Heresey II vs Chorus I

[DrWho]

I can understand using equpment that gives all the TEch data if you are designing equipment and testing equipment but in the end would you go just by the tech data or how expensive the parts are or what you hear?

The way you ask the question implies that the two don't go hand in hand. Do you have some intimacy with real tech data (as opposed to marketing stats) to claim a discrepancy? Any specific examples? I certainly don't have enough experience with tech data to claim any discrepancy so I would be very interested to hear about some.

What if a person can not hear bass below 50 hz?

Should a "deaf" individual feel qualified enough to comment on what generally constitutes the better speaker? I understand your point though, but that's why I brought up my original point...Someone that is say 10dB down at 20kHz is going to hear live music 10dB down at 20kHz. He is also going to hear recorded music 10dB down at 20kHz. When comparing the recording to the live, that 10dB doesn't matter because it is experienced with both...

[J M O N]

I hope this clarifies my point of view.

I do understand your point, but you're not getting mine. I'm not trying to start an argument, so let me explain it this way.

Person A and Person B listen to Speaker 1 and Speaker 2. Person A prefers Speaker 1 while Person B prefers Speaker 2. Both are right.

In each case, both feel their choice is the higher performer. In the case of cars or boats, it's not hard to determine which one is faster, just line 'em up next to each other and run 'em. However, speaker choice is subjective. It's no different than comparing strawberry ice cream to chocolate. Which one is better? That depends on who you ask.

[theplummer]

I hope this clarifies my point of view.

I do understand your point, but you're not getting mine. I'm not trying to start an argument, so let me explain it this way.

Person A and Person B listen to Speaker 1 and Speaker 2. Person A prefers Speaker 1 while Person B prefers Speaker 2. Both are right.

In each case, both feel their choice is the higher performer. In the case of cars or boats, it's not hard to determine which one is faster, just line 'em up next to each other and run 'em. However, speaker choice is subjective. It's no different than comparing strawberry ice cream to chocolate. Which one is better? That depends on who you ask.

I get your point, but it does not make any sense to me. Why would anyone want listen to a speaker that doesn't accurately reproduce a given sound, especially when it costs more. That's akin to two gold plated tin cans and a string. Just because you can make out what's playing, doesn't mean it sounds musical. I say if you prefer a colorized sound, you won't enjoy live music, don't waste your money going to the symphony.

[J M O N]

Why would anyone want listen to a speaker that doesn't accurately reproduce a given sound, especially when it costs more.

Exactly, that's why Person A chose Speaker 1. It's also the same reason Person B chose Speaker 2.

[meagain]

LOL! DK - Get the Chorus!!!! [Y]

[Erik Mandaville]

"The differences between different people absolutely do not matter. The physical manner in which a single person listens is always constant, regardless of the source of the sound (except for cases that induce hearing damage). Come back when you learn how to read."

Insults again?

Of course the differences between people matter. The physical manner in which a single person listens is NOT always constant. People use the same structures to receive and process sound, but that does not necessarily mean that the quality or characteristic of the perceived sound will be common to those concerned. Moreover, the physical act or process of hearing is only part of the equation. You are leaving out the most important part: Aesthetics.

Let me try to simplify it again with another, yet rather over-used analogy: As people listen to and process vibrations of air using the same structures (though not necessarily to the same end result), so do they also eat and digest food using the same anatomical 'tools.' However, both successful hearing and digestion are dependent upon the functional health of the organs involved -- something that will not be common to all people.

But here's the important point: Regardless of whether we're talking about hearing or digestion, the very elementary fact remains that people have tastes and preferences for how sound is reproduced, just as they have likes and dislikes concerning what they put in their mouths for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

Now, I welcome further dialogue, but challenge yourself to do it without those little insults you seem to find necessary. Okay? Thanks

Erik

[Erik Mandaville]

"Why would anyone want listen to a speaker that doesn't accurately reproduce a given sound, especially when it costs more. "

You are applying your own bias and sense of accuracy to people other than yourself. What's accurate to one individual, regardless of its measured response, may be extremely inaccurate to someone else. It doesn't necessarily mean that the person is deaf, inexperienced, or anything else. It means that that person has a different set of listening values and objectives for reproduced sound.

Erik

[dtel's wife]

DK,

Are you still reading this thread? I hope these guys didn't scare you off with all the indecisiveness![] Looks like they "highjacked" your thread![]

[maxg]

Back to the original question for a moment - with a few more which might help:

How big is your listening room?

What music do you generally listen to?

What speakers do you have currently?

- What do you like about them?

- What do you not like about them?

How important are the following aspects to you?

- Bass response?

- Imaging?

- Soundstage?

IMHO there is no milage in saying the Chorus is a more accurate speaker than a Heresy. You can say the Chorus plays deeper bass but outside of that I do not think it is more accurate persay. A Heresy with a sub, by logical conclusion should be a match for a pair of Chorus speakers - but funnily enough they won't sound exactly the same in a given room.

As an interesting aside if you really are having difficulty choosing between the 2 the Forte might be a nice compromise - although the Forte 2 actually goes lower than the Chorus strangely enough (therefore more accurate?).

As for Erik Vs the good Doctor - as usual both have a point and both are missing the other's. Yes - the same set of ears would be involved in listening to a live event as to a recording and therefore can be discounted in the comparison, but, and there are a series of big buts here:

a/ Such comparisons rely on audio-memory which is notoriously unreliable and will vary from one individual to another.

b/ During either the live or the recorded event what the Brain translates as important (more or less enjoyable) will also vary from one listener to another.

c/ Not only does people's ability to hear vary greatly from one individual to another their hearing ability also changes with age (generally not for the better). What appears accurate to me today might be uncomfortable tomorrow (or in a few years more likely).

d/ How many of us have really had the opportunity to compare a live event with a recording of that self same event? How do you actually know what accurate is most of the time? Even if you have managed to experience this - where were you in relation to the mike's? How much work was done by the recording engineer after the recording was made? Etc. etc.

(before anyone starts with a "but the recording will be common to a comparison of both speakers" I should point out that if the engineer has boosted the sound at any given frequency that might benefit one speaker over the other so the comparison would not be fair due to frequency response of the drivers, cabinets and Xover points).

Bottom line: Subject to the music you listen to, the room you listen in, the time of day, the humidty, your personal perferences, the supporting equipment, the recordings, your hearing, your mood, any medical conditions you may or may not have and about 500 more caveats one will probably sound better than the other to you - or not.

[Erik Mandaville]

"As for Erik Vs the good Doctor - as usual both have a point and both are missing the other's. Yes - the same set of ears would be involved in listening to a live event as to a recording and therefore can be discounted in the comparison, but, and there are a series of big buts here:"

Max: Please identify the point I'm missing. All the 'buts' you are referring to were implicit in what I wrote. There are complicating variables that constantly come into play.

Erik

[theplummer]

DK,

Are you still reading this thread? I hope these guys didn't scare you off with all the indecisiveness![] Looks like they "highjacked" your thread![]

DK,

Dtel's Wife is exactly right, I'm sorry I got wrapped up in the hijacking of your thread. I'll tie my fingers in a knot for now.

But, Meagan, I agree with you.

And, MaxG,

Again, articulate, as always, accurate, as always, and a fine diplomat. Maybe you should be working towards world peace.

[Erik Mandaville]

Though past history on this forum would suggest otherwise, argument can take place in the absence of insults, don't you think?

Erik

[maxg]

"As for Erik Vs the good Doctor - as usual both have a point and both are missing the other's. Yes - the same set of ears would be involved in listening to a live event as to a recording and therefore can be discounted in the comparison, but, and there are a series of big buts here:"

Max: Please identify the point I'm missing. All the 'buts' you are referring to were implicit in what I wrote. There are complicating variables that constantly come into play.

Erik

Sorry Erik if it wasnt clear. The Doc makes an interesting (if not new) point - if you are to compare a live event with a recording of that self same event and ignoring the difficulties that presents - then if should be possible to ascertain which of 2 speakers is the more accurate.

Thinking about it a live event is probably not the best way to do this - if we are talking purely about the ability to reproduce a given frequency - or a series of frequencies then it might be better to use a signal generator for the job along with either equipment to measure the result or someone with perfect pitch. What this would tell you about your preference is, however, anyone's guess.

I recall something similar being done with a panel of experts when ascertaining the benefits of DSD over PCM where the recording was being played back almost immediately after the event with both streams. It was this exercise that got me into SACD in the first place - that did not work out well come to think of it......[:^)]

[DrWho]

Sorry Erik if it wasnt clear. The Doc makes an interesting (if not new) point - if you are to compare a live event with a recording of that self same event and ignoring the difficulties that presents - then if should be possible to ascertain which of 2 speakers is the more accurate.

Thinking about it a live event is probably not the best way to do this - if we are talking purely about the ability to reproduce a given frequency - or a series of frequencies then it might be better to use a signal generator for the job along with either equipment to measure the result or someone with perfect pitch. What this would tell you about your preference is, however, anyone's guess.

There was this really smart dude way back in the day called Nyquist who sat down and proved that all phenomenon (like sound) can be broken down into the "frequency domain". I can't help but read your comments and observe a seemingly misrepresentation of what actually constitutes a frequency and how exactly it pertains to sound and how we quantify it. But go figure considering all of the "fysiks" being perpetrated by the audio industry. The frequency domain is probably the least informative of what is happening.....funny how it always comes up though.

Anyways, I agree that the goal of accuracy does not necessarily imply the goal of favorite preference. But I would argue that our preferences are conditioned and can be conditioned...and there is nothing wrong with training our ears to appreciate better sound....or rather, I see it as a process of acknowledging distortion and learning to identify it. In all honesty, music gets a bit boring when the same colors are layed on top - kinda like going through the world with sunglasses. If nothing else, there is nothing wrong with quantifying distortions that are pleasing. But we're talking about systems with 10% distortion in some cases....it's not like we're anywhere near a "highly resolving" system.

The problem right now in the audio industry is that too many people are willing to live with these high levels of distortion...even conditioning themselves to enjoy it. Nothing wrong with that, but I firmly believe that home audio systems with higher fidelity will drive the recording industry to share in those same levels of fidelity, and that with higher levels of fidelity we will be able to enjoy the music on a deeper level. At that point the art of what is heard in the studio (that does not relate in any way to "live sound") will translate better into our homes. How many people complain about all the great music out there that is recorded like crap? Did it really sound like that in the studio?

[J M O N]

Whatever happened to ol' Nyquist? I enjoyed reading his posts. Did he get banned from the forum?