New Subaru radios weaker than old?

General Discussion
141
You indicated you altered the dimensions of your speakers, I believe. You do under stand that if you had drivers for a particular speaker and it was a bass reflex design and altered the dimensions, you no long have that original speaker.....it is now, a different speaker, and you say nothing about it......you think you still own the same speaker...you don't.

Yes I do understand…but you’re making the assumption that I didn’t keep the same internal volume. If you keep the same internal volume AND within the thiel parameters… then you have the same speaker box. There isn’t ONE box design for each driver. For that particular 12" Altec driver they made at least 4 different base-boxes…all had the same internal volume and the same port diameter and length. The HORN’s I updated to the mantaray design that really changed the speakers sound…they really widened the sweet spot…

142

"So what did you mean by this comment"
Reference " they definitely do some this better…they definitely do some this worse…“
So this means " I think recreating music as it was recorded is bad” …that my good friend is a real stretch.
The statement speaks for itself. 901s are specifically designed to disperse as much of the sound it creates as possible IMO. It does that better then most speakers I can think of. When i had them, I i tested them in my house and found they did compared to any other standard speaker i had…The sound it does disperse is not as full range as even the more conservative of traditional speakers I have measured. Hence,the second statement.

Does that mean they are better ? No IMHO. It means they are different. Good, better, best is subjective and so dependent on the environment when describing speakers overall, it is irrelevant. For example…if I said a car corners better then another, I make no judgement in saying it is a better car…

The room has such a great influence on sound, it is at least as important as the speaker itself. How can one speaker be “better” ?

Btw, did you understand that Cerwin Vega alters their speaker performance to he detriment of creating " accuracy" I reused a Cerwin Vega box and retuned the port, and installed a dual voice coil driver as an excellent passive sub, at least it was for my purposes.

Also, keeping the volume the same, applies to acoustic suspension speakers. I believe you speaker is bass reflex. And changing the width of the baffle board changes the the dispersion and off axis FR…it was that altered. These things all give you a different performance easily measured by a frequency generator and sound pressure meter. If I I made any changes. in a box, I would be prepared to retune the port.

143
"So what did you mean by this comment" Reference " they definitely do some this better.......they definitely do some this worse...."

You dissected the sentence to comment on…but you removed the one part I was questioning…

....like reproduce the full range of frequencies at a high enough volume to be heard as well.

Reproducing the FULL RANGE of frequencies…Gee isn’t that what you want to do.

Also, keeping the volume the same, applies to acoustic suspension speakers.

That applies to both Acoustic suspension AND Base Reflex speakers.

http://www.members.shaw.ca/LoudspeakerBuilder.ca/thiele-small.html

But I actually cheated here…Altec printed a book called Designing Speakers back in the 70’s. I still have a copy. You see it on EBay every once in a while. In the book they had several blueprints for their speakers. I used one of the base blue prints for my 12" woofer. They had at least 2 different boxes for my exact woofer. I copied the blue print EXACTLY…including the port location and length - along with the insulation (how thick and what types). …worked great. Building a speaker box is one thing…designing it requires a lot of computing to get it right. Acoustic suspension is easier to design. But you have a trade off with not being as efficient.

Btw, did you understand that Cerwin Vega alters their speaker performance to he detriment of creating " accuracy"

I had a pair of Cerwin Vega 6x9 car speakers some 30 years ago. I never found their professional speakers to be that good. They were big into using a folded horn design like the Klipsch LaScala’s. Their big claim to fame was for the movie Battle Star Galactica…where they had these huge 18" woofers for some scenes. Some movie houses showing the movie would rent them. They were there used to just rattle your teeth.

144

I am still struggling to see your point…901s definitely do struggle to produce the full range range of frequencies at a high enough volume to be heard. I will stand by that statement. The 4 inch driver used in the 901 definitely will not disperse some frequencies with wave length shorter then the diameter of the driver very well…mounted horizontally, it even has trouble dispersing frequencies with length equals the sum of those drivers. The roll off above about 14k outside the axis of the single front facing driver was dramatic as I recall. I feel safe in saying that…

They are so dependent upon the surface composition behind them for sound accuracy beyond that produce by the font driver, how could they render content consistenly accurate in all invironments…the same could be said for any other speaker too, to a lesser or greater extent…

If you are going from this to…“well, isn’ t that (accuracy) what you want to do ?” Let me repeat for the umpteenth time…NO, NOT at the expense of some other factors. A darn set of headphones can produce accurate sound but often lacks the realism that reflected sound produces. It’ s not all about a flat 20 to 20 k. If you truly read the review of Bose 901 as I intended, I would have hoped that the take away was some very astute observations by the tester. But , like many, if anyone says anything positive about a Bose product, they suddenly start standing up in unison like a bunch of puppets and respite…no highs, no lows…yadda,

Inaccurate sound reproduction as even you have observed, can be very satisfying…I believe even you said in some situations, a Bose speaker sounds fine…others feel that way too, enough to keep buying products. I don’ t see any Bose products being promoted as studio monitors or reference speakers but when the bands I have worked with use the 801, the 901 turned around, for play back, according the members, they are excellent at reproducing satisfying, long term performance sound for both DJ and live performances. The cost a lot and still, professionals get great results and buy them…Even the L1 s. I have to perform in front of these things at times,and at times I prefer he sound.

145
If you are going from this to...."well, isn' t that (accuracy) what you want to do ?" Let me repeat for the umpteenth time......NO, NOT at the expense of some other factors

And you keep saying it’s a compromise…I’m saying it’s NOT. You can have good ACCURATE sound that sounds sweet and clean and beautiful. It doesn’t have to be grainy on the ears like some JBL’s do.

It' s not all about a flat 20 to 20 k.

I NEVER said that…but to me it is VERY important…The flatter the sound the more ACCURATE the sound. If Yo-Yo Ma plays C (two octaves below middle C) on his cello at the same volume as he does C two octaves ABOVE middle C…then in order to play back Yo Yo Ma’s performance the speakers need to be as flat as possible. The music won’t sound the same as Yo Yo Ma played it if the High C is 6dbs lower in volume then the Low C. - If you can do it in a wide dispersed field it can sound beautiful…very open…wide sound stage. You can close your eyes and actually picture the Orchestra…When the Clarinet solo comes on you turn your head to the left like he’s in the room with you.

It' s not all about a flat 20 to 20 k. If you truly read the review of Bose 901 as I intended, I would have hoped that the take away was some very astute observations by the tester.

That review is nothing new. Julian Hersh from Stereo Review was a big fan of the 901’s. I’ve heard it all before…I’ve done LONG TERM listening tests and with the 901’s. Very good friend of mine back in NY still has a pair. We spent many an hours listening to them. He’s the one where we moved them from his living room to a new family room…that they sounded absolutely AWFUL. We both had a very hard time being in the same room with them. We moved them back to his living room…where they still are today. I forget what iteration of the 901’s they are. They sounded EXCELLENT in his room. But I always thought there were other speakers that sounded better…Is it because other speakers are more accurate??? I don’t know…Maybe now that I’m about to hit 60 and have hearing loss above 16hz(as most of us do when we get older)…the Bose may sound different. Who knows?

And I hope you actually read the NOT-SO-GOOD reviews of the 901’s I posted. Like the part where the sound from the rear facing speakers reflecting so much that it doesn’t reach the listeners ears the same time the front speakers do…It’s measurable and in certain room setups…it DOESN’T sound pleasing. You say the reflecting sound can be controlled…I say it’s NOT easy and there are many rooms the 901’s flat out fail…where other speakers that are not so dependent on reflecting - sound just as beautiful as they do in other rooms.

146

Mike,
As a general rule I do not trust reviews of any publication who sells ads for the products they review. I really don’t trust reviews written in any for profit publication. I do trust the reviews of speakers from CR, as I do with thir cars. They give you a foundation based on science and it’s up to the reader to evaluate the results and use their finding as they see fit. As far s speakers are concerned, CR is a reasonable place to start, as is their reviews of cars. After that, I trust my ears.

Low crossover points, smaller quality drivers, verticle alignment, natural fiber based materials including paper and fabric for radiating surfaces, horn assisted radiating surfaces of non natural fiber based radiating material…and adjustable driver volumes including bi amping, L pads as well as plenty of pre amp EQ. These are my physical pre requisites before I even consider auditioning a speaker for purchase.
It has lead me to prefer for personal listening, small, two way book shelf speakers, with paper woofers 6 inches or less crossed over at less then 2k hertz to a fabric dome, paper or horn loaded tweeter. This is augmented by a powered subwoofer set at 60 to 80 hz. I have never been is disappointed in the sound of speakers in these descriptive parameters.

It’s that simple and IMO, I have heard nothing better for personal listening…now professional application is a different story, but radiating surfaces of paper for low and mid and well designed horn loaded upper ranges still prevail. Otherwise, I am not interested in paid lackeys telling what I should like. There is one basic thing I believe in…the human ear prefers sounds generated by vibrations off surfaces with like properties. Accuracy is great, but I prefer not to hear sounds generated any other way.

As far as controlling reflected sound…the two most effective ways i have found are speaker placement and paying attention to the surfaces and dimensions of the room you listen in…much like I would making a speaker box. If those things are in place, I have a greater chance of getting a speaker who’s sound I enjoy then just messing with the speaker.
The room rules !

147
It's that simple and IMO, I have heard nothing better for personal listening

There are obviously MANY approaches to achieving good sound. Horn, single driver, 2-way, 3-way, 4-way…All can produce good quality sound.

My personal preference a good sounding ACCURATE and efficient speakers. I agree…some professional speakers do NOT make good home speakers (Peavey, Kustom…just to name a few). But there are some that do. QUALITY horn speakers can make some the sweetest speakers with very wide imagery…far more so then typical cone speakers. But that’s MY opinion.

Many years ago when I moved to NH, my model-15’s were only 5 years old. I went to Boston and heard a live concert of the Boston Pops. After the concert I bought an Album (CD’s were just starting to come out). I brought the Album and was able to relive that concert over and over again with my home system. At the time I had a Crown PL-4 amp, McIntosh C26 pre-amp and a Thorens turntable. The sound was as close to the LIVE concert I ever heard. That’s what good quality accurate speakers are capable of. And that’s the goal every speaker manufacturer should be striving for - To reproduce as close to the live performance as possible. Not just the musicality, but the complete overall experience. If your speakers can’t do that…then they are doing you a disservice.

148

I think we give speakers too much credit for advancement of sound reproduction. Anyone has their own interpretation of what is good for them in reproducing the sounds they enjoy. Like a painting, no one can tell another what is pleasure able or better at reproducing how they hear another experience.

I often remember reading an interview of one of the hostages, an ambassador in the Iran crisis who was also an accomplished musician what he missed most upon his return. His response to me was surprising but true. He said, in effect, that he " was brought to tears by listening to a CD recording of a favorite classical piece of his". That he had missed experiencing one of the loves of his life, the realism of recorded sound made him break down, almost uncontrollably. The CD and digital music was made available to all during his incarceration and he missed that experience. Speaker design was little different before or after the crisis. Speaker design has altered little since, and then only as a by product of digital music.

Some call digital sound reproduction synthetic sound manipulation. I completely disagree because analog is NOT how the human mind processes sound. It does so discretely. Processing it bit by bit, and when we don’t quite hear or see what we want or expect, the mind has the unique ability to insert what it wants at it’s own pleasure through past experience. If that isn’t digital technology at it’s finest, I don’t know what is. To marry this concept to the personal experience of listening to music we enjoy for example, is as much an art as it is a science. Speakers are but one link in the chain…my opinion of the best speakers has changed dramatically over the years. It is those that can bend to manipulation while staying true to the fundamentals of who we are.

149

So Mike,
Give me a highly manipulative speaker built to the parameters I out lined earlier, and I don’t care how flat It’s FR was measured in an chamber. I can duplicate it or do better with a computer in the environment of my choosing. Plus, I can tailor it to my needs and preferences…oh, I want portability and durability. That pretty much eliminates many speakers.

But, as long as I have my lap top and speakers built the way I want, I can get closer to the sound I want then listening to some else idea of what sounds best for me.
You want flat, you got it, but what I do with music has less to do with that then creating an enjoyable experience. As a performer, I can be part of that experience and not just an observer and I want speakers that work with me and not against.

As far as a vinyl record, regardless of what ever other gear you have, recreating a live concert accurately. Mover and over; it’s the typical " the older you are, the better you were "

150
I often remember reading an interview of one of the hostages, an ambassador in the Iran crisis who was also an accomplished musician what he missed most upon his return. His response to me was surprising but true. He said, in effect, that he " was brought to tears by listening to a CD recording of a favorite classical piece of his". That he had missed experiencing one of the loves of his life, the realism of recorded sound made him break down, almost uncontrollably.

When CD’s first came out the quality was FAR FAR better then your average vinyl recording played on your typical Pioneer turntable. But there are many who had high-end turntables that would completely disagree with that. CD’s have made some VAST improvements…and most of those harden critics of early CD’s have come around to the CD’s. But you even said it yourself that speakers had to improve to handle the dynamics of CD’s. Speakers like my Altecs were already designed to handle the wide dynamics because they were designed for live music.

But speakers haven’t really improved much in the past 30 years. That’s why my 30yo speakers still sound as good or better then most speakers of today.

Amps haven’t improved much either. While they may have a lot more power…they don’t necessarily sound any better. I still like my 300B SET Tube amps for pure sound quality. Another reason I like efficient speakers. You need a speaker with 95db or greater efficiency for an amp that effectively only has 12watts of usable power. Many of your smaller speakers can take advantage of that. I don’t care how much you EQ your solid-state amp I don’t think it’ll sound as good.

151

Mike
"There are many who had high end turn tables who…"
I know exactly the people you talk about. I had a music teacher friend who felt the same way. Me explaining that even after a single play, the loss of quality with a diamond tipped needle tearing through vinyl degrades the content unacceptably. I would play my records but once after purchase; that was to record them, then store them away for a re recording if necessary. The other people who felt vinyl was that good dwindled in number when they bought CD versions of their vinyl records and did A &. B comparisons…
I bought on of the first, a Phillips Sony co venture player. My son has it today. It was and is the single best investment I ever made to improve my listening pleasure. That vinyl records are even in the same league in accurate sound reproduction for the average consumer, is not supported by mathmatics.
Now, a good early Sony reel to reel; a completely different story.

152

Mike
Using the math of today’s speakers compared to those of 30 years ago, I think I could successfully make a case that many average consumer speakers are worse in some respects.
To improve dynamics, speaker makers of less expensive speakers did simple things like, raise crossovers and use more bass reflex designs in box dimensions and with stock drivers that were never intended for it. Reflex speakers improved most when computer technology became more utilized.

153

About the early days of CD’s. Recording masters made during the vinyl/magnetic tape era had a bias in them to compensate for the natural fall off in frequency response of a record or tape. On high end equipment of the day, this resulted in a pretty accurate reproduction of the original.

Then CD’d come on the scene with a table top flat frequency response from 20Hz to 22kHz. When played on a cheap boom box, this actually worked because he speakers weren’t all that accurate, but add a CD player to a high end system of the day and the sound was “unnatural”. Newly recorded music and many of the old master recordings have been modified so that the CD’s sound more natural now. I guess you could rack that up to the teething process for the CD industry.

"Me explaining that even after a single play, the loss of quality of a diamond tipped need tearing through vinyl degrades the content unacceptedly"

I take issue with this, mostly to the word “unacceptably”. There were two grades of vinyl recodes made back then, similar to coin production, you have the “proofs”. each record mold could stamp out only so many records before the mold started to degrade, so the first run records were the audiophile grade, after that came the less expensive consumer grade.

A cheap record player of the day would do a lot of damage to the groove even after just a few plays, but a lot depended on the how new the needle was. The cheaper record players put a lot of pressure on the needle, but most of those needles were round so they had more surface contact area to support the extra weight.

On the higher end equipment, the stylus was elliptical shaped to increase frequency response, but the tonearms had much less tracking force. As long as the stylus had smooth edges, most of what it did was to temporarily distort the groove. If the stylus started to develop a sharp edge, which they could as they aged, then they would actually begin to shave the vinyl, wiping out the highest frequencies.

What you did not want to do was play a record over and over. The vinyl needed time to rest and recover, at least that was what I was told by audiophiles that I knew back then. But even with the best turntables, tonearms, cartridges and styli of the day on audiophile grade records, there was a tiny amount of degradation with each playing, but it hardly made the recording “unacceptable” after a single playing. With proper care, a record was still acceptable after hundreds of playings on reasonably good equipment.

154

@MikeInNH I have to add, this is with respect to Boston Pops concert…
The mind does a wonderful job of filling in missing information when the original is still fresh in your mind. Today’s less ideal equipment but with digital recording, does a far better job in actuality. I don’t think my digital equipment with inferior equipment can do better then your turn table…I KNOW it can.

155

dagosa, I don’t remember Mike saying this but I sure did. It must be wonderful to know your right, even when your not. Right now I have two turntables, you are right about the new one, but not the old one. You can’t get a Shure V15 cartridge anymore because it had a Beryllium cantilever in it. The only Beryllium mine in the world played out so it is no longer available.

156

@Keith

Hi Keith.

Of course I ompletly agree that, depending upon the grade of stylus, the tracking weight and quality of the vinyl, you can get many plays out of vinyl record without much audible degradation. Absolutely !
But, my comment was poorly worded in that I did not state the typical home user like ME, who was the majority buyer. I had a decent belt drive Pioneer turn table, I had a Shure v15 cartridge…but I was typical as I alo used junk. Count me in the group whom I think would have been majority users, who damaged their records beyond acctable after just a few plays. That’s why they were recorded.

As far as " resting and recovering is concerned" I would have to see it to believe it. Comparably if I could use my brothers reel to reel, I ALWAYS got better results with subsequent plays that way. Does anyone have a fear of wearing out a CD or other digital format ?

157

One of the missing elements in modern digital recordings is the ‘hiss’. Years ago they found that folks thought their speakers had a better high end when listening to the same identical recording, but with added hiss. Made it sound like there was a better high frequency response, some of the hiss corresponded to missing or imagined overtones.

158

@Keith…when I say “I know I can” I do in light of two things…first, @mike is referring to a vinyl record, the signal to noise ratio, the dynamic range and the frequency range is so limited compared to digital recording, it has to be an absolute no brainier. And importantly The better his equipment, the greater the faults of a record will be revealed. The numbers are ALL in the favor of the CD, or digital median. It’s just getting your brain on board afterward. But, his superior equip works in my favor, not his. And Keith, I was talking about my turn table, many years ago…not now.

Secondly, I believe in the psychoacoustics of attending a concert, buying a recording, record, cd, tape or otherwise and listening to it later. With an intimate knowledge of the presentation the human mind will insert details and nuances that make the recreated experience so much more lifelike then if you had not attended, the person who loved it will never be convinced otherwise, regardless of what someone else might say. Your mind is your ally in the same way you convince your self one speaker is better…it will be because your mind will do what it has to to reinforce your belief.

Getting back to the first paragraph, my mind is now reinforced by the numbers I referenced I am now convinced that " I can". Again , this is all with respect to replaying a Boston Pops concert of Vinyl LP.

159

Man am I happy I stepped away from this conversation. So many half truths and myths going on I’d be going crazy

160

@proacfan
Any different then the usual discussion of cars ?
Unless you would like to enlighten with your own ( myths and half truths).