Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

beaty vs accuracy through M40.1,Revolutions,electrostatics

Expand Messages
  • ddm261125
    As my sonata partner pianist said about them (playing piano music) They are like reality, except perhaps even more beautiful . (quote from regs message #
    Message 1 of 2 , May 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      As my sonata partner pianist said about
      them (playing piano music)
      "They are like reality, except perhaps even more beautiful".

      (quote from regs message # 38034)

      The best one sentence description of the Harbeth M40.1s !

      I really wanted to keep them staying in my place, but always had a sensation while listening to them (especially on piano and the wind instruments music) that they give more beaty then it is in reality!
      That is the reason i continue keeping the Revolutions,finding them more accurate,at least for me.
      BTW, regarding the e.statics, used to have both the Innersound Eros (mk2 version with analog crossover),esl63 and esl57.
      Dumped both the Eros and the 63s as they did not sound 'naturally relaxed' to me (contrary to the esl57s while more innacurrate do sound more listenable and relaxed).
    • Robert
      Just to put this in perspective, she was listening to a Dorian recording (Rangell playing the Goldberg Variations on the piano) which is spaced omni and
      Message 2 of 2 , May 1, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Just to put this in perspective, she was
        listening to a Dorian recording (Rangell
        playing the Goldberg Variations on the piano)
        which is spaced omni and recorded in Troy Savings
        Bank Hall, a very flattering place.
        I do not think that M40s really do much if any editorializing
        in the direction of beautiful-but that recording does!
        The M40.1s are a different story. More midrange, less
        presence relatively, a somewhat more idiosyncratic sound
        to my ears(cf TMs measurements of the M40s versus M40.1s).

        Of course one also has to factor into this picture that almost
        ALL recordings are balanced wrong. It is hard to find one
        that isbalanced right if right means as in the concert hall.

        Neutrality in the sense of absence of resonant coloration is
        definitely needed--otherwise you start to hear the signature
        of your speakers laid over everything. But it is I think
        not really reasonable to suppose that the balance overall of
        one speaker (among speakers that are not outrageously wrong)
        is somehow more realistic --or even more true to the source material --than another.

        This point never seems to come through. I say it often enough
        but people do not see to believe it.

        One more try: There is NO agreement on what a speaker should sound
        like in overall bottom to top balance. There is no standard so there is no sense in saying that one speaker meets the standard better than another.

        Look at it rhis way. There are serious speakers with more or less flat power response. There are speakers with constant directivity in other words, e.g. Don Keele's design.
        There are serious speakers where the power response slope by 10 dB from bottom to top, by design. Indeed the latter has been
        proposed as a sort of standard by Toole et al.
        There are dipoles, there are dipoles tapered in the top end(Quad), there are speakers that are omni in the bass and shift to forward primarily somewhere or another. And so it goes on and on and on.

        None of these sound like the others. What are you "supposed" to listen to? There is NO ANSWER to that question. Most people agree
        that
        1 things ought to be smooth--abrupt changes in frequency response and /or power response sound colored.
        2 On axis ought to be pretty flat across the midrange broadly conceived--except that of course people do not really believe that ,many of them since lots of speakers have a bit too much 1k and a dip above that and so on, contoured response for one reason or another, and they do this ON PURPOSE.
        3 Most people think there ought to be some bass but not huge booming quantities of it.

        But once you get beyond that, and even there people do not really agree, there is no exact standard. And since the people who made the recordings did not have speakers with exact standards either, there is in fact not even an exact de facto standard of what the engineer expected you to hear.

        Most of the time when audiophiles say that one speaker is more accurate than another which sound prettier, what they mean is that one of the speakers is leaner and/or more topp than the other.
        Usually leaner is wrong in musical terms--really music is typically warmer than recorded music. And toppier is almost always wrong since real music, live audience-location music--has a very subdued top end indeed.

        In short, "accurate" is a very tricky word once you get beyond uncolored midrange. In the midrange and in the direct arrival in the top, there is some reasonable standard. Beyond that, your choice--why you need things to be adjustable!

        By now, I think not to be able and willing to adjust is a bit off the mark. Even if there were a standard of "accuracy" it would be masochistic to force one's self to adhere to it since the recordings are not made that way in the first place.

        All this is of course in the context of speakers that are not entirely crazy! Lots of speakers are demonstrably wrong. But there is no such thing as being demonstrably right! because the generalized standards of reasonable behavior are not even close to being definite at the level of where people can tell things apart.

        Generally, get your midrange flat and neutral sounding--that is well defined though not easy to do. This amounts in practice pretty much to getting pink noise to sound as it should. Make sure you have enough bass and low mid--music does, most audio does not.
        Make sure you do not have too much top end. (Music has rather little, and almost none in the reverberant field).

        That will sound reasonable and something like music on most recordings that are not outrageously bad.

        But if you are listening to something that sounds less beautiful to you because you think it is more accurate.... well, that seems to me not sensible.

        However, for whatever it is worth, in my experience correctly adjusted and placed Gradient Revolutions sound beautiful indeed.
        So do Harbeth M40s. The differences seem to me within the tolerance
        level of the standards , such as they are. This was not an anti Revolution screed! One should pick on
        preference in my opinion, not on some idea of accuracy(which does not really exist). And the preference may for example depend on what you listen to. It might also (especially in the bass) depend on what your room is like, unless you are going to do what you should, namely EQ the bass to suit the room.

        To paraphrase Patrick Henry
        "Gentlemen may cry 'Truth, truth'. But there is no truth".

        Disconcerting no doubt, but just think about the fact that the experts on speakers range from advocacy of flat power to advocacy of 10 dB rolloff of power from bottom to top. Some absolute truth, right?
        Smooth is good, adjustable makes sense, neutral mids are well defined though not widely available, plenty of bass and not too much top sounds like music. After that....

        REG

        --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "ddm261125" <ddm261125@...> wrote:
        >
        > As my sonata partner pianist said about
        > them (playing piano music)
        > "They are like reality, except perhaps even more beautiful".
        >
        > (quote from regs message # 38034)
        >
        > The best one sentence description of the Harbeth M40.1s !
        >
        > I really wanted to keep them staying in my place, but always had a sensation while listening to them (especially on piano and the wind instruments music) that they give more beaty then it is in reality!
        > That is the reason i continue keeping the Revolutions,finding them more accurate,at least for me.
        > BTW, regarding the e.statics, used to have both the Innersound Eros (mk2 version with analog crossover),esl63 and esl57.
        > Dumped both the Eros and the 63s as they did not sound 'naturally relaxed' to me (contrary to the esl57s while more innacurrate do sound more listenable and relaxed).
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.