| Author |
Message |
MD
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sun Oct 02, 2005 10:20 pm Post subject:
My first audio show - I don't get it |
|
|
I just got back from thr Denver audiofest. What boggles my mind after
listening to all the rooms is how bad most systems sounded because they
didn't treat the room -either with room treatment or electronic room
correction products. Yet most of the people used very expensives
cables, devices to keep the cables off the floor etc. Now I am sure
most people moved things around a bit to do as well as they could - and
some systems sounded great. However I think only a handful had room
treatment and one was using a Rives (which allowed me to do an A/B.
Which easily deomonstrated the products capabilities). I understand
room treatments can be bulky - however - isn't this their bread and
butter? Seems like they losing the forrest for the trees when one has
cables that cost thousands of dollars and the room - below 300hz -
sounds like crap. I am sure a modest system set up well is far better
sounding than a mega-bucks system that is not. I guarantee I could take
a budget system, deploy the right set up and room correction and put
almost every room to shame.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Don Pearce
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 03, 2005 12:15 am Post subject:
Re: My first audio show - I don't get it |
|
|
On 2 Oct 2005 17:20:11 GMT, MD wrote:
| Quote: | I just got back from thr Denver audiofest. What boggles my mind after
listening to all the rooms is how bad most systems sounded because they
didn't treat the room -either with room treatment or electronic room
correction products. Yet most of the people used very expensives
cables, devices to keep the cables off the floor etc. Now I am sure
most people moved things around a bit to do as well as they could - and
some systems sounded great. However I think only a handful had room
treatment and one was using a Rives (which allowed me to do an A/B.
Which easily deomonstrated the products capabilities). I understand
room treatments can be bulky - however - isn't this their bread and
butter? Seems like they losing the forrest for the trees when one has
cables that cost thousands of dollars and the room - below 300hz -
sounds like crap. I am sure a modest system set up well is far better
sounding than a mega-bucks system that is not. I guarantee I could take
a budget system, deploy the right set up and room correction and put
almost every room to shame.
|
You've just discovered that most shows are manned by the sales and
marketing department.
d |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 03, 2005 12:15 am Post subject:
Re: My first audio show - I don't get it |
|
|
MD wrote:
| Quote: | I just got back from thr Denver audiofest. What boggles my mind after
listening to all the rooms is how bad most systems sounded because they
didn't treat the room -either with room treatment or electronic room
correction products. Yet most of the people used very expensives
cables, devices to keep the cables off the floor etc. Now I am sure
most people moved things around a bit to do as well as they could - and
some systems sounded great. However I think only a handful had room
treatment and one was using a Rives (which allowed me to do an A/B.
Which easily deomonstrated the products capabilities). I understand
room treatments can be bulky - however - isn't this their bread and
butter? Seems like they losing the forrest for the trees when one has
cables that cost thousands of dollars and the room - below 300hz -
sounds like crap. I am sure a modest system set up well is far better
sounding than a mega-bucks system that is not. I guarantee I could take
a budget system, deploy the right set up and room correction and put
almost every room to shame.
|
There are three possibilities here:
1) Many of the vendors who participate in these shows are so
ill-informed about audio that they think cables make more of a
difference than room treatments. This is not as far-fetched as it
seems, if you look at some of the products they actually make/sell.
2) Many of the vendors who participate in these shows believe their
customers are so ill-informed that they think cables make more of a
difference than room treatments. Therefore they try to impress said
customers with firehose cables, rather than trying to impress them with
sound.
3) Both.
bob |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 03, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: My first audio show - I don't get it |
|
|
nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
| Quote: | MD wrote:
I just got back from thr Denver audiofest. What boggles my mind after
listening to all the rooms is how bad most systems sounded because they
didn't treat the room -either with room treatment or electronic room
correction products. Yet most of the people used very expensives
cables, devices to keep the cables off the floor etc. Now I am sure
most people moved things around a bit to do as well as they could - and
some systems sounded great. However I think only a handful had room
treatment and one was using a Rives (which allowed me to do an A/B.
Which easily deomonstrated the products capabilities). I understand
room treatments can be bulky - however - isn't this their bread and
butter? Seems like they losing the forrest for the trees when one has
cables that cost thousands of dollars and the room - below 300hz -
sounds like crap. I am sure a modest system set up well is far better
sounding than a mega-bucks system that is not. I guarantee I could take
a budget system, deploy the right set up and room correction and put
almost every room to shame.
There are three possibilities here:
|
There are a multiude of possibilities.
| Quote: |
1) Many of the vendors who participate in these shows are so
ill-informed about audio that they think cables make more of a
difference than room treatments. This is not as far-fetched as it
seems, if you look at some of the products they actually make/sell.
|
I would speculate that it is quite far fetched and highly unlikely. you
also assume that thes manufacturerers are not aquanted with excellent
sound. now that is extremely far fetched.
| Quote: |
2) Many of the vendors who participate in these shows believe their
customers are so ill-informed that they think cables make more of a
difference than room treatments. Therefore they try to impress said
customers with firehose cables, rather than trying to impress them with
sound.
|
That is just plain cynical. It assumes that the vendors don't believe
their customers have any idea what good sound sounds like and it
assumes shear dishonesty on their part to boot. I guess you can make
such broad vague claims because you don't name names and therefore
make no specific claims. But that makes your assertion pretty worthless
IMO as well as cynical.
Actually in many cases neither. Some possibilities based on actual
venor accounts are....
4) Vendors are faced with an unsolvable problem with trying to make a
lousy tiny hotel room sound good often with speakers that are made to
live in a bigger better envirement so they just don't try to pour
perfume on a pig of a room.
5) even if they do improve the room it won't matter much given the
nature of audio shows which largely does not allow for anyone to
actually sit down without interuption and listen to a system the way it
is designed to be listened to. That makes good sound is virtually
impossible under show conditions even with room treatment.
6) The peripherals such as room treatment and cables are often there
due to another company loaning said peripherals for the sake of cheap
visibility. It is easier, by and large, to loan cables and small tweaks
than effective room treatment and there are more companies in the
business of cables than room treatment so there's just more of that on
loan at the shows. I do not see how misrepresenting reality is in
anyway a means of guiding people to "the truth." It's not like the real
reasons (the ones I just cited) one finds bad sound and expensive
cables at these shows is a big secret. It seems to me that you accuse a
great many manufacturers of ignorance and deception without even
knowing what they have to say about the nature of show sound. 5,6,and 7
are not things I just made up. They are things show vendors at the
shows have told me directly.
Scott |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MD
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: My first audio show - I don't get it |
|
|
Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
MD wrote:
I just got back from thr Denver audiofest. What boggles my mind after
listening to all the rooms is how bad most systems sounded because they
didn't treat the room -either with room treatment or electronic room
correction products. Yet most of the people used very expensives
cables, devices to keep the cables off the floor etc. Now I am sure
most people moved things around a bit to do as well as they could - and
some systems sounded great. However I think only a handful had room
treatment and one was using a Rives (which allowed me to do an A/B.
Which easily deomonstrated the products capabilities). I understand
room treatments can be bulky - however - isn't this their bread and
butter? Seems like they losing the forrest for the trees when one has
cables that cost thousands of dollars and the room - below 300hz -
sounds like crap. I am sure a modest system set up well is far better
sounding than a mega-bucks system that is not. I guarantee I could take
a budget system, deploy the right set up and room correction and put
almost every room to shame.
There are three possibilities here:
There are a multiude of possibilities.
1) Many of the vendors who participate in these shows are so
ill-informed about audio that they think cables make more of a
difference than room treatments. This is not as far-fetched as it
seems, if you look at some of the products they actually make/sell.
I would speculate that it is quite far fetched and highly unlikely. you
also assume that thes manufacturerers are not aquanted with excellent
sound. now that is extremely far fetched.
2) Many of the vendors who participate in these shows believe their
customers are so ill-informed that they think cables make more of a
difference than room treatments. Therefore they try to impress said
customers with firehose cables, rather than trying to impress them with
sound.
That is just plain cynical. It assumes that the vendors don't believe
their customers have any idea what good sound sounds like and it
assumes shear dishonesty on their part to boot. I guess you can make
such broad vague claims because you don't name names and therefore
make no specific claims. But that makes your assertion pretty worthless
IMO as well as cynical.
3) Both.
Actually in many cases neither. Some possibilities based on actual
venor accounts are....
4) Vendors are faced with an unsolvable problem with trying to make a
lousy tiny hotel room sound good often with speakers that are made to
live in a bigger better envirement so they just don't try to pour
perfume on a pig of a room.
5) even if they do improve the room it won't matter much given the
nature of audio shows which largely does not allow for anyone to
actually sit down without interuption and listen to a system the way it
is designed to be listened to. That makes good sound is virtually
impossible under show conditions even with room treatment.
6) The peripherals such as room treatment and cables are often there
due to another company loaning said peripherals for the sake of cheap
visibility. It is easier, by and large, to loan cables and small tweaks
than effective room treatment and there are more companies in the
business of cables than room treatment so there's just more of that on
loan at the shows. I do not see how misrepresenting reality is in
anyway a means of guiding people to "the truth." It's not like the real
reasons (the ones I just cited) one finds bad sound and expensive
cables at these shows is a big secret. It seems to me that you accuse a
great many manufacturers of ignorance and deception without even
knowing what they have to say about the nature of show sound. 5,6,and 7
are not things I just made up. They are things show vendors at the
shows have told me directly.
Scott
I agree with your point on item 6 where you mention these guys partner |
up and use good cables etc if they are part of the deal/loaned. However.
just like many recording artists have no clue how their stuff sounds
and if they do they don't do anything about it becuase it appeals to the
masses. I think the people who attend shows are mostly sales people who
don't have much more of a clue than tech support people when you make a
call asking for help. It's insane that they don't at least use a Rives
or some other product (at can see passive room treatment being a hasle
to carry). Using a device like that they can demonstrate the unit on
and off to display both sides (and no I have no connection to those
companies - nor do I won one - too expensive. But I have heard the
difference). I could take an NAD/Paradigm system with stand mounted
speakers that only drop to 50hz and crush most of what I heard at that
show. Now I give you that most people who attend that show know that
hotel rooms pose a problem. However the only systems that broke through
for me we in the largest rooms. Only two systems made me sit up and
take notice in the regular rooms. The best were in rooms 3 or 4 times
larger. It will be interesting to see how the big boys rate the best
sound in the rags. (The mbl setup was by far the clearest. Eben was
pretty good. The B&W with Rives was very good. The expensive Bastanis
were very interesting. The Von Schweikert was OK. I thought there were
2 steals - Aperion and Raw Acoustics) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: My first audio show - I don't get it |
|
|
Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | Actually in many cases neither. Some possibilities based on actual
venor accounts are....
4) Vendors are faced with an unsolvable problem with trying to make a
lousy tiny hotel room sound good often with speakers that are made to
live in a bigger better envirement so they just don't try to pour
perfume on a pig of a room.
|
If they are actually displaying speakers that do not sound good in
hotel-sized rooms, that can be a problem. The non-speaker manufacturers
have no excuse, as they can choose which speakers to use in showing off
their electronics. (I've also been in lots of audio store showrooms
that weren't any bigger than your typical hotel room. And the speakers
sounded pretty darn good.)
| Quote: | 5) even if they do improve the room it won't matter much given the
nature of audio shows which largely does not allow for anyone to
actually sit down without interuption and listen to a system the way it
is designed to be listened to. That makes good sound is virtually
impossible under show conditions even with room treatment.
|
A set-up that sounds awful outside the sweet spot is a problem. If I
were an amp manufacturer who wanted to show off my products to best
advantage, I'd choose speakers (with room treatments) that sounded
decent over as wide an area as possible. There's a huge gap between
awful and perfect that isn't being covered here.
| Quote: | 6) The peripherals such as room treatment and cables are often there
due to another company loaning said peripherals for the sake of cheap
visibility. It is easier, by and large, to loan cables and small tweaks
than effective room treatment and there are more companies in the
business of cables than room treatment so there's just more of that on
loan at the shows. I do not see how misrepresenting reality is in
anyway a means of guiding people to "the truth." It's not like the real
reasons (the ones I just cited) one finds bad sound and expensive
cables at these shows is a big secret. It seems to me that you accuse a
great many manufacturers of ignorance and deception without even
knowing what they have to say about the nature of show sound. 5,6,and 7
are not things I just made up. They are things show vendors at the
shows have told me directly.
|
Room treatment (like cables!) need not cost a lot of money, although it
does require a certain know-how to do properly. If they choose not to
do so, it suggests that either:
A) They lack the know-how.
or
B) They don't think it'll impress the customers.
or
C) Both.
But I'm sure they have plenty of excuses, just in case someone asks.
bob |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BEAR
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 11, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: My first audio show - I don't get it |
|
|
MD wrote:
| Quote: | Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
MD wrote:
I just got back from thr Denver audiofest. What boggles my mind after
listening to all the rooms is how bad most systems sounded because they
didn't treat the room -either with room treatment or electronic room
snipo'd |
The B&W with Rives was very good. The expensive Bastanis
| Quote: | were very interesting. The Von Schweikert was OK. I thought there were
2 steals - Aperion and Raw Acoustics)
|
First, I don't know what show that is/was in Denver - I do know about
AES, NAB, CES and The SHOW, as well as the "Stereophile Show."
It is quite obvious why nothing sounded good in Denver. The speakers are
all designed to work properly at sea level atmospheric pressures - at
the altitude that Denver is at (ca. 5,000 ft up) the air is too thin, so
the "center design point" is shifted up at least one octave. The effect
is to make everything either sound like Mini Mouse (appologies to Mickey
and Disney) and/or cause the bass to lack the "weight" that it needs
(again due to the gossamer lightness of the thinner air molecules).
One could supply the multitudinous equations to prove this point, but
that is likely beyond the scope of the thread.
As far as an electronic correction device - I presume that is what a
"Rives" is?? - it won't correct for the room no matter what, it can only
correct the directly radiated response. Fixing the room *is* a good
idea. But, if you check the WAM Handbook - which you won't have a copy
of unless you are be one - (World Audio Manufacturer's Handbook) you'd
find that the use of room treatment is eschewed and generally
discouraged at all shows since the agreement is to have all
manufacturers present their products in approximately the same
environment for best comparison. At least that's what Chapter 8 indicates...
_-_-bear |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: My first audio show - I don't get it |
|
|
BEAR wrote:
[quote]First, I don't know what show that is/was in Denver - I do know about
AES, NAB, CES and The SHOW, as well as the "Stereophile Show."
It is quite obvious why nothing sounded good in Denver. The speakers are
all designed to work properly at sea level atmospheric pressures - at
the altitude that Denver is at (ca. 5,000 ft up) the air is too thin, so
the "center design point" is shifted up at least one octave. The effect
is to make everything either sound like Mini Mouse (appologies to Mickey
and Disney) and/or cause the bass to lack the "weight" that it needs
(again due to the gossamer lightness of the thinner air molecules).
One could supply the multitudinous equations to prove this point, but
that is likely beyond the scope of the thread.
[/quote]
Well, I think you have done a disservice by NOT supplying such.
Please, DO supply the "multitudinous equations" that prove your
assertion:
"at (ca. 5,000 ft up) the air is too thin, so the
'center design point' is shifted up at least one
octave."
as well as your assertion:
"The effect is to make everything either sound like
Mini Mouse"
and finally:
"cause the bass to lack the 'weight' that it needs
(again due to the gossamer lightness of the thinner
air molecules)."
The basic load presented to a diaphragm goes as:
p c^2
where p is the density of air and c is the speed of sound
in air. Now, the obvious large dependency here is c, since
the depednecy is on the square of the speed of sound, but
over and enormous range of densities, far exceeding what
humans would want to tolerate, the speed of sound is
essentially dependent upon temperature, and we have no
data to suggest that the temperature in the listening rooms
is substantially different than aty sea level.
That leaves p, density, as a function of altitude. Quick search
indicates, for example, that the density of air at 2 km (about
1.2 miles) is about 83% that at sea level.
Since it doesn't seem that the speed of sound is a factor, it
must be the density, and for "at least an octave" shift to
occur, SOMETHING must go as at least the CUBE of density. In all
the equations this person is aware of, there's no cube of air
desnity.
Please, since you have raised the assertion, SHOW us the
equations that tell us the "center design point is shifted
up at least one octave." Sine there are "multitudinous" such
equations, you should be able to supply at least a few, yes?
Show us how, in these "multitudinous equations" how "the
effect is to make everything either sound like Mini Mouse."
And, by "us," I don't mean myself or the readers of r.a.h-e.
I mean "us" like Beranek, Kinsler, Frey, Thiele, Small,
Blackenstock and others, because in various texts and papers
and research, they seemed to have missed these multitudinous
equations.
I may sound somewhat condescending, but, frnakly, you're reading
some SERIOUS skepticism. This is the first this claim has been
made in these terms. Not that the effect may or may not exist,
but that there are, in fact, "multitudinous equations."
Where are they? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nyob123@peoplepc.com
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 13, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: My first audio show - I don't get it |
|
|
"BEAR" <bearlabs@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:dif8ng030ke@news4.newsguy.com...
[quote]MD wrote:
Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
MD wrote:
I just got back from thr Denver audiofest. What boggles my mind after
listening to all the rooms is how bad most systems sounded because
they
didn't treat the room -either with room treatment or electronic room
snipo'd
The B&W with Rives was very good. The expensive Bastanis
were very interesting. The Von Schweikert was OK. I thought there were 2
steals - Aperion and Raw Acoustics)
First, I don't know what show that is/was in Denver - I do know about AES,
NAB, CES and The SHOW, as well as the "Stereophile Show."
It is quite obvious why nothing sounded good in Denver. The speakers are
all designed to work properly at sea level atmospheric pressures - at the
altitude that Denver is at (ca. 5,000 ft up) the air is too thin, so the
"center design point" is shifted up at least one octave. The effect is to
make everything either sound like Mini Mouse (appologies to Mickey and
Disney) and/or cause the bass to lack the "weight" that it needs (again
due to the gossamer lightness of the thinner air molecules).
One could supply the multitudinous equations to prove this point, but that
is likely beyond the scope of the thread.
How about just 6 or 7?[/quote]
I'm sure such equations would be a subject that will generate much
discussion, since AFAIK, they don't make special speakers for places like
Denver.
I wonder if all speaker manufacturers do their designs at places that are at
sea level. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Norman M. Schwartz
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 13, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: My first audio show - I don't get it |
|
|
<dpierce@cartchunk.org> wrote in message
news:dihscs01148@news1.newsguy.com...
[quote]BEAR wrote:
First, I don't know what show that is/was in Denver - I do know about
AES, NAB, CES and The SHOW, as well as the "Stereophile Show."
It is quite obvious why nothing sounded good in Denver. The speakers are
all designed to work properly at sea level atmospheric pressures - at
the altitude that Denver is at (ca. 5,000 ft up) the air is too thin, so
the "center design point" is shifted up at least one octave. The effect
is to make everything either sound like Mini Mouse (appologies to Mickey
and Disney) and/or cause the bass to lack the "weight" that it needs
(again due to the gossamer lightness of the thinner air molecules).
One could supply the multitudinous equations to prove this point, but
that is likely beyond the scope of the thread.
Well, I think you have done a disservice by NOT supplying such.
Please, DO supply the "multitudinous equations" that prove your
assertion:
I may sound somewhat condescending, but, frnakly, you're reading
some SERIOUS skepticism. This is the first this claim has been
made in these terms. Not that the effect may or may not exist,
but that there are, in fact, "multitudinous equations."
Where are they?
[/quote]
Quite frankly, isn't obvious to ask what audiophile listeners residing in
Denver hear?
"Where are they?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven Sullivan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 14, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: My first audio show - I don't get it |
|
|
nyob123@peoplepc.com <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "BEAR" <bearlabs@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:dif8ng030ke@news4.newsguy.com...
MD wrote:
Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
MD wrote:
I just got back from thr Denver audiofest. What boggles my mind after
listening to all the rooms is how bad most systems sounded because
they
didn't treat the room -either with room treatment or electronic room
snipo'd
The B&W with Rives was very good. The expensive Bastanis
were very interesting. The Von Schweikert was OK. I thought there were 2
steals - Aperion and Raw Acoustics)
First, I don't know what show that is/was in Denver - I do know about AES,
NAB, CES and The SHOW, as well as the "Stereophile Show."
It is quite obvious why nothing sounded good in Denver. The speakers are
all designed to work properly at sea level atmospheric pressures - at the
altitude that Denver is at (ca. 5,000 ft up) the air is too thin, so the
"center design point" is shifted up at least one octave. The effect is to
make everything either sound like Mini Mouse (appologies to Mickey and
Disney) and/or cause the bass to lack the "weight" that it needs (again
due to the gossamer lightness of the thinner air molecules).
One could supply the multitudinous equations to prove this point, but that
is likely beyond the scope of the thread.
How about just 6 or 7?
I'm sure such equations would be a subject that will generate much
discussion, since AFAIK, they don't make special speakers for places like
Denver.
I wonder if all speaker manufacturers do their designs at places that are at
sea level.
|
Well, I knwo back in the day there was an 'east coast' sound and a 'west
coast' sound for loudspeakers...but I had no idea there were regional
variations due to atmospheric pressure.
--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GregS
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 14, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: My first audio show - I don't get it |
|
|
In article <dike5b02uu7@news2.newsguy.com>, "Norman M. Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline.net> wrote:
| Quote: | dpierce@cartchunk.org> wrote in message
news:dihscs01148@news1.newsguy.com...
BEAR wrote:
First, I don't know what show that is/was in Denver - I do know about
AES, NAB, CES and The SHOW, as well as the "Stereophile Show."
It is quite obvious why nothing sounded good in Denver. The speakers are
all designed to work properly at sea level atmospheric pressures - at
the altitude that Denver is at (ca. 5,000 ft up) the air is too thin, so
the "center design point" is shifted up at least one octave. The effect
is to make everything either sound like Mini Mouse (appologies to Mickey
and Disney) and/or cause the bass to lack the "weight" that it needs
(again due to the gossamer lightness of the thinner air molecules).
One could supply the multitudinous equations to prove this point, but
that is likely beyond the scope of the thread.
Well, I think you have done a disservice by NOT supplying such.
Please, DO supply the "multitudinous equations" that prove your
assertion:
I may sound somewhat condescending, but, frnakly, you're reading
some SERIOUS skepticism. This is the first this claim has been
made in these terms. Not that the effect may or may not exist,
but that there are, in fact, "multitudinous equations."
Where are they?
Quite frankly, isn't obvious to ask what audiophile listeners residing in
Denver hear?
"Where are they?"
|
And Stereophile used to be at 7000 ft. in Santa Fe. Never heard mention of
altitude tests!
greg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 15, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: My first audio show - I don't get it |
|
|
GregS wrote:
| Quote: | In article <dike5b02uu7@news2.newsguy.com>, "Norman M. Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline.net> wrote:
dpierce@cartchunk.org> wrote in message
news:dihscs01148@news1.newsguy.com...
I may sound somewhat condescending, but, frnakly, you're reading
some SERIOUS skepticism. This is the first this claim has been
made in these terms. Not that the effect may or may not exist,
but that there are, in fact, "multitudinous equations."
Where are they?
Quite frankly, isn't obvious to ask what audiophile listeners
residing in Denver hear? "Where are they?"
And Stereophile used to be at 7000 ft. in Santa Fe. Never heard
mention of altitude tests!
|
Perhaps you weren't a reader of the magazine, Greg. When I moved to
Santa Fe from the UK, the altitude was something that concerned me.
I therefore did a long series of acoustic tests on the same speakers
measured at sea level and in Santa Fe. The results were published in
the May 1990 issue of Stereophile. The only significant effect of the
reduced air pressure is a 3-4dB reduction in voltage sensitivity,
which was also mentioned on many occasions in the magazine.
I did find very small changes in bass alignment but these were less
than the differences between nominally identical samples of the same
loudspeaker. I also calculated that large panel speakers would tilt
down
by a fraction of a dB at 20kHz, but as such speakers are never listened
to in the true farfield, there will also be a tiltdown due to proximity
effect which would swamp the effect of altitude.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 15, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: My first audio show - I don't get it |
|
|
GregS wrote:
| Quote: | Stereophile used to be at 7000 ft. in Santa Fe. Never heard
mention of altitude tests!
|
Forgot to enntion 2 popints in my earlier response:
1) The speed of sound is not changed by the altitude. I measured this
at both Santa Fe and at sea level (using DRA Labs MLSSA, which gives
an accurate time of flight measurement) and any difference was less
than the experimental error.
2) A speaker's sound quality _is_ affected by both humidity and
temperature. As Santa Fe is very dry, I used to run a humidifier
fulltime in my listening room when I lived there.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Norman M. Schwartz
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 16, 2005 10:54 pm Post subject:
Re: My first audio show - I don't get it |
|
|
<Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:dipke20i1q@news3.newsguy.com...
| Quote: | GregS wrote:
Stereophile used to be at 7000 ft. in Santa Fe. Never heard
mention of altitude tests!
Forgot to enntion 2 popints in my earlier response:
1) The speed of sound is not changed by the altitude. I measured this
at both Santa Fe and at sea level (using DRA Labs MLSSA, which gives
an accurate time of flight measurement) and any difference was less
than the experimental error.
2) A speaker's sound quality _is_ affected by both humidity and
temperature. As Santa Fe is very dry, I used to run a humidifier
fulltime in my listening room when I lived there.
Perhaps if you could wire up a speaker and descend into a unpressurized |
747's cargo bin at 40,000 feet it might sound different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in