Adire Dharman test results from Tom Nousaine... (1 Viewer)

[Larry B]

Jack and Holadem: Thank you both for your replies. I will certainly give them some consideration.
When it comes to stereo performance, most subs are woefully inadequate, to say the least. (Rel being a notable exception.) What most subs (and in fact, most speakers in general) lack is musicality. It would be interesting to see how the various contenders measure (that being something I have never paid any attention to, letting my ears do the evaluating instead.)
And lest I forget, thanks to you too, Suarav. It's comforting to know there's at least one person I can count on.
Larry

 

[Shane Martin]

Looks like a winner from Dan Wiggins. Truly amazing at $599.

 

[Jack Gilvey]

And lest I forget, thanks to you too, Suarav. It's comforting to know there's at least one person I can count on.

Unless I've misread, Saurav agrees with my (and Holadem's)general point once "comprehensive" is defined.

 

[Saurav]

I believe that a sub will either accurately reproduce and input signal, or it won't. I don't know what "musicality" means, though, I see it used in different contexts.

I've had this discussion with Mike Knapp before I think it boils down to what you mean when you say "accurate". Most people use that term to indicate flat frequency response. However, that is only one kind of accuracy. Take phase response, for instance - a sub (or a speaker, for that matter) can be extremely accurate in its frequency response, but be pretty inaccurate in its phase response, i.e., signals of different frequencies get their phase altered by different amounts. This speaker will certainly not reproduce an input waveform faithfully, and it is accurate or inaccurate depending on what you're measuring.
Anyway, I'm not saying that "musicality" = "phase response". All I'm saying is, there are other parameters that contribute to the sound, some of which are fairly well understood and measurable, but are rarely used.

 

[Jack Gilvey]

All I'm saying is, there are other parameters that contribute to the sound, some of which are fairly well understood and measurable, but are rarely used.

True. I would include in my definition of "accuracy" those other parameters that I mentioned in my definition of "comprehensive", group delay and phase response basically indicating the same thing (which some mistakenly refer to as the "speed" of a woofer).

 

[Saurav]

which some mistakenly refer to as the "speed" of a woofer

Well... it is a measure of how fast it starts and stops
Edit: Never mind, you're right, group delay and phase response are pretty much the same thing. That's a weird name though, group delay

 

[Lewis Besze]

Let me add to the discussion,the ROOM.The fact,where the speaker is reside, is just as important,and affect phase and frequency response,severly.So a given speaker can only be good as the room,and it's relation to it[placement].

 

[Jack Gilvey]

Saurav, here's an interesting discussion on GD and "fast" bass. DanW. also mentions the definition in the link that Mike and I posted regarding the frequency response issue.

Let me add to the discussion,the ROOM.The fact,where the speaker is reside, is just as important,and affect phase and frequency response,severly.So a given speaker can only be good as the room,and it's relation to it[placement].

Tom Nousaine has stated (I paraphrase) that a sub that can reproduce what's on a recording perfectly as regards FR and SPL will deliver the material "with the subjective transparency allowed by the room".

 

[Saurav]

I'll read that in more detail later, but that makes sense. Accurate phase response is necessary. So is accurate high frequency response, because a sharp bass transient will have frequencies several octaves above the fundamental (if you take its Fourier transform), and you want all those harmonics (up to the frequency being reproduced by the subwoofer) to be amplitude-accurate as well.

 

[Larry B]

Jack:
My comment to Saurav was pretty much tongue-in-cheek. However, in re-reading his posts, I see what you mean about his agreeing with you. Maybe I should take back my thank you.
As for defining/explaining musicality, that's not an easy one. (It is of course, a subjective term.) It is frequently used in the high-and audio world, without much discussion. On the other hand, I often run into trouble in the "real world" when I use it (especially if I describe someone's equipment as lacking it ).
The best I can say is that it has to do with the ability of audio equipment to convey the emotional content of the music. That definition is sadly lacking, because even transistor radios (do they still make those?) can convey emotion. (That's the beauty of music; it can impact us even when the quality of the reproduction is wretched.) Despite this, no one would describe such devices as being "musical." As is the case for most (if not all) subjective terms, there is bound to be considerable variation as to where musicality begins.
It is worth noting that one does not have to reach into the extreme hi-end to find musical gear. For example, I find Arcam gear to be quite musical for its price range. In contrast, most home theater receivers tend to lack musicality, as do many speakers designed predominantly for HT use. (No suprise there, since in each case music was not the designer's main intent.) Please note that this does not mean that these products can't be used for music, nor that the music they produce can't be enjoyable.
Naturally, this is just my opinion. Nothing more, and nothing less.
Larry
P.S. I highly recommend Robert Harley's book "The Complete Guide to High End Audio." I'm not sure if he specificaaly addresses the issue of musicality, but it is never-the-less extremely informative, and quite well written.

 

[Larry B]

Jack:

"Tom Nousaine has stated (I paraphrase) that a sub that can reproduce what's on a recording perfectly as regards FR and SPL will deliver the material "with the subjective transparency allowed by the room".

Does this mean that all subs that measure the same, will sound the same? And perhaps more to the point, is perfect reproduction achievable?

If the answer to the latter question is "no" (as I think everyone will agree), then each sub manufactuerer, like manufacturers of all speakers (and in fact, all audio equipment), must make compromises, based on what type of sound they seek. Which brings me back to where I began: Can one actually predict the sound of a sub from its measurements?

Larry

 

[Jack Gilvey]

Which brings me back to where I began: Can one actually predict the sound of a sub from its measurements?

As I've stated, one can get close if one has heard enough subs and knows what data correlates with what subjective experience. I'm not saying that it will be a perfect "prediction", my intent was only to disagree with the statement that such data provides "very limited information".

I've done the whole "hind-end" audio thing, and I'm not an "objectivist", as such. I love tubes and LP's, measurements be damned (we have no idea what to measure, I think). With subwoofers, however, it's more straightforward.

 

[Jack Gilvey]

My, how we've strayed from the topic.

 

[Mike Knapp]

Geeze! Before Adire had data, all the objectivists were crawling out of the woodwork hammering about how the data was needed. Now the data is available and the subjectivists are all hammering how the data doesnt tell the whole story....whats a poor guy to do?

There is a plethora of subjective opinions on the musicality and sound of this subwoofer....that should please the subjectivists.

There is now data (from a respected source) available on this subwoofer....that should please the objectivists.

If the data doesnt tell the whole story for you, have a look at the reviews as well. If the reviews dont cut it for you...take a gander at the data also. Everyone should be satisfied now.

YES?

Mike

 

[Lewis Besze]

Since the data came from TN yes I'm!

Thanks for asking!

 

[Steve G]

After reading through this whole amazing story, I'm reminded of the Yankee/Red Sox feuds that brew up around SE New England. You seem to have the Adire vs. SVS groups. I feel like I'm impartial seeing as I own neither of their products. I reallly would have to side with Tom V. after reading all the arguments going on. Everything I have heard about Adire is nothing short of first class. So this is not a for or an against post.
Tom V. is simply saying "Lets compare apples to apples".
I think if anyone looks in the back of any manual with just about any product it says" SPECIFICATIONS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANYTIME". I think everyone knows how SVS has updated their product since the time of the review, But IF they were to change model names and #'s everytime there was a change then no one would be able keep up.
Can you imagine this?
20-39
20-39 A
20-39 B and so on.
I think all that SVS is saying is to compare todays product with todays product. Oh well, I guess I'll go and do a test between a '66 Corvette and a '68 Corvette. They are the same cars I guess, because of the name and model #. There shouldn't be much of a differance I suppose.
This is just my opinion of course, And yes it is also subject to change.
Thanks for reading.
Steve
PS sorry if this went on to long.

 

[Jack Gilvey]

Steve, I see your point, and I understand the issue. My point is this: The list spans many years of reviews. If it it valid to compare a sub which fairly recently appeared on the list with one that was tested 18 months before (regardless of any "wait time" for publishing, the older sub's data is still that much older, and that much more out-of-date), then it's fair to compare the Dharman data to older Nousaine data. If it's not valid, then the list itself is not valid as far as useful comparisons are concerned.

I'd accept either one, but I can't see a mix of standards. There never seemed to be a problem with comparing year-old data with what might have been two or three year-old data before, though.

 

[Steve G]

Jack, perhaps what we need for All manufactures

to do,is date their products.IOW a 1999 SVS 20-39, 2000 20-39 SVS or 2001 Dharman. This way a customer would the option of researching their purchase a liitle more.

Or we have to look at the list for what "I" believe it

should be used for. Reference only. The only way that TN's

data is any good is if it were dated with when the subs were "made" and "tested". Then and only then would the list take on anything meaningful.

In other words a Mission 700 made in "98 is very likely to be different than a Mission 700 sub in 2000.

Thanks Steve

 

[Jack Gilvey]

Sounds good to me, Steve.
My only point is that if a manufacturer determines that "the list" is valid to use for comparison at all, then it's valid for all.

 

[Steve G]

Thanks Jack
-------------------------------------------------------- My only point is that if a manufacturer determines that "the list" is valid to use for comparison at all, then it's valid for all.
------------------------------------------------------------ Agreed