770 replies to this topic

[jerry tones]

Paul, have you got other data that shows a response? That link does not.

Note..they advertise (as marketing) alnico. It was all they had back then. Used as it provides high flux density. Of course it morphs don't it, now alnico is highyl prized due to it's sonic characteristics. Trust me tho, if the engineers had our better materials they would have used it. It is NOT the engineers that promote this stuff, it is the nostalgic audiophile.

have a pic of the VOTT? I'd imagine a huge fifties thing, entertainment unit look?? Anyway, these are the helper woofers we are talking about? It is basically in free air, NO baffle to speak of. So it would be good to see the graph you referred to with your analysis above.

Still feel stupid not spotting that the trouble comes from ABOVE the crossover point rather than below, but anyway better late than never. It makes more sense now when examining the 'why' of poor sound, poor integration.

[Paul Spencer]

Page 2 has it:
http://www.lansinghe...515b/page02.jpg

This is the woofer in question:


A friend sold some of these earlier in the year. I saw them and it's really surprising how drivers that old can look new.

Voice of the theatre:


(Couple of those might fit across your front wall Steven? ... who needs windows anyway)

[Paul Spencer]

One more thing ...

Anyway, these are the helper woofers we are talking about? It is basically in free air, NO baffle to speak of. So it would be good to see the graph you referred to with your analysis above.

Not quite free air. You can calculate the dipole roll off point with a simple formula:

Fequal = 58/D where D is the effective baffle dimension (half the baffle width + wing fold back) in metres.

Fequal is the point where a dipole will match a sealed box equivalent.

So in this case F = 58/0.3 = 180 Hz approx

So as an estimate you take the sealed box prediction and add a first order high pass around 180 Hz, but as I said placing it on the floor does appear to improve things. For example, I had a dipole woofer with a sub driver in the past. Without EQ it got down to about 30 Hz. A sim would have indicated -3db @ 40 Hz in a sealed box with dipole roll off happening around 150 Hz. So it should have been -15 dB where it was in fact -3 db (30 Hz). In other words, I got about 2 octaves more extension than predicted.

This is why I measure things. I really have not much idea otherwise.

[Headbanger]

Farking hell !!!!! I am shattered !!!! Just spent a week reading this thread. Any many more have wasted many hours at the keyboard. This thread was about a Bathurst GTG & has been hijacked by
Luddites defending their dogma. I am amazed at the patience of some people.

However thanks to the persistence of some, I have learnt a few things as to why things do sound different/better.

You only have to please yourself when you set up your system. It is for your pleasure only unless it is for commercial benefit or to feed your ego. Nuff said.

Personally I do listen & I do measure to understand issues so I can rectify & increase my listening enjoyment.

This is my only post on this thread.

[stevenvalve]

Still feel stupid not spotting that the trouble comes from ABOVE the crossover point rather than below, but anyway better late than never. It makes more sense now when examining the 'why' of poor sound, poor integration.

Terry. You dont seem to know, but the basses where only on for exerts of about 5 classical tracks in the beginning, and 1 or 2 more things, then i switched them off. Only the Axiom 80s in the horn loaded boxes where running after that (about 1 hour). So funny reading your comments, about basses that where not even on. I told you i only use them for classical music. I should have mentioned it earlier but could not help myself. So funny. You need to get a job at stereophile.

Edited by stevenvalve, 19 November 2011 - 06:56 PM.

[Jehuty]

Terry. You dont seem to know, but the basses where only on for about 5 classical tracks in the beginning, and 1 or 2 more things and then i switched them off. Only the Axiom 80s in the horn loaded boxes where running after that (about 1 hour). So funny reading your comments, about basses that where not even on. I told you i only use them for classical music. I should have mentioned it earlier but could not help myself. So funny. You need to get a job at stereophile.

And 6moons.

[rantan]

Great work guys...........not! [ Posts #715 and 716 ]

You just have to keep the angst going yeah?

[jerry tones]

Terry. You dont seem to know, but the basses where only on for exerts of about 5 classical tracks in the beginning, and 1 or 2 more things, then i switched them off. Only the Axiom 80s in the horn loaded boxes where running after that (about 1 hour). So funny reading your comments, about basses that where not even on. I told you i only use them for classical music. I should have mentioned it earlier but could not help myself. So funny. You need to get a job at stereophile.

When I first saw that you had replied I thought to myself 'great, steven is engaging here!'..then I read your actual post.

Not quite sure what to make of it, but suspect at the bottom of it is some sort of 'gotcha', I think based on a supposition that I am talking about things I have not heard??

Anyways, all the gotchas put to one side, no bzzt, sorry, I DID know the 'helper woofers' were only on for the first few tracks. I was there remember? In fact, at no point did I listen to the system (from the LP) with the helper woofers on at any stage.

I recall you making merry song and dance a few times recently about 'why don't you read the posts??' (to cheekyboy if I am not too mistaken)

What is the old saying? 'One accuses others of the very things they themselves do'.

Why don't you read the posts steven?

Just to clear things up, I have NO idea what is doing what. Not at any stage did I hear (from the LP that is) the 'helper woofers'. They were only on for two or three tracks, then switched off and not put back in. I've already said my bit about all that, no interest in repeating it all...tho reserve the right to re-evaluate as circumstances change!!!

I personally think it quite clear that I made no pretense of hearing the system when the helper woofers were playing. Do you agree?

Further, I think I was also clear that I felt it would be dishonest of me to make claims that I personally did not expereince, simply because 'others had made those claims'. I think I manage quite well to plow my own furrow, it is rare for me to toe the line simply to fit in.

I think I have made it clear a few times that I did not particularly hear the 'shortcomings' that others have commented on. It would be deceptive for me to comment on a point that I don't have personally.

So, back to your post. I DO seem to know they were only on for a short while. Yes, your slant (with the intended oputcome which kinda went flat like a damp squib) IS 'funny' no?

I would be interested in why you think I should write for stereophile?? (or six moons, thanks jehuty..you too can engae you know rather than these pissweak hit and runs from the sidelines...got anything you'd like to contribute??)

Ohh, hang on, you would not be in the 'pro' camo would you jehuty? If I went and searched in the 'other' steven valve system thread, would I find you in there too? After all, we have had the succession of defenders of the faith come thru at regular intervals, tho it did feel that had died down a bit recently.

Anyway steven, given the quote of mine you decided to highlight and to base your misguided attempt on, what do YOU now think of the data we have been discussing lately?

Given your statement to us that the helper woofers interfere with the vocals, and that they play to at least 2k, have you had some sort of insight into the 'why' that you have not had before?

In this last attempt of yours at the gotcha, unfortunately you missed a direct question to you. I asked you whether or not all this latest discussion of measurements, and what they can and can not do, had in anyway piqued your interest and whether you could now see any value in using them in your own system?

I'd much prefer we moved on to that constructive discussion than the rather lame recent attempt of yours.

Before I forget, you (seemed) to have found a point of 'great interest' that the systems you had preferred were on the 'esoteric type', and aske 'how could that be?' (or words to that effect).
I gave a possible reason that had not been addressed, and asked you your thoughts on the possibility of my conjecture.

So, what DO you think the possibility might be? (it was recent, a scroll up should find it easily enough)

[stevenvalve]

Ok, Terry tomorrow if i get time i will explain what the altec 515s actually do, why an open baffle, what they are there for, why they are not suitable for vocal. It will be a long post, and i have no time now, and it will be my last post on the subject.

[jerry tones]

look forward to it.

Was that BTW an admission that your 'come out with all guns blazing' was unfounded? That it was not 'funny' that I had 'no idea the helper woofers were not playing'? You will address the other couple of points I mentioned as well no doubt.

in any case I am interested in what you have to say, thanks.

[stevenvalve]

look forward to it.

Was that BTW an admission that your 'come out with all guns blazing' was unfounded? That it was not 'funny' that I had 'no idea the helper woofers were not playing'? You will address the other couple of points I mentioned as well no doubt.

in any case I am interested in what you have to say, thanks.

If i was going to come out all guns blazing, i would talk about your DVD player transport, solid state class D amps, Your two digital DEQX 2.6P equalisers, and your statement on another forum that your speakers are the most accurate in the world.

[Drizt]

ow, come on, it's funny

[Drizt]

If i was going to come out all guns blazing, i would talk about your DVD player transport, solid state class D amps, Your two digital DEQX 2.6P equalisers, and your statement on another forum that your speakers are the most accurate in the world.

In all seriousness I don't think it is cool to pick on someone for their choice of equipment that brings them audio enjoyment.

I would like to see a reference to tj making a claim that his speakers are the most accurate in the world. I can not imagine him making such a claim.

I did find this claim though

In my case i am very very good at what i do, some say the best, I say i am one of, if not the very best out there. Not as a tech, but being able to understand the interrelationship between the sound or colouration's of components and parts, and put them together, as a whole, that eventually makes music, not just music, but music with involvement, body, timber, texture,* flesh and bone, heart and soul,* personal, a concert, a performance. This is very very hard to do, . I personally do not need blind testing to build or tune a music system, but i have no doubt there are plenty that do. The fact is, if you lie to yourself when evaluating* component's, parts and tuning,* you can never achieve greatness. This is one reason why many will never achieve great sound. I make nearly every component from parts on my system,* i am not blinded by brand or reputation. And the results speak, not me.

[cheekyboy]

Originally Posted by stevenvalve

In my case i am very very good at what i do, some say the best, I say i am one of, if not the very best out there. Not as a tech, but being able to understand the interrelationship between the sound or colouration's of components and parts, and put them together, as a whole, that eventually makes music, not just music, but music with involvement, body, timber, texture,* flesh and bone, heart and soul,* personal, a concert, a performance. This is very very hard to do, . I personally do not need blind testing to build or tune a music system, but i have no doubt there are plenty that do. The fact is, if you lie to yourself when evaluating* component's, parts and tuning,* you can never achieve greatness. This is one reason why many will never achieve great sound. I make nearly every component from parts on my system,* i am not blinded by brand or reputation. And the results speak, not me.

Did you really make those statements about yourself Steven? Kinda ostentatious wouldn't you say old son? And to think going back a few pages here, I was describing you in a post as being self effacing!! Ah, I think I might've got that one wrong!

Cheers,

Keith

[Aslan]

I, for one, have NEVER heard Terry claim that his system is the most accurate in the world, nor have I even heard him say anything remotely along the lines of it is 'up there with the best'.
Terry is firmly in the camp of 'you guys come and listen and form your own opinion'.

I've formed mine as have many other's.

[ehtcom]

ow, come on, it's funny

It's serious stuff here Drizt, we're playin' for cattle stations.
Me and the boys are ready.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]38082[/ATTACH]

[ehtcom]

Originally Posted by stevenvalve
In my case i am very very good at what i do, some say the best, I say i am one of, if not the very best out there. Not as a tech, but being able to understand the interrelationship between the sound or colouration's of components and parts, and put them together, as a whole, that eventually makes music, not just music, but music with involvement, body, timber, texture,* flesh and bone, heart and soul,* personal, a concert, a performance. This is very very hard to do, . I personally do not need blind testing to build or tune a music system, but i have no doubt there are plenty that do. The fact is, if you lie to yourself when evaluating* component's, parts and tuning,* you can never achieve greatness. This is one reason why many will never achieve great sound. I make nearly every component from parts on my system,* i am not blinded by brand or reputation. And the results speak, not me.

FIGJAM!

Priceless, this is gunna keep a smile on my face all week.

[jerry tones]

If i was going to come out all guns blazing, i would talk about your DVD player transport, solid state class D amps, Your two digital DEQX 2.6P equalisers, and your statement on another forum that your speakers are the most accurate in the world.

It's a bit like pulling teeth ain't it.

So that is YES or a NO that you got it wrong vis a vis me 'making the big, funny and laughable error when I thought the subs were on all the time when they were not'?

Man up and answer. An 'oops. oh well, got that bit wrong' will do.

Hey, I got me another net stalker!! Woohoo.

Just for the educamation of all, and I could probably find the post if needed, there was another post (AVS) where I said something along those lines that could be misconstrued that way. The expert in doing that is the piece of puss known as AJinFLA. It seems stevenvalve has taken a leaf out of his book.

It was in a thread were someone was asking 'what is the difference between the deqx and dcx?' (along those lines anyway). I have had both, and so thought out of all the usual 'what if and maybe' type responses I could at least have a personal experience one. Anyone ever notice I tend to push the personal experience/find out for yourself angle?

As I said, I could find the thread (and it needs to be read in the context of the thread..not taken out in isolation and mangled as has been done.)

Actually, I DON'T recall making the claim they are the most accurate speakers ib the world, but what I DID say is that 'I would put them up against anything'.

And I would. Period.

The point being (however extravagant the claim may appear to some) that tho you can get very good results with the dcx etc etc, to get that last final push then the deqx willhelp get you that. If you read the thread (very short) you will also see I made it perfectly clear that you can and will get good results with these other units, and so don't worry about it if you cannot afford the deqx, be happy with what you have and maximise the tools already at your disposal. Ha, guess what I might have meant when I mention tools at your disposal?? Don't just be shallow and eq the **** out of everything, learn about time and apply it, these tools all have the ability to do that.

TIME is the key, the goal, the holy grail in my book. Add to that smooth FR and then you are happy.

DO I think that all who hear it will think it the best? No, not necessarily. I could imagine that some might say 'not for me' or whatever. BUT, no-one would ever hear it and say it is 'wrong, poor or less than excellent sound'. 'I prefer that other system over there' is fine and understandable, completely possible and would not be a shock.

Now, you continually got up cheekyboy for not reading...turns out I have multiple digital amps now. How interesting, I coulda sworn that was not true.

So, in effect, you steven (and I am sure many others in your 'orbit') DO listen with your eyes. I know that, as do almost every other person on the forum BTW, hence my parting statement to you when you asked when you could come out for a listen.

"You or anyone is welcome any time..but you won't like it''. Hmm, suddenly it makes a mockery of my earlier thought that no-one would say it is bad. I'm sure you would.

So whilst you are composing your technical response today that we all are looking forward to, you can also ponder my earlier point to you about 'how could it be that the systems *we* liked were not at the show?' in the light of the way you view audio as exemplified by this recent post. How possible is it that a great deal of the reasons why you like a system is all down to your knowledge of what is in the system?

I asked many times in this thread WHY the deqx suddenly kept popping up. The 'brave' souls who continually mentioned it were not so brave however to answer, and I also mentioned a few times my disbeleief that you could have been unaware of what was going on, that I thought you were steering things from behind the scenes....and here we are. Finally. The truth and or reason for this continual mention of the deqx.

See, that's the trouble when people are less than honest, and manipulating things for their own less than honourable reasons...at some stage there are too many balls being juggled in the air and the truth will finally out.

The deqx. The deqx was the 'correct' line of attack all along wasn't it. 'Any system with a deqx in it, let alone two.....' should be a pretty robust defence.

Dunno, Maybe we should test that defense? Should we do a poll and find out? Of course, that poll could only be limited to those who have experienced both of these different approaches to audio, yours and mine........

[Paul Spencer]

If i was going to come out all guns blazing, i would talk about your DVD player transport, solid state class D amps, Your two digital DEQX 2.6P equalisers, and your statement on another forum that your speakers are the most accurate in the world.

You forgot to mention the birds nest of cables! If anything, the comments he has made about his system and his abilities tend towards understatement. So when you combine the laundry list of audiophiles sins and the fact that Terry understates things, people are not prepared for what they hear in his system. It is a very different sound to your system, Steven. That is not surprising considering the polar opposite nature of your audio philosophies, but surely you need to use your ears to make a judgment here, especially about a system as unique and custom made as Terry's. And we have to keep in mind that both of you are chasing different goals. You have both achieved the result you set out to obtain and you both have others who say it's the best they have heard. It's hard to imagine two systems more different, but at the end of the day a comparison is well beyond apples vs oranges, it's more like peaches vs chilli con carne! That some prefer peaches says little about the abilities of the chef, the two are so different.

[jerry tones]

You forgot to mention the birds nest of cables!

well, let's be honest, it's not so much the birds nest of cables..that is kinda hard to avoid when you have a four way plus subs!..but rather WHAT the cables are when viewed from an 'audiophile perspective'. They are, quite literally, the 'throwaway $2 dick smith/radio shack variety' interconnects for example. AFAICT an absolute no no in good audio territory.

And the cheapest low voltage lighting cable of sufficient guage from Bunnings.

This one intrigues me just a little.

And we have to keep in mind that both of you are chasing different goals.

ARE we?? I guess that is an interesting question, wonder if it is worthwhile pursuing a little? Not really in an 'me vs him' or 'us vs them' style, but certainly in a general sense. I mean, WHAT are we all chasing in a system? A few obvious answers jump to mind, enjoyment, engagement etc etc. Are we not all chasing that?

In that sense then, even tho we may be coming from totally different directions, do we not meet in the middle, and is that not where we find out answers to the question (via any given personal reaction to what we hear)? We can then start to branch out from that and ask 'why' or 'what' is it that any given system brings that leads us to that goal (reaction). This starts then into the technical side perhaps, ranging from the 'time does not matter' view which has been expressed to the 'time absolutely matters' view which is the one I hold. (and the many many others that have come up, ranging from 'coloured' to 'uncoloured' etc, and the deifinitions we use when we say that stuff)

THAT is where we can all learn, we can try and isolate each of these parameters and judge for ourselves. Hence my suggestions that we DO try 'coloured' vs 'uncoloured' yada yada...which usually fall on deaf ears. It seems it is easier to simply pontificate from behind the keyboard rather than find out. Safer too, no chance then of finding out something for yourself.

In any case, I don't quite see it as black and white as you seem to Paul, even on a 'thought experiment' level where the systems are behind an acoustically transparent screen, no idea whatsoever what is being playesd or what components are in it, just sound A and sound B. As we don't know what yucky components each sound might contain then we can only decide on what we hear.

What I do find fascinating (amongst many things) is the hidden, or not so hidden if you simply bide your time a while, underlying visciousness or nastiness evident. I guess that goes hand in hand with any path of self righteousness, from religion or social viewpoint all the way down to audio. We have had glimpses of that from Rawl, and now from steven.

At least Rawl holds his position on the deqx from (as I understand it) a personal experience. That then is completely fine. Others however, who have not come within cooee of the unit can only hold their position from 'what others have told them' (again, I always stress find out for yourself) OR from some sort of theoretical objection, an affront to the way one understands 'the way it should be'.

That too as far as it goes is OK, as long as the fact of 'no personal experience whatsoever' is made quite clear, and I'd hope that any given reader has enough self awareness to recongnise it in themselves if they find themselves agreeing with it. That they are then agreeing from some (usually unrecognised BTW) philosophical position. Philsophy is all well and good, but it only has relevance in asmuch as it actually applies to reality.

[Whatmore]

Terry, as a slightly alternative take on the 'you can't comment if you haven't experienced" line: surely it's possible to extrapolate one's experience. Given steven's expertise in his approach is it not reasonable that he could know (without trying) what would work for him or not.

I know that I wouldn't like haggis even though I've never tried it. And maybe that's not a terrible analogy - for me, enjoyment of food isn't solely about it's taste.

[Paul Spencer]

In any case, I don't quite see it as black and white as you seem to Paul

Crikey, it's not often I'm accused of being black and white!

well, let's be honest, it's not so much the birds nest of cables..that is kinda hard to avoid when you have a four way plus subs!

You should see my nest Terry! I have less excuse because I make many of my own cut to length. I still have a nest, but the electrons don't seem to mind.

I mean, WHAT are we all chasing in a system? A few obvious answers jump to mind, enjoyment, engagement etc etc. Are we not all chasing that?

When you bring it all down to that basic level, yes, we are more similar than we realise. Our universal goal is enjoyment, and that is enhanced further by sharing it with others. That goal does get frustrated by such diverse beliefs, so we all tend to align ourselves to a group where we have some agreement. Then at our little GTGs we can make all our points, blab about the stuff we believe and the others nod and agree. That's much more pleasant than person A saying "hey I tried this awesome sounding cable ...." then person B butts in "no cables don't sound different, have you blind tested it?!"

We can then start to branch out from that and ask 'why' or 'what' is it that any given system brings that leads us to that goal (reaction).

I think this thread gets to the heart of two basic audio polarities. One polarity is to seek accuracy. We want the system to have as little of its own contribution as possible. If we could have the ideal, it would be a system that can't be distinguished from the real thing. That audio path tends to be more scientific and engineering based - we use measurements as tools to help us set up a more accurate system. The other polarity is to create a musically pleasing system by adding deliberate coloration. Those in this camp accept that perfect accuracy is unobtainable, hence they choose a system that falls short in a way that actually adds to the music. It all comes down to the concept of accurate vs musical, and it's a difficult discussion to have because many won't accept the idea. Of course, this is not all black and white. I say these are poles, but they are also a continuum. In other words, we all position ourselves somewhere inbetween the two. Many of us who seek accuracy may flavour with some colorations. And many who seek musicality also expect a certain level of accuracy.

For me the Bathurst trip has clarified my position. I find myself moving more towards accuracy than before.

I think part of the challenge of the discussion in here is that I see a discrepancy between what people seem to be saying about Steven's system, and what it actually does. I hear comments about it being jaw droppingly real, that people sit there dumbfounded at the degree of realism, with the most convincing impression of a cello right there in the room. I'll be honest, I've never heard anything I'd describe that way. I would love to hear it, but I haven't. I was hoping to find that experience and if I did I would have been saying "tell me Steven how you did it, because I've gotta get this." But the reality is that while I've heard many great systems, in every case there has always been something else that I'm looking to achieve.

So I think some of you guys have written such glowing reviews, that it's virtually impossible for Steven's (or any other) to live up to it. My expectations may have been a bit high, but I did go with an open mind, not really being sure what to expect. It's a bit like going to see a movie that has been raved about, it's setting you up for disappointment. Now I think without all the build up, we would have gone and enjoyed the afternoon and said the usual comments, nothing getting feisty at all. And it was an enjoyable afternoon by the way and an experience well worth having. But the way I would describe Steven's system is different to what others have said who rave about it, and I think by and large the majority of audio enthusiasts would probably agree on this. It is a tone coloured system, one that has been deliberately coloured. It adds a flavour of its own and that is why opinions are polarised. Some people like a sytem to be flavoured in a musically pleasing way, others want it to be as accurate and transparent as possible.

Here is an example. The most familar of all the music played were some Beetles tracks. I wonder if it was from that compilation "Love." I've heard that fairly recently in more than one system. Great album by the way, it gave me a new appreciation of the Beetles. There was a very strong "valvey" flavour to it, one that I have not heard before on those tracks. I had mixed feelings about it, but I can see how some would like it. There was something about the sound that said "this is how they would have sounded back in the day." So in that sense it lended a certain authenticity to the sound. It sounded vintage. You might say it's like seeing through rose coloured glasses.

Some people don't seem to like hearing comments about the coloration but I find that surprising considering that Steven himself describes his approach that way. His own description of his claim to fame is that he is good at adding flavour to the sound - flesh and bone, all that stuff. He is a bit more poetic about it, but I'm trying to articulate it in a relatively objective way that most people will understand. Of course, with these things, there is no substitute for hearing things for yourself. You can't get the sound from behind your computer! If you have the chance to listen to Steven's system you probably won't appreciate whether you will like it or not just from reading this thread, it's just the way it is. You might be put off by talk of coloration, then experience it for yourself and think "wow, that is exactly the kind of sound that I want, this is awesome. Paul, you don't know what you're talking about at all, it's not coloured at all!" Such is the nature of audio.

If we reach a conclusion from this thread, hopefully it's this. People need to get out there, experience many different systems, enjoy the journey and make up their own mind. It's one heck of a journey, mine started two decades ago and in many ways I still feel it has only just begun.

[Paul Spencer]

Terry, as a slightly alternative take on the 'you can't comment if you haven't experienced" line: surely it's possible to extrapolate one's experience. Given steven's expertise in his approach is it not reasonable that he could know (without trying) what would work for him or not.

I know that I wouldn't like haggis even though I've never tried it. And maybe that's not a terrible analogy - for me, enjoyment of food isn't solely about it's taste.

Trevor, the idea is one that is often taken to the extreme, as you suggest. We can often take a fairly good guess in many cases. However, there are some systems that you just have to hear because there are things about them that people have probably not experienced. Steven and Terry both have systems like that. Mine is another example. How many people have heard a digital active phase coherent time aligned coaxial horn with constant directivity all the way down to below 300 Hz? How many people have heard an advanced digital active system with high sensitivity pro drivers in a concrete box? And in the case of Steven's system, everything has been so heavily modified by ear that you really don't know what you are going to find.

[jerry tones]

Terry, as a slightly alternative take on the 'you can't comment if you haven't experienced" line: surely it's possible to extrapolate one's experience. Given steven's expertise in his approach is it not reasonable that he could know (without trying) what would work for him or not.

I know that I wouldn't like haggis even though I've never tried it. And maybe that's not a terrible analogy - for me, enjoyment of food isn't solely about it's taste.

just to clarify, I did not say you could not comment, rather that if you comment without experience then that needs to be clear.

Helps put things into perspective.

Actually, the food example is an excellent one, was thinking about that earlier tbh. I was using 'snails' in my head, think haggis could be a better example tho!

So yeah, that is but one example which kinda applies. TELL the guy you are serving haggis, then any/all previous considerations come into full play. NOTHING to do with the taste (sound) agreed?

However, just serve up a good meal and he'd probably ask for seconds (in this example). THEN tell him what it was, and he'd probably throw up haha.

In any case, let's take your extrapolate. That in itself implies SOME sort of familiarity, something to extrapolate from. Surely?? Your starting point of steven knowing what he does thereby implying he can extrapolate from it, well back to the example (which may or may not apply, we simply don't know) about time alignment. How, until you check that time alignment can you know if it will improve or worsen any given trait? In this example, he has nothing to extrapolate from!

However, if for whatever reason you arbitrarily decide that 'time alignment is of no importance' then there is your answer. It is NOT based on any actual reality of whether it is important or not is it. It is simply something you decide not to check.

Let me be clear, there is nothing wrong as such with that, when applied to your own system and your own tastes. But it sure as hell is NOT ok to state it in such a blanket fashion that falsifies the truth or otherwise of it. For all I care you can state that you think the moon is made of green cheese. As long as you say that is what you believe. Once you go past that and try to represent it as having some sort of external truth, well you'd better be prepared to justify the statement.

It is all back to the 'problem' that lies under most audio arguments. Most of the time it is simply received wisdom, adopted because of some reason..the guy is a writer for an audiophile rag or whatever, yet never examined.

Look at almost every suggestion I have made in this thread, 'let's test this' or 'let's test that'. Utter apathy. That's ok, but for chrissake stop promoting the stuff you know absolutely nothing about and are too 'cowardly' to check.

[jerry tones]

Crikey, it's not often I'm accused of being black and white!

Hmm, come to think of it, it prob had a lot to do with the fancy dress costume you wore on sat night, B&W minstrels was it not?

You should see my nest Terry!

Hmm, usually rather hear that from an attractive girl Paul.

It all comes down to the concept of accurate vs musical, and it's a difficult discussion to have because many won't accept the idea.

A lot left out in the snippet I chose, all good points and completely germane to the topic.

But here is the (or at least my) point. I have always found that the more accurate the greater the musical enjoyment! This is what I can't quite wrap my head around. For me, the ONLY place 'musicality' can reside is on the recording! I simply don't 'get' the alternative argument, I can't think with it. Does not make any sense to me.

That get's a bit more complicated I spose when we (I) talk about adding salt to taste, on some tracks boost/cut the bass, treble, whatever. So I can see the lines getting a bit blurred. Having said that, adding a smooth bass boost say is a far cry from the usual ragged peaks and dips we come across. I have said it many times before, I think a lot of this confusion comes from different defintions of flat etc etc.

Still, here is the kicker. We ARE so influenced by our thoughts on haggis (good one whatmore) that it can be hard to evaluate these type of questions (coloured vs uncoloured-assuming we are using the same definitions) that a 'test'..straight away another cause of divisions possibly, we NEED a better word!!..of accurate vs non accurate done blind should help sort these things out.

YOU (the general you of course) sit in the LP and YOU flick the switch. You don't know which is which, so now you decide which presentation A or B gives a more musical result. I fail to comprehend how a highly coloured version can somehow lead you closer to the musicality on the recording. (again, talking these sudden peaks and dips, NOT a smooth change in FR depending on any given recording)

It could be that on one recording these peaks and dips magically coincide with the shortcomings of the recording, but on every recording??

Still, the upshot is the blank stare which such a suggestion receives is which is of significance.

So I think some of you guys have written such glowing reviews, that it's virtually impossible for Steven's (or any other) to live up to it. My expectations may have been a bit high, but I did go with an open mind, not really being sure what to expect. It's a bit like going to see a movie that has been raved about, it's setting you up for disappointment.

Yep, tis a hard one. I think that is where it fell down for me, I had built it up unfairly in me own head due to the reports.

Of course, with these things, there is no substitute for hearing things for yourself.

This is the thing I agree totally with. It would be very sad indeed if steven ended up with such a poor taste in his mouth that no longer could others hear it. That is the unfortunate part, and I hope it does not end up there. I hope that people are interested enough to hear it for themselves, and that steven continues to be happy to oblige.

It might be exactly the system for you, and if so then it just reinforces the best part about forums and being able to hear others systems.

And, if it is for you I have NO doubts steven will be happy to help you get there in any way he can.

[Drizt]

It's serious stuff here Drizt, we're playin' for cattle stations.
Me and the boys are ready.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]38082[/ATTACH]

ha, wow, that is pretty cool

[stevenvalve]

Ok, time for the bass into. The people i know with money and know how, often build two systems. one for vocal jazz blues, and one for classical. Why, they told me, because it is very difficult to get one system to play it all. When i listened to the classical music though their classical system it was indeed superb, as was the vocals on the vocal jazz blues system. but when i reversed it for some fun, the classical system playing vocal was bloated in the low mid particularly, its frequency was not flat at all. going to the vocal system with the classical it was lean thin without the weight needed for this kind of music. listening to classical in the flesh it soon become obvious that as the venue changed so did the sound, i soon realised there was no such thing as flat, this is probably one reason why some venues sound better than others, so i decided that i will try to recreate the sound i hear at the better venues but i had a real problem because axiom 80s are not the driver to use for classical, they are brilliant on Vocal blues jazz folk but do not have that right weight body fullness in the low mids that is needed. That is why i when for the vintage Altec 515 16 Cs, other drivers i considered, the vintage vitavox drivers , and better still the vintage 15 inch westrex western electric drivers, but the price for these is over the top, The altec fitted the bill because they are around $1200 for a mint pair, and are not just a bass driver but are a mid lower mid and bass driver. they do not play very low but that does not matter because classical music does not play very low either, I needed to run it up though the lower mid down, for the axiom80s, I needed a Fast driver, what i mean by fast is transient speed to move where it is told to in a lighting fast fashion and without the overhang of the modern low gauss basses that are to mostly to weak to have the control needed in an open baffle, it also had to blend in, sound the same, stop and start with military precision, also it has to sound natural so paper is good. Why an open baffle, simple Box colouration's, I knew without a box i will get less bass and it will not go as low, those attributes where not needed anyway, they had about the right db in the open baffle, (97db) could stop and start instantly, one of the few drivers that could, even without a box because of its powerful alnico magnets, and as a plus i had a separate amp to run it, and i could give it any amount of volume or a decrease as i liked. Why a 9mh coil, slow roll off, a gentle blending of the drivers, (I am a believer of less is more) it has given me the bloom weight fullness that i hear in real classical music. Have i got them perfect for this task, no, is it good yes. ultimately it a long term thing to get perfect. So to sum up the basses are not there to play lots of bass they are not sub woofers, but to give the classical music a kind of foundation a fullness swelling bloom at the frequency's i hear it at a real live concert, and will never sound right on small scale vocal. finally guys some advice weather you are in the measurement brigade or not camps, talk is cheap almost every audiophile is a know it all, with plenty of advice, Just look at the buy the latest and greatest DAC game on this forum. if you are building a system and need help, do not go via what you read or what the armchair experts tell you. go listen to many different varied systems, (and most importantly real music) till you find one you think is brilliant and lights your fire, now that owner is the guy you need to talk too. Paul has made me very aware of the almost fanatical rivalry of some audio heads, to the point some will not even be in the same room as each other, that is a very sad indictment of this hobby and the type of people i what no part off. Terry your system, i have no doubt plays the type of music you listen too very well, and that's all that matters. Now as osmillsy said, i will now have a long self appointed break from SNA and get a life.

[kajak12]

This one intrigues me just a little.






At least Rawl holds his position on the deqx from (as I understand it) a personal experience. That then is completely fine. Others however, who have not come within cooee of the unit can only hold their position from 'what others have told them' (again, I always stress find out for yourself) OR from some sort of theoretical objection, an affront to the way one understands 'the way it should be'.

Oh the dirty word deqx terry j yes i have heard a system at the show with a deqx complete system worth over 150k makes great sound falls short on timbre,texture and tonality.................... (fluffy words to you terry j)
ps: i have read on a forum that you own the worlds most accurate speakers hmmmmmmmmmmmm your a genius

[Paul Spencer]

Thanks for elaborating Steven, it gives us an idea of where you are coming from. Interesting approach to think about the sound of concert venues, it's a unique approach.

[Whatmore]

if you are building a system and need help, do not go via what you read or what the armchair experts tell you. go listen to many different varied systems, (and most importantly real music) till you find one you think is brilliant and lights your fire, now that owner is the guy you need to talk too.

+1 well said

[Paul Spencer]

Oh the dirty word deqx terry j yes i have heard a system at the show with a deqx complete system worth over 150k makes great sound falls short on timbre,texture and tonality.................... (fluffy words to you terry j)
ps: i have read on a forum that you own the worlds most accurate speakers hmmmmmmmmmmmm your a genius

Mario, Terry has already responded to that one, have a look at his last reply.

[Drizt]

Oh the dirty word deqx terry j yes i have heard a system at the show with a deqx complete system worth over 150k makes great sound falls short on timbre,texture and tonality.................... (fluffy words to you terry j)
ps: i have read on a forum that you own the worlds most accurate speakers hmmmmmmmmmmmm your a genius

Hmmmm. What to say, bewildered.

What about stevens comments of being the best of the best ?

[Whatmore]

just to clarify, I did not say you could not comment, rather that if you comment without experience then that needs to be clear.

Helps put things into perspective.

Actually, the food example is an excellent one, was thinking about that earlier tbh. I was using 'snails' in my head, think haggis could be a better example tho!

So yeah, that is but one example which kinda applies. TELL the guy you are serving haggis, then any/all previous considerations come into full play. NOTHING to do with the taste (sound) agreed?

However, just serve up a good meal and he'd probably ask for seconds (in this example). THEN tell him what it was, and he'd probably throw up haha.

In any case, let's take your extrapolate. That in itself implies SOME sort of familiarity, something to extrapolate from. Surely?? Your starting point of steven knowing what he does thereby implying he can extrapolate from it, well back to the example (which may or may not apply, we simply don't know) about time alignment. How, until you check that time alignment can you know if it will improve or worsen any given trait? In this example, he has nothing to extrapolate from!

However, if for whatever reason you arbitrarily decide that 'time alignment is of no importance' then there is your answer. It is NOT based on any actual reality of whether it is important or not is it. It is simply something you decide not to check.

Let me be clear, there is nothing wrong as such with that, when applied to your own system and your own tastes. But it sure as hell is NOT ok to state it in such a blanket fashion that falsifies the truth or otherwise of it. For all I care you can state that you think the moon is made of green cheese. As long as you say that is what you believe. Once you go past that and try to represent it as having some sort of external truth, well you'd better be prepared to justify the statement.

It is all back to the 'problem' that lies under most audio arguments. Most of the time it is simply received wisdom, adopted because of some reason..the guy is a writer for an audiophile rag or whatever, yet never examined.

Look at almost every suggestion I have made in this thread, 'let's test this' or 'let's test that'. Utter apathy. That's ok, but for chrissake stop promoting the stuff you know absolutely nothing about and are too 'cowardly' to check.

Back to the haggis for a sec....

I think the food analogy is imperfect (as are all analogies) but worth exploring. The enjoyment of food is similar in many ways to that of music. The pure taste of the food is only one factor. Company, environment, presentation etc all effect the experience. Indeed we are very easily fooled when it comes to food. For instance, it's known that people will spend more money on ice cream if it is packaged in a cylindrical tub rather than the bog standard Peter's rectangular one. Also, people are surprisingly bad at tasting the difference between foods in blind tests - even between red and white wine.

I don't think that means that we should only eat blandly presented food with our eyes shut, or never go to expensive restaurants. Food like music, is a primal thing and its enjoyment is about so much more than the rational only (same for music). So yes, the visual appeal of a set of speakers is important to me. My turntable doesn't sound quite as good as my CD player but I can't be bothered spending a lot of time setting it up properly - I get so much enjoyment out of the experience of putting on a record (setting the needle hissing in the groove) that the sound quality isn't the deciding factor.

Now, I promised more haggis...
Let's turn the analogy around a bit and put ourselves in the place of the chef (the person putting the system together). Cooking is just chemistry that you eat, right?
Long before we had any understanding of the chemistry of haggis, the reason why it should be cooked at a particular temperature to denature (or not) the proteins, the particular combination of hydrocarbons that makes it so yummy, long before this, people were making haggis. Very good haggis no doubt. How is it possible? How did the Stradivaris make violins without being able to measure the resonant frequencies of the wood they used? What do violins have to do with haggis? Strings, guts, got it? Good.

So, is it possible for a chef to make a delicious dish with absolutely no understanding of chemistry and possibly even no instruments for measuring anything? The answer is, obviously, yes. So why is it not possible for Steven and others to make their systems delicious?

[jerry tones]

Oh the dirty word deqx terry j yes i have heard a system at the show with a deqx complete system worth over 150k makes great sound falls short on timbre,texture and tonality.................... (fluffy words to you terry j)
ps: i have read on a forum that you own the worlds most accurate speakers hmmmmmmmmmmmm your a genius

funny how CRAP TAKES A LIFE OF IT'S OWN EH? (sorry, caps lock)

yep, fluffy words to me. Can you articulate it mario? It simply means what each mean it to mean, they hardly translate.

You read it on a forum?? Ok then, give us the link. Else it sound like yet another bandwagon being jumped upon. You do know what that means? Hmmmmmmmm, why do we get the crazy idea that all of these 'responses' have been organised behind the scenes? For the first time ever, steven comes up with this sh1t, now you? Hmmmmmmmmmmm

so, enough with this 'ps' crap, it is obvious that you are dancing to a tune. Hint, be yourself eh?

I was gonna let it all slide, thanks for the response steve. Hint, look up the concept of punctuation, maybe even grammar and spelling. I struggled thru, I THINK I got the gist of it (can't be completely sure tho).

Anyway, back to the things left unsaid. Was that some sort of acknowledgement that you had it wrong about the subs before? Can you explain why I should be a writer for stereophile? What about my thoughts re 'why it is that the things you liked were not at the show'? Is there anything in the thread to date that made you wonder if measurements might help or not?

Could you expand a tad on the following comment of yours... finally guys some advice weather you are in the measurement brigade or not camps, talk is cheap almost every audiophile is a know it all, with plenty of advice, Just look at the buy the latest and greatest DAC game on this forum. (sic)...I always thought it was the younguns that butchered the english language with text speak and appalling spelling. Anyway, could you marry up that thought of yours with the setting up of a dedicated forum that celebrates the amazing killerdac? (please forgo your self appointed break from SNA to answer these question that you yourself have raised..to not do that would seem a cop out no?)

[proftournesol]

keep it civil fellas or I'll make you all eat haggis:D

[Drizt]

Do people actually eat haggis on a regular basis?

[proftournesol]

Do people actually eat haggis on a regular basis?

yes, but never by choice!

[jerry tones]

Back to the haggis for a sec....

why not, it was better than my snails!

I think the food analogy is imperfect (as are all analogies) but worth exploring. The enjoyment of food is similar in many ways to that of music. The pure taste of the food is only one factor. Company, environment, presentation etc all effect the experience. Indeed we are very easily fooled when it comes to food. For instance, it's known that people will spend more money on ice cream if it is packaged in a cylindrical tub rather than the bog standard Peter's rectangular one. Also, people are surprisingly bad at tasting the difference between foods in blind tests - even between red and white wine.

Indeed, and I will take 'as read' a lot of your points. Exaceractactly with audio too. In many cases what we SEE influences our perceptions. This is not a sticking point is it?

however, when on an audio forum we are talking SOUND are we not? Who bothers to take the time to say 'of course, what I perceived may have been influended by the 'look''? Look italicised to encompass 'know'.

Food like music, is a primal thing and its enjoyment is about so much more than the rational only (same for music).

Of course, so make that clear.

Now, I promised more haggis...

love the haggis!

Let's turn the analogy around a bit and put ourselves in the place of the chef (the person putting the system together). Cooking is just chemistry that you eat, right?
Long before we had any understanding of the chemistry of haggis, the reason why it should be cooked at a particular temperature to denature (or not) the proteins, the particular combination of hydrocarbons that makes it so yummy, long before this, people were making haggis. Very good haggis no doubt. How is it possible? How did the Stradivaris make violins without being able to measure the resonant frequencies of the wood they used? What do violins have to do with haggis? Strings, guts, got it? Good.

Natch. But are you trying to suggest that ALL haggis that was cooked was equally delicious? What if (what is a good scottish name BTW?) Hamish's haggis was far better than (?) Egberts haggis? Well, maybe on closer inspection we find that hamish marinated his haggis at 50 degrees for four hours when egbert just threw it in the pot?

I get your point, and not for one second have I tried to suggest steves system is not for 'you', this latest round of debate came about because of shortcomings indentified by steven, a series of 'what ifs' relating to his own, and others that like his system, opinions regarding such factors as the integration of his 'subs'.

I don't get this artificial juxtaposition of measurements vs listening. They are hand and glove.

So, is it possible for a chef to make a delicious dish with absolutely no understanding of chemistry and possibly even no instruments for measuring anything? The answer is, obviously, yes. So why is it not possible for Steven and others to make their systems delicious?

Probably already covered. The thing that seems to have been forgotten is that steven himself has identified shortcomings with the integration of his components. It matters little to me personally, but when we see ad hoc arguments like 'no one system can do it all' or 'there is no such thing as flat because it all changes depending on what we play, classical or blues jazz' it simply cries out that things are being made up to justify what is going on.

You like it that way? Fine, stick with it. But don't keep bringing up things made out of whole cloth as if it were gospel. At least have the courage of your convictions and find out if it is true or not.

That the net is full of self appointed experts has never been truer.

[kajak12]

funny how CRAP TAKES A LIFE OF IT'S OWN EH? (sorry, caps lock)

yep, fluffy words to me. Can you articulate it mario? It simply means what each mean it to mean, they hardly translate.

To refresh your memory mario, I don't bother with words like tonality because who can pin it down? Admittedly how can you pin down ANY of the words, but tonality I guess I object to because it is so overused and smacks of audiophile wankery (to me) and because it is so, well fluffy. It can (and does) mean different things to different people. taken from dtv http://www.dtvforum....92538-2500.html
You wrote the word fluffy (funny word terry j)
Oh the famous words worlds most accurate speakerswhen i have time i will find it too busy with hifi helping people in my spare time,don't worry terry j i am sure plenty have read it,the really funny thing is a sna member first told me about it he actually thought it was really funny
I don't dance terry j i just play the music and watch others dance got a bit of spare time so lets boogie

[ozcal]

Do people actually eat haggis on a regular basis?

Yup , sure do , it's very tasty .Never eaten one made in the traditional sheeps stomach though

[proftournesol]

Yup , sure do , it's very tasty .Never eaten one made in the traditional sheeps stomach though

poor ozcal, what did you do wrong to deserve such regular punishment?

[Jehuty]

Keep it civil....? Almost impossible with deqx dbt brigades around, DTV and AVS forums are the examples. And on top of that,xxxxx assosiates... God help us all

Edited by proftournesol, 20 November 2011 - 10:10 PM.
name removed

[proftournesol]

almost impossible..... but not impossible:)

[Jehuty]

Good luck prof.

[56oval]

. And on top of that, nigel's assosiates...

I rather be an assosiate than a (not nice comment) .

Cheers

Edited by proftournesol, 20 November 2011 - 10:16 PM.