Jump to content

RF-7II vs Heresy III


Grizzog

Recommended Posts

The problem with metal is how to compare it to the source material, just as you said.  When you hear a cymbal crash, how do you know if it really sounds like an 18" splash cymbal or a 22' ride cymbal?  When the vocalists screams out a lyric (I'm being descriptive, not critical) how do you know if it's in tune?

I agree, and this whole subject goes back to why Paul liked orchestra recordings as he had a base point to compare to, but consider that Roy apparently always listens to Bonnie Raitt on speaker prototypes that he is finalizing, seeing if she sounds nasal or whatever. What's the difference between doing that and paying attention to James Hetfield while singing "One"? Most likely nobody here knows what Bonnie Raitt sounds like in person and unamplified any more than James, so why would a recording of her automatically be more acceptable?

Furthermore, Bonnie heavily uses a stratocaster and keyboards, really no different than listening to the tone of Kirk Hammetts rig.

But yes, you're entirely right, and this can be demonstrated in the Hope gathering forum about the big system they brought. There were some things I just didn't think sounded good. Most people disagreed. And, I don't really care. :)

Edited by MetropolisLakeOutfitters
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The problem with metal is how to compare it to the source material, just as you said.  When you hear a cymbal crash, how do you know if it really sounds like an 18" splash cymbal or a 22' ride cymbal?  When the vocalists screams out a lyric (I'm being descriptive, not critical) how do you know if it's in tune?

I agree, and this whole subject goes back to why Paul liked orchestra recordings as he had a base point to compare to, but consider that Roy apparently always listens to Bonnie Raitt on speaker prototypes that he is finalizing, seeing if she sounds nasal or whatever. What's the difference between doing that and paying attention to James Hetfield while singing "One"? Most likely nobody here knows what Bonnie Raitt sounds like in person and unamplified any more than James, so why would a recording of her automatically be more acceptable?

Furthermore, Bonnie heavily uses a stratocaster and keyboards, really no different than listening to the tone of Kirk Hammetts rig.

But yes, you're entirely right, and this can be demonstrated in the Hope gathering forum about the big system they brought. There were some things I just didn't think sounded good. Most people disagreed. And, I don't really care. :)

 

 

 

The original engineering work in audio was all done by male engineers, which is why the phone network is optimized for male voice. Early theater sound systems also had a hard time reproducing female voices for the same reason.

 

I have sampled systems where the female voice is all but inaudible.

 

As to cymbal and piano strikes, these may be more a test of the amplifiers ability to go from zero to wide open instantly, since that is what is required.

 

The ear is pretty good at detecting if a voice sounds lifelike, minus auto tune etc, and female voice still seems to challenge a lot of the engineers and equipment.

 

Music with lots of distortion, like a Hendrix song, may sound pleasing or great, but what can we compare the distortion to unless we have two spectrum analyzers running and an analysis tool??

 

Once you have source you are comfortable with, it becomes a box swapping exercise. In my case a couple of weeks at Audio Associates swapping between the various Klipsch Speakers and the McIntosh gear. I am still very satisfied with the purchase, not to say that there isn't something out there better.

 

If I have the time money and gear, or manufacture a pair, I would like to compare side by side a mint pair of Altec 820c speakers with the 802c-G drivers. The 820c was billed as the best speaker in the world, may still be a true statement based on listing to one for a couple of hours in a very not ideal environment.

 

Dual 15 in horn loaded woofers

 

altec-lansing-820a-820c-corner-speakers-

 

 

 

altec820c_iconic2.jpg

 

 

maxresdefault.jpg

 

 

Thread on the 820

 

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?13503-Altec-820A-Corner-horn

Edited by Bubo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ear is pretty good at detecting if a voice sounds lifelike, minus auto tune etc, and female voice still seems to challenge a lot of the engineers and equipment.

 

With theater stuff which is most of what I do, I've always had way more trouble with low male voices.  They can sound unnaturally boomy in the midbass region on lots of movies, sometimes even bleeding in through the subs.  Female voices usually largely bypass this range for the most part.  Seems to be nearly all due to the recording though, as some gruffy male voices sound perfectly natural on good recordings such as Mad Max.  I've never noticed this particular issue on music.  

Edited by MetropolisLakeOutfitters
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The ear is pretty good at detecting if a voice sounds lifelike, minus auto tune etc, and female voice still seems to challenge a lot of the engineers and equipment.

 

With theater stuff which is most of what I do, I've always had way more trouble with low male voices.  They can sound unnaturally boomy in the midbass region on lots of movies, sometimes even bleeding in through the subs.  Female voices usually largely bypass this range for the most part.  Seems to be nearly all due to the recording though, as some gruffy male voices sound perfectly natural on good recordings such as Mad Max.  I've never noticed this particular issue on music.  

 

 

For some of the movies, at home and the theater agree the male voices are muddled and hard to hear, I assume a bad recording and mastering job or they didn't want to spend the money to dub over the "what did he say" sections. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I still had the RF-83, I would A/B them to the MCM1900  :P

 

 

It takes a lot to rock me. If someone has a system that can reproduce a 9' and

, then you have my attention B)  

 

I can only reproduce Tubas and Bagpipes.  :D

Fantastic Rachmaninov choice. I'm a big fan of opus 16 no. 4. (Can't find the video of some guy hammering away at the keys in his book and piano filled studio apartment. His version has more emotion and better timing in my opinion than Lugansky playing it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Can't argue with the last part of the statement but there's nothing wrong with metal, some of it is actually pretty revealing and hard to reproduce. The snap of the beater on the skin of a kick drum, the thickness of cymbal crashes, the tightness of the bottom end of a double bass / double kick without it turning into mush, the growl of a rock singer, all are things that will sound like crap on cheap speakers and are easy to hear the differences.

 

Before I reply, I wanted to compliment Bubo on an excellent piece.  It's hard to put music impressions into words.  Well done.

+++

 

Agree MetLO, there is nothing wrong with metal as a listening genre.  The only problem I have is you opened up a whole new can of worms.  :D

 

The problem with metal is how to compare it to the source material, just as you said.  When you hear a cymbal crash, how do you know if it really sounds like an 18" splash cymbal or a 22' ride cymbal?  When the vocalists screams out a lyric (I'm being descriptive, not critical) how do you know if it's in tune? 

 

That being said, the definition of the metal band for criteria for testing speakers then becomes "does it sound good to MY ears?"  That is where using metal as a media becomes difficult to generalize because you might like your metal as it sounds when played LOUD, I might like metal because of the driving drums or maybe the definition in the bass guitar line, just as you suggested.

 

But if we both used a grand piano, we could both agree if a middle C on the recording sounds like a middle C played live! on the piano, or we might agree that a trombone sounds like a trombone.

 

When you are using something like metal to evaluate speakers I just think it becomes even more subjective.  There's nothing wrong with that, it's just different strokes for different folks. 

 

That's why I like to use familiar music in male vocal, female vocal and piano.  It exposes a speaker's strength and weaknesses very quickly.

 

 

 

I'm not sure I follow the rationale of a recording of metal with a cymbal vs. a recording with a piano. Why wouldn't you have the same issue with the piano as you do with the cymbals?  For example, in a similar exercise in trying to determine if the cymbal really sounds like an 18" splash cymbal or a 22" ride cymbal, it would seem that the issue with the grand piano (since you specifically identified a "grand piano" I'm eliminating the added layer of detail when using an upright piano) if you could determine if the middle C on the recording sounds like the middle C played on a Steinway, or a middle C played on a Yamaha, or a middle C played on a Bösendorfer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What started as a comparison between two speakers seems to have gone off the interstate and into the woods.  Not complaining at all.  This is a good read.  Thanks for your RF-7II vs Heresy III thoughts.

 

if you could determine if the middle C on the recording sounds like the middle C played on a Steinway, or a middle C played on a Yamaha, or a middle C played on a Bösendorfer?

First we would have to agree on what sounds like a Steinway, Yamaha, Bosendorfer, Bechstein, Fazioli, etc.  That's a conversation by itself with a good chance for disagreement.  Post production can add another layer.  Does it sound less like a Steinway because of how they tweaked the master recording?

 

We all have our go-to songs when listening critically or comparing gear.  You come to expect certain qualities when listening to familiar music.

 

Audio is so subjective.  There are many common paths but ultimately we're all chasing something different from one another.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Can't argue with the last part of the statement but there's nothing wrong with metal, some of it is actually pretty revealing and hard to reproduce. The snap of the beater on the skin of a kick drum, the thickness of cymbal crashes, the tightness of the bottom end of a double bass / double kick without it turning into mush, the growl of a rock singer, all are things that will sound like crap on cheap speakers and are easy to hear the differences.

 

Before I reply, I wanted to compliment Bubo on an excellent piece.  It's hard to put music impressions into words.  Well done.

+++

 

Agree MetLO, there is nothing wrong with metal as a listening genre.  The only problem I have is you opened up a whole new can of worms.  :D

 

The problem with metal is how to compare it to the source material, just as you said.  When you hear a cymbal crash, how do you know if it really sounds like an 18" splash cymbal or a 22' ride cymbal?  When the vocalists screams out a lyric (I'm being descriptive, not critical) how do you know if it's in tune? 

 

That being said, the definition of the metal band for criteria for testing speakers then becomes "does it sound good to MY ears?"  That is where using metal as a media becomes difficult to generalize because you might like your metal as it sounds when played LOUD, I might like metal because of the driving drums or maybe the definition in the bass guitar line, just as you suggested.

 

But if we both used a grand piano, we could both agree if a middle C on the recording sounds like a middle C played live! on the piano, or we might agree that a trombone sounds like a trombone.

 

When you are using something like metal to evaluate speakers I just think it becomes even more subjective.  There's nothing wrong with that, it's just different strokes for different folks. 

 

That's why I like to use familiar music in male vocal, female vocal and piano.  It exposes a speaker's strength and weaknesses very quickly.

 

 

 

I'm not sure I follow the rationale of a recording of metal with a cymbal vs. a recording with a piano. Why wouldn't you have the same issue with the piano as you do with the cymbals? 

 

For example, in a similar exercise in trying to determine if the cymbal really sounds like an 18" splash cymbal or a 22" ride cymbal, it would seem that the issue with the grand piano (since you specifically identified a "grand piano" I'm eliminating the added layer of detail when using an upright piano) if you could determine if the middle C on the recording sounds like the middle C played on a Steinway, or a middle C played on a Yamaha, or a middle C played on a Bösendorfer?

 

 

 

What started as a comparison between two speakers seems to have gone off the interstate and into the woods.  Not complaining at all.  This is a good read.  Thanks for your RF-7II vs Heresy III thoughts.

 

 

 

if you could determine if the middle C on the recording sounds like the middle C played on a Steinway, or a middle C played on a Yamaha, or a middle C played on a Bösendorfer?

 

First we would have to agree on what sounds like a Steinway, Yamaha, Bosendorfer, Bechstein, Fazioli, etc.  That's a conversation by itself with a good chance for disagreement.  Post production can add another layer.  Does it sound less like a Steinway because of how they tweaked the master recording?

 

We all have our go-to songs when listening critically or comparing gear.  You come to expect certain qualities when listening to familiar music.

 

Audio is so subjective.  There are many common paths but ultimately we're all chasing something different from one another.

 

 

Since you took a small piece of my post and missed my original question in the quoted portion above, I'm not sure if you actually answered my original question; and if you also have difficulty following the rationale (or if the rationale is clear to you) as to why a recording of the heavy metal genre with a cymbal vs. a recording with a piano would be different and why the listening test using the piano would be better than the listening test using the cymbals?  Although, with the nuances that you have added in your post, it seems to come down to "does it sound good to your ears" in both situations.

 

My original question was "Why wouldn't you have the same issue with the piano as you do with the cymbals?"  Said another way, I was curious and wanted to see if I could gain more insight into why did wvu80 believe that his use of the piano in his tests were better and valid while he tended to discount MetropolisLakeOutfitter’s use of metal and cymbals in his listening tests?

 

My point was more in relation to how easy it is to believe that your own individual test (e.g., using a piano) is better in general (vs. only better for you specifically) than someone else’s test; and tried to demonstrate it where the assertion in question appeared to be that listening to a certain type of music (e.g., heavy metal), questioned that someone else could not possibly tell the difference between the smallest and least expensive cymbals in a drummer’s cymbal set-up (typically used to add “accents” to a drummer’s sound) and the largest and most expensive cymbal in a drummer's cymbal set-up (packs much more punch for a rock drummer than other cymbals).

 

Given the above (although I technically believe the differences between a grand piano and an upright piano or even a digital piano would be a better analogy to the differences between a splash cymbal and ride cymbal), since wvu80 specifically referenced "grand pianos" I simply introduced three grand pianos that can have the exact same tuning for middle C (e.g., adjusting the strings to the correct pitch or frequency), but very identifiable differences in tone.   

 

Overall, in general, while I was reading this thread there seems to be a lot of criticisms going on in a lot of different directions on what constitutes a valid test and what does not constitute a valid test, and to me, these criticisms do not really seem much different than the criticisms leveled in another thread about the stupid language that a paid reviewer uses in the audio magazine reviews. 

 

In my experience, unless a reader has a solid frame of reference and perspective into the other person’s listening environment (and where on the continuum does the level of ear training fall in relation to the reader), the review, while great reading and great entertainment, probably has little meaning and use for the reader's own listening environment.  In fact wvu80 probably made this point the best in this post.

 

 

I like the "versus" type threads, I find them interesting. 

 

New vs Old, big vs little, cheap vs expensive, it's all good.  I like these informal, subjective listening tests.  I have no problem with guys who like charts and graphs, sometimes that can objectively explain a subjective observation.  For me, charts and graphs most often make my brain go numb.

 

I did a speaker comparison some time back and I quickly became bogged down in figuring out the "ideal" setup for each speaker.  How to level matching source material, listening to each speaker EQ'd flat vs using EQ, finding proper placement in the room since room can be 50% of the sound one hears, using a sub, not using a sub, etc etc etc. 

 

There was just no way I was ever going to produce a level playing field.  Instead I choose to get each speaker sounding as good as I could in its own way, whatever that means.  Then judge each speaker against the other with the best sound I could get.

 

Good enough.  B)

 

 

Edited by Fjd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • Moderators
On 5/27/2016 at 5:01 PM, Grizzog said:

The Heresies were brought down to the family room for a show down against the RF-7II.

Fearing that I will put a lot of you to sleep with a long description, I'll get right to the point.

The RF-7II won.

That was my conclusion as well.  I really like the sound of the Heresy III but to my ears, the RF-7ii not only had more bottom end but they had a much larger "presence" for lack of better words.  The sound from them enveloped me and really made me feel like I was on the front row of a concert.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you tried setting the H-III's up on some stands, chairs or bar stools? I'd be curious as to how'd they sound with the horns positioned at the same height as the 7's horns as that can make a huge difference. You'd probably loose some low end but i'd have to think you'd get better detail. I experienced the same thing switching from RF-5's to forte II's, I immediately noticed a drop in detail until I leaned the forte's back so they horns were hitting at ear level.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
56 minutes ago, jjptkd said:

Have you tried setting the H-III's up on some stands, chairs or bar stools? I'd be curious as to how'd they sound with the horns positioned at the same height as the 7's horns as that can make a huge difference

I haven't tried raising the Heresy's since the risers angle the speakers with the tweeter directly at my ears so I wouldn't think that would make much difference.  If I placed them on a stand, then the tweeters and midrange would be shooting over my head due to the angled riser, not to mention, they would look REALLY strange raised off the ground.  And as mentioned, raising them up would reduce the bottom end and the Heresy's can't afford to lose the limited bass they do produce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Youthman said:

I haven't tried raising the Heresy's since the risers angle the speakers with the tweeter directly at my ears so I wouldn't think that would make much difference.  If I placed them on a stand, then the tweeters and midrange would be shooting over my head due to the angled riser, not to mention, they would look REALLY strange raised off the ground.  And as mentioned, raising them up would reduce the bottom end and the Heresy's can't afford to lose the limited bass they do produce.

Raising them will make a significant difference in the presentation and imaging though you will need to level them out by putting something on the back of the riser.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, pzannucci said:

Raising them will make a significant difference in the presentation and imaging though you will need to level them out by putting something on the back of the riser.

Isn't the center of the HIII riser just the bottom of the speaker like the HI and HII?

 

If the top portion of your stand is smaller in diameter than the inside of the riser then the speaker bottom will sit flat and not tilted back.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just an unusual thread, it is like comparing an Escalade to a smaller cadillac.  Just not much to compare since the two products were design for a different target audience.  I can see comparing similar things directed at the same target group.  Don't elevate the H III to the height of the RF 7 II or any other tower.  First decide if you want a tower speaker or the H I, II, or III.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, derrickdj1 said:

This is just an unusual thread, it is like comparing an Escalade to a smaller cadillac.  Just not much to compare since the two products were design for a different target audience.  I can see comparing similar things directed at the same target group.  Don't elevate the H III to the height of the RF 7 II or any other tower.  First decide if you want a tower speaker or the H I, II, or III.

I had my Heresy's on a 24" high subwoofer.  Heresy's don't need to be on the floor.  Of course anyone's thoughts may need to be on the intended usage.  

On the 24" sub containing a Focal 13" woofer, the Heresy's played way out of the league of keeping them on the floor, particularly with no subwoofer.  Imaging, presentation and bass extension galore.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The H speakers are terrific.  They could not replace my RF II in the HT 2 ch system.  I have 3 system and they are each are intended for a different application.  I don't even try to compare them to each other because of their intended application and room.  One is not better than the other and they are not interchangeable.  they all work well in their role down to my Bose system, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
1 hour ago, willland said:

Isn't the center of the HIII riser just the bottom of the speaker like the HI and HII?

Yes, the riser is open on the bottom.  Still just seems strange that you have to raise a speaker that was designed to sit on the floor in order to get the "optimal" performance out of it.  Why not make the Heresy into a floor standing speaker then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Youthman said:

Yes, the riser is open on the bottom.  Still just seems strange that you have to raise a speaker that was designed to sit on the floor in order to get the "optimal" performance out of it.  Why not make the Heresy into a floor standing speaker then?

The Heresy was ALWAYS a floor-standing speaker, until everybody wanted a riser added to entertain their "sweet spot" listening position.  It actually performs BETTER sitting on the floor without the riser, but the slant riser is what the "sweet spot" freaks wanted to aim the speaker upwards towards their sitting position, so that is what they got. Now the slant riser is part of the package, and now EVERYBODY has to cough up a few more bucks because of it, whether they want/need it or not.  The riser was originally an extra-cost OPTION.  The offering of it began its days as an option in the late 1970's/early 1980's.  Then the slant riser also became an option...eventually so many opted for the slant riser that they stopped offering the standard riser option.  Around the time the Heresy II went into production, or shortly afterwards, they upped the price of the Heresy and included the cost of the riser with it, since they were already selling so many of the "optional" risers.  They even modified the Styrofoam end packing pieces to include a space for the riser to fit neatly into it.  I have two pairs of Heresys, neither of which has a riser added to any of them, although my Heresy II models came with the slant risers, which are still in the packages they were shipped in.  I spend much more time wandering around the room or house while they are playing than sitting between them, anyway.  And my sitting position works just fine without the need for the risers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Youthman said:

Yes, the riser is open on the bottom.  Still just seems strange that you have to raise a speaker that was designed to sit on the floor in order to get the "optimal" performance out of it.  Why not make the Heresy into a floor standing speaker then?

If you think about when the Heresy was created, the intended use, the types and way you listened to music was different, along with the ability to have ancillary equipment such as subwoofers.  That was the 1950s and stereo was in it's infancy in the home, it is now 60 years later and you can pay tribute by keeping the Heritage series the same or similar but that doesn't mean they can't be put to better uses or positioned differently due to the ability to have the ancillary devices.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...