Announcement

**gtpsuper24** · 09-27-2012, 06:57 AM

Couldn't Agree more.

***Chane M&C*** · 09-27-2012, 07:45 AM

I like it: The passion of really doing audio. What a novel idea! :wink:

There's a recent thread at AVS, coincidentally, where the OP links to a reference to Jean Hiraga in a lengthy letter to Stereophile by Markus Sauer in which Sauer asks that the industry challenge some of its core assumptions. Sauer:

The third sacred cow waiting to be slaughtered is measurements. This magazine is working very hard to correlate the listening experience with measurements. I remain to be convinced that conventional measurements tell us much about whether a hi-fi component reaches the heart or not. In loudspeakers, there seems to be a fairly good correlation between a reasonably flat amplitude response and fidelity of timbre. In my own experience, low loudspeaker distortion and a reasonably flat phase response make for ease of listening, in the sense that I can listen for long periods of time without listening fatigue. Power bandwidth, perhaps more so for loudspeakers than amplifiers, will tell you if a component is apt to change its sound when the listening level goes up.

I think that good measurements are often an excuse for the designer: It measures well, so I haven't done anything wrong. Not doing anything wrong, however, does not automatically mean that the component under test will do enough right. To put it another way, I have yet to find a measurement that tells me if I'll want to listen to a component.

While I grasp but do not find Hiraga's 400,000 Rule to be quite comprehensive enough - the comprehensive view says to emulate the net effect of the Hiraga philosophy, if I can call I that - folks might find it interesting that Hiraga is a real heavyweight, one responsible for a raft of leading-edge audio-revolutionary thought and experimentation. Among other things, Hiraga has done original work on retuning classic pro systems for home listening and since the finest sound I ever hear since starting audio in 1979 came from the same design class as this (Hi, Andy!), he has my respect.

The Hiraga method parallels those of the international group called the Joelist, and includes names like Jean Michel Le ClÃ©ac'h, Lynn Olson (a true must-read site at that link, especially Lynn on amplifiers and loudspeakers and the history of hifi), Hugh Dean, my good friend Greg Boynton, publisher Joe Roberts, Herb Reichert and the "New York Triode Mafia", and dozens more, including the Japanese masters, the French radicals, and so on.)

Among other things Sauer posits that, in effect, much about what we think we know about relatively small speakers is wrong.

This isn't a small statement to make and surely feathers have been ruffled. The problem for the cookie-cutter, measurements-centric loudspeaker industry and its formula product is that he's right: There really is something wrong when the difference between consumer hifi sound from a little affordable box and genuine musical realism is frequently and so audibly pronounced.

Returning to that subset at AVS and their method of doing audio I mentioned at the beginning, here we find that since measurements are the priority, naturally anything one can do to mash them into shape after the fact of the speaker's design stands to reason. The loudspeaker design has become a numbers race, one best carried out, some feel, in the listener's home by the listener's third party equalization.

Which aside from the venue, is exactly contrary to Buford's point, if I read it right. In other words, we're being virtually instructed by an industry to not trust our ears.

Fast-forward to the A5 project. Have you noticed the tight agreement between A5 users as to the design's sound? I have and it's gratifying. And there's a reason for it.

**Bandg** · 09-27-2012, 10:10 AM

People need to listen to Arx A5's and A1b's (only Arx that I currently own) with an open mind. They are very impressive sounding speakers, imho. I don't know graphs, design etc. However, my ears never fail to smile (pun intended) when listening to my humble systems that have Arx speakers. I read a great deal on various forums and my conclusion is that more people need to hear the Arx speakers prior to making judgements. Just my .02. Regards, Bradley

**BufordTJustice** · 09-27-2012, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by Bandg

People need to listen to Arx A5's and A1b's (only Arx that I currently own) with an open mind. They are very impressive sounding speakers, imho. I don't know graphs, design etc. However, my ears never fail to smile (pun intended) when listening to my humble systems that have Arx speakers. I read a great deal on various forums and my conclusion is that more people need to hear the Arx speakers prior to making judgements. Just my .02. Regards, Bradley

Well, I DO KNOW graphs, RTA, spectrum analysis, impulse response, phase shift, on/off axis response, waterfall maps, etc. None of these inform my ears...they inform my mind. There's a difference.

I give you permission to actually believe (and enjoy) what you are hearing. ;)

And Jon, as you and I have spoken about before, the reason that so many customers (nearly all of them by PM, email, phone or public post) have validated what you and I originally heard was because WE WERE TELLING THE TRUTH. We didn't lie. We didn't embellish. I made no claims about it "reaching the mid 20's in room with authority!" and other BS like that. Its frequency response and sensitivity and impedance are real-world, accurate numbers because the A5 is a solid design.

I will extend this offer publicly: it's no secret that I now work in law enforcement and, thus, have a crazy ass schedule. However, if ANYBODY is willing to drive/run/bike/walk to me (Central FL, zip 32829), I'll work it so that you can have an audition if AT ALL POSSIBLE. If you are reading this and are a member at this forum (if not, just create your username), PM and we'll arrange it. I have nothing to hide. My Panasonic DMP BDT-500 (DVD/CD/BD) plays FLAC at 192/24 and MP3 from USB thumb drives. I also have a decent quality Monoprice iPod adapter cable (iPods and iPhones are NOT for critical listening....they have ****TY HEADPHONE PREAMPS). Bring material you're familiar with...BD music shows, CD's, MP3's, FLAC files, really anything but vinyl (no turntable right now :/ ).

**newspeakers** · 09-27-2012, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by Jon Lane

There's a recent thread at AVS, coincidentally, where the OP links to a reference to Jean Hiraga in a lengthy letter to Stereophile by Markus Sauer in which Sauer asks that the industry challenge some of its core assumptions. Sauer:

While I grasp but do not find Hiraga's 400,000 Rule to be quite comprehensive enough - the comprehensive view says to emulate the net effect of the Hiraga philosophy, if I can call I that -

Jon, I just read (and tried to understand) the article referred to at AVS. One thing I don't understand is that the use of a sub-woofer is not considered. Is it not true that the 400,000 rule should consider the speaker/sub combination for tonal balance? Also, what about the age of the listener? I can't hear above about 13KHz. Does that mean that I should strive for bass down to about 34Hz? Does treble response beyond my hearing matter? I found the article rather confusing.

**newspeakers** · 09-27-2012, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by BufordTJustice

I know that on various forums, Jon and I have received flack for not publishing basic on axis and off axis FR measurements, impedance curves, etc. I realize that to some people, these, measurements serve to provide peace of mind to a potential buyer. I just have one thing to say to people who "won't buy without measurements": HAVE FUN SHOPPING SOMEWHERE ELSE. PLEASE DO NOT BUY ARX SPEAKERS.

Buford, your lengthy article above makes some very good points. I also have some comments on measurements based on my reading at AVS that I plan to post on this forum shortly.

However, I fund your comments quoted above a little disturbing, and unlike you. People have a right to desire measurements, and to base their buying decision, wholly or in part, on these measurements. People have the right to buy crappy, overpriced speakers. They are not your concern, so why attack them with rude comments. You can try to educate them, but don't attack them.

Please don't consider this a personal attack. I don't mean it to be. I just find your remarks intemperate.

***Chane M&C*** · 09-28-2012, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by newspeakers

Jon, I just read (and tried to understand) the article referred to at AVS. One thing I don't understand is that the use of a sub-woofer is not considered. Is it not true that the 400,000 rule should consider the speaker/sub combination for tonal balance? Also, what about the age of the listener? I can't hear above about 13KHz. Does that mean that I should strive for bass down to about 34Hz? Does treble response beyond my hearing matter? I found the article rather confusing.

The speaker system is a system - a added woofer alters the personality of the system dramatically and it's because of that I said that I don't find the 400,000 Rule to be a literal measure, at least not for the typical buyer.

I find Hiraga's other work - the design philosophy he and others like him have adopted, typically working alone and separated by time and distance - to have an orientation that leads to a deep appreciation for the music the system should connect us to when we use it. As I also mentioned, there's production line hifi sound and then there's musically engaging sound.

Arx (and all of the designs TAI does ourselves) are informed by a similar philosophy. We seek that degree of involvement that comes by way of a good deal of design tuning. We start with extensive measured data, run it through theoretical modeling, confirm the design center with empirical result, and proceed to fine tune until we have confirmed both the theory we intend the particular design to embody and the best sound we feel we can get from that design center and the parts and pieces that make it up.

Adding a sub to a good fullrange design can induce a sense of needing more treble. Since our fullrange designs are treble-balanced, we recommend a careful sub setup that does not leave the bass system's output prominently exposed so as to have the psychoacoustical effect of making the system sound bass-heavy and dark. Given the success Arx users have reported in multichannel setups, we think they have integrated their bass systems well, and that leaves the entire system in balance.

**gtpsuper24** · 09-28-2012, 12:46 PM

I find it more enjoyable to just sit back and listen to the A5s, than to sit at the computer analyzing a line on the computer screen, or sitting back and telling someone theres no way possible your enjoying those speakers without measurements.:rolleyes:

I think theres two groups of people out there that want measurements. There are those that want them to help inform them of a purchase decision and it gives them a gauge on what to expect somewhat. And they can compared the graphs to narrow down their choices. These are the ones we should try and help out with their decisions.

The other group is the ones who wants measurements just for the enjoyment on bench racing on the forums to either praise a brand or attempt to destroy a brand based only on the graphs. This group is the ones we don't want anything to do with and should challenge them at every chance, at least I do . :lol: This group is the ones who have attemped to brainwash the communities with the stance of if a company doesn't provide what we want them to, they have something to hide or have low quality garbage speakers.

***Chane M&C*** · 09-28-2012, 01:47 PM

Somewhere in this forum I wrote about how TAI has little desire to empower the view that if a maker doesn't play by specific rules s/he or they aren't legit. I have a fundamental disagreement with that calculus and TAI won't conform to it just on principle alone. Like Buford said, if a reader finds us illegitimate because we don't play a particular kind of ball, there are alternatives who do play that kind of ball s/he can choose from. But the notion that not publishing on popular demand what is very limited data automatically indicts a fraudulent effort or shady manufacturer is false and we, for one, won't justify it with a response beyond this one.

It's a little like being expected to prove you're not a particular kind of individual in order to get into certain proper circles. Most of us just don't do that kind of presumptive political correctness testing because we have better things to do or in some cases because it's offensive to us on principle. (This happened to TAI in an online forum and I can tell you, it is offensive to be banned from speech and participation for not doing what no professional would ever do, which is to publish an entire suite of confidential design engineering in order to prove legitimacy and thereby buy one's good name and voice back.) Meanwhile most companies don't publish what we don't publish so there it is.

Secondly, merely respectable measured data in a handful of domains has little bearing on what something sounds like. In fact, it's a potentially disinformative thing when used to the effect that it somehow proves sound. It certainly does not - it proves technical competence in the one domain it lies in and that's not what makes music. This is a simple fact experienced, confident listeners adopted long ago and it's a reason we offer a 30 day in-home trial on our products...which result in and have for years resulted in the sorts of positive user reports you see on Arx, Dana, and our Swan models. Among those who really enjoy listening - as opposed to talking about competing technical topics and not about what things sound like - this philosophy has been well-proved.

Third, as indicated in the linked articles above, measurements aren't a complete tool. We don't know what the complete predictive tool is, although various entities have tried to tie what we can measure to empirical results, with some success in some relatively narrow market segments. When we have that complete tool TAI will be onboard. There'd be no reason not to be, although just as today, we'd do it more for internal verification than market validation. And yes, we already have a methodology we think suits our internal verification. We couldn't do TAI without it.

Fourth, measurements change. One lab's results are not another lab's results and for this reason you may find superior results published on the manufacturer's documentation than you do in the independent lab's data. I can think of one case where a competent university published data that quite disagreed with what a brand who appears to like to market measurements published about the same product. I'll add that as leading as that sentence seems to have been written, I have no idea who published the "right" set of charts, and that confirms the point I want to make: That it's entirely natural - and in some cases expected and wise - to challenge measurements based just on where they came from. If Arx or any of a hundred brands pushed measurements that disagree with independent finding, who's to be believed? Yet it's inevitable that measurements disagree, whether subtly or significantly.

Fifth, measurements are subjective and subjective to human interpretation. That's right - and I won't say a lot about this today - just as, for example, a multiway loudspeaker's "topology" can be executed a variety of ways, that being the art, no one trace on a screen within just one topology of that particular batch of parts and box can ever tell you that it absolutely, sonically, perceptibly outperforms all the other traces that differ from it by what's typically less than a Decibel. It's a really tough problem and one reason a company can spend weeks on one design.

Lastly, pursuant the establishment of the measured Holy Grail, not only will there probably be a wholly different technical benchmark established for electroacoustical transduction systems, but by this new standard loudspeaker designs will all rapidly converge on a relatively straightforward new alignment with it - you won't see such diversity in loudspeaker technologies and their layouts. I realize that this thinking already exists to a degree, with advocates preconditioning what they hear with what they've been told shall sound good (not uncommonly by entities or persons tied directly or indirectly to commercial marketing) but I mean that entire technologies will, in the advent of "perfected" transduction and the perfected measurements to thoroughly predict and define it, be obsoleted and disappear. We'll be left with one or two predominant technology types and one or two predominant arrangements of it, perhaps graduated mostly by size and scale and hence cost and price.

On balance I hope TAI has made the right decision on the subject. If there is one thing we wish to do, however, it's to conform any standard to sound and not to conform the sound to one presumptive standard.

**newspeakers** · 09-29-2012, 04:16 AM

I had planned to start a thread about the myths of measurement but Buford beat me to it. I started to think about this after reading a comment on AVS a while ago that said something to the effect that a speaker has to sound good and have good measurements or you should not consider buying it. I find this to be a very strange mindset. It shows a lack of self-confidence in oneâ€™s own opinions that requires external validation. The problem arises when these people try to force their neuroses on others.

I find Jonâ€™s comments on the subject interesting, but I donâ€™t understand some of it. Rather than discuss abstract concepts, I want to look at concrete examples. Personally, I look at the measurements if they are available. I only really look at the Frequency Response curves; I donâ€™t understand the others. I figured it would help me make a purchase decision.

About a year ago I decided to upgrade my HT system. I read thousands of AVS posts and got the general impression that Ascend make the most well-regarded speakers in my price class. Ascend provides lots of graphs and I looked at them all. I recently found something strange. The â€œqualityâ€ of the FR graphs did not seem to match the quality of the speaker. I would expect all Ascend speakers to follow a single design philosophy and therefore improve sonically with price. But the graphs seemed to tell a different story.

The CBM-170 is one of Ascendâ€™s cheaper speakers at $348/pr. The FR is given as 53Hz - 20kHz +/- 3dB. The FR graph seems flatter than the other Ascend speakers. The FR graph is here: http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages...bm170meas.html

The Sierra-1 is Ascendâ€™s top of the line monitor at $848/pr. The FR is given as 39Hz - 20kHz +/- 3dB. The FR graph shows more bass extension, of course, but, to my eye, it is not as flat as the CBM-170, especially in the upper midrange. So which is the better speaker when used with a sub? The FR graph is here: http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages.../srm1meas.html

But wait, these graphs are from Ascend. Here is a FR graph from a third party, SoundStage! On the Sierra-1. Itâ€™s nothing like the graph on Ascendâ€™s website. http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/mea...scend_sierra1/

Finally, there is Ascendâ€™s flagship Sierra Tower starting at $1898/pr. Itâ€™s FR graph looks the most ragged of the three. The FR graph is here: http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages...T/srtmeas.html

All these products are extremely well-regarded at AVS. I am sure I would have bought one of these speakers if I had not discovered ARX (a story for another time). Could I use these graphs to help me choose which speaker to buy? Maybe. If so, I would have bought the CBM-170 and used the savings for a sub. Could I use these graphs to help me choose which speaker sounded best to me? No, not if all the reviews on AVS are to be believed.

In spite of these concrete examples, someone on AVS did make a reasonable counter-argument. Suppose someone recommends a speaker from an unknown (to them) ID speaker company. If auditioning is not feasible, before potentially shelling out for shipping both ways, even with a good return policy, people want some kind of validation. This could be professional reviews, overwhelming user reviews, and/or measurements. I donâ€™t know if ARX will ever achieve the critical mass of professional and user reviews that a company like Ascend has. Failing that, the more information ARX can give to potential buyers, the more they will be willing to take a chance on a speaker that they have never heard. The trick is to educate these buyers on which information is important and which is meaningless. I, for one, donâ€™t have a clue how to define the difference. I canâ€™t even tell you what convinced me to take a chance on ARX, but Iâ€™m glad I did.

**BufordTJustice** · 09-29-2012, 05:50 AM

Originally posted by newspeakers

Buford, your lengthy article above makes some very good points. I also have some comments on measurements based on my reading at AVS that I plan to post on this forum shortly.

However, I fund your comments quoted above a little disturbing, and unlike you. People have a right to desire measurements, and to base their buying decision, wholly or in part, on these measurements. People have the right to buy crappy, overpriced speakers. They are not your concern, so why attack them with rude comments. You can try to educate them, but don't attack them.

Please don't consider this a personal attack. I don't mean it to be. I just find your remarks intemperate.

Newspeakers,

I realize that my comment may come across as crass, but it is intensely sincere. Before I was banned for LIFE at alcoholics forum....I mean....that forum..... my PM inbox was chock full of two types of messages; one type was people who were genuinely attempting to educate themselves so they could make an informed decision (I like these people), the other were messages that essentially placed the burden of proof on ME to win THEM over as a customer. When I politely declined to spoon-feed my decade of pro-audio experience to them, they would immediately reply with angry diatribe about how Jon is selling speakers out of the back of a panel van with "Free Hugs" written on the side in spray paint and that everything I'm saying is a lie because THEY "can't verify anything" because they "don't have any numbers".

Then, the bottom fell out and essentially the same thing happened in public. I was insulted and called ignorant. When I attempted to assuage any fears of my ignorance, I was called a bully for "bragging about my experience". To say that it left a bad taste in my mouth (remember, I'm a cop....might as well be "Mr. Type-A personality"), would be a gross understatement.

I see the people (moderators and others) who attacked me, deleted my posts, moved the thread to a far corner of the forum, and then ultimately deleted the thread from the forum and the forum's archive and Google cache....I see them as a type of charlatan. I don't see a whole lot of difference between these "numbers guys" and the traveling salesmen back in the 1800's who used to sell magical elixirs that could "cure any disease" for one week's pay. They are publicly promoting this idea that one can know how a loudspeaker sounds based purely on seeing charts and graphs on a screen.

So, my bolded sentence is a message to the charlatans. I won't fight for their business, I won't be spoken down-to by their psuedo-intellectual dribble, and I won't lift one finger to convince them to buy any Arx product (or any other quality loudspeaker...i.e. Salk, Philharmonic Audio, GoldenEar Tech, Dana, Revel, Ascend, etc.). I've got enough piss and vinegar in me to realize that THERE IS NO CONVINCING these people. As Jon stated, they are simply trying to force Jon's hand to play their game. I fully support Jon in not releasing more measurements. These folks are only gonna sharp-shoot whatever numbers Jon submits. Life's too short for that.

I, for one, refuse to lie to a person in an effort to convince them that they can have anything other than an intellectual knowledge of a speaker's performance by looking at data. No more can someone know how a loudspeaker sounds by looking at graphs than a 14 year old teenage boy can know about sex by looking at his first playboy.

Jon has provided accurate frequency response numbers, accurate F3 figures, accurate crossover point references, accurate impedance specs, and VERY conservative sensitivity specs on every Arx model. While looking at pretty graphs may serve to slightly enhance one's knowledge of a loudspeaker, they will no more enhance one's "knowledge" of their sound than by having that teenage kid switch from Playboy to some decent softcore p*rn. More detailed pictures, to be certain. But still....ONLY PICTURES.

With regard to your last post, I agree with you. In reference to providing information to an internet shopper, I think that the speaker buying public would be MUCH better served by having third party reviewers simply VERIFY the basic frequency responses, impedance curves, sensitivities, crossover points, and F3's (low frequency roll-off points).

Without pointing out several speaker manufacturers, I KNOW from first hand experience that many popular models on the market today DO NOT meet their rated impedance specs or their rated sensitivity specs. They are way off. Off by enough to reduce perceived loudness by half (and increase the wattage required to drive them to reference level by 100%).

As has been said in politics, I think we just need to enforce the laws (verify the basic specs) that we ALREADY HAVE on the books as opposed to making new laws (creating additional specs/metrics for evaluation).

If we had a repository of third party data that simply measured the BASIC things, that would be much more informative to a consumer. After all, what says more about a product or a business than whether the creator/owner is willing to actually tell the customer the TRUTH about its performance?

I would respectfully submit that knowing that you are getting what you think you are being sold is more important than what these "numbers" guys are advocating.

**gtpsuper24** · 09-29-2012, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by newspeakers

I I canâ€™t even tell you what convinced me to take a chance on ARX, but Iâ€™m glad I did.

I don't know what made me purchase the Arx speakers either, but just like you I'm extremely happy I did. I guess one thing that made me comfortable was emailing Jon with some questions and he responded almost within an hour. I seen last year around this time there was a set of A1 Bstock bookshelfs, emailed him a question and he answered everything quickly and said that if I ordered today he would make surethey shipped out by the end of the day.

Made me so happy with the customer service and the quality and sound of the Arx speaker that I decided I need the A2 center and from there it was Arx A2s and then A5s. Now struggling to find a location for the next pair of Arx speakers, have a pretty good idea though. :p

**jnordi** · 09-29-2012, 07:10 PM

Collin, I did not know you were banned from AH, :( I only knew of one other person WMAX (Chris) with whom I had many private conversations with, I got an education from this guy. I'm not shy about admitting that I knew nothing about TAI and ARX, I had many email talks with Jon and I didn't even know he was the owner at the time, talk about a low key non egocentric man, because of his demeanor and attitude I decided to persue my interest in the ARX line. Thats how I found you and went out on a limb and PM'd you to death and you treated me with respect and it was obvious that I was not a burden to you but someone who shared the same passion to share their experiences and the many ways to achieve the sonic presentation that we all seek. It truly is rare to find this kind of committment to excellence at a price point that is not delegated to people with more money than "cents". I really like the fact that ARX has the amount of models they do, makes deciding a whole lot easier and owning most if not all of them.:D While I'm rambling, of the many PM's we had, not once did you try and talk me out of buying the other brand of speakers that I had every intention of doing so, but rather answered all the questions (and there were many) in a honest and straight forward manner with no arm twisting to buy ARX, that desision to do so was based on your discriptions of what you heard and felt listening to the A5's, I must say that I share your impressions my friend. Thank you Collin and Jon for being my friends and allowing me to be a part of this journey.
Best Regards, Jeffrey

**newspeakers** · 09-30-2012, 02:46 AM

Lest you think that the use and misuse of measurements is a new issue, letâ€™s go back 30 years. For decades measurements confirmed the conventional wisdom that speakers were the limiting factor in any stereo system. Amps, record players and cassettes (ask your father) contributed distortion measured in fractions of a percent to perhaps a few percent. The same was true of non-linearity. Speakers, on the other hand, contributed up to 10% distortion and were extremely non-linear compared to other components.

Therefore, the quality of music reproduction was strictly a function of the quality of the speakers. The measurements â€œprovedâ€ this without a doubt.

Then the CD was invented. Measurements were one thing; psychoacoustics were another thing entirely. With the same speakers, the CD revolutionized the audio industry. The speakers were still contributing the same distortion and non-linearity, but the pops, clicks and hiss that characterized records and tapes were gone. It turned out that some distortion is worse than others and digital recordings eliminated the most objectionable ones.

This is somewhat of an oversimplification, but it is the clearest indication that I know of where the entire audio industry was fooled by the myth of measurements.

Announcement

Listening Impressions vs Measurements

Listening Impressions vs Measurements

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment