ROCK CONCERTS

When you have 20,000 screaming fans at 120 db
and your JBL VERTEC can't go higher than 120 db. What does the FOH ENGINEER do?He compensates by lowering the band and the back ups and leaving the solo singer practically alone at 120DB.With ALTEC LANSING
SPEAKERS YOU WOULD NOT NEED TO DO THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR VOCALS.SO ADDING THE REST OF THE BAND AT SAME LEVEL WOULD COME OVER AND ABOVE THE SCREAMING FANS. THE PROMOTERS WOULD MAKE MORE MONEY,AND EVRY ONE WOULD BE SATISFIED.
PRODUCERS AND FANS.
INVEST YOUR MONEY WISELY BUY ALTEC

Hi, just share with you guys, there was an exhibition bout pro audio in Singapore few months back. D&B (Q series), Meyer Sound (Milo), L-Accoustics (dV-DOSC), EV (X-Line VC) ect... All is Line Array, demoing with their very own demo disc, pumping 110dB-115dB 15 mins per demo, IMHO, for mid-range (Vocal) EV sound the best!!

Using Altec 817 cabs with Mantaray M94 horns is
a good and powerfull system.

It's quite huge in terms of cabs compared to line arrays but can be done.

..............

<font color="#FFFFFF" size="1">[ October 26, 2007 08:35 PM: Message edited by: CONVERGENCE ]</font>

Designing a line array speaker system with new Altec Drivers .

<font color="#FFFFFF" size="1">[ October 26, 2007 08:37 PM: Message edited by: CONVERGENCE ]</font>

Huh?

Buy Altec? They're no longer available! At least in large-scale, integrated systems...

Remember, they shut down operations in Anaheim, CA and the engineers went along their ways as well, to JBL, Cetec-Gauss, EV, Clair Bros., Community, etc.?

In fact, one young engineer Mark Ureda - a co-developer of the Altec Mantaray - went on to do a lot of consulting for Just Big and Loud.

Additionally, he co-authored a white paper presented to the Audio Engineering Society in 2000 with another reknown former Altec consultant/alum John Eargle and David Scheirman on optimising line array performance through predictive analysis.

The commercial result of their impressive research? The JBL VerTec line array.

And contrary to your dismissive statement re: the maximum sound pressure from the VerTec, please note that each enclosure is rated anywhere between 136 - 145 dB peak SPL, full power input at 1 metre. Sorry, even subtracting 6 dB to obtain an AES continuous power spec, a 210 loaded with two 515-8GHPs can't even come close...

Two morals of this story:

<ul>[*]If Altec were still a viable, cutting-edge professional audio leader today with all the resources that LTV denied the Anaheim Altec, the engineers would be doing all the same materials science, computer optimisation and analysis, digital audio / digital signal processing that all modern professional audio companies now use and users of this forum so irrationally seem to detest.[*]Altec is NOT the eternal paragon of sonic excellence; while excellent in their time and still relatively good today, our beloved vintage Altec has been far surpassed by modern drivers and systems.[/list]

Do you really think that if Altec were still viable today, that their engineers would be willing to work for a company to still produces multicells, 210/211 LF enclosures, 515 drivers? That would be quite an embarrassment really...

For related perspective, have a look at the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society articles for the past ten years and count how many originate from `boutique' audio companies (vintage/tube/phonograph/specialty cable/loudspeakers).

Didn't take long now, did it?

BobR

You would need a lot, and I mean alot, of 210,s and multi cells to reach the output of most line array systems on the market today! The size and weight of the traditional Altec systems of yesteryear would be overwhelming.

If Altec were in buisiness today, they would have to, in order to be competitive and hold a share of the market, have systems based upon todays designs and engineering, and yes, they would undoubtedly have digital signal processing to go with their systems! Truthfully speaking, no sound proffesional I know would be willing to work with the behemoth cabinets of back then, becuase todays stuff is so much lighter, and has such high power handling, and high output! Most sound companies are not willing to invest in what was, they want what is now, as well as whats coming next!

I have heard JBL Vertec! While I cant say I love the sound, the output is tremndous!

About digital! Well, I still have a taste for analog, but, and I mean this, digital has made vast improvements in the last couple of years, and is getting quite good! Yes, ten years ago, digital audio sounded like cheap trash! Not anymore! Although digital signal processing may not be 100% fully perfected yet, it is getting there! With the advent of processors like the Lake Contour, digital audio is approaching a point to which it sounds good, really good! With the top digital processors available now, its amazing what you can achieve, if you take the time to set it up correctly! I listened to a well known professional CD player a few weeks ago, and right after, they hooked up the digital output of the CD player to an outboard Apogee Rosetta DAC. The difference in sound quality was absolutely thrilling! The hash, and synthetic sound quality typically associted with low to middle of the road CD players was gone! The Apogee converters sounded smooth, and quite dynamic, and real! Notes hung in that elusive 3D image, each note distinctly in its own space and location, this was the coveted territory of analog! And up until recently, digital didnt quite get there. But things are changing rapidly! These Apogee converters assured me of that!

I am coming to understand that many things of the past that were known for their " sound " actually do have colorations and minute distortion components that while sound pleasing, are exactly what they are, colorations and distortions!

For home listening you can use what you like, whatever it may be! But, for professional use, they must use whats currently in manufacture, is backed up by companies having parts and service, be able to withstand the rigors of touring, high SPL, and power, as well as be able to offer their clients the latest technology! This is often a major selling point!

As good as Altec sounds, and sounded, they goofed back in the 80,s by not keeping up with the times! THX? Altec never had a THX system available for theatres, and theatres were a mainstay buisiness for a company like Altec! They left the door open to other companies coming in and dominating what were then new avenues of technology, manufacturing, and sales!

With that said, I still love the Altec sound, and vintage analog electronics! But if I were moving a major system around from place to place, 210,s and 99 racks of DC-300,s would be displaced by lighter weight Line Arrays, and 2 racks of Crown I-Tec amps!

You said :Altec never had a THX system available for theatres,not quite.

1989: The A10 Voice Of The Theater speaker system is THX? approved.

THe 'show co' system is the best system a Texas firm ever produced. The Altec GPA woofers and drivers could replace the components inside their cabinets.

This system is twice as powerful as VERTEC.But it can only be rented.It comes complete with technicians
to operate and set up.

................

<font color="#FFFFFF" size="1">[ October 26, 2007 08:41 PM: Message edited by: CONVERGENCE ]</font>

OK, I was wrong about THX, I was under the impression Altec had never had a THX system! My mistake!

ShowCo may have a system thasts twice as powerful as the vertec, nothing is impossible! I happen to like TAD woofers! Better than JBL IMHO! Im sure they could build a system using Iconic drivers, if they wanted to! But you make it seem like they could just swap the TAD,s for Iconic using the cabinets they designed and tuned for the TAD,s! I would think they would have to retune, or make boxes optimized for the drivers they are using!

Theres a reason ShowCo chose to use TAD! Certainly they can afford most anything they want, and TAD does not come cheap!

If Iconic became a prominent player in the pro field, with ground breaking new development, and major marketing, and financial backing, theres no reason they couldnt become a major entity, butI still think they would have to manufacture and market modern systems utilizing current state of the art technology!

But I dont think the market wants monster sized, extreme weight cabinets!

Scotty:

Quote:

---

If Iconic became a prominent player in the pro field, with ground breaking new development, and major marketing, and financial backing, theres no reason they couldnt become a major entity, butI still think they would have to manufacture and market modern systems utilizing current state of the art technology!

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">(disclaimer - what follows is not intended to offend but is simply an objective observation)

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but by my reckoning, Iconic Manufacturing Company appears to be a low-quantity run shop specialising in catering to retro-hi-fi and supporting existing Altec installations rather than high-volume, high-tech, high-performance professional audio.

If Iconic were to break into the latter, they need engineers; real engineers.

I do not see degreed mechanical and electrical engineers, acousticians, mathematicians or physicists currently on Iconic's roster.

While not at all important for the SET amp boutique cottage shop, they are mandatory for any serious pro audio company.

And marketing nostalgia products that were originally developed well over twenty years ago is not going to attract worthy candidates either...

BobR

PS - I reckon that our formerly-caps-locked friend is actually a forum troll but one never be too certain...

While i agree with most of what you say Bob, to my ears, the Lake Contour DSP processor sounds quite a bit better than the BSS FDS-388 of the 1990,s! In fact the BSS FDS 366T sounds good to me as well.

Both processors, which I like, more bits, and higher samplig rates, and to my ears do sound better than digital components of ten years ago!

Something I get to do on a regular basis, is play CD,s from the 90,s that sounded not so good through the CD player I was using in 1995, sound alot better through my current CD player! This tells me the hardware has improved!

But you are right about recordings having gotten better! Some of todays CD,s sound really good! So recording, mixing, and mastering for digital have also improved dramatically!

Hello All,
This discussion is very exciting for me to be involved in. I appreciate both sides of the discussion as I am in the fortunate position of having both types of speaker systems at my disposal.

To the best of my knowledge my company has the largest collection of Altec Lansing loudspeakers still used in concert production in the world today. We have numerous systems and they are used for events ranging from 20 - 100 000 people.

As well as the Altec Lansing speaker systems we also have the EV X-Line line array system and EV X-Array loudspeakers. This system is suitable for the larger events due to it's design and size.

My attitude to the discussion is that both my Altec and EV systems are ideal for some applications but neither is ideal for all situations.

There are situations that I would only use the Altec's for and others that I would only use the EV's for.

In running a production company there are more things to consider than just the audio quality alone. My preference is still the classic "Altec" sound, however, the cost of delivering that "sound" is not paid for by the client in most situations these day's.

We can become very precious about the "Altec" sound but in the production world it has been forgotten along time ago.

After the closure of the company I spent some time talking with some of the executives from Altec, and they looked at what we have done with the Altec product for the concert market.

Comments were made to the effect that they should have taken our approach to packaging and how the product was used and kept ahead of the market, and they might have still been in business today.

I can assure you all that the current professional concert loudspeaker market does not consider A7's and A4's as viable anymore. This has been hard for me to come to terms with, but it is reality.

I think that we all need to realise that it is not the loudspeakers alone that make a "great" sound there are many other factors that come into play and must be considered as well.

The quoting of facts and figures does not tell you how good a concert sounded you need to be there to hear it for yourself and then decide if you liked it or not.

After all audio is all very personal and I have heard Altec speakers and other brands sound very good and I have also heard them all sound very bad, depending on who is at the mixing console and who is on stage.

I have learnt to appreciate more than just Altec Lansing loudspeakers. Altec's are still my prefered speakers, however, there are many others that work and deliver a good sound night after night at concerts all around the world.

If any one is interested in seeing some of our Altec systems please visit www.cpcproductions.com and look in the production and Altec Lansing sections.

Enjoy listening.

Murray.

Scotty:

Quote:

---

About digital! Well, I still have a taste for analog, but, and I mean this, digital has made vast improvements in the last couple of years, and is getting quite good! Yes, ten years ago, digital audio sounded like cheap trash! Not anymore!

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, digital has improved in recent years, notably in quantisation depth and higher sampling rates -- storage is much less expensive now.

However, the `sound' of digital ten years ago is comparable to what it is nowadays; low noise floor, flat frequency response, extremely low distortion.

What really has changed and has imparted the most significant sonic improvements are improved recording and mastering techniques. Old habits such as compensating for HF loss for analogue tape wear, cutting heads and dealing with equalisation quirks from RIAA and tape curves were the true cause of `bad' digital sound and those anachronistic techniques are now history, thank goodness.

Quote:

---

I am coming to understand that many things of the past that were known for their " sound " actually do have colorations and minute distortion components that while sound pleasing, are exactly what they are, colorations and distortions!

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Recording `engineers' who are actually engineers have realised this since the beginning of the `retro-vintage' trend in the recording industry.

Those gremlins (distortion, noise, etc.) are what recording engineers were attempting to abate through the 1970s and 1980s. The promise of lossless transfers and simple editing was a dream soon to be fulfilled.

However, as the era of technically-savvy staff and unionised recording engineers was waning, the rise of the technically incompetent independents strangely coincided with the rise of digital recording technology; hence, the nostalgia for all things tube and analogue in the professional world to mirror the silliness and stupidity in the consumer `audiophile' scene.

There's also economic considerations as well -- as an example: when Alesis introduced the US$3995 ADAT 8-track modular digital recorder in 1991, that's when the large studios _really_ started to tout Analogue tape in earnest. After all, studios had over US$125-200K invested in big Studer A800/A820, MCI/Sony, etc. 2" 24-track recorders.

A producer could purchase three ADATs and a Mackie 16-input console for under US$20k and have a much lower noise floor than the LA studio that buried perhaps US$350K+ on a Studer A827 and big Neve console.

Studio owners were scared sh*tless. Many medium-sized LA facilities went **** -up in the 1990s.

Anyhow, this reaction is very comparable to the flood of inexpensive, high-performance mass-produced Japanese hi-fi equipment in the 1970s which prompted a similar reaction: retro-stupidity and `boutique' salon audiophilia.

BobR

"I do not see degreed mechanical and electrical engineers, acousticians, mathematicians or physicists currently on Iconic's roster."

This is certainly true of myself, on the technical level I know a relatively minuscule amount. However if you were to look deeper into some of the "roster's" resume's you would see that our both our Comptroller (Mike Jordan) and President (Jim Dickinson) literally grew up in the sound business. In my life experience I have noted that in many fields hands on experience counts for a **** of lot more than degrees, I believe this includes many aspects of the world of sound. In addition, on paper, many sound systems should be "the best" but in reality are not. While I know my technical limitations and understandings, I do know what sounds good to me.

There are also contributors behind the scenes that are not listed on the "roster" who do have the degreed credentials BobR seems to need to value their input. For various reasons their names are not included as staff.

I think the thing to remember is this:

The largest venue for professionally engineered sound systems is not the rock-and-roll touring market - it's the fixed installation market.

And, while it IS true that many of these require high SPL output, the vast majority of them use equipment of the type being mentioned here (like the line arrays, etc.) because there simply isn't anything else being marketed to them as viable.

Most of the venues that use fixed installation systems need them for a variety of applications - everything from voice to hard rock (yes, even some churches today are in the rock music business...so sad), and the result is they need a system that is verstile.

That said, however, it is also true that most will never operate them at the ear-splitting levels heard at most live rock concerts - their patrons/congregations just won't tolerate it.

We tend to look at the "big" things in life as being worthy of our emulation - big business, big cars, big aircraft, big body parts on models (female AND male these days), and this is no less true with sound systems. Often, the sound system designer/installer is forced to sell something he KNOWS isn't right for his customer, all because some "big" group, singer, or facility the customer admires has one just like it.

The SAD truth is that realism in sound reinforcement design - AND OPERATION - has all but vanished from the list of expectations and requirements of owners, operators, and listeners today. It's all about how loud your system can play - not how well does it reproduce, yea, reinforce the NATURAL sound being generated by the singer, speaker, performers without being in the way.

If Altec were in business today, I would think they would offer a variety of products for different venues, to be sure. It would be the only way they could compete.

Or would it?

Perhaps had Altec been allowed to have the money necessary to do so, a series of sound system training seminars - "clinics" - could have been held across the country for several years in the 1980's and 1990's for the END USERS. If they would have educated the end users as to the proper way to design and use a sound system in their fixed-installation venues, perhaps the number of really BAD sounding systems being purchased (not to mention the marginal ones) would not be so high.

Something like that might also have prevented the SPL wars, which do nothing to serve the customer, except to deprive him of the sense of being "where the action is" (no realism - no sound REINFORCEMENT), and, instead, leaves him with less hearing capabilities than when he went in...

"I do not see degreed mechanical and electrical engineers, acousticians, mathematicians or physicists currently on Iconic's roster."

I usually have enough sense to keep my comments to myself, but in this case...

A degree in any of these areas is certainly not a necessary and/or sufficient condition for the ability to make valuable contributions in the audio field.

I make this assertion, not as an endorsement of Iconic, (to date I do not have any personal experience with their product) but as a disclaimer of degrees. I could expound more on the subject, but it is probably not necessary, and I could point out which of those areas I have a degree in, but it's really not necessary for me to have a degree to make the assertion. I just wanted to put in a couple of cents worth.

Murray / Todd:

Let's separate the operators from the equipment; undoubtedly, there are *far* more bad operators than bad sound systems.

That said, an Altec-based sound system can sound good within its limits with the right operator. Can't rightly comment on the CPC Altec-based system since I've not heard it but will state that it does look impressive. Indeed, Altec may have had a second chance producing modular, riggable systems in the early 1980s.

However, the basic tenets of `good sound' are relatively unchanged since essentially codified in the early 1980s (by David Clark): flat frequency response, low distortion / noise, and for electronics, high input impedance / low output impedance.

For electroacoustic transducers (microphones / loudspeakers), add off-axis frequency-dependent behaviour as a significant consideration.

And you'll note that all the major advances in sound reinforcement address those very issues; distortion is at least an order-of-magnitude lower at equivalent sound pressure as older transducers, coverage is better and much more highly-predictable. What operators choose to do with new kit is something else altogether...

So far as sound pressure levels are concerned - at least to sensible folk - the massive increases are not to increase average listening sound pressure but to increase headroom, lower distortion and increase system reliability.

Quote:

---

It's all about how loud your system can play - not how well does it reproduce, yea, reinforce the NATURAL sound being generated by the singer, speaker, performers without being in the way.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anything electrically-amplified through a sound reinforcement system in a performance setting will hardly resemble `natural' sound... getting relatively `good' sound to so many paying audience members is perhaps a more apt description.

All that said, it's been quite a while since I've been to a large-scale electrically-amplified concert to evaluate sound reinforcement systems, not only to avoid the hearing damage that Todd alludes to but also to avoid many of the patrons as well. It's primarily classical and small club venues now... perhaps I'm just getting old.

BobR

Steve:

Please review what I stated:

Quote:

---

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but by my reckoning, Iconic Manufacturing Company appears to be a low-quantity run shop specialising in catering to retro-hi-fi and supporting existing Altec installations rather than high-volume, high-tech, high-performance professional audio.

If Iconic were to break into the latter, they need engineers; real engineers.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, based on the current product offering, the present Iconic does NOT necessarily require engineers, unless to optimise workflow and make incremental changes to products.

All the `heavy-lifting' was done 20+ years ago by degreed engineers, applied mathematicians and physicists (I know and have worked with a couple from the Anaheim Altec at different pro audio manufacturers...).

However, if Iconic were to develop NEW products from the ground-up, competetive with the other majors (JBL, EV, etc.), then Iconic would require a significant R & D department and budget.

`Literally grew up in the sound business' is a far cry from designing audio equipment.

Operators may know how-to-use good equipment and even know how to integrate great systems... and they offer valuable advice, suggestion, and feedback to audio manufacturers.

However - despite experience - designing cutting-edge audio equipment requires a firm, solid foundation in engineering and hard science: mathematics, physics, chemistry.

Sorry, there's simply no other way around that.

Quote:

---

There are also contributors behind the scenes that are not listed on the "roster" who do have the degreed credentials BobR seems to need to value their input. For various reasons their names are not included as staff.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As it should be. So unfortunate as it is, engineers in the audio industry cannot command the same salaries as their peers in the world's largest welfare program: the US Military-Industrial Complex.

Particularly in the past twenty years, many audio companies rely on consultants who work full-time at defence firms but moonlight on the side rather than attempting to retain a loyal engineering staff on miniscule budgets.

In any event I'm glad (and relieved) to hear that Iconic retains that level of expertise - to develop new products, you'll require it.

BobR

Thinking:

Quote:

---

A degree in any of these areas is certainly not a necessary and/or sufficient condition for the ability to make valuable contributions in the audio field.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is true, especially amongst audio end-users; however, in the research and development and in many areas of the manufacture of electromagnetic transducers, a degree in electrical/mechanical engineering, applied mathematics or physics is a minimum requirement.

Yes, people can acquire real-world skills and Edison-like insight on-the-job but a four-year degree in any of these areas of study is an indication of a minimum set of quantitative and analytical skills necessary for design, research and development in audio manufacturing.

BobR

If anyone is intrested in hearing the JBL Vertec system, catch Def Lepard on there current tour. I caught them in Winnipeg Manitoba on there Canadian leg of the current tour and I have to say that is one of the loudest systems I have ever heard!!! I think the last time I heard a system that loud was when "THE WHO" came to town back in the 70,s I think that was a JBL system as well. Keith Moon was still their Drummer and I have to say that was one of the best shows I have seen, and I have been catching shows from around 1974 By the way that Vertec system was as clear sounding as any 70,-80,s Arena system, in fact I would have to say clearer. You might even want to equip your self with some ear plugs just to be on the safe side???

I agree, the AJBL Vertec can produce insane SPL,s! I myself, have heard them at shows, amd in some clubs. But, as loud and clean as they can play, something about them, I just dont really care for. Possibly the setup of the system in various venues, and the mixing personnel were responsible for what I hear, but its ok, just not really great. The other side to this is that some of the SPL,s these systems are being used to produce, is totally ridiculous! TOO LOUD is TOO LOUD.

I have another Line Array story to tell. At Coney Island, every summer we have a Saturday which the newspaper " The Village Voice " hosts their " Siren festival " right in the Coney Island amusement area! They have all sorts of art displays, and food, and of course, live bands playing on band stands setup in the streets! This last year, the bandstand on Stillwell Av and Boardwalk had a McCauley Line Array system, and it was unbearably loud! REALLLLLY LOUD! I had the opportunity to be up close to the stage, and just had to run for cover, too much for me, and I like loud, but not this. The system they had was powered by mostly QSC Powerlights, and some Crest 1001,s, all XTA digital processing, some Klark-Teknik digital EQ,s. The McCauley line arrays midbass sounded pretty good, but the mids were harsher than anything I have ever heard before. The things that I noticed the most were the highs and subs! The drummers kick drum actually sounded pretty good. nice round, well damped, decent tone! I was talking to one of the FOH guys, and I told him I liked the sub bass, what are they using? he tells me they had 24 McCauley 18,s in custom ported cabinets, and they were using the crest 1001,s to run these. I said, you know, for digital signal processing, the subs sound good! He then told me that from the 15,s up, the system was digitally controlled, and QSC Powerlight driven, but the subs utilized an analog setup with massive heavy power amps that had the beef to deliver all day long! Surprise, surprise!

Then the highs! Now, this is live bands here, not pre recorded material! So Im listening to the band play, and the drummer is using the cymbals, and there is a distinctly synthetic sound to them! Like we were listening to a CD or something. XTA processors are considered to be one of the, if not the finest DSP units out there, and they had supposedly good speakers, and of course, plenty of power! While the drummers kick drum had a natural sounding tone, the cymabals had that synthetic waxy sheen that sounds artificial! Yet, from up close, if you could stand to be that close, the csound you heard directly from the drummer sounded proper. So in fact I was hearing the system, and its electronics!

I pointed this out to the sound tech I had been chatting with, his response was, yeah, thats why we still do analog bass, but for the rest, I dont care, the powerlights are much easier to move around, the Line Arrays produce the SPL, and you need HIGH SPL, and the DSP makes it simple to setup anywhere! And the people dont know or dont care as long as its loud! And his last statement was He doesnt care as long as he gets paid!

Some digital sounds good, but, even though I do like some things available today, you can still hear digital, and it still doesnt sound as natural or real as analog!

This took place well over a block away from my place, and as I was walking into the front of my place, I turned around to face the direction the music was coming from, thought to myself, man, I am over a block away, and it sounds like Im right there! THAT is too loud!

Most Line Arrays are used at insanely high SPL,s! Would Line Arrays sound better at more modest levels? Line Arrays are specifically designed for Long Throw at extreme High SPL,s! Seems to me, the very thing that was bothering me, is the very thing the Line Arrays were designed to do!

And yet, this is what the market wants!

Most professional singer will have a good clean and clear sound. I prefer sitting behind the FOH
engineer.I heard the transition from ALTEC LANSING TO JBL. Sports venues need these concerts
to close their year end.In Montreal you get the wave from 3 sides the U.S.A., U.K.and FRANCE. The French have good ballad singer some of our songs by Synatra And Elvis Presley to name a few came from over seas.

Some Artist start their tour here, more in the clasical gendre.

The young pro Artist with "screaming fans" is a problem for anny fOH engineer.

ALTEC LANSING OR GPA SPEAKERS BECAUSE OF THEIR
MID FREQUENCY CLARITY would be of help in such circumstances.

..................................................

<font color="#FFFFFF"><font size="1">[ October 26, 2007 08:45 PM: Message edited by: CONVERGENCE ]</font></font>

<font color="#FFFFFF" size="1">[ October 26, 2007 08:59 PM: Message edited by: CONVERGENCE ]</font>

Hi BOB R.
You wrote
----------------------------------------------------
However, the basic tenets of `good sound' are relatively unchanged since essentially codified in the early 1980s (by David Clark): flat frequency response, low distortion / noise,.
----------------------------------------------------
This is true, but its not all. In fact it seems to me, that most new speaker designer consider this as most important, in line with high SPL. They measure, they dont listen. Altec was made for those who listened. Thats why the almost unmeasurable part of dynamic behaviour while reproducing complex sounds of different instruments is so well mastered by altec speakers.
High wattage, overhung voice coils may have their
charisma, but they will not bring that realistic sound altec had with lightweight underhung voicecoils. Altecs were fabricated with precision and love, with the goal to sound as realistic as possible. The realism of playback behaviour of a loudspeaker cant be measured (yet?), it must be heard. Line array systems may sound very impressive, but not as realistic as altecs do.

tomdee:

(on flat frequency response, low distortion/noise, `criteria of good sound')

Quote:

---

This is true, but its not all.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I also did mention directivity in the context of loudspeakers but I ought to have been more specific: flat frequency response over a wide coverage angle yielding good power response.

What else am I forgetting?

Quote:

---

In fact it seems to me, that most new speaker designer consider this as most important,

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Researchers in the field of psychoacoustics have determined this long ago, which is why engineers - old and new - have channeled their efforts into attaining flat frequency response and low noise/distortion.

Again, what is it that all these researchers and engineers are neglecting?

Quote:

---

in line with high SPL.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">...to increase headroom and decrease distortion at normal listening levels to track the significant improvements in dynamic range and signal-to-noise ratio with improving media...

Have a look at Altec literature from their halcyon days of the 1950s-1970s...

What attributes are highly prominent? High efficiency. Low distortion. High sound pressure level.

In fact, Altec was one of the few companies that prominently featured `maximum sound pressure level at maximum rated electrical input power' on specification sheets.

It would not be too far of a stretch to say that Altec initiated the `SPL Wars'.

Quote:

---

They measure, they dont listen.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh dear, this statement exhibits utter ignorance of how audio products are designed and manufactured...

Yes, listening tests are the final evaluation of any audio product, particularly transducers (microphones, loudspeakers). However, listening evaluations are the last step in the process.

Normally, we set performance specs based upon what marketing desires or less often, what engineers aspire to achieve. We design. We measure. We revise. We measure. We revise again. We measure.

This cycle continues until the performance specs are met or exceeded. ONLY THEN do we even bother to listen, and nearly every time, meeting performance criteria based on lab measurements is reflected in subjective review.

Floyd Toole, former researcher at the Canadian NRC and now vice-president of Acoustical Engineering at Harmon Int'l has a now-famous statement regarding audio engineering:

`Science in the service of art'

His research culminating in an excellent keynote address at the 111th AES Convention regarding the commendable effort to standardise loudspeaker listening evaluations.

His findings concur with traditional criteria of good sound: people prefer loudspeakers that have flat frequency response, low distortion and good, even power response (flat frequency response off-axis). He also noted that the European Broadcast Union Tech Document 3276-1998 regarding loudspeaker system frequency response tolerance is not stringent enough.

This excellent address is featured in The Audio Critic, issue no. 28. An EXCELLENT, rational publication I might add...

As an aside, based upon this article I retired my Yamaha NS-10 monitors to the closet and purchased an excellent set of Mackie HR824 powered monitors which have advertised (and measured) flat response - within +/- 1.5 dB, 40 - 20000 hz. Dr. Toole is absolutely correct: there's nothing quite like flat response!

The subjectivists' retort about equipment that `measures well but sounds terrible' is an extremely rare occurance; in my experience, it is usually caused by improper measurement techniques or subjectivist reviewers `listening' with their eyes.

Quote:

---

Altec was made for those who listened.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I certainly hope so; I reckon it would be quite difficult to market loudspeakers to the deaf.

Quote:

---

Thats why the almost unmeasurable part of dynamic behaviour while reproducing complex sounds of different instruments is so well mastered by altec speakers.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pray tell, what is this `almost unmeasurable part of dynamic behaviour'???

I've not heard of this, nor have I seen it in JAES, JASA, Proceedings of the IEEE, etc. I'm quite fascinated and madly desire to learn what this is.

And since many of the Altec (Anaheim) engineers moved on to competing audio manufacturers, why haven't these other companies ever attained mastery of this elusive characteristic?

Not to say that this doesn't exist; perhaps psychoacoustic researchers haven't found it yet. Still, it's quite odd that Altec would have exclusive mastery of this some thirty years on...

Quote:

---

High wattage, overhung voice coils may have their charisma, but they will not bring that realistic sound altec had with lightweight underhung voicecoils.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, actually they provide even *more* realistic sound, particularly since many of these new, high-wattage drivers have an order-of-magnitude lower distortion than vintage Altec drivers at the same sound pressure level.

There's something to be said about flux control, extensive heat-sinking and computer-optimisation of magnetic circuits, something that was not available to engineers during the reign of Altec.

Quote:

---

Altecs were fabricated with precision and love, with the goal to sound as realistic as possible.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Altecs were definitely fabricated with precision prior to the mid-late 1970s; not so certain about love but it's a statistical certainty that there were more than a few fetishists at any given time working for Altec.

Quote:

---

The realism of playback behaviour of a loudspeaker cant be measured (yet?), it must be heard.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yet. At least in one measurement.

However, we can assess the quality of a loudspeaker system with an array of measurements and guess what? We measure for flat frequency response, low distortion and good power response!

Now is this realistic??? For a reference monitor loudspeaker???:

Altec 604E frequency response curve

Remember, the vertical scale is compressed to 20 dB...

BobR

Hi Bob

I would use the 604 k refence instead."polar and frequency response curve."

http://www.lansingheritage.org/image...-8k/page05.jpg

[url="http://www.lansingheritage.org/images/altec/specs/components/604-8k/page04.jpg"]]

Hi BobR I have to side with you and believe you hit a grand slam with your reply!!!

Now where is that dude that is going to show up and claim 1930,s Western Electric **** has never been surpassed by any one to this day?

I like BobR's posts because you can tell he would not waste his time here if he did not have a fondness for Altec in general.
I learn a lot and like his non-dogmatic, 'not blind loyalty' approach to subjects.

I have a question about specs -vs- actual sound.

How come some gear, particularly tube amps, are noticeably rolled off in the high frequencies when measured on a scope, yet, sound so extended through speakers when playing music, despite what the measurements say?

Conversely, I have heard certain solid state amps, that have measured frequency response to 50K, and make some speakers sound gated and band limited in the high frequency!

Westlake says>>>>>>>>>

http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/a...chmentid=10551

First, I want to emphasize that I appreciate BobR's contributions for essentially the same reasons 417 pointed out. BobR and Don gave me just enough enough information on x-overs and time alignment that I could improve my system without wasting money (and time) on an inferior approach. (active vs. passive)
Plus, he made me grasp why "nice" polar plots are desirable - the power response issue.

Second, I think I know who the scientist is that Todd mentioned. Once in a while he posts on the AA High Efficiency forum.
Shortly after Todd had posted his impressions of that audio show I was bold enough to ponder out loud how he, the scientist, liked "the other" great sounding system.
It took not long for him to show up, not to share his impressions but to give everybody a lecture about why his approach is superior to all others, and why he doesn't bother listening to speakers with a less than ideal power response - the horn still is too small... http://www.hostboard.com/forums/
The thread ended up as an almost-flamewar - everybody had a good time ;-)
I never had the chance to listen to his speakers but I bet they sound pretty good.
Here's what he said about "sound": "I try and make accurate loudspeakers not 'great sounding ones' ".

IMO, this is exactly the crux and here's why:

What's his particular perception of "accurateness" when it comes to sound reproduction?
I don't want to question his theories at all, I just doubt that psycho-acoustics with regard to sound reproduction is fully understood yet.
I always start feeling uneasy when a vendor attempts telling me what is best for me and why the competition's offers are inferior.
As to scientists/engineers, my experience is that some of them tend to behave rather hubristically when their methodologies or theories are being questioned by "profane" people. Open-mindedness on both sides should help both sides to get a clearer image in an even shorter time; I don't think that this could be considered unscientific. Just a different science, maybe a more holistic approach.

BTW Todd, could you tell me more of the recording you mentioned? Can I order it at Amazon? When I first listened to Mercury's Living Presence reissue of the Firebird on SACD over the 604s it blew my socks off. Dorati/Firebird at Amazon
How come that, back then, those sound engineers could make such stunning recordings with the - compared to today's standard - little and flawed equipment they had at hand? Maybe passion and love to music had something to do with it? http://www.hostboard.com/forums/

Manfred

Yes, I remember that comment by said scientist on the other forum (who, by the way, pushed the AES to have me lecture at their 92nd Annual in NYC on "Vintage Professional Loudspeakers, Their Care, Renovation, and Use", which was subsequently published in their Journal).

Quite a hilarious comment, indeed!

...My, my - the things we blurt out in the heat of the moment can be quite embarassing (remember, "I never, never had..."?).

With reference to the idea that we're really FAR AHEAD of those who preceded us, my friend Dr. John K. Hilliard used to make it painfully clear that we do NOT know everything when he said, "We're just beginning to nibble around the edges of the moderately difficult."

How true.

Hi bob

You are right, I'was ingnorant of the fact, that the listening is still a criteria in the designing process of speakers. What I believe, but I can't proof it, that there are some properties in the sound that is usually not measured. This could probably be measured with Sine bursts of different lenght (1ms to 1 sec, different frequencies and different levels, adding many of them in an ever changing manner). Played on altec speakers, probably these bursts would not be very undistorted, but very precise in timing and level, what makes the sound realistic. And distortion would be mostly on 2nd and 3rd order harmonics, wich would not affect the sound image too much. Other speakers with lower (sine wave)distortion probably would get confused with all that bursts and would not be able to maintain the timing and levels all together. Thats why they do not sound so rich and realistic as altec do. That's just a fantasy, I try do technically understand why my ears tell me altecs sound nice and realistic. Has enyone heard of measurements of the above mentioned kind?

I like to point out in these discussions (the type of which I have been involved in many times) that technical specifications are not the criteria for final pronouncement as the ability of a loudspeaker to perform in a way that is both accurate soncially and pleasing to listen to. Specifications are not the end - they are contribute to the final outcome, but they are NOT the only factor in the equation, if you please.

Not long ago, I spent a day at a high-end audio show where all kinds of speakers (and other things) were being demonstrated. Now, while the listening environments there were by no means pristine, they were usable, and the attendees were able to get a good idea of what the different speakers were able to do in less-than-ideal acoustic environments (most home listening rooms are less-than-ideal).

Of all the exhibitors of loudspeakers, almost all had published specifications that were outstanding: ruler flat response from 0 Hz to infinity, high power handling capabilities, impressive SPL output, esoteric approaches to sound reproduction covering everything from the nominally plausible to the downright ridiculous...well, you get the idea.

The consensus of the people - as heard and reported by those mingling amongst the crowds - was that two speaker systems present had the "best" sound at the show (whatever "best sound" is).

One system was designed by a scientist who is hearing impaired, and, truthfully, it works quite well. He did the math correctly, and came up with a system that does a very good job. I was not slightly impressed by them - they were well behaved, performed nicely at lower SPL's, and had good realism (no real coloration). My only real negative to listening to them, other than the fact that their space-age look might not go well in some home environments, was that, after a while, they were fatiguing to listen to. I don't know why, other than the fact that I could hear the acoustical center of the sound source moving up-and-down and up-and-down all of the time between his LF and HF devices. At any rate, they were quite nice, and quite expensive.

The other speaker system that, according to those who listened to the attendees' comments as they made their way from room to room, was actually preferred over all of the others present. That system used a coaxial full-range driver, a passive crossover, and utilized a more traditional approach to enclosure design and manufacture.

According to the attendees, this speaker, though it had less-than-perfect polar plots, less-than-perfect frequency response curves, a limited power handling capacity (75 watts, AES) - though it was extremely efficient (4.87%), sounded more natural, more realistic, and was more impressive to listen to than all of the others being deomonstrated that day, even more than the one designed by the highly regarded scientist who has an earned degree in physics and acoustics!

The most telling differences between that system and all the others came during the playing of a recording that had been made in a "nearly live" environment - it was a symphony orchestra recording live in a huge studio designed for the purpose, and used minimal mixrophones. The mix was very simple. It was as close to a recording of a live performance as you could get.

During one particular passage, the composer used a large 52" bass drum to accentuate the piece. It wasn't hit hard by the percussionist - only firmly - and it was not over-eq'd to sound bigger than it was. It was just a recording of a 52" bass drum.

Operating at a moderate listening level, this passage was played for the attendees. Every time the music got to the part where the bass drummer did his thing, the listeners, who had been favorably responding to the performance of this system up to that point, upon hearing the bass drum accentuate the musical passage, all broke out with a wide grin, their eyes widening with astonished pleasure.

Now, I've said all of that to say this:

YES it is important that a loudspeaker be capable of reproducing at sound levels that are true-to-life,

and

YES it is important that a loudspeaker be free from frequency response characteristics that alter the true nature of the sound they are being asked to reproduce,

and

YES it is important that we reckognize deficiencies in design and manufacture and improve speakers as best we can,

BUT -

It really all comes down to WHAT DOES IT SOUND LIKE?

If, in the final analysis, the sound the listener hears is NATURAL and exhibits true REALISM, then, the measured performance parameters notwithstanding, the speaker is successfully doing what it is designed to do.

To me, THAT is the final measurement criteria: DOES IT SOUND REAL?

If it takes perfect spec's and huge SPL abilities to do so, then that's fine.

If it can be accomplished on other ways using new methods, or using older ones, then so be it.

tomdee:

I think what you refer to is called impulse response. The ability of a driver to not substantially overshoot or undershoot an electrical impulse of much shorter duration than it's acoustic output. Yes it can be tested for, and graphed.

Quoting from an article in Dec. 2004 AudioXpress by Mark McKenzie.

"In impulse testing the drive signal is a short duration, positive-going electrical pulse lasting a much shorter time than the acoustic output from the driver. The driver begins accelerating during the applied signal, continues to deflect in the same direction after the signal stops, and then once the spring force of the spider and surround equals the inertial energy of the cone structure, snaps back.

Electromechanical drivers always overshoot their rest position and produce a negative polarity acoustic output. For want of a better term these large magnitude acoustic outputs are called spikes. A perfect loudspeaker in a sealed cabinet or infinite baffle will show three spikes: a first positive, first negative, and second positive. These three spikes are considered the onset response. Each successive spike ought to be much less in magnitude than the preceding one.

After the first series of spikes, the driver continues to vibrate until finally coming to rest at the beginning position. This overshoot and later decay is caused by the combination of the motor system resonance and a complex variety of cone and surround resonant structures.

It is the magnitude ratio of first positive spike to first negative overshoot that makes a driver desirable."

Mark goes on to explain how the first positive to negative ratio is audible, and gives the example of how a tweeter with a larger second negative spike than it's first positive going spike can sound edgy and hard when reproducing cymbals.

Back to the original point. This attribute of a driver is seldom, if ever, listed in it's spec sheet, yet can clearly affect performance.

I hope I have not stepped on Marks toes by quoting him here, or broken any site protocall. He wrote a very informative article.

Back again folks, sorry about the delay!

Todd:

While I agree that tech specs are not the final arbiter of how a loudspeaker system will perform, psychoacoustic research has codified a few criteria that is the minimum requirement for high performance.

For loudspeakers, flat on-axis frequency response is a minimum requirement.

Flat power response is now considered a minimum requirement now that a lot more research has been conducted on the loudspeaker system / room interface.

Now for the listening test example that you mentioned in your post:

Great, the 604-8K-derived made an impressive showing against a modern, well-engineered system.

I can agree that the Iconic did sound `more impressive' than the other system but assuming that the other system had flat power response (which the 604-8k has only above its crossover frequency), I doubt that the Iconic did sound `more natural, more realistic'; physics dictates that it can only sound uncoloured on-axis.

I have several UREI 811 / 811A monitor loudspeakers, a pair of 604-8K and 605As and I can assure you that ALL of these systems sound extremely coloured (and therefore un-natural and un-realistic off-axis. The `horn-in-the-centre' coaxial arrangement cannot assure a smooth transition between LF and HF drivers in the small physical space.

As an aside, the non-technically-savvy producer I now work with has complained about my UREI 811As because they only `sound right where you (me, the engineer) are sitting'. That's another reason why I had to purchase my Mackie HR824s.

Now to address your ultimate question: `WHAT DOES IT SOUND LIKE?'

For recording and sound design professionals, we want - no, DEMAND - flat frequency and power response; producers/directors need the assurance that the end-product translates to so many end-user systems as possible. Meeting those minimum requirements is the only means of ensuring this.

Now for the end-users, well, this has many engineers perplexed. Who can explain the resurgence of tube (valve) electronics and the insane preference for vinyl phonograph LPs? The latter in particular is much further from `natural' and `realistic' than 44.1 kHz / 16-bit digital media.

Perhaps end-users do not really want reality or naturalness... Perhaps they like noise and harmonics, frequency response aberrations, poor off-axis performance.

Perhaps they want a 3-6 dB rise in the one-octave band between 1.5 - 3 kHz (that adds apparent `impact')?

Remember that flat frequency response is dull, unassuming, reserved. Something that deviates from this (which most reputable high-end loudspeaker systems strive to attain) will definitely catch attention -- maybe even put a smile on one's face.

Lastly, I'm convinced that many end-users - especially audiophiles - listen with their eyes and make decisions based on faith. They cannot accept that small, inexpensive, modern technology can (and does) sound more natural and more realistic than grand-dad's old `Big Iron'. Harleys and old-American hot-rods are a perfect analogy.

One antidote is to convince these Luddites to go see live shows and purchase more music media than wasting money tweaking audio anachronisms.

Another is to significantly improve math, science, music and arts education in the US, all of which are severely deficient compared to the rest of the industrialised world. More important is to change the typical American `faith-based' disdain towards these subjects, which is baffling in such a technology-driven society. American's poor quantitative and analytical abilities are not only apparent in its loony audiophile culture but more seriously in its utterly debt-ridden consumer culture and its jingoistic and terribly militaristic foreign policy.

BobR

more on listening evaluations in a later post...

homme_de_terre and Todd:

Quote:

---

Here's what he said about "sound": "I try and make accurate loudspeakers not 'great sounding ones' ".

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That scientist is entirely correct; isn't that the noble goal of `high-fidelity' or `faithfulness to the original'?

The creative process and the endeavour to make `great' sound ends at the final mix and mastering; consumer playback of the end-product should accurately reproduce the efforts of the artists, producer and engineer.

We certainly have not achieved that goal quite yet but we ought not corrupt the process...

Quote:

---

I just doubt that psycho-acoustics with regard to sound reproduction is fully understood yet.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Perhaps, but we know that flat frequency response and flat power response are essential, minimum requirements.

Quote:

---

I always start feeling uneasy when a vendor attempts telling me what is best for me and why the competition's offers are inferior.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">When a vendor uses sound scientific methodology to cut down a competitor (i.e. - non-flat frequency response), that is entirely justified. The vendor is doing consumers a favour at that point.

Quote:

---

As to scientists/engineers, my experience is that some of them tend to behave rather hubristically when their methodologies or theories are being questioned by "profane" people.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, we defend our assertions using facts gleaned from research.

Designing audio equipment is not art, it is science, or as I quoted Floyd Toole in a previous post, `Science in the Service of Art'.

Quote:

---

With reference to the idea that we're really FAR AHEAD of those who preceded us, my friend Dr. John K. Hilliard used to make it painfully clear that we do NOT know everything when he said, "We're just beginning to nibble around the edges of the moderately difficult."

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">On the contrary, we ARE incredibly far ahead in many aspects of audio electronics and media than we were even twenty years ago: witness 96 kHz / 24-bit digital audio which transcends the theoretical limits of human hearing, line-level analogue components with -110 dB noise floors, etc.

On the other hand, Hilliard's assertion is correct in other areas, particularly DSP and - more relevant to this forum - loudspeaker interface to acoustic environments.

So the big question: How to tackle these issues?

Improving and standardising testing methodology constitutes the foundation.

Floyd Toole's recommendation to codify loudspeaker testing procedures is an excellent starting point.

First off, sighted undisciplined comparison/evaluations that appear to be the norm (as in the example Todd provided) are out. Only double-blind testing can provide statistically meaningful results.

For example, JBL/Harmon uses a computer-controlled, pneumatically-operated `shuffler' to switch loudspeaker systems in the same position behind an acoustically-transparent screen. Different systems can be switched by the listener within three seconds! This should immediately become an industry-standard.

And preliminary results of Toole's research have only served to reinforce the results of previous research; listeners prefer flat frequency response / flat power response loudspeaker systems by a large, statistically significant margin. While controlling a user's acoustic environment is out of a vendor's control, assuring a flat power response is still the best attempt at achieving a good loudspeaker system / room interface.

BobR

Scotty J:

Quote:

---

How come some gear, particularly tube amps, are noticeably rolled off in the high frequencies when measured on a scope, yet, sound so extended through speakers when playing music, despite what the measurements say?

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Possibly the addition of harmonics, which I've measured to be so high as 2-4% THD in some of the more ridiculous single-ended Class A designs?

Quote:

---

Conversely, I have heard certain solid state amps, that have measured frequency response to 50K, and make some speakers sound gated and band limited in the high frequency!

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As I mentioned in a previous post, flat frequency response sounds unassuming and reserved, unlike a SET amp producing high amounts of harmonic components.

Also, an amplifier's ability to competently handle reactive components of a loudspeaker system load will also affect frequency response as well. The majority of quality, modern solid-state amplifiers do not suffer from this though it appears to afflict many tube amps (and many single-ended solid-state amps!), of which many - if not most - are incompetently designed.

BobR

tomdee / AMH:

Quote:

---

What I believe, but I can't proof it, that there are some properties in the sound that is usually not measured.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If so, then it ought to be obvious that no vendor could then have mastery of such properties.

Quote:

---

I think what you refer to is called impulse response. The ability of a driver to not substantially overshoot or undershoot an electrical impulse of much shorter duration than it's acoustic output. Yes it can be tested for, and graphed....

This attribute of a driver is seldom, if ever, listed in it's spec sheet, yet can clearly affect performance.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, quality manufacturers DO provide waterfall plots (Vifa is one, if I remember correctly).

Which also brings up yet another issue: can a 15" lightweight paper cone be both resonant and ring-free up to 1500 hz?

There was a reason for Tannoy's Girdacoustic cones (before they switched to plastic) and the fact that most loudspeaker manufacturers veered towards three-way systems with sub-300 hz crossover frequencies...

BobR

Guys, this has been a very thought-provoking thread! As it seems to have turned towards testing and standards, I'd like to throw out an idea to see how it flies;

Since various standards and test methods used by manufacturers lead to difficulty of accurate comparison of similar products, what if?:

An independant firm, with no ties to any manufacturer, provided fee-based testing facilities and services, using standards set by the AES, and agreed upon by participating manufacturers. I believe a well-equipped and staffed dedicated testing facility could save manufacturers time and money over having to provide their own facilities and staff, and provide the end-user with more valid and easy-to-use data for comparison purposes than is currently available, by being standardized. The makers of junk would be the only ones to find fault with such a system, though if voluntary and fee-based, they wouldn't have to participate. Such a system could lead to competitive research, which is a factor behind innovation, and the end result should be better, (and potentially less-expensive) products. Sort of like UL testing, only with different criterion.

The availabilty of standardized, reliable, and extensive test data might leave many of us that like to debate the various merits of our tools (or toys) with more time on our hands. Perhaps we could find a more rewarding pastime then,... like,...oh,say.....listening to music.

The AES established measurment standards some time back, and Altec used them, but most others did not, probably due to the fact that their marketing departments wouldn't stand for it.

The TEF machine is THE way to do this, but few will use it...