advertisement


Cyclic debates and moderation

Status
Not open for further replies.
sergeauckland said:
I also agree that the differences between comparable loudspeakers, whilst greater than that between comparable amplifiers, are smaller than many would have one believe. Whilst I don't think that two different loudspeakers would pass an AB test, an ABX test might be more difficult.

I wonder whether this convergence of performance is in any way responsible for some new loudspeaker designs deviating from the desideratum of a flat frequency reponse far more than would seem to be accidental. The rise at HF seen with some of today's designs, compared with the flat, or slightly drooping HF response of a few years ago might be a way of making purchasers "listen to all that detail".

In the way that the valve revival could be seen as a reaction to "all SS amps sound the same", I wonder if that sort of thing is now going on with some loudspeaker manufacturers who might struggle otherwise to persuade purchasers there's a reason to change their 'speakers.

S.
Click to expand...

All assumptions.
 
sergeauckland said:
I also agree that the differences between comparable loudspeakers, whilst greater than that between comparable amplifiers, are smaller than many would have one believe. Whilst I don't think that two different loudspeakers would pass an AB test, an ABX test might be more difficult.

I wonder whether this convergence of performance is in any way responsible for some new loudspeaker designs deviating from the desideratum of a flat frequency reponse far more than would seem to be accidental. The rise at HF seen with some of today's designs, compared with the flat, or slightly drooping HF response of a few years ago might be a way of making purchasers "listen to all that detail".

In the way that the valve revival could be seen as a reaction to "all SS amps sound the same", I wonder if that sort of thing is now going on with some loudspeaker manufacturers who might struggle otherwise to persuade purchasers there's a reason to change their 'speakers.

S.
Click to expand...

There, that clearer..
 
I'm gonna spit my dummy out for a moment here but; All this righteous bullshit is starting to get very fekking tedious.. The 'spec' is all you need folk are very sanctimonious. Your 'good enough' hifi that you lord about as being the be all and end all, is just your opinion. You have not, or do not, own the final word in audio design. I know many of my friends say their Denon midi stacks are all they need. So please stop thinking you know everything and just let folk enjoy what they're doing no one’s asked you to become the audiophile evangelist saviour. This mentality is stifling and at best, you are doing yourself a disservice by thinking what you own is as good as it gets - it’s not. Simple.

Rant over...... where’s my acid.
 
spacey said:
Simon, It doesn't matter if you made 1 or 1000; the point is, after designing the speaker you changed it because you didn't like the way it sounded, not because the spec wasn't good enough but your subjective instinct told you it wasn't good enough.
Click to expand...

I don't suggest that a designer needn't listen to their speakers. Rob said that listening to speaker design might be just for checking it all works as expected, and some do it this way; John Krutke of Zaph fame for example.
 
spacey said:
I'm gonna spit my dummy out for a moment here but; All this righteous bullshit is starting to get very fekking tedious.. The 'spec' is all you need folk are very sanctimonious. Your 'good enough' hifi that you lord about as being the be all and end all, is just your opinion. You have not, or do not, own the final word in audio design. I know many of my friends say their Denon midi stacks are all they need. So please stop thinking you know everything and just let folk enjoy what they're doing no one’s asked you to become the audiophile evangelist saviour. This mentality is stifling and at best, you are doing yourself a disservice by thinking what you own is as good as it gets - it’s not. Simple.

Rant over...... where’s my acid.
Click to expand...

Ooorah....
 
Tenson said:
I don't suggest that a designer needn't listen to their speakers. Rob said that listening to speaker design might be just for checking it all works as expected, and some do it this way; John Krutke of Zaph fame for example.
Click to expand...

That's fine if it sounds good, but as you've found out, sometimes you know within yourself that it can be better so you go back to the drawing board. Its call the design process. I'm fastidious about my work and I often change things even when built, if the contract or contractor allows me too. It’s what makes designers different to what a computer controlled output would achieve. Can you imagine if all architecture followed a set spec, what would the computer program churn out? Where’s all the nuances’ we as humans create going? Where are all the desires and luxuries we want?
 
This is HiFi. There's nothing creative about it at all so there's no parallel with architecture.
 
Now I'm not a Naim/Linn toe tapper, but I do fall into the 'if it sounds good it is good' camp and I wonder; If you subtract everyone who has a financial stake in Hifi, be it manufacturing, sales, marketing and such, how heated and wide ranging would this debate actually be?
 
markb65 said:
Now I'm not a Naim/Linn toe tapper, but I do fall into the 'if it sounds good it is good' camp and I wonder; If you subtract everyone who has a financial stake in Hifi, be it manufacturing, sales, marketing and such, how heated and wide ranging would this debate actually be?
Click to expand...

Anyone who's bought hifi has a financial stake in it. Take away all those you list and the punters would still be arguing. The main split is not ss vs valves, or digital vs analogue; it's people who want to argue the toss ad infinitum vs people who are prepared to agree to disagree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top