Bryoncunningham, you said on the other thread, " A subjectivist does not believe in objective truth." I cannot speak to other subjectivists, or more accurately those who put an emphasis on listening to make the judgment of whether they like a component, but I do believe in "objective truth."
My career was forty-five years as a researching social scientist. I constantly assessed hypotheses, such as whether states that adopted a policy to cope with a social problem improved the problem. This included whether states with concealed handgun laws had less crime. I would say that is "objective truth."
When it comes to audio, however, I would imagine that it would be very difficult to find agreement as to what objective measures might be used to assess which speaker is better. It is easy to assess frequency response, phase correctness, and dispersion. Perhaps we could even agree about distortion. Were we to then choose the ten best speakers and conduct listening sessions, I doubt that we would have any agreement about which is best. The reason is we are missing too much of what makes a speaker better and don't share opinions about these other attributes, much less having the capability to measure them. For example, in my opinion planar speakers don't imagine worth a damn. How do you measure imaging?
Harkening to my profession, choosing the most neutral, best, etc. speaker is like assessing the quality of public policy making by state legislatures. Fortunately, in audio, all we need to do is listen and buy what we like. Granted that access to listening is greatly reduced thanks to fewer and fewer dealers and more and more different manufacturers, but who is to argue that if someone like speaker X, they are wrong?
I totally agree with your concluding sentence. |
Roysen, I am at a loss as to what you are saying in this post. You say, "Nothing is neutral in regards to audio playback." How can the concept "neutral" have any utility, if what you argue is true?" |
Roysen, we are communicating but I have no comprehension of why you say what you do. Your argument again that "So neutral is not subjective" just makes no sense to me.
It is probably best that we just leave it there. |
Jorn, once again I don't understand the statement that neutrality is objective. I agree that comparing what goes in with what comes out is "neutral." However, as you admit frequency response is a measure but is necessary not sufficient for neutrality. Were we to have digital information on both what goes in and what comes out, we could have a correspondence measure that would get at this, but I don't think anyone does this. Instead they listen. This is a very sensitive measure but is typically rejected by "objectivists" as too subjective, as some listeners will not like a speaker and standing beside them another person will. |
Holenneck, no I don't misunderstand. There is much that we know about how to design speakers, such as a good frequency response, wide dispersion, and sometime good phase consistency. But as Jorn suggests speakers with these good characteristics don't sound alike. Of course going further is subjective and it is somewhat more than guesswork. Please don't persist in the nonsense that we know enough to make perfect speakers. We don't have anywhere near perfect drivers, and there are severe costs to weigh in choices of parts.
I know objectivists always want to believe there is no guesswork in any audio component, but the reality is that our ears are the only real guidance we have. I am obviously very impressed with some designer's work and believe others come up short. |
Holenneck, you refuse to understand what I am saying and to exaggerate what benefit we can get from measurement. I said, "As I said repeatedly, measures of frequency response, phase, and dispersion are goals and used. But there is much beyond this and that is where listening comes into play. I have personally experienced designers coming to grips with their prototypes that meet the measurement criteria but fail to sound good."
Yes, I might say that you just don't get it. I certainly agree that designers do balance many things in designing their speakers and the paths they follow are many. Seemingly you believe on one hand that there is a simple solution to good design and on the other that designers follow different paths. I cannot resolve this confusion on your part. Sorry! |
Wadav, I have only heard one good sounding Magico, the V3.
I have no idea relative to your second question.
The sweetspot with the Tidals as with all speakers is speaker width, toe-in, your room, cabling, and room treatment determined. I have a very broad sound stage. |
Roysen, You say, "Please then imagine there existed a single measurement tool which shows neutrality. This measurement would undoubtably have shown the same degree of neutrality with or without listeners. That is a fact and not subjective." All that I really can say is that I entirely agree, but this is unimaginable.
That is my entire point. Were we to have such a measure, there would not be thousands of manufacturers or any point to discussions about speakers on Audiogon. The real question is what happens if we lack that measurement. |
Bryoncunningham, the Munich audio show is going on now with many listening to quality speakers and deciding which sound better. Jorn may not respond quickly. |
Argyro, I agree. I have the BMC M1 amps and play them at somewhere in the range of 53-59 on their volume. Most others who have them place at no more than the 49, including on 86 db efficient speakers. What is the efficiency of the Contriva Diacera SEs? Is it in the low 80s? |
Quanmer, that is what I was thinking, but the volume relative to the 86 db speakers suggests much lower. |
Quanmer, I am in no way saying that I dislike my Tidals. It is also possible that I am playing them loudly because they can take it and the signal I am sending is so clean. I am just trying to understand why I am playing a such a much higher level than other guys I know, none of whom have Tidals.
Incidentally, I substituted a wall outlet that has given me what appears to be a 6 db increase in volume. I cannot really understand where this energy was going in the old outlet, as it was not hot. I am told that the new outlet, from Sound Applications, has much higher conductivity. |
Argyro, I have never heard of an outlet capable of doing this but this is what I measure. I'm dumbfounded, but it does relieve me of my concerns about the low volume. |
Shsohis, much depends on the electronics and wire associated with the speakers as well as the room. Fortunately, Tidals show what precedes them. If your dealers makes no effort to audition them well, that is his problem. |
Elviukai, I will not enter into a discussion of which speaker is most sensitive to associate equipment. All I will say is that some equipment make the Tidals sing. I know my preferences for speakers do not coincide with those that regularly get the nomination in the rags as "best of the show," so I can only reiterate what I said, I don't know why a Tidal dealer would undercut how they sound. Perhaps it is his not having access to better, perhaps it is profit margins, etc., but I have heard the Tidals not sound good at shows as well as them sounding outstanding, so much so that I decided to bite the bullet and buy them. |
Bases on a review by Jeff Fritz of SoundStage, many are claiming that there is a new king of the hill in speakers, the Magico Q3 in a thread by that title. In my opinion the Magico Q3 is very good but not the equal of my Tidal Contriva Diacera SEs, but I am somewhat biased as, with the exception of the V3, I have never liked Magicos and have always been mystified by other reviewers raving about them. I guess one shoe doesn't fit all feet. If you want to be further perplexed read Jeff's review of the Piano Ceras and then the Q3 review. |
Maceear, Long ago I read your comments on the Zilplexes. I got a set in for review and must say on my rereading your comments I totally agee about the walls disappearing. They are amazing little devices all working in harmony. |
Calloway, I certainly have not heard a large range of amps on my Contriva Diacera SEs, but I was both very unimpressed and very impressed with the BAlabi BP-1 Power amps on Tidal Sunrays. The first be in CES 2010 and the second in CES 2011. Perhaps this was the difference between the Mk I and Mk II. I bought them having heard them on the Ypsilon prototype DHT mono SET tube amps using the Russian GM70 tubes with their present PST 100 preamp. This was overwhelmingly good in my opinion and lead directly to my buying the speakers. I don't remember what the power of these tube amps but with this tube it should be over 30 watts. I have also used the BMC Amp M1s that do 200 watts into 8 ohms. I wanted to get the Ypsilon Aelius hybrid, mono blocks with 220 watts into 8 ohms but could not afford them. I have been very happy with the BMC and they are still getting better. Finally, I heard the Tidal electronics on the Tidal Piano Cera speakers (I think). They sound was okay.
I think all of these experiences make believe I will live with the BMC as still getting better. |
Calloway, I wish I could have heard that comparison. Thanks. |
Bostonbean, I guess you must have had good seats at the concert hall. |
Argyro, I think 50 watts from a tube amp can be very powerful, but I certainly agree with your statement, "Actually you never understand when a speaker is underdriven until you hear it properly driven!" I certainly have not had the opportunity to hear all the amps you have, however. All that I can really say is that my Contrivas Dicera SEs have responded well to the power of the BMC M1's and clearly revealed slight tweaks in my system, including putting the StillPoints Ultra SSs under them. |
Focalfan, I think many of the Sunrays available are the result of changes in the US importer and Tidal dealers. I have heard these speakers and all that deters me is their price and size.
Your characterization of their sound was true in my hearing of them in the '10 CES, but absolutely not in the '11 CES. They reveal the electronics driving them and cabling. This is also true of the Contriva Diacera SEs, which I own. I hear none of the "characteristics of ceramic drivers" in my home or at the last CES with the Sunrays.
I have never been impressed with any of the Magico speakers and just cannot stand the Q5s at all. The Gamuts do impress me, but not enough to buy them.
However, I always believe that people's tastes, associated electronics, rooms, etc. make one person's opinions, even reviewers, irrelevant or at least demand the warning that this is only your or my experience. |
Ojdeteos, not that I could afford the Sunrays, but I have had the Contriva Diacera SEs for about a year and a half and have heard the Sunrays sound both great and poor with the BAlabo amps in two CES shows. I would imagine that in a large room the Sunrays would excel. I think they sound very much the same. There are several pairs of Sunrays for sale at great prices. I haven't seen Contriva Diacera SEs for a long time. |
Maceear, at the 2010 CES Jörn told me he uses the Contriva Diacera SEs, not that this matters much to me. The Sunrays are just too damn big! |
Focalfan, "However, as audiophiles well know, perception and sonic reality are often unrelated, and the Sunrays definitely excel at the latter. I doubt that a potential buyer lost in the music that pours forth will hesitate because of what's beneath the gleaming surface of the Sunrays." "There were truly special qualities to the Sunray's treble and midrange, at least for those of us who value a natural, unhyped portrayal with lavish detail."
I think Bostonbean is right. Perhaps you are biased for some reason. |
Ojdeteos, I think you can biamp the Sunrays. If so, you could use two pair of the BMC M1s. Certainly on my Contrivas, one pair shows no evidence of lacking power. |
Focalfan and Ojdeteos, yes, I was tempted by the BMC speaker at CES. It is also cheaper. I really am, however, just testing the market. If the Tidals don't sell, I will be most happy to live with them. |
Linkster, not really. It would be expensive and I don't expect it would make much difference. |
Focalfan, thanks for your opinion. |
Focalfan, I still think very highly of the Tidals and their ceramic drivers. I know people's whose ears I respect who hear the sound of ceramic drivers. I don't. But I do on other ceramic driver speakers. I have thought about selling my Tidals, however but not because I don't like them any longer. Were I to do so, I would probably buy the new BMC Arcadia speaker, which does not use ceramic drivers. |
Focalfan, sorry I cannot agree with you about any of this. Good luck. |
Johngp, you are right on the money. |
Johngp, unfortunately for a multitude of reasons, my Tidals are sitting and awaiting shipping to their new owner. Presently, I am using LSA1 Statements, a monitor speaker that costs less than $3000. These are what I use in my small room in our NM mountain house. Although they are an exceptional speaker for the money, they are not the Contriva Diacera SEs, especially on symphonic music. |
Johngp, just this week I ordered a pair of the BMC Arcadia speakers. I had been using little LSA1 Statement speakers, such as I use in my small room in NM where I avoid Texas summer heat. Frankly, I miss my Contrivas, but the LSAs are very close. I had heard the Arcadias at CES in prototype and with no breakin before the show. I was struck by their dynamics early on and as they broke in, I was very impressed.
But they like the Contrivas are heavy and my listening room in Texas is on the second floor. I have to get movers to get the speakers into my room. With the LSAs, I can carry them into my room myself. I finally decided to go ahead with the Arcadias. This will probably be the last big speakers I buy. |
Linkster, I didn't see Tidal at CES. Were they there? |
Calloway, I think the Ultra Fives having five of the "technology" units versus one in the Ultra SSs, is the key. The Five have five time the vibration absorption. The LPI record weight is really the Five without a base. It is not better science, it is more of the same science.
I should add that four Ultra Fives under speakers or components than three. I am told that five sounds even better. If you try four, you need to make certain that all need to be in contact. This is since three points define a plain, so one is likely to be too low.
I have used them on carpeted and wooden floors with no apparent differences. I think the weight and the weight of the component, plus the conversion of vertical to horizontal motion that is turned into heat works on either. |
Calloway, when you get it, do the experiment of one being longer, which will mean that one will not be in contact. I should say that with the Ultra Five, unless they are screwed into something, such as a speaker, the Ultra foot, or the StillPoints Grid or their Component stand, there is no easy way to raise and lower them. A slim shim of metal will work. It will give you a quick test of three versus four. |
Linkster, is there a US distributor? Tell us why you are so interested in the G2s. |
