 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.228.59.174
Look at JA's phono RIAA deviation measurements. Worst I (and he's) seen in a LONG while. Herb didn't bat an earlash tho.
"Someone" can't hear - OR measurements don't mean ANYTHING - so why bother with that (particular) one????!!!!
Does also make one wonder who's manning the design tiller at F&R to let that oversight slip by...
Follow Ups:
In the Manufacturers' Comments section Chris Hildebrand says that "All the items in the technical review have already been addressed in our production units."
Thanks Gary,
Overlooked the mfg comments section.
But the point of my original comment remains. Should HR RE-REVIEW a "corrected" amp and also RE-LISTEN to the original amp to see if he could hear any differences??? Based on JA's measurements, should he have mentioned his findings to HR before publishing the review.
Sorry but I'm having a CREDIBILITY problem here, amongst/between my idols.
I don't know about a re-review but Stereophile does in some cases do follow ups. Typically they're much shorter than standard reviews. I don't know what their criteria are for deciding when this is merited. Given how badly that phono curve measured I'd like to see JA remeasure it on a production sample. Perhaps HR could listen to vinyl playback on that same sample.
Does Fern & Roby deserve that consideration? I don't know.
To Stereophile's credit their protocol is listening test first then measurements and each is published without the reviewer getting to change their story after seeing the measurements. JA-classic might have discussed it with HR but HR doesn't get to modify what he wrote.
I recall many years ago Fremer reviewed a Light Harmonic (?) interconnect cable that changed the input analog voltage to an analog light signal then sent down an optical cable where it was turned back to an analog voltage. Fremer loved it. Then JA measured it and found the voltage to light transformation was actually quantized with a resolution less than CD (IIRC). Fremer's review stood though he later walked it back saying that he still liked the sound of the cable in his system but could not recommend it or keep on using something that was modifying the signal so much.
And, more recently, we had the Infigo power amp that was heralded as removing cross-over distortion with only a small increase in power dissipation. JVS loved the sound. JA-classic measured it and the thing was lousy with cross-over distortion. The manufacturer suggested a sample problem but later fessed-up that it was a design flaw.
I have not seen the F&R review but if their manufacturer comment says they've fixed the problem that suggests it was a design flaw. I cannot believe that any manufacturer would submit a component for review to Stereophile without measuring it first and when something like this happens they deserve all they get. However, I expect most readers will take HR's opinion over the numbers.
As for HR, he could do a follow-up on a fixed unit but knowing his writing he'll like it just as much without really ranking them or implying any fault in his original review. It seems only JA-classic has to mop-up these spills in trying to reconcile poor measurements with great reviews.
From a publication that also does measurements, the correct way is to always measure apart from listening and keep the results away from the reviewer. Has to be separate. So the way it was done in Stereophile is the way we do it here at SoundStage!
But the issue becomes that when a product measures so poorly, what should happen? Because here's what happens when you publish a review, show atrocious measurements, and, most important, the manufacturer changes the unit -- you end up with a different unit altogether and a completely useless review because of it.
The only way to remedy that is to re-review the unit completely.
Doug
SoundStage!
Agree.
:)More seriously, I have often thought it would be good if reviewers could achieve an accreditation that they can discern a certain level of difference. Of course, the testing protocol would be an area of discussion and running the tests would be expensive. And there probably isn't much of an upside for anyone as the likely result is that components really don't sound as different as reviewers would have us believe. So, the component manufacturers won't like that and the reviewers won't like being tested (who does?) and being found less capable than they'd like. Maybe an upside would be for a progressive publication to hire those who do best and boast about it.
Edits: 05/29/24 05/29/24 05/29/24 05/29/24
Your point has been on my mind for quite some time.
These days, we're measuring very in-depth almost all of the gear we get in. If there are gross problems with the equipment that the reviewer should've caught -- not just sonic, but functional, too -- we get rid of them if it is repeated. Pretty simple. And it has happened.
What's surprising, though, is that in most cases -- 90% -- things that turn up in measurements that should be obvious do turn up in the written reviews. In other words, a positive correlation in that regard.
But like I said, it's been on my mind and we're looking at ways to make the subjective side more stringent. I think that with so many reviewers these days -- print, online, YouTube, etc. -- there's a market for that.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
corroborative reviews like TAS did back in the day. Reviewers with individualized priorities will bring up different attributes or limitations.
Two mentors were reviewers and while we enjoyed each other's company, attending concerts together when possible and all had a passion for music, we often arrived at different conclusions when hearing something new.
Today it is more common to the reviewer to cite a handful of recordings and how they fare with a DUT. How about as compared with other like components to provide some notion of reference?
Hi,
You are right -- and it is good you used the phrase "largely absent" rather than "completely absent." There is some of that, but needs to be more.
Doug
SoundStage!
when multiple experienced listeners compare notes about a common component or system. It is a great opportunity to learn or share something that may not have been noticed by you or others.
I am aware, however, of the added cost from a publisher's standpoint.
The costs are real! But there are a lot of other costs involved, too.
We are working on a plan to be unveiled in the coming months -- that will also take this into consideration and be "financially feasible."
Doug
SoundStage!
Well put
I REALLY like F&R. They have been a stalwart supporter of the DC audio show. Excellent wood craftsmanship - and they have been trying their hand in audio. Fits and starts - but they are standing behind their products. Can't ask for more than that! Live long and prosper
Yeah, I had a laugh when I saw that phono curve result.
if you don't have a turntable I guess it's a non-issue.
That speaker review measurement that revealed a notch in the frequency response was a little more concerning.
Both products are a hard pass for me.
Get the test results looking good at the factory, then let the subjectivists have their way with it.
I suspect you're talking about the Audiovector speaker. Surprisingly, that notch, although likely audible, might not be as noticeable as it looks -- particularly compared to if it went up instead of down.
That said, I'd like to get my hands on that in the chamber we use and move the microphone around and see if it's some sort of phase issue that has to do with the microphone placement -- or if it fills in elsewhere.
What's also surprising is above and below that notch, the response looks really well behaved. So it could be some sort of cancelation happening, but it could also be that they prematurely curtailed the response above and/or below that region for some sonic reason.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
"particularly compared to if it went up instead of down."
Quite true! In fact the ATC-40's at work have a good size notch in the response up high but what you hear is not the notch but the sparkle of the hf driver as the response resumes above the notch.
for sure, this is NOT what one wants for mixing a recording, that is ideally neutral and flat.
Keep an eye out for a set of Klipple measurements for that speaker, those are becoming mainstream popular. Those show "where the sound goes" over the sphere quite well and doesn't require a chamber.
I use it even for crossovers some times, take the average anechoic mag & phase response over say a 10 degree or 20 degree cone on axis instead of one point.
Tom Danley
. . . may be a "design feature" rather than an error. I recall some implication in the article (I'll have to read it again) that it is intended to reduce vocal sibilance. JA determined it was NOT a phase cancellation (it was still there when he flipped the polarity of the tweeter), and the other Audiovector models he measured did not have it.
The audible effect is easy to simulate, if you have some reasonably flat-measuring speakers and an EQ. Just cut an 8dB notch, about half an octave wide, centered at 3kHz, and listen. I hear a discontinuity in the treble, as if the upper harmonics are not properly attached to their fundamentals. But it does reduce sibilance on "hot" recorded vocals.
Hi,
One thing I wanted to add is that sibilance is generally higher in frequency -- 4 to 10Hz range. I think whatever is happening at the 3kHz range -- if that notch doesn't clear itself up somewhere -- is to try to get the best blend of drivers that perhaps don't blend that well. But that's a guess.
Doug
SoundStage!
Better to have a ruler flat response and let the listener apply EQ to tame any frequency anonomly.
If you notch out that region, yeah, that's going to reduce. I'd still like to play around with microphone positioning.
But on top of that, midrange-bass drivers break up at the top of their range, tweeters at the bottom. Early cutoffs of the drivers can be to reduce that, too. I'd like to see a distortion test to see if something is happening in that regard.
Doug
SoundStage!
I guess what really got to me was the "cognitive dissonance" that did - and does remain.
Long-term S'phile readers that actually read/store/remember JA's ongoing measurement regimen do (have to?) become inured to seeing certain trends, creating a "norm" with which to compare future results, and then giving these new results a thumbs up (or down) based on OUR memories/interpretations.
In my book, 3 or 4 dB fluctuations from (especially) a frequency response "norm" should certainly be noticeable. BUT this is of course totally dependent on the music played. AND if this fluctuation happens to be in the bass region, a lot of guys whose subwoofers are already turned up 3 or 4 db would be delighted.
In effect F&R has created an integrated amplifier with a phono section that includes a free, but non-defeatable tone control.
... too much emphasis on measurements. This happens all the time in Stereophile, with other reviewers as well. Could be that some "bad" measurements don't always correlate with bad sound. And "ideal" measurements don't always correlate with good sound. Trust your ears.
Edits: 05/23/24
There's a problem with that logic of completely disregarding measurements, particularly when it comes to FR of the amp or the RIAA equalization curve -- if it's off, it's going to be audible. And it doesn't have to be off by much across a broad range to be very audible.
I think the much more sensible approach is to take the measurements as a "they are what they are" thing and glean something from what was heard -- or not heard.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
Spot on Doug
...certainly measurements have their place, and I agree with your assessment. But we shouldn't assume the reviewer is deaf because he/she likes a component that doesn't measure well.
I finally saw that review that's mentioned. Basically, the RIAA equalization in play in that amp boosts the bass to lower midrange by 4dB and cuts the upper-midrange to treble by 2dB. So you have a 6dB "lift" toward the bass region -- and that should be obvious on pretty much any recording, because it will make them far more bass-heavy.
That's concerning, but more concerning is the channel mismatch, something we always look at. Good bye proper center image.
The measurements are very telling.
Doug
SoundStage!
That's good that you don't want to disregard them.
But in the case of certain measurements, such as the frequency response, changes are very easy to hear. Just think about tone controls and the impact they have.
Nobody said anything about deaf, but if an RIAA curve is far from what it should be (there is a prescribed equalization curve), then the deviations should be audible and identifiable for a review. It's in cases like these that the measurements are really telling.
Doug
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
