pm »
As to the last 2 threads. I'll make it 3 now!

'''''''That's supposed to represent the environment that John K uses? """"""

What was implied, even though it was a setup, is that even professionals ways of measurement can be incorrect with the amount of variables that will change data. His was just a simple computer running in the background. What else could trigger poor measurements??? I think even differences in temperature, barometric pressure, humidity and the likes could trigger false representation readings. Do we know for fact John's testing was done all in the same area, same day with the same conditions being present, NO. So unless the drivers manufacturers all get together and nail down one common test procedure that all will go by, measurements can be taken with a grain, er pile of salt. If you can not believe someone might find that one test that makes whatever they believe to come true to push their point, belief or product, well I guess nothing would. Your then just picking a side that suits your beliefs and john's would be the side home DIYer's would pick. Manufacturers would always be on the bad/losing side since they are the ones whom stand to gain monetarily, will forget the stature gains others may make.

There was alot to be learned.
One metal drivers not to have that ring effect, which it was called, can not be overcome easily without proper gear to locate where it exactly is. These are not DIY drivers for the majority that dont own such equipment.
On top of that, even seasoned pro's/manufacturers dont seem to be able to do this. I tried one that was all ready tweeked by a seasoned pro and also listened to many different speakers at local high end shops. All metal driven units had some form of this audibly noticeable. Some prefer this sound, others dont. Bottom line is personal preference, do you want this noise or do you want to replicate the sound closer to the truth.

Measurements without a common test procedure can be debated to death and made into false information.

Manufacturers and so-called Godly DIYer's with a stature, do they have hidden agenda's??? I'm not saying or not saying it was involved here, but it does exist much more than one thinks. If no one can agree other than to disagree, you have a agenda being represented. The only topic I ever saw/see that gets a majority backing of the people, is Bose sucks and isnt even close to being considered good.  There is no consensus on types, manufacturers and so on of the following.
Amplifiers
CD players
Crossovers
DVD Players
Receivers
Speakers/Drivers
TV's and so on, all within, being used within the Audio Circle of people. There is always a 50/50 split and you can discredit anything, thats beliefs/agenda's.

Audiophilism has at least 3 definitions.

One whom over indulges within the Audio realm beyond a normal person. Typically very quiet, if he posts its rare.

One whom is looking for stature from the name. Has high post counts and defends his agenda even though totally incorrect with vigor.

Last one, will change the spelling of a little, AudioPILE, there are much more of these than one would like to admit. But these guys are never happy, always in a upgrade mode looking for that next whatever, are never happy because they think there is something better to be found. A tweak that will do wonders so they end up amassing a PILE of used equipment.

Forums and I mean all forums are clicks. Each forum has its own agenda of something they all commonly agree upon and if you dont like one, you will find one that suits the beliefs and answers you seek.

What really purveyed itself and does daily on every topic posted.
Opinions/theories vary and just like a**holes, everyone has one.
If you look close enough between all the other garbage, there are answers and learning to be found. But if you read it verbatim and dont have the ability to read between the lines, your screwed and will just pick a side that suits you.



Danny Richie

Re: A response to misleading information posted on Zaph Audio
« Reply #263 on: 9 Mar 2007, 02:48 pm »
Quote
So you have a desktop computer running 1 meter away from the mic and you are *presumably* sitting at that computer. That's supposed to represent the emvironment that John K uses? Come on man.


No, it represents the environment EVERYONE uses outside of an anechoic chamber. Fortunately the only measurements it really tants is distortion measurements as we are measuring output levels that are at or below the levels of room noise. Even the measurement manual states this and I posted it in an earlier post. 

davekt

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 6
Re: A response to misleading information posted on Zaph Audio
« Reply #264 on: 9 Mar 2007, 04:23 pm »
As someone pretty new to speakerbuilding and an owner of Rocket 760's I've been following this thread. And as a strictly neutral observer I've got to say this all pretty ugly. I won't be buying any GR drivers and will no longer recommend any av123 speakers you've designed to friends anymore. And I feel bad about that, Mark S. has always been a great guy and I have nothing but the utmost respect for him. It's a shame.

An alternative point of view is that, after reading this thread and stripping the BS from it, it is obvious to me that the comments at Zaph regarding the M130 seem to be the result of an attitude problem toward Danny or GR Research.  Even though all three had similar measurements, one was singled out and condescendingly described in terms of "plastic", "fake phase plug" etc.  Words used in this way are meant to bias the reader against it, not inform.  In doing extensive reading about possible DIY designs I've come across similar bias against designs by "commercial kit designers" as they are usually referred to, as if commercial success somehow invalidates the value of what they offer, or any advice they might give.

At any rate, if a friend of mine asked for recommendations for a speaker I would base my advice only on his needs and speaker performance.  My personal opinion of the designer wouldn't enter into the decision.  The performance of the design would, and Danny's have spoken for themselves.

Yes this thread has gone on too long, and degenerated a fair amount, but I understand why it was started in the first place.

Fiji5555

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 22
Re: A response to misleading information posted on Zaph Audio
« Reply #265 on: 9 Mar 2007, 08:07 pm »
Hmmmmmmmm after reading how Danny treats DLR and keeps this BS rolling along, I feel that it's Danny that no long has anything worthwhile to contribute to this discussion. This should have ended about 26 pages back and to be honest shouldn't have started up anyway but Danny chose to keep it going. John on the other hand has much more sense and kept out of it altogether and I don't blame him. You can't win any arguement with Danny simply because he always thinks he's right regardless of the facts......all I'm going to say about this so any smart assed replies to this won't bother me one bit ....buh bye folks.

dkl

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 1
Re: A response to misleading information posted on Zaph Audio
« Reply #266 on: 9 Mar 2007, 09:41 pm »
Wow, can't believe I read the whole thing.  Spin it anyway you like, the bottom line is Danny is not in the wrong here.  He come across as very knowledgeable and definitely have more patience than I could ever hope to have if I were in his shoes.  I don't know Danny but I will vote with my wallet and order my next pair of speakers from GR Research. 

srb

Re: A response to misleading information posted on Zaph Audio
« Reply #267 on: 9 Mar 2007, 09:55 pm »
An alternative point of view is that, after reading this thread and stripping the BS from it, it is obvious to me that the comments at Zaph regarding the M130 seem to be the result of an attitude problem toward Danny or GR Research.  Even though all three had similar measurements, one was singled out and condescendingly described in terms of "plastic", "fake phase plug" etc.  Words used in this way are meant to bias the reader against it, not inform.
Right On.

You can't win any arguement with Danny simply because he always thinks he's right regardless of the facts......all I'm going to say about this so any smart assed replies to this won't bother me one bit ....buh bye folks.
Smart ass.

PaulHilgeman

Re: A response to misleading information posted on Zaph Audio
« Reply #268 on: 10 Mar 2007, 12:35 am »
Ok, back to a more technical topic.

It is possible to gain good distortion data in a non-anechoic chamber.

These are taken at the plane of the front of the driver.  Fairly loud, but not that loud.  Maybe 88dB or so, this was a 5" driver and I went down to 20Hz, so I had to keep the levels a bit lower.  If I were measuring midrange performance, it would be much louder.  The driver is in a box, on a stand, in a room with a PC (quiet) a Projector, a Mini fridge and the Furnace room is next-door, with the door open, while running, this is not an environment suitable to measuring speakers at all.



The Bright Red and Bright Blue are 2nd and 3rd order measured distortion levels in dB relative to the output (Green).  The Dark Red and Dark Blue are the same distortion products but without the speaker playing.  The amplifier was still hooked up, so any noise it contributed would still be included. 

Either way, it all but 2 spots where all distortion products are above that of the distortion measured with no speaker playing.

This is no way meant to discredit Danny's data that he posted, I just found it really odd that there weren't greater differences between the two.

This data can be replicated from a further distance if necessary.

-Paul Hilgeman

Danny Richie

Re: A response to misleading information posted on Zaph Audio
« Reply #269 on: 10 Mar 2007, 02:25 am »
Hi Paul,

While our measuring systems are different and have a different look to them it looks like the results you got are not much different from what I would get if I would have moved the mic up to about 5" from the woofer. A 10db differential between distortion levels and room noise are possible. It's just a matter of signal to noise ratio being great enough to see the difference.

Keep in mind that the measurements that I posted were from a meter away. I also turned my mic towards my computer for the room noise measurements.

It would be interesting to see multiple measurements of the same thing to see of the level of room noise changes or alters each measurement to some degree. It may be tougher to tell with your measurements though as it may average them a little better while the Clio leaves them pretty choppy and kind of hard to read.

PaulHilgeman

Re: A response to misleading information posted on Zaph Audio
« Reply #270 on: 10 Mar 2007, 02:28 am »
Each frequency point is taken from about 1/2 second of data, so it averages pretty well.

It is not a 'sweep' so consecutive measurements tend to be very similar.

I should have run this test in midrange frequencies at higher power, from 1m.  Maybe tomorrow.

-Paul

Pierre

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 2
Re: A response to misleading information posted on Zaph Audio
« Reply #271 on: 13 Mar 2007, 12:06 am »
"It would be interesting to see multiple measurements of the same thing to see of the level of room noise changes or alters each measurement to some degree. It may be tougher to tell with your measurements though as it may average them a little better while the Clio leaves them pretty choppy and kind of hard to read. "

With Clio I have to gate the sine wave sweep to get reasonably clean ditortion readings. Otherwise you add reflections to the results unless you are nearfield. For consistant results I like to measure at at least 1/2 Meter away.
 
 
 

Audio-fiilis

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 7
Re: A response to misleading information posted on Zaph Audio
« Reply #272 on: 5 Apr 2007, 10:00 pm »
Another first time poster huh? This seams odd doesn't it?

See page one and the third post for some comments on John's measured distortion tests.

Quote
That distorted by author would be an issue, even legally, if you can afford.

I am not even sure what you are trying to say here.

I'm sorry for the long reply time. I have good reasons though. I am not John Krutke, if that is what you meant. I live in finland and I use the same nickname in other forums, too.

The "if you can afford" statement was not against anybody but the lawyers. It is, if I have understood correctly, expensive to win a lawsuit in the US. You would win, if John deliberately had made out misleading (distorted) information.

Anyway, I still see that Your drivers do not win, when it comes to John's distortion tests. Yoyr claims about background noise are not relevant, as distortion is always frequency dependent correlating signal that can be easily separated from noise. Any decent software maent to measure distortion can so that. If there were some of Your presented issues about background noise, all the other drivers would have suffered the same problems. They did not. Logic does not support Your claims.

John has hurt Your feelings. He did wrong. Hid judgment about GR drivers is somewhat false when it comes to resonances. the distortion issue stands tall, anyway, whether You approve it or not.

I have no "from my own purposes" issue against you, as I would never buy anything fron US anyway due to taxes, delivery costs and toll. However, logic is to me important. Logic does not fully support Your case yet. can you improve your logic to convince me?

ctviggen

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 5240
Re: A response to misleading information posted on Zaph Audio
« Reply #273 on: 5 Apr 2007, 10:08 pm »

Anyway, I still see that Your drivers do not win, when it comes to John's distortion tests. Yoyr claims about background noise are not relevant, as distortion is always frequency dependent correlating signal that can be easily separated from noise. Any decent software maent to measure distortion can so that. If there were some of Your presented issues about background noise, all the other drivers would have suffered the same problems. They did not. Logic does not support Your claims.

I don't believe this is true.  For instance, if the noise is white (i.e., even frequency response over all frequencies) and the level of the distortion is beneath the level of the noise, how could one determine the distortion (even if the distortion is frequency dependent)?  Does he list the level of the noise at each test? 

Audio-fiilis

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 7
Re: A response to misleading information posted on Zaph Audio
« Reply #274 on: 5 Apr 2007, 10:51 pm »

Anyway, I still see that Your drivers do not win, when it comes to John's distortion tests. Yoyr claims about background noise are not relevant, as distortion is always frequency dependent correlating signal that can be easily separated from noise. Any decent software maent to measure distortion can so that. If there were some of Your presented issues about background noise, all the other drivers would have suffered the same problems. They did not. Logic does not support Your claims.

I don't believe this is true.  For instance, if the noise is white (i.e., even frequency response over all frequencies) and the level of the distortion is beneath the level of the noise, how could one determine the distortion (even if the distortion is frequency dependent)?  Does he list the level of the noise at each test? 

When it is white noise, the energy/Hz is almost negligible even if the total power was huge. That counts, when measuring distortion. It is actually relatively easy to distinguish between correlating distortion and noncorrelating noise, if you have time and processing capacity. When it comes to such an easy task as making the difference between distortion ond background noise, believe me, a PC has more than sufficient processing capacity to do the task. And, as I said, There is evidence the measurement software can do the task. There is a big difference between the 2nd and the 3rd harmonic that requires capability to see what happens at a dedicated frequency. from the results I have seen, John's software can separate different harmonic products. That is called DSP, and that, my friend, is something useful you do not know enough of. Yet.

Danny Richie

Re: A response to misleading information posted on Zaph Audio
« Reply #275 on: 6 Apr 2007, 03:50 pm »
Quote
Yoyr claims about background noise are not relevant, as distortion is always frequency dependent correlating signal that can be easily separated from noise.

Not so. There is no way of separating the room noise from the signal. I have the latest version of one of the most used, most well known, measuring systems on the market. Even the manual for taking distortion measurements states problems in separating distortion levels from room noise levels as both are near the same SPL levels.

Quote
If there were some of Your presented issues about background noise, all the other drivers would have suffered the same problems.

How do you know? Where are the measurements of room noise levels presented with each measurement? How can you know that no room noise levels effected the measurements if none were taken?

Quote
John has hurt Your feelings. He did wrong. Hid judgment about GR drivers is somewhat false when it comes to resonances. the distortion issue stands tall, anyway, whether You approve it or not.

I wouldn't say my feelings were hurt, but you don't let the same kid throw rotten eggs at your house every day. Sooner or later you have had enough and have to let everyone know that he is a rotten egg thrower.

The distortion test are the least accurate and least telling of all that he has posted on his site.

Furthermore, I would have let the whole thing slide and could really have cared less what the measurements of one hobbyist show. However, it is quite obvious to me that his personal vendetta against anyone in the subjective camp (listeners) has clouded any judgement. Deliberately aimed negative and belittling comments were made regarding my products and slanderous comments were made to me and posted on his web site regarding me and my company. So how can I or anyone view anything he posts on his site as being unbiased factual information? I personally have no confidence that any of the tests he might publish to have been conducted in a way that did not deliberately skew the results.

Fiji5555

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 22
Re: A response to misleading information posted on Zaph Audio
« Reply #276 on: 6 Apr 2007, 09:41 pm »
Danny. you are the one that won't let this thread die. You keep on and on and on and on about this and to be honest you are only hurting yourself and your business. So be it. :duh: I find it rather amusing that John dropped it a long time ago but you can't seem to. Guess what?  We're tired of hearing your whining over this. Move on...... :roll:

Danny Richie

Re: A response to misleading information posted on Zaph Audio
« Reply #277 on: 6 Apr 2007, 10:26 pm »
I was just responding to a new poster. You do not have to read anything in this thread if you do not want to.

Vapor Audio

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 2023
  • Building Audio Bling since 2007
    • Vapor Audio
Re: A response to misleading information posted on Zaph Audio
« Reply #278 on: 7 Apr 2007, 11:44 pm »
People like Fiji crack me up ... why do some people love to takes shots at 'the man'.

Most of Danny's points have been made 10 times over in this thread, some people just need 11 for it to get through their heads :)

Daryl

Re: A response to misleading information posted on Zaph Audio
« Reply #279 on: 8 Apr 2007, 02:50 am »
Hi Danny, ctviggen and all,

You've stuck with this a long while Danny and you should be on a Wheaties box.

It is quite true that distortion measurements can be done in any environment.

First you have the issue of spectral density where the energy of distortion products is focussed into tight bands and noise energy is very diffuse throughout the spectrum which makes distortion easy to measure even when it's level is below that of noise energy (it actually is above the noise energy within it's narrow bands and only appears to be below noise energy when you look at the entire spectrum as a whole).

Second you have the issue of correlation where your noise energy is random but the waveform from your driver (signal) is repetitive which means your can average very long samples (sinusoid) or multiple gated bursts and your signal will add up correlated while the noise will add up non-correlated (correlated signals add up twice as fast as non-correlated signals).

10 times the data aquisition will give you 10db increase in S/N ratio and 100 times the data aquisition will net you a 20db increase in S/N.

Of course this has nothing to do with your driver just talking tech.

The driver is excellent and all the contraversy isn't necessary.

« Last Edit: 8 Apr 2007, 06:47 am by Daryl »