1. And... we're back. You'll notice that all of your images are back as well, as are our beloved emoticons, including the infamous :foo: We have also worked with our server folks and developers to fix the issues that were slowing down the site.

    There is still work to be done - the images in existing sigs are not yet linked, for example, and we are working on a way to get the images to load faster - which will improve the performance of the site, especially on the pages with a ton of images, and we will continue to work diligently on that and keep you updated.

    Cheers,

    Fok on behalf of the entire Styleforum team
    Dismiss Notice

Definitive Technology speakers

Discussion in 'Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto' started by InsBrokerTX, Oct 4, 2009.

  1. Artisan Fan

    Artisan Fan Senior member

    Messages:
    32,345
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2006
    Have you ever considered the idea that certain weaknesses of a speaker aren't important to you, but are to other people, so while you may find them unobjectionable, others may find them unacceptable? Just because I don't like something or hear something bad in something you like doesn't mean it was badly set up.

    That could be but they sound so good when done well, I assume there was a problem.

    Barry doesn't find the dispersion pattern to be an issue.

    http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...25&postcount=9
     
  2. Artisan Fan

    Artisan Fan Senior member

    Messages:
    32,345
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2006
    I'm sorry, but for me, suspending your audio interface in order to protect it from "performance damaging vibrations" is unbelievable bullshit.
    Stay tuned for some scientific evidence to the contrary. Vibration control is a hot topic and measurable. Nordost and Vertex gave a RMAF presentation where vibration control impact was scientifically measured by a military sonar specialist for the RAF.
     
  3. Artisan Fan

    Artisan Fan Senior member

    Messages:
    32,345
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2006
  4. milosh

    milosh Senior member

    Messages:
    592
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2006
    That link says nothing about converters performing badly due to vibrations.
     
  5. Dmax

    Dmax Senior member

    Messages:
    1,302
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Location:
    People's Republic of the Five Boroughs
    If you're happy with them, then it doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks. For me, DefTech's always been a me-too company, hopping on the latest audio trend, and executing it not as well. One has to admire their ability to outlast those that they have copied, though. --Andre
    I don't actually own any Definitive speakers. I do like how their Mythos towers look in aluminium finish/glass base combination. Incidentally, the Mythos One towers in this finish seem to be on sale right now which makes me want to consider them for surround duty. I have not heard them yet but they certainly have a high WAF factor, if that is a concern. [​IMG][​IMG] I'm not sure about other DefTech designs but I was under the impression that the Mythos Tower was a failry original design. I even saw an Energy tower recently that appeared to be inspired by the Mythos.
    Also, do not skimp on speaker cable and interconnect, they make a difference.
    Not as much as some people believe but this is not an argument one can win. www.Monoprice.com probably has all you need as far as cables.
     
  6. Artisan Fan

    Artisan Fan Senior member

    Messages:
    32,345
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2006
    That link says nothing about converters performing badly due to vibrations.

    Roy Gregory of Nordost and Steve Elford of Vertex AQ gave a PPT presentation at the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest I was at this weekend. They have engaged British defense contractor Acuity Products to create a new measurement methodology. Essentially they have measured time-based errors of CD players before and after three tweaks: better AC cables, better platform for vibration control, and Quantum conditioning which improves magnetic fields or something like that. The graphs they presented will soon be in a white paper and possibly an AES paper. The link above shows the improvement after the vibration control and two other tweaks. The text notes the improvement.

    Dmax, also read the link. It clearly shows the improvement of cables alone. In fact, they demonstrated the benefit of fine cables separately which is also how they conducted the tests.
     
  7. Douglas

    Douglas Senior member

    Messages:
    14,658
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Purseforum
    Based on this thread, I just bought a pair of Magnepan 1.6s. I am running them off my Onkyo receiver and Sony Discman and they are the greatest speakers of all time. FYI, I have the Discman sitting on carbon-fiber scraps I found at a junk yard next to a race track, and myone-nine copper lamp cord never touches the ground - I filled cardboard boxes with packing peanuts and coiled the wire inside.
     
  8. A Y

    A Y Senior member

    Messages:
    5,592
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Location:
    Southern California
    Dmax, also read the link. It clearly shows the improvement of cables alone. In fact, they demonstrated the benefit of fine cables separately which is also how they conducted the tests.

    That test is problematic, and inconclusive. The graphs are way too small to read the units off them, especially the time axis. That's important so the reader can determine the frequency range of the error signal --- it is trivial to produce different error signals in the RF with different cables, and even just different orientation of the device. RF is often a 2nd- or 3rd-order effect when it comes to audible consequences.

    Speaking of the error signal, the most egregious flaw of the test is that there is no explanation of how they derived the error signal --- the subtraction of the output of the player from the original signal. As anyone who has ever tried to do this will tell you, there are a million ways to screw it up and produce false positives. Until they provide a detailed explanation of their procedure, this test doesn't say anything useful.

    --Andre
     
  9. Artisan Fan

    Artisan Fan Senior member

    Messages:
    32,345
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2006
    That test is problematic, and inconclusive. The graphs are way too small to read the units off them, especially the time axis. That's important so the reader can determine the frequency range of the error signal --- it is trivial to produce different error signals in the RF with different cables, and even just different orientation of the device. RF is often a 2nd- or 3rd-order effect when it comes to audible consequences. Speaking of the error signal, the most egregious flaw of the test is that there is no explanation of how they derived the error signal --- the subtraction of the output of the player from the original signal. As anyone who has ever tried to do this will tell you, there are a million ways to screw it up and produce false positives. Until they provide a detailed explanation of their procedure, this test doesn't say anything useful. --Andre
    Andre, You have not seen all the methodology and resulting evidence presented at RMAF. Trust me, this test will meet the highest standards of scientific inquiry. They used one of the foremost sonar and sound specialists in the U.K. As for the error signal, it was based on developing a protocol where everything else, minus the treatments, was kept the same. In the RMAF discussion, they proved this several different ways to capture different errors. It will be more obvious once the white paper is put out. I have reached out to Steve Elford and Roy Gregory to see if I can get some PPT slides to share. The graphs are quite large and visual when you see the full presentation. One of the bigger results was the measurement of timing errors that are audible that is entirely different from the typical jitter timing errors. It's a groundbreaking study since it created a new, valid way to measure audio gear distortions and the impact of cable and vibration treatments. They have done this in a way to produce a peer-reviewed paper. I think they are considering AES given the high level of interest. You simply don't know enough information to make your conclusion about the test being inconclusive.
     
  10. A Y

    A Y Senior member

    Messages:
    5,592
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Location:
    Southern California
    You simply don't know enough information to make your conclusion about the test being inconclusive.

    Fair enough. Let me rephrase: the test as described in the link does not have enough information for it to be meaningful.

    Since you know the people involved, the most interesting thing to find out from them is how they synchronize the analog output of the CD player with the original signal when they do the subtraction. Also, how do they convert the original signal (which are presumably bits on a CD) to analog so that they can do the subtraction?

    --Andre
     
  11. Artisan Fan

    Artisan Fan Senior member

    Messages:
    32,345
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2006
    Fair enough. Let me rephrase: the test as described in the link does not have enough information for it to be meaningful. Since you know the people involved, the most interesting thing to find out from them is how they synchronize the analog output of the CD player with the original signal when they do the subtraction. Also, how do they convert the original signal (which are presumably bits on a CD) to analog so that they can do the subtraction? --Andre
    I don't know Steve and Roy real well but I will try to get you some answers. Some of my audio buddies are fairly close to them. I think you will find the test quite robust.
     
  12. Artisan Fan

    Artisan Fan Senior member

    Messages:
    32,345
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2006
    From Stereophile coverage of RMAF:

     
  13. Dmax

    Dmax Senior member

    Messages:
    1,302
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Location:
    People's Republic of the Five Boroughs
    Dmax, also read the link. It clearly shows the improvement of cables alone. In fact, they demonstrated the benefit of fine cables separately which is also how they conducted the tests.
    The link in your post tells me nothing at all. It's just a tiny random graph where I'm not even sure what the 'X" axis is suppose to represent. I was going to make a list of things they did not bother mentioning in that "test" but I decided it easier to just list what they mentioned, which is the use of some of the devices they sell reduces some sort of errors in something. There is no mention on how the elimination of these errors, whatever they are, actually affects what a person hears. I find a great irony in the fact that these manufacturers claim to have "developed a new method to measure the previously unmeasurable". Maybe the reason that this perceived difference was unmeasurable is that it doesn't exist and no reputable double blind study has ever concluded that the participants can hear any difference whether $6,000 cables, $400 rubber feet or "Quantum Devices" whatever the f* that is, are used or not.
     
  14. Artisan Fan

    Artisan Fan Senior member

    Messages:
    32,345
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2006
    The link in your post tells me nothing at all. It's just a tiny random graph where I'm not even sure what the 'X" axis is suppose to represent. I was going to make a list of things they did not bother mentioning in that "test" but I decided it easier to just list what they mentioned, which is the use of some of the devices they sell reduces some sort of errors in something. There is no mention on how the elimination of these errors, whatever they are, actually affects what a person hears.

    I find a great irony in the fact that these manufacturers claim to have "developed a new method to measure the previously unmeasurable". Maybe the reason that this perceived difference was unmeasurable is that it doesn't exist and no reputable double blind study has ever concluded that the participants can hear any difference whether $6,000 cables, $400 rubber feet or "Quantum Devices" whatever the f* that is, are used or not.


    You are being too dismissive. They conducted the tests with one of the most respected sound engineers in the U.K. You and Andre just assume this guy would not be smart enough to build a proper protocol but there's no evidence in the links or articles to show that.

    I sent an email to a good friend of these two and I should have more detail to share soon.
     
  15. GQgeek

    GQgeek Senior member

    Messages:
    17,933
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2002
    Location:
    Canuckistan
    You are being too dismissive. They conducted the tests with one of the most respected sound engineers in the U.K. You and Andre just assume this guy would not be smart enough to build a proper protocol but there's no evidence in the links or articles to show that.

    I sent an email to a good friend of these two and I should have more detail to share soon.


    Did you tell them you were having trouble proving their claims to you e-arch-nemesis? [​IMG]
     
  16. A Y

    A Y Senior member

    Messages:
    5,592
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Location:
    Southern California
    Actually, it looks like Dmax's and my BS-meters are working pretty well. If you go to the Stereophile blog page quoted, and read the comments, you will come upon this comment left by Demian Martin (emphasis mine):

    http://blog.stereophile.com/rmaf2009...o_measurement/

    Demian Martin co-founded Spectral, one of the most respected brands amongst hard-core audiophiles, and engineered many components well-regarded by that same group.

    And here is AF's opinion on Spectral:

    The Spectral gear is sublime.

    --Andre
     
  17. Artisan Fan

    Artisan Fan Senior member

    Messages:
    32,345
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2006
    Actually, it looks like Dmax's and my BS-meters are working pretty well. If you go to the Stereophile blog page quoted, and read the comments, you will come upon this comment left by Demian Martin (emphasis mine): http://blog.stereophile.com/rmaf2009...o_measurement/ Demian Martin co-founded Spectral, one of the most respected brands amongst hard-core audiophiles, and engineered many components well-regarded by that same group. And here is AF's opinion on Spectral: --Andre
    Spectral gear is sublime but Keith Johnson's mainly responsible for that as the main designer. Demian's comments are bizarre for a number of reasons: 1. In the presentation, they explained 2-3X that this was a work in progress and that the research is still ongoing. 2. Joe Reynolds told me that they are planning a white paper and hope to get it in AES. 3. In the presentation there was a spectral graph. Not sure what Demian is referring to. 4. Steve Elford carried the bulk of the technical discussion with Roy Gregory translating into plain english for some journalists in the audience. Steve is clearly a talented, smart guy and knows the subject. 5. My opinion of spectral gear is not related to the discussion. And Andre criticizes my ability to put together a logical argument. [​IMG]
     
  18. A Y

    A Y Senior member

    Messages:
    5,592
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Location:
    Southern California
    Demian's comments are bizarre for a number of reasons:

    I don't think so. Nothing you say contradicts his opinion that the data didn't show what they claimed it showed, and that the principals didn't understand what they were talking about. Let's look at each of your points:

    That's fine, but it's no reason to misinterpret or not understand what your data's telling you, nor obscure it. If someone in the audience who's seen your data for less than an hour can start poking holes in your hypothesis, that's not a result of unfinished work, but rather bad thinking and analysis.

    Fine, but that's full of weasel words: "planning" and "hope". It doesn't contradict what was said by Demian ("vague response about an AES paper"). In fact, in another comment, Kal Rubinson, who knows a thing or two about the scientific review process, debunks their claims of peer review through submission to MIT. That's an appeal to authority and a classic BS warning sign.

    That's good. What was it a spectrum of, and what did it tell you about their measurement?

    Demian, who's not an untechnical person, doesn't seem to think so. So it's your word against his. We'll call this one a push.

    Try again. Spectral is not well-known outside of audio circles, and I used you as an example of how fundamentalist audiophiles respect that company, so the peanut gallery would know the significance of that comment.

    --Andre
     
  19. Artisan Fan

    Artisan Fan Senior member

    Messages:
    32,345
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2006
    I don't understand the point on Spectral. You are saying that audiophiles respect the company so it is suspect? So you are discrediting your own source above?
     
  20. A Y

    A Y Senior member

    Messages:
    5,592
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Location:
    Southern California
    I don't understand the point on Spectral. You are saying that audiophiles respect the company so it is suspect? So you are discrediting your own source above?

    Demian Martin is well-known and respected by a wide cross-section of the audio community. What he says does not come from a position that is partisan to any one group of the community. The styrofoam-and-cables crowd respect him as much as the objectivist crowd does, and so his comment is significant because he doesn't have an axe to grind.

    If Tom Nousaine or Peter Aczel had said the same thing, their comments would have been suspect (even by me) because they've demonstrated irrational hostility and close-mindedness towards the subjectivists. Martin straddles both sides, and has considerably more credibility because of that.

    --Andre
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by