Earlier quoted context omitted.
This trope that ‘the best audio product for you is a highly subjective personal choice’ directly contradicts decades of well-established science, and is a long-standing myth that plagues this industry — and not coincidentally, serves to sell a ton of over-expensive garbage to under-educated (by design, via marketing bunk) consumers. If you read ASR’s materials on headphone science and the HD800S review in particular,…
> The consensus science shows that for speakers, an “objective best” does exist (such that the objective “best” has extremely high likelihood of sounding best to >95% of people) Are there some product(s) that you can name off the top of your head as examples?
History of the Nautilus loudspeaker
101–110 of 174 posts
Re: History of the Nautilus loudspeaker
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
I sort of get what you're hinting at, but I still think it might be inaccurate; to me your reasoning come over like 'played live there's detail X and Y, when listening those details might be vague or don't come out properly, so that might be lossy compression at work' (please correct me if I'm wrong). Thing is: just poor microphone placement or poor recording equipent or poor mastering can have those effects as well,…
In my comments, I assume that the recording and mastering is done indeed properly. If you can't carry the orchestra's sound to the playback medium, everything is already moot to begin with. The thing I'm looking is musical dynamics rather than details itself, but it's equally lost with poor recording and mastering as you say, since they're also captured by the microphones. The thing I'm trying to explain was they are…
Don't worry I understand what you mean wrt dynamics etc, it's just that I'd never thought of linking it to lossy compression, because there are so many other things which make it hard to reproduce that live sound.
Re: History of the Nautilus loudspeaker
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
This trope that ‘the best audio product for you is a highly subjective personal choice’ directly contradicts decades of well-established science, and is a long-standing myth that plagues this industry — and not coincidentally, serves to sell a ton of over-expensive garbage to under-educated (by design, via marketing bunk) consumers. If you read ASR’s materials on headphone science and the HD800S review in particular,…
> The consensus science shows that for speakers, an “objective best” does exist (such that the objective “best” has extremely high likelihood of sounding best to >95% of people) Are there some product(s) that you can name off the top of your head as examples?
But you really don’t need to pay this much unless you want the absolute best quality AND quantity (capable of going extremely loud, which is an engineering challenge that requires expensive solutions). You may find the “Speaker Attr Comparison” tab here useful to explore the price vs performance spectrum: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?pages/Spe...
I would recommend learning to read the individual reviewed speaker measurements though, since there definitely is some information lost when compressing these incredibly rich measurements down to a single number, and the science still has some room to improve since there are some dimensions (e.g. the importance of low distortion at high SPL, or beam width) that this fairly old aggregate score model does not currently incorporate.
There definitely is some subjective taste involved, but the important thing is that we can measure these dimensions objectively and understand which is subjective (and why), and which is not a matter of subjective personal taste. We can explore these personal preference tradeoffs without completely surrendering to the subjective nonsense that ‘anything goes’.
For example, it looks like the most subjective factor remaining in speakers is the overall beam width — whether you want a more directional sound, or a more omnidirectional one that fills the room more broadly. This topic is at the edge/fringe of the established science, but the general consensus here is that the objective best would be a multichannel surround sound system of medium beam speakers, where you can either replay recordings meant for multichannel systems, or for traditional stereo recordings at least dynamically select how frontal vs surround you want a particular stereo recoding to be reproduced (just as you can e.g. easily adjust bass boost to taste depending on what you’re listening to, if it wasn’t recorded/mixed the way you like). But given that most people want to minimize the number and size of speakers in their room, there does tend to be a practical challenge of preference here if you can only pick one style (wide vs medium vs narrow beam) for stereo recordings (which while not an ideal format, constitute 99.999% of all music people enjoy).
Re: History of the Nautilus loudspeaker
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The consensus science shows that for speakers, an “objective best” does exist (such that the objective “best” has extremely high likelihood of sounding best to >95% of people) Are there some product(s) that you can name off the top of your head as examples?
For the absolute best, cost is no object? Genelec 8351B + W371A, Revel F328Be, Dutch & Dutch 8C, Kii Three BXT, and many others. But you really don’t need to pay this much unless you want the absolute best quality AND quantity (capable of going extremely loud, which is an engineering challenge that requires expensive solutions). You may find the “Speaker Attr Comparison” tab here useful to explore the price vs perfor…
As a 58-year-old, the sound I like when listening to music is probably a bit off from "accurate". It's a combination of trying to match the sound I grew up hearing (which admittedly was colored by the way records were mastered in the 70s!) and the fact that my high-end hearing isn't what it used to be. I think considerations like that are what drive "audiophile" audio.
Plus, when you get to be 50+ and have some money to spare, there's a cool factor. A preposterous turntable is just like a luxury wrist-watch. You don't buy a $80,000 watch because it tells better time....
Re: History of the Nautilus loudspeaker
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is true. I'm going to make a vast oversimplification here, but a rule of thumb is that a lot of the well-regarded DIY kits on the market compare well with retail speakers that cost 2-3X as much. Some examples: https://www.parts-express.com/speaker-components/speaker-sub... https://www.diysoundgroup.com/home-audio-speaker-kits/home-a... https://meniscusaudio.com/product-category/speaker-kits/ etc.
What kind of bugs me is that there really aren't any kits and very few DIY designs that match the kind of speakers I really miss, at least not ones focused on home audio. Those speakers being the old-school big boxes with 12-15" woofers, sometimes multiple and usually 3-way designs, sometimes 4-way. Large, heavy, imposing and punchy, big speakers for big music. I know modern speaker drivers have come a long way, but…
Re: History of the Nautilus loudspeaker
#106A long time ago when I had younger ears, I heard these at an audio show in London, in a "sound proof room" and I will never forget the experience. I was working for TagMclaren at the time, having just left dCS Audio and I thought I had heard a lot of high end speakers by then, but these blew my socks off and left a lasting impression. I half believe it was the presentation - dramatic, but also extremely clever choice…
I am a firm believer that you can get too hi-fi. Listening on B&W cans as we speak and they are undeniably hi-fi but not what you call meaty for drum & bass. There is no such thing as the sound of an electric guitar; the pick-ups amp and choice of speaker and cab are what makes it rock. Ortofon recently made this mistake with a full new range of carts and needles with higher range, volume and spec all round. Nobody l…
The recordings themselves don't capture a lot of that information or have it mastered out, so the loudspeakers can never put it back in.
The soundboard of a piano or the top of an acoustic instrument for example just don't work like a loud speaker. Drums pack a ridiculous punch in the room that speakers rarely capture. Guitar amps do all kinds of strange things in the room due to purposely designed in imperfections that are often missing in the recordings.
Re: History of the Nautilus loudspeaker
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
What kind of bugs me is that there really aren't any kits and very few DIY designs that match the kind of speakers I really miss, at least not ones focused on home audio. Those speakers being the old-school big boxes with 12-15" woofers, sometimes multiple and usually 3-way designs, sometimes 4-way. Large, heavy, imposing and punchy, big speakers for big music. I know modern speaker drivers have come a long way, but…
Interesting, I had the impression the DIY scene is not considering the WAF as much as the mainstream market. But I agree on kits, if you don't have a workshop its hard to built most designs. Don Highend has designed a few larger ones too, eg http://www.donhighend.de/?page_id=5291
I consider a 10" woofer to be the smallest size for a speaker to be considered large, and 12" or 15" is preferred.
Re: History of the Nautilus loudspeaker
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the absolute best, cost is no object? Genelec 8351B + W371A, Revel F328Be, Dutch & Dutch 8C, Kii Three BXT, and many others. But you really don’t need to pay this much unless you want the absolute best quality AND quantity (capable of going extremely loud, which is an engineering challenge that requires expensive solutions). You may find the “Speaker Attr Comparison” tab here useful to explore the price vs perfor…
We have top-line Genelecs in our home theatre (with a custom center channel horn for dialog). But most "audiophiles" won't like them even though they are as accurate a speaker as you can get. As a 58-year-old, the sound I like when listening to music is probably a bit off from "accurate". It's a combination of trying to match the sound I grew up hearing (which admittedly was colored by the way records were mastered i…
But for example, there is no magical difference between a good studio monitor and good audiophile speakers. The differences are well understood and easily measurable. Studio monitors are often more neutral and flat, but also may tend to have a narrower beam, while audiophile speakers often have wider beams and perhaps some coloration like bass boost and treble boost or reduction.
What’s great about the science is it removes all this subjective guesswork. For example, my Genelec 8351B’s out of the box sound too bright for my tastes. But thankfully their built-in DSP allows me not only to calibrate them to perfection to my room, but tune the overall sonic signature to my preference (a gentle downward slope, for a warmer sound). The beauty of good speakers is you can do this in software, rather than buying a different pair of speakers.
About the only thing you can’t tune in software with good speakers is the beam width (assuming there are no flaws like directivity mismatches, distortion, etc. which can never be fixed in DSP). And that’s why e.g. my Genelec still sound different from my Revel speakers: the Genelec are medium width beam, while the Revel are very wide.
Depending on the music genre, this matters. I prefer the wider beam sound on older music and more traditional “audiophile” style music, so for that I tend to prefer the Revels. But for newer music, I and almost everyone else prefers the Genelec’s presentation. It’s important that this is not some subjectivist mystery: it completely makes sense, and through this understanding we are empowered to engineer or select the best speaker for the job without making it unattainably expensive or impossibly convoluted via subjective claims.
Re: History of the Nautilus loudspeaker
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
ASR is good for graphs and stuff if you know how to interpret things. One thing worth bearing in mind for people new to Hi-Fi audio is that the experience is very much subjective. That people’s tastes, wants and desires in music and listening experience differ wildly. That while a loudspeaker pair or headphone may measure or perform objectively well, it may not pair up well with your particular taste, or with your mu…
This trope that ‘the best audio product for you is a highly subjective personal choice’ directly contradicts decades of well-established science, and is a long-standing myth that plagues this industry — and not coincidentally, serves to sell a ton of over-expensive garbage to under-educated (by design, via marketing bunk) consumers. If you read ASR’s materials on headphone science and the HD800S review in particular,…
Re: History of the Nautilus loudspeaker
#110If you ever want a pair of decent speakers for next to nothing, look up high(er)-end models from 10+ years ago and buy them second-hand. I have a pair of B&W 683s, not even that fancy or anything but they are more than good enough for my 40+ year old ears.
Once you get something like that there's no reason to ever look at anything else again unless you've got issues.
I've spent a ton of time listening to them. They're really amazing.
Funny thing is he spent so much money he never could figure out what to do about home theater when that became a fad. Now Home theater is pretty much gone but his setup is still fantastic for music.