ruecatinat Posted April 28, 2016 Report Share Posted April 28, 2016 (edited) Whoa this exploded pretty quickly. When it comes down to it there are scientific methods to measure sound quality and the measures/numbers don't really discriminate as far as prices / looks go but it is an uneven split between subjective and objective, favoring the subjective. But humans are illogical beings. Scientifically speaking you don't need expensive stuff to enjoy music or produce good sound but if your ego needs to have expensive stuff to enjoy music I guess it's worth it to you in the end. Hell, it's not my money. Look at wine. There is unbelievable value below $20 and some $40 bottles I'd never drink again because it was not worth the money and then some $60 bottles that are so incredible you might pay $80 to repeat the experience. There is a terribly subjective side that is seriously tainted with ego - people out there want to be seen popping Cristal or setting up expensive equipment even though they have barely any taste to appreciate it yet defend their choices because they spent the money and then there are people who buy the exact same stuff but have either been unsatisfied with what's less expensive or have the money to blow. No matter what the budget or brain you have underappreciated stuff, overappreciated stuff, and stuff that really shouldn't even be bought and sold. I once met this absolute moron who used Johnny Walker Blue, at nearly $300 a bottle in Canada, to marinate a cheap steak. On the other hand, a family member of mine has all the money in the world for ridiculously exorbitant hifi gear but still uses the Rega Planar 1 he bought in college. All different walks - and thus all different levels in the market...hifi really isn't much different than any other market and shouldn't be singled out insofar as the propagation of snake oil. People are stupid with money everywhere - cut through it and mess around until you find what you like and want. That being said - in any group of enthusiasts I truly despise those who believe the answer is more money and expensive gear, blindly spending and recommending...whether it be cars, audio, wine, clothes, shoes, furniture, bicycles... Edited April 28, 2016 by ruecatinat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattsk8 Posted April 28, 2016 Report Share Posted April 28, 2016 59 minutes ago, ruecatinat said: When it comes down to it there are scientific methods to measure sound quality and the measures/numbers don't really discriminate as far as prices / looks go... People are stupid with money everywhere - cut through it and mess around until you find what you like and want. I agree with what you said, and especially the last part here^^... but a flat response isn't always an indication of sound quality. If 2 speakers measure similarly and both are relatively flat... it's definitely still possible for one to sound bad and one to sound good. Obviously the aim is a flat response when you're designing a speaker, but getting that (relatively) flat response does not guarantee a home run in sound quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruecatinat Posted April 28, 2016 Report Share Posted April 28, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, mattsk8 said: I agree with what you said, and especially the last part here^^... but a flat response isn't always an indication of sound quality. If 2 speakers measure similarly and both are relatively flat... it's definitely still possible for one to sound bad and one to sound good. Obviously the aim is a flat response when you're designing a speaker, but getting that (relatively) flat response does not guarantee a home run in sound quality. How so? Is the 'good' and 'bad' subjective and thus prey to choice in, say, heavy bass output or precise treble? Putting aside room acoustics, equipment, etc... Also - those Elacs look like they could be very well my next set of speakers if offered in anything but black. I don't know why I'm not fond of black finish speakers as I generally prefer black components, but yeah...the Elac looks like a better buy than the Dali Zensor3s I've been eyeing for a while. Edited April 28, 2016 by ruecatinat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattsk8 Posted April 28, 2016 Report Share Posted April 28, 2016 8 minutes ago, ruecatinat said: How so? Is the 'good' and 'bad' subjective and thus prey to choice in, say, heavy bass output or precise treble? Putting aside room acoustics, equipment, etc... Also - those Elacs look like they could be very well my next set of speakers if offered in anything but black. I don't know why I'm not fond of black finish speakers as I generally prefer black components, but yeah...the Elac looks like a better buy than the Dali Zensor3s I've been eyeing for a while. The Elacs are amazing for the money, you wouldn't regret it. They're actually not black, they have what looks like a dark, brushed metal finish. Obviously they're a plastic veneer over wood, but that's what it looks like. As far how a flat frequency response doesn't dictate good sound quality... I'm not entirely sure but I have some guesses. First, a "flat response" is never a ruler flat response, there are always ~2 db bumps and dips here or there. So it could just be a matter of where those bumps or dips are, even though they both appear to be [relatively] "flat responses". Other factors would be a speaker's transient response, it's acoustic phase (which is a huge can of worms, not to be confused with absolute phase), etc. For example... I'm currently designing a crossover for this build. This uses a 7" paper cone Wavecor woofer, with a Wavecor tweeter. Everything about the drivers (the Wavecor woofer and tweeter) measured insanely good, very flat. But when I import those measurements into PCD (the passive crossover designer software), it wasn't easy to do for some reason. I did eventually end up getting a nice, relatively flat response in the simulated response in my program, so I mocked up the xover in reality and listened to the speakers. They sounded... pathetic. What I was hearing was mildly lean bass, and a mild shoutiness in the upper midrange. So I changed my inductor in my tweeter's xover for a smaller one; that fixed the shoutiness in the upper mids. Then I padded my tweeter a little more with a bigger resistor; that pulled the volume of the tweeter down and enhanced the lower mids and drew more bass out of it. Then I shortened my port, which made the bass more punchy and defined. So in the end, I actually started with a relatively flat response that if anyone looked at, wouldn't have thought bad of it. But in reality, a few +/- 2 db tweeks here and there was the difference between crap and amazing. Also, a crazy response that isn't very flat also doesn't mean it sounds bad. Humans here peaks in a frequency response, but our brains won't necessarily catch a dip in the response. If you look at the B&W Nautilus speaker's frequency response, they aren't very flat at all. But, those speakers sell and they aren't cheap by any standard ($17k/pair IIRC). I'm not saying they're my favorite speakers at all, I thought they were too bright and harsh. Just saying, obviously a lot of people enjoy them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruecatinat Posted April 28, 2016 Report Share Posted April 28, 2016 2 hours ago, mattsk8 said: The Elacs are amazing for the money, you wouldn't regret it. They're actually not black, they have what looks like a dark, brushed metal finish. Obviously they're a plastic veneer over wood, but that's what it looks like. As far how a flat frequency response doesn't dictate good sound quality... I'm not entirely sure but I have some guesses. First, a "flat response" is never a ruler flat response, there are always ~2 db bumps and dips here or there. So it could just be a matter of where those bumps or dips are, even though they both appear to be [relatively] "flat responses". Other factors would be a speaker's transient response, it's acoustic phase (which is a huge can of worms, not to be confused with absolute phase), etc. For example... I'm currently designing a crossover for this build. This uses a 7" paper cone Wavecor woofer, with a Wavecor tweeter. Everything about the drivers (the Wavecor woofer and tweeter) measured insanely good, very flat. But when I import those measurements into PCD (the passive crossover designer software), it wasn't easy to do for some reason. I did eventually end up getting a nice, relatively flat response in the simulated response in my program, so I mocked up the xover in reality and listened to the speakers. They sounded... pathetic. What I was hearing was mildly lean bass, and a mild shoutiness in the upper midrange. So I changed my inductor in my tweeter's xover for a smaller one; that fixed the shoutiness in the upper mids. Then I padded my tweeter a little more with a bigger resistor; that pulled the volume of the tweeter down and enhanced the lower mids and drew more bass out of it. Then I shortened my port, which made the bass more punchy and defined. So in the end, I actually started with a relatively flat response that if anyone looked at, wouldn't have thought bad of it. But in reality, a few +/- 2 db tweeks here and there was the difference between crap and amazing. Also, a crazy response that isn't very flat also doesn't mean it sounds bad. Humans here peaks in a frequency response, but our brains won't necessarily catch a dip in the response. If you look at the B&W Nautilus speaker's frequency response, they aren't very flat at all. But, those speakers sell and they aren't cheap by any standard ($17k/pair IIRC). I'm not saying they're my favorite speakers at all, I thought they were too bright and harsh. Just saying, obviously a lot of people enjoy them. I'm probably not going to pull the trigger on a new set any time soon as I'm still rather enjoying my little mid-80's B&Ws. Have to audition the Elacs / find a dealer as well as see how they compare to the Dali. If I could find deals like Mike I'd be pretty happy - I like those Vandersteens he posted a while back and my current integrated is probably rated around the same output. What I suppose I'm most curious about is the quality of the components and subjectively 'good' sound. In your build, for example, if you used a very high quality set of components (not to say you're cheaping out, but hypothetically) with the same woofer and tweeter, would they fatten out your bass and smooth the midrange without changing inductors or resistors or ports? Or is the 'perfect' design the software gave you always open to interpretation and I, for example, might like the levels of bass and the midrange output in your first mockup? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Dastardly Posted April 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2016 This is worse than the absolute sound or stereophile. Can we argue about capacitance next? For f$cks sake.. Sound is subjective. Plain and simple. There's no science to what is good and what isn't, there's no dollar amount that gives you good or bad sound.. Like art, if it moves you and you're happy and enjoy it, than its good. And and all arguments about "accuracy" are moot because it all starts with the room and the mics used to record it as well as the equipment and eq settings etc during the process. gets even more pointless if it's music that wasn't acoustic to begin with.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattsk8 Posted April 29, 2016 Report Share Posted April 29, 2016 (edited) 16 hours ago, ruecatinat said: What I suppose I'm most curious about is the quality of the components and subjectively 'good' sound. In your build, for example, if you used a very high quality set of components (not to say you're cheaping out, but hypothetically) with the same woofer and tweeter, would they fatten out your bass and smooth the midrange without changing inductors or resistors or ports? Or is the 'perfect' design the software gave you always open to interpretation and I, for example, might like the levels of bass and the midrange output in your first mockup? Generically, using higher quality drivers usually does mean an easier to design xover than if you used lesser quality ones, but not always. The software doesn't ever really "give us a design". The way PCD software works is... you take measurements of the individual drivers in your loudspeaker design. When I was designing the xover in the speakers in the pic I posted (and this is after I used the woofer's T/S parameters to design the cabinet) I measured the woofer's frequency response, then the tweeter's frequency response (using a speaker measurement mic plugged into my PC where the measurement mic's software is... while playing a sine wave), as well as the impedance response (impedance response of a speaker is what they use to come up with "nominal impedance", generally either 4 or 8 ohms). Then I'll import those measurements into the PCD program, and that program will simulate what is going to happen to the driver's frequency response when you add parts to a xover, and also what happens when you manipulate the values of the parts in the xover. But, using good driver's definitely doesn't guarantee good sound. The heart of the speakers is the xover, and you can definitely make good speakers sound bad with a bad xover design. Those Wavecors are actually pretty good drivers. But sometimes you get lucky and things just fall into place when you first put it together, and sometimes you have to play some more. What I went thru with that Wavecor design is actually fairly par for the course, I just used it as an example of how much minor tweaks in the frequency response of a speaker can have a major effect on the sound of the speaker. 10 hours ago, Dick Dastardly said: This is worse than the absolute sound or stereophile. Can we argue about capacitance next? For f$cks sake.. Sound is subjective. Plain and simple. There's no science to what is good and what isn't, there's no dollar amount that gives you good or bad sound.. Like art, if it moves you and you're happy and enjoy it, than its good. And and all arguments about "accuracy" are moot because it all starts with the room and the mics used to record it as well as the equipment and eq settings etc during the process. gets even more pointless if it's music that wasn't acoustic to begin with.. I'm not sure what you're so worked up about, I didn't think anyone (except you) was arguing about anything. I've said many times that sound quality is subjective, but it's not as subjective as you're trying to make it. Really crappy speakers generally sound crappy to almost everyone that hears them, and really good speakers generally sound good to everyone that hears them. The subjectivity comes when you get 4 different pairs of really good speakers, people choose differently as to which is their favorite. And you're correct, there is no dollar amount. But you're delusional if you think the majority of speakers costing $300 are going to compete with speakers that cost $5k+. Just like anything else, when you're buying new speakers more money generally gets you a better product. You don't have a clue and you need to listen to more speakers if you disagree with that. The only question is where the line of diminishing returns is, and that's going to be individual preference. That same rule doesn't apply to wires, there's TONS of snake oil in the wire department. Now regarding your recording studio argument... no matter what, it's still mastered to sound a certain way, and regardless of what the artist decided to do with the EQ when they were mastering their album, the point of a speaker is to "accurately" reproduce that sound. Whether its a Yes album, a Depeche Mode album, a Slayer album, or it's a recording of Tchaikovsky's Dance of the Sugar Plumb Fairy... a good speaker should "accurately" reproduce whatever sound that recording artist was going for. The problem is (just like I already stated) there's no such thing as a ruler flat frequency response in any speaker, every speaker has +/- ~2 db (or more, or less) dips and peaks, and where those dips and peaks fall throughout the frequency range is what makes a speaker sound the way it does. And we can discuss capacitance if you want, but I'm not a cable guy; I don't spend stupid money on wires because I know how this stuff works. Edited April 29, 2016 by mattsk8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruecatinat Posted April 29, 2016 Report Share Posted April 29, 2016 6 hours ago, mattsk8 said: Generically, using higher quality drivers usually does mean an easier to design xover than if you used lesser quality ones, but not always. The software doesn't ever really "give us a design". The way PCD software works is... you take measurements of the individual drivers in your loudspeaker design. When I was designing the xover in the speakers in the pic I posted (and this is after I used the woofer's T/S parameters to design the cabinet) I measured the woofer's frequency response, then the tweeter's frequency response (using a speaker measurement mic plugged into my PC where the measurement mic's software is... while playing a sine wave), as well as the impedance response (impedance response of a speaker is what they use to come up with "nominal impedance", generally either 4 or 8 ohms). Then I'll import those measurements into the PCD program, and that program will simulate what is going to happen to the driver's frequency response when you add parts to a xover, and also what happens when you manipulate the values of the parts in the xover. But, using good driver's definitely doesn't guarantee good sound. The heart of the speakers is the xover, and you can definitely make good speakers sound bad with a bad xover design. Those Wavecors are actually pretty good drivers. But sometimes you get lucky and things just fall into place when you first put it together, and sometimes you have to play some more. What I went thru with that Wavecor design is actually fairly par for the course, I just used it as an example of how much minor tweaks in the frequency response of a speaker can have a major effect on the sound of the speaker. Thanks for the detailed response - seems to me you can calculate things up to a certain extent and then it slides into what you like to hear insofar as designing a crossover and there is, like everything else, a point of diminishing returns. 16 hours ago, Dick Dastardly said: This is worse than the absolute sound or stereophile. Can we argue about capacitance next? For f$cks sake.. Sound is subjective. Plain and simple. There's no science to what is good and what isn't, there's no dollar amount that gives you good or bad sound.. Like art, if it moves you and you're happy and enjoy it, than its good. And and all arguments about "accuracy" are moot because it all starts with the room and the mics used to record it as well as the equipment and eq settings etc during the process. gets even more pointless if it's music that wasn't acoustic to begin with.. If there wasn't science to what is 'good' and isn't Bose wouldn't be making more money than most boutique hifi manufacturers - they, through science, have developed a signature 'sound' that is designed to please people even though this 'sound' they have produced looks whack when measured against stuff you and I enjoy. Accuracy is for those obsessive reference guys we seem to universally despise - the ones that weep when they hear classical music recordings and can swear they can tell the difference between the brand and vintage of violins used... There certainly is no dollar mark for good sound - my bookshelf speakers cost me $90. The point is value - and value is entirely subjective, can't argue about what one person finds valuable and the other doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Dastardly Posted April 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2016 again, my whole point that started this is: HiFi is the only hobby that uses dollar amounts as a descriptor. and it's silly. Pricing is, at a point, arbitrary at best. you keep bringing up "diminishing returns". I understand that, but at a certain point that is silly too, because ultra high end are so expensive that, like Alden pointed out a lot of it is art for your room that recreates sound.. You are paying for cabinet cosmetics not just sound and technology. DIY Horn guys build amazing sounding speakers for mere 100s of dollars that look like crap but...sound incredible. Isn't that what it's all about? matt, you are a "speaker guy" so of course you go one about them. And rattle off numbers and x-over slopes.. But if you were an amp guy you'd do the same thing.. Just like the wire guys do as well. of course highend speakers sound great, and of course $200 Best Buy speakers mostly sound Pretty bad.. But to just arbitrarily use price as a dictator of sound is dumb. My issue with reproducing electric sound "faithfully" comes from, again equipment used. If you want to reproduce the sound of 1000s of rock albums "faithfully the way the artist intended" use JBL L300's or 4313's etc.. Because those are the speakers the artist mastered the album with. Anyone using $50k speakers is eccentric anyway but using them to reproduce any electric (i.e. Not Classical) is just showing off their wealth. I think it's funny that tens thousands of dollars should be spent to recreate the sound of a $800 Marshall JCM800 played through a $650 beat up cabinet with 4 Celestion greenbacks in it.. The reproduction of live rock music is a joke. Live rock is just loud, mid scooped and thundering bass. The accurate reproduction of live orchestral music.. Good luck. It won't happen. Not only will 2 speakers not achieve this but room acoustics at home will not either. I've seen multiple orchestras in multiple venues.. I've seen the Cleveland orchestra, one of the best in the world dozens of times in one of the best venues, Severance Hall.. No reproduction will sound like that. Nor would I want it to. i don't really care what people spend Matt, you say I hate things because they cost a lot. No, I hate it when things cost a lot for no real quantifiable reason. Do you buy $5k bed sheets? Because they feel better than those lowly $900 ones? Or would $10k ones be worth it because they're twice as good as the $5k? and you'll read that and think I'm being an asshole and say "but speakers this and speakers that.." But in the end it's just appealing to a different human sense. Touch instead of sound. "But speakers accurately produce sound.." Well, sheets accurately reproduce a certain comfort that someone may be looking for and that, more often than not, is the pride in owning something that is the "best". oh and about discussing Capacitance.. I wasn't referring to wires.. I was referring to the primary ingredient in crossovers. Capacitors. Do you not build your own crossovers from scratch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
v4lve Posted April 30, 2016 Report Share Posted April 30, 2016 3 hours ago, Dick Dastardly said: again, my whole point that started this is: HiFi is the only hobby that uses dollar amounts as a descriptor. and it's silly. Pricing is, at a point, arbitrary at best. Just like anything else the perceived correlation between the performance of higher $$ items and cheap ones ends up with people quantifying price for quality. Naturally it's all subjective but, at least in this instance, it's a simple generalization. Also, dropped of some Kimber Bifocal's for a client today. Got a phone call saying he injured himself installing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Dastardly Posted April 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2016 11 hours ago, v4lve said: Just like anything else the perceived correlation between the performance of higher $$ items and cheap ones ends up with people quantifying price for quality. Naturally it's all subjective but, at least in this instance, it's a simple generalization. Also, dropped of some Kimber Bifocal's for a client today. Got a phone call saying he injured himself installing The thing about it with audio is it's essentially the only way.. like $5k speakers all sound "this way" and $10k speakers all sound "that way" and better. so things like "for a $5k speaker to sound like a $10k speaker is almost unheard of at this price point so we put them up against some solid $15k speakers to see how they'd stack up.." even the famous Art Dudley used to criticize that being the way audio is judged.. and his reviews were (still are) like gospel to a lot of HiFi people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattsk8 Posted May 2, 2016 Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 (edited) On 4/29/2016 at 6:37 PM, Dick Dastardly said: oh and about discussing Capacitance.. I wasn't referring to wires.. I was referring to the primary ingredient in crossovers. Capacitors. Do you not build your own crossovers from scratch? Yes I design my own crossovers. I have a very thorough understanding of speaker design as well as measuring equipment (I don't just wing it), I've been doing it for years. But I don't understand why you said... On 4/29/2016 at 0:28 AM, Dick Dastardly said: Can we argue about capacitance next? What's there to argue? Are you saying capacitance in xovers doesn't matter? That's one of the key ingredients in a xover, the value of the capacitor (as well as the inductor or resistor values) is what tells the xover when, how and where to roll off. So if you're saying capacitance doesn't matter in a xover, you couldn't be further from the truth. If you meant you want to argue "brands of capacitors", then I've heard that argument plenty. Like whether or not it's worth the money for something like a Mundorf Silver Oil cap vs a Erse Pulse X cap. For example... a 6.7 uF Mundorf is around $300, whereas a 6.7 uF Erse is around $7. And electrolytic caps are substantially less than the Erse. I would never spend $300 on the Mundorf, but I have paid $40 for a Clarity cap before... and you can hear a difference from one brand to another, even though both measure identically the same. Next we can argue about foil inductors vs litz inductors vs iron core inductors vs air core vs... silver vs copper... etc. And just like anything else in life, the line of diminishing returns is where it gets subjective; yes. But, the same rule applies to everything. My wife would never buy a BMW M5, she thinks it's a monumental waist of money. But, that doesn't mean a M5 isn't worth the money just because you can buy a Toyota Corolla for 1/4 the price. And I'm not just a speaker guy, I'm a amp / CD player / preamp / etc guy; I love stereos and I have great amps, preamps, CD players... not just speakers. I can tell you from experience that more money generally gets you better equipment. That's not to say there isn't good equipment for less money, Adcom made some killer amps for cheap, but a Bryston, or PS Audio, or Boulder, or D'Agostino, etc. are better than the Adcom, and you'll pay for that quality. I'm just not a speaker wire guy because aside from looks, the speaker wires are going to have the absolute most negligible effect on the sound of your system. RCAs would be next, except they're a little more important because of interference. Digital cables... buy the cheapest one they make. Now regarding orchestral music... Go listen to a pair of Kaiser Kawero Classics, those come pretty close. Yes, they can't pressurize a room like a live orchestra can, but they're accurate throughout the frequency range. And if you've been to a live orchestra, you probably noticed that the upper level is... amplified PA speakers (unless it's a small venue). Just FYI... the piano is one of the hardest instruments to reproduce the sound of with a speaker, and it's because of the resonant frequencies from the piano's key strikes. But listen to a pair of YG Acoustics Sonja speakers, and it'll start to make sense as to why those cost $107k per pair. But there again, the line of diminishing returns kicks in, and unless I had lottery money to play with I'd never buy them. And I've never said "all expensive speakers sound great". I have heard junk that cost $10k and up. Magico speakers don't do much for me and those can be $100k. Wharfedale makes some killer sounding speakers for reasonable money. Revel makes some great sounding speakers for reasonable money. On 4/29/2016 at 6:37 PM, Dick Dastardly said: DIY Horn guys build amazing sounding speakers for mere 100s of dollars that look like crap but...sound incredible. Isn't that what it's all about? I'm actually curious if you've ever heard them. The problem with that^^ statement is... are you referring to horn loaded subs?... I haven't heard one sound good, I've heard them make lots of bass, but always WAY too boomy and muddy, and in a cabinet the size of a refrigerator. Or are you referring to compression tweeters in horns? If yes, I agree but compression tweeters aren't cheap at all. The price of entry before you start getting decent sounding ones is about $50 and still need the horn, and just like everything else the sky is the limit on how much you can pay for compression tweeters. But I agree that that's what it's all about, and that's how and why I got into speaker building (caviar taste on a pizza budget). I never made the statement that someone can't enjoy a sound system if they didn't spend at least $XXXX.XX, just saying that there's a LOT of engineering in something like the $78k pair of TAD speakers, it isn't just a huge price tag and smoke and mirrors. The guy that designed the TAD Reference One (Andrew Jones, I've met him a few times and he's a great guy) has his master's in physics, and he studied physics so he could understand speaker design better. Coincidentally, he's also the same guy that designed those $500 Elac speakers. Sorry for the long post, but I want to reiterate that you don't need to spend exorbitant amounts of cash to enjoy your sound system. I got into speaker building because I couldn't afford $5k+ speakers but wanted that sound quality, so I learned how they did it. And just like everything else, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and some people don't care. But I'd bet a lot that in a blind listening test, 100% of the guys here would going to pick the $27k Sony SSAR1 speakers over the $1k Elac floor standers as the better sounding speakers. And that's not because the Sonys are more expensive, it's because they sound better. They're more expensive because they have better drivers, more inert cabinets, better xover components, and they spent 2 years with a team of sound engineers designing them. I've been around stereos enough, it wouldn't matter if they finished the cabinets with manure, I'd still pick them as my favorite sounding speakers. Edited May 2, 2016 by mattsk8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Dastardly Posted May 3, 2016 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2016 Your last post is so full of you questioning things I never said. Did I ever say capacitance and capacitors are not important? No Did I ever say that cheap speakers are just as good as more expensive ones? No. You then go on and on about dollar amounts. Matt I honestly don't give 2 pokes about $105k speakers. I don't give 2 pokes about $75k speakers. That culture doesn't interest me at all. I have heard systems in that realm before. Sure, sound is great. but not worth it even if I had lottery money. It wouldn't make me a happier person in life knowing I had 100k speakers that could almost reproduce a piano accurately You are obviously very excited about the concept of stratospheric home audio. That's fine. You don't need to get so upset about it when I am not. I am perfectly happy with the ok sound I can get from my second hand junk that I fix and make sound good for less than the price of one driver. Scientific measurements and numbers are great when you're standing in a hotel room impressing other speaker guys.. but scientific accuracy isn't necessarily what sounds good or what people want. A lot of people want euphonious sound more than accuracy (Hence why people like Martin Logan and Apogee etc..) I was not speaking of Horn loaded subs. Boomy bass for arena rock concerts.. I was talking about the single driver high sensitivity transmission line and horn loaded DIY stuff the S.E.T. guys are into. For me, when it comes to high end audio, I am much more interested in low watt high sensitivity stuff than mega watt amps and 500 pound speakers. But for my everyday use i want something that sounds good to me in my house with all of the different odd music I like. I am foremost a music guy/record collector. I really am about the music..not the toys Too many people use music as a way to listen to their systems instead of using their systems to enjoy music. That's fine but let's be honest about it instead of constantly talking about specs "accuracy" and dollar amounts. Summary of my original statement.. I HATE THAT THE MAIN WAY OF DESCRIBING THE SOUND QUALITY OF AUDIO COMPONENTS IS USING DOLLAR AMOUNTS.. COMPARING ARBITRARY PRICE POINTS AS IF A CERTAIN LEVEL CREATES A CERTAIN SOUND. That's all. Very simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruecatinat Posted May 3, 2016 Report Share Posted May 3, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, Dick Dastardly said: Your last post is so full of you questioning things I never said. Did I ever say capacitance and capacitors are not important? No Did I ever say that cheap speakers are just as good as more expensive ones? No. You then go on and on about dollar amounts. Matt I honestly don't give 2 pokes about $105k speakers. I don't give 2 pokes about $75k speakers. That culture doesn't interest me at all. I have heard systems in that realm before. Sure, sound is great. but not worth it even if I had lottery money. It wouldn't make me a happier person in life knowing I had 100k speakers that could almost reproduce a piano accurately You are obviously very excited about the concept of stratospheric home audio. That's fine. You don't need to get so upset about it when I am not. I am perfectly happy with the ok sound I can get from my second hand junk that I fix and make sound good for less than the price of one driver. Scientific measurements and numbers are great when you're standing in a hotel room impressing other speaker guys.. but scientific accuracy isn't necessarily what sounds good or what people want. A lot of people want euphonious sound more than accuracy (Hence why people like Martin Logan and Apogee etc..) I was not speaking of Horn loaded subs. Boomy bass for arena rock concerts.. I was talking about the single driver high sensitivity transmission line and horn loaded DIY stuff the S.E.T. guys are into. For me, when it comes to high end audio, I am much more interested in low watt high sensitivity stuff than mega watt amps and 500 pound speakers. But for my everyday use i want something that sounds good to me in my house with all of the different odd music I like. I am foremost a music guy/record collector. I really am about the music..not the toys Too many people use music as a way to listen to their systems instead of using their systems to enjoy music. That's fine but let's be honest about it instead of constantly talking about specs "accuracy" and dollar amounts. Summary of my original statement.. I HATE THAT THE MAIN WAY OF DESCRIBING THE SOUND QUALITY OF AUDIO COMPONENTS IS USING DOLLAR AMOUNTS.. COMPARING ARBITRARY PRICE POINTS AS IF A CERTAIN LEVEL CREATES A CERTAIN SOUND. That's all. Very simple. I would like to look into some high sensitivity stuff for predominantly lower volume listening - what has worked for you / what have you enjoyed in the past? Previously my goal was to have clean sound at loud volume but now I want something I can appreciate without pissing anyone off.. Edited May 3, 2016 by ruecatinat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattsk8 Posted May 3, 2016 Report Share Posted May 3, 2016 13 hours ago, Dick Dastardly said: Your last post is so full of you questioning things I never said. Did I ever say capacitance and capacitors are not important? No Did I ever say that cheap speakers are just as good as more expensive ones? No. You then go on and on about dollar amounts. Matt I honestly don't give 2 pokes about $105k speakers. I don't give 2 pokes about $75k speakers. That culture doesn't interest me at all. I have heard systems in that realm before. Sure, sound is great. but not worth it even if I had lottery money. It wouldn't make me a happier person in life knowing I had 100k speakers that could almost reproduce a piano accurately I HATE THAT THE MAIN WAY OF DESCRIBING THE SOUND QUALITY OF AUDIO COMPONENTS IS USING DOLLAR AMOUNTS.. COMPARING ARBITRARY PRICE POINTS AS IF A CERTAIN LEVEL CREATES A CERTAIN SOUND. That's all. Very simple. First, you have me pegged wrong. I'm not an audiophile douche, I do enjoy music, and therefor I enjoy good systems. And aside from wondering if I can afford a pair of speakers I really enjoyed the sound of, I couldn't care less about cost. I didn't go "on and on about dollar amounts", I mentioned the speakers that I enjoyed and then mentioned what they cost, because inevitably if anyone cares they always ask, "how much are they?". That was where you came in with your... "For fvcks sakes... prices... stereophile... blah blah blah. My first "DIY speaker build" (not counting a boom box I tried to modify) was a 3 way in cardboard box at 11 years old, driven by a Magnavox shelf system. Even though it sounded like absolute crap, it was one of my favorite stereos because that's where it all started for me. But I went from there trying to learn why it sounded like crap. I don't buy new crap just to impress, my systems are pretty mutted together using a lot of used equipment. This is the front end for my garage stereo. Does this honestly look like a system someone put together just to impress the masses with dollar amounts?... As far as dollar amounts, I only bring them up the way people here post pics of Ferraris and Zondas, not because I own a pair. I honestly can't tell if you're just bent on having a d!ck waiving contest, or what your deal is... but yes, you said... On 4/29/2016 at 0:28 AM, Dick Dastardly said: Can we argue about capacitance next? I never said you said they weren't important; I just tried to figure out WTF you meant and WTF there is to argue about as far as capacitance goes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.