Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chane L Series Interest Thread and List

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by BufordTJustice View Post

    Just run them full range and be responsible. You’ll be fine. 😊👍

    I’m excited to hear what you think!!
    Thanks ! I can’t wait. Sadly FedEx delivered just 1 of the 3 boxes today, the L3C so it looks like tomorrow on the L3s

    Comment


    • Originally posted by copperhorse73 View Post

      Thanks ! I can’t wait. Sadly FedEx delivered just 1 of the 3 boxes today, the L3C so it looks like tomorrow on the L3s
      I work for a large company that you’ve heard of. I can tell you that all shippers/couriers are doing very poorly with any performance related metric. Part of the reason my employer is building more and more of their own delivery network.

      Comment


      • Since things are pretty slow here (thought we'd see more input from those already receiving the L3/L3c's...)...

        I know Chane isn't a strictly by the measurement/graph company, but what importance does Chane put on off axis frequency response, especially for the L series? I know certain companies want their speakers to measure (and hopefully sound) very similar off axis to on. Everyone's room is different, but I would think having the off axis response very similar to the direct sound would be a good thing. That way shifting in your seat or making a small change to the room wouldn't have a large effect on the sound.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Spidacat View Post
          ...what importance does Chane put on off axis frequency response, especially for the L series? I know certain companies want their speakers to measure (and hopefully sound) very similar off axis to on. Everyone's room is different, but I would think having the off axis response very similar to the direct sound would be a good thing. That way shifting in your seat or making a small change to the room wouldn't have a large effect on the sound.
          I'm going to be a little ambiguous here, but we value consistent dispersion provided getting it isn't detrimental, which it can be. In other words, in the hierarchy of priorities, dispersion for its own sake isn't central to the better-sounding design type.

          Fortunately we don't have to make compromises because good sound generally comes from a speaker with good axial consistency (or "acoustical power response"). It just doesn't come because of it. I wrote a bunch of stuff about the potential perils of relying on simple amplitude response respectability elsewhere in the forum - I suggest remembering that when we assume that a speaker measures a certain way what we're generally referring to is only its amplitude response. There's another half dozen ways to measure output behaviors.

          There is also a subjective list of priorities (mine is about a dozen long) that influence not only that amplitude behavior but the other behaviors too, and the sum of all of them add up to deliver the actual sound in the space.

          Like I said, ambiguous. I can't explain the whole package here but the short answer to your question is that good axial uniformity is the core of the design provided the rest of the design is suitable, and with a lot of other stuff already present in it. And good power response uniformity is generally carried along too.

          Comment


          • This makes sense, and I understand/believe that measurements are not the full measure of a speakers performance. I also get that speaker design must be about trade-offs, to some extent.

            I will say though that I would feel better pulling the trigger for a purchase if measurements were available so that I could see something about the on and off-axis response.



            Comment


            • Originally posted by Spidacat View Post
              Since things are pretty slow here (thought we'd see more input from those already receiving the L3/L3c's...)...

              I know Chane isn't a strictly by the measurement/graph company, but what importance does Chane put on off axis frequency response, especially for the L series? I know certain companies want their speakers to measure (and hopefully sound) very similar off axis to on. Everyone's room is different, but I would think having the off axis response very similar to the direct sound would be a good thing. That way shifting in your seat or making a small change to the room wouldn't have a large effect on the sound.
              That entire school of thought is completely dependent upon a broad, categorical assumption: that the reflectivity/absorption coefficient of all common household materials are substantially the same as each other, at every frequency.

              But that’s the opposite of what’s true; we see vast differences in absorption across the frequency spectrum for many common materials in US homes alone. This doesn’t even comprehend the storage and re-release of energy in the home across the time domain (resonance) that can be hugely affected by something as simple as the stud spacing in your walls, or between 3/8” and 1/2” and 5/8” Sheetrock. Or a common cotton curtain. Or Windows (double vs single pane?). Or window treatments like vertical or horizontal blinds. Or the amount of thermal insulation inside the walls. The manner in which that insulation is secured in place. Is the wall an exterior or interior wall. Is one side wall completely missing. What phase shift occurs across the FR spectrum for each of these materials. Does this phase shift change with distance.

              So, is it preferable to have relatively even off axis response? Sure it is? Is it necessary for good sound? There’s been very little data to support that categorical assertion as applied in the real world.

              Coming from a full voting AES member and industry professional.

              Comment


              • Don’t take this the wrong way, but your response makes me wonder if maybe the off-axis response is not great.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mtmpenn View Post
                  Don’t take this the wrong way, but your response makes me wonder if maybe the off-axis response is not great.
                  Not hardly. It’s fine.

                  It just doesn’t matter as much as you may think it does. Your contention, though likely fully unintentional, amounts to a Kafkatrap.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mtmpenn View Post
                    This makes sense, and I understand/believe that measurements are not the full measure of a speakers performance. I also get that speaker design must be about trade-offs, to some extent.
                    As tests of concept, I've done direct comparisons between textbook approaches and those we ultimately put into our models. The latter are convincingly more realistic and authentic sounding. The initial theory behind both is a foregone conclusion - ours included because they are just as deliberate - but it's the clearly audible effect I ultimately go with. That effect is the product of theory on the front end and a huge amount of optimizing and frankly, subjective tuning on the back end.

                    I'm letting the chips that matter fall where they may, and I'm also willfully deviating from the very rough predictive ability of mikes and charts in order to find the seamlessness we're looking for. When it clicks it's clearly evident and undeniable.

                    That doesn't mean our approach is shared by or resembles any other, and it doesn't mean it's not either. It just means the approach has specific goals and they don't center on the basics many of us assume are key. Those goals are always in there, but they're not primary - the direct A/B consistently proves it.

                    Originally posted by Mtmpenn View Post
                    I will say though that I would feel better pulling the trigger for a purchase if measurements were available so that I could see something about the on and off-axis response.
                    I understand that. Any consumer wants verification. However, ours is in the final effect in the MLP and I've not yet found any of it in a rough abstract account by the mike, either in simple terms or in complex power terms. I also understand that the era of cheap data has produced that market demand and that it's seen as the scientific approach to sound. In fact, it'd be much easier, from a sales standpoint, to resort to it and then pepper the web with this data, knowing it'd sell.

                    The problem is that it's neither sufficiently developed - as it's casually used, anyway - or sufficiently granular. It's like making the driving experience hinge on the dynomometer or fuel mileage. They're real too and they're data, but they're not seat of the pants. Audio is a seat of the pants thing - if it sounds good, as a notable audio scientist once said (and a hundred more nodded) then it is good. That doesn't mean it doesn't measure "good" in the least; it means the mike can't do in serial data-logging what the ear can in very sophisticated, instantaneous perception.

                    And it is, after all, the ear we're working for here.

                    Comment


                    • I certainly am not trying to set a trap! I recognize that measurements are imperfect and what makes a speaker sound good is complicated. At the end of the day though, I am the sort of consumer that wants more info. Whether or not I can interpret that info is certainly questionable...

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mtmpenn View Post
                        I certainly am not trying to set a trap! I recognize that measurements are imperfect and what makes a speaker sound good is complicated. At the end of the day though, I am the sort of consumer that wants more info. Whether or not I can interpret that info is certainly questionable...
                        No problem. I think BTJ may refer to the instinct to doubt the desired acoustical effect because certain sales collateral isn't included.

                        Bear in mind that countless speakers have reams of data behind them but one in ten makers publish it. Audio is for the ear, after all, and not including data isn't an indicator that it doesn't exist. Like us, it's probably because so many of us know it's not comprehensive, definitive, or especially, well understood and interpreted. We end up looking at simple amplitude to such a degree that it biases us, potentially away from better sound should that particular speaker actually sound more realistic. Amplitude has indeed become marketable collateral.

                        For this reason and others we offer a in-home trial. Meanwhile online reviews relate directly to sound, or at least should.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Mtmpenn View Post
                          I certainly am not trying to set a trap! I recognize that measurements are imperfect and what makes a speaker sound good is complicated. At the end of the day though, I am the sort of consumer that wants more info. Whether or not I can interpret that info is certainly questionable...
                          I hear you you.

                          The best info is actually listening. Which is obviously impossible over the Internet.

                          The big lie from the viewpoint of the objectivists (not aimed at you) is that you don’t *need* to listen in order to decide.

                          I over research everything and am completely onboard with that. No argument there. The dirty analogy I’m trying to make is basically this: that digesting limited data about the chemistry report of a food dish at a restaurant can never replace just tasting it for yourself and making your own decision. There’s no shortcut to making an informed decision.

                          The objectivist deception comes into play from that crowd by them leading people to THINK that they are able to make a truly informed decision about their own preference regarding a speaker in that scenario (without listening).... when they absolutely cannot.

                          Comment


                          • This brings up a good points I never considered.

                            The ear test is a tricky thing and even audiophiles can't agree on some things. Whose ears and what are their biases, musical interests, age, hearing abilities, etc. The end result of the test isn't binary so no chance of a scientific random double blind study but still the brand name could be hidden during testing much like a blindfold taste test.

                            So if not an analytic numerically driven test where does that leave you? There has to be something firm to stand on before production approval. How many sets of ears until you feel confident in a final design? And does it ever make sense to test more than one listening position?

                            Comment


                              • The dirty analogy I’m trying to make is basically this: that digesting limited data about the chemistry report of a food dish at a restaurant can never replace just tasting it for yourself and making your own decision
                              There is some logic here for sure, but if you are a vegetarian or keep kosher it is pretty important to know something about the ingredients before you order!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by kabin View Post
                                The end result of the [hearing] test isn't binary so no chance of a scientific random double blind study but still the brand name could be hidden during testing much like a blindfold taste test.

                                So if not an analytic numerically driven test where does that leave you? There has to be something firm to stand on before production approval. How many sets of ears until you feel confident in a final design? And does it ever make sense to test more than one listening position?
                                The end result of the hearing test is binary in a sense: It's a go/no-go evaluation that in the case of a good design taken to the nth degree of tune, results in testing by ear down to the steps between all component values on the standard 5% or 10% part scales. There it's taken into the audible range where the sound actually tames away from sensational effects all of us are initially drawn to - the sorts of things that has less experienced listeners remarking on "better" treble or "better" bass when the real effect is just artificial boost. "Real" meaning, again, subject to the experienced tune. Real is an intangible from the standpoint of the presumably objective mike test.

                                When the sound tames and locks, it also brings out the most natural effects in the soundfield. By getting less you get more.

                                It's that "objective" test where the mike lacks granularity and discernment. If we're tuning to inside a fraction of a dB, and not doing it specific to the mike data, we've already surpassed pertinence to both. We're beyond that point. And in my experience, this effect is typically agreed by a team of expert witnesses, all familiar enough with the same method and system. Chefs, mechanics, even doctors and lawyers. They all practice.

                                As a beta guy, BTJ has tuned and retuned two speakers with me to between incremental steps in one component in the treble systems of each model. He prefered the trebles about 1/3dB hotter than I in both cases, and since I know what I was shooting for in both cases, I deferred. I was already set on either state in both models and his confirmation that I should use the ever so slightly hotter tune - in the treble - confirmed my findings. The interesting thing to me is that neither step was perceived as hotter or darker, but more or less damped. I hear(d) the individual steps - about 1/3dB apart - as ever so slightly over-damped or ever so slightly under-damped. It goes back to the nature of tune I mentioned.

                                The point is that this procedure is like salting a dish, where the only way to finish it is to defer to the cook. There is no abstract data from any "objective" instrument than can do this, much less at this granularity or especially, with the crucial balance the mike can never judge or describe. Mikes don't think. They must be interpreted, just as data must in sales literature. But can it.

                                We see that we assume the mike has discernment when it's really whole decibels away from this tune. It has immense serial data capture ability in one domain. It has no complex, instantaneous, comprehensive ears. Once its initial work is done it might as well be deaf.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X