Quote:
Just saw this over on REG's forum:
"I invite you to compare this, for example, to the same region in the Wilson MAXX Series 3 (p 71, figure 8 of the current[Septemeber} Stereophile) to take a random example that is on my mind because the issue just arrived."

I imagine REG is referring to the delayed energy evident in the Wilson's waterfall plot in this region. This not that high in level but it does exist and, I suspect, is due to the cone breakup behavior in the paper-cone midrange units. But as I get tired of saying, just one measurement does not characterize the sonic signature of a speaker.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I'm not familiar with REG's forum. Could you provide a link?

Quote:
I'm not familiar with REG's forum. Could you provide a link?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/regsaudioforum/

This is an interesting look into the measurements as they pertain to the speaker's performance and correlating a sonic impression with a measurement.

Neat comparison.

Forgot to mention...found this issue at SFO and didn't want to wait for my copy to finally arrive in the mail. It is a flat out GREAT review.

John: I take your point that it is folly to isolate any single measurement as an indication of a speaker's sonic signature. But there are surely some kinds of measurement that are pretty clear indicators of sonic signatures. For example, if a speaker has, as many do, including some very expensive ones, a moderate or worse valley between, say, 100 and 300Hz--well over an octave in the upper bass/lower midrange--it will be pretty easy to predict at least one sonic signature of such a speaker. And for the last couple decades there seems to be a prevalent feeling among designers that mildly (or worse) rising top ends are desirable, which tend to give the sound a crisp "transparent" personality (if you like) or an irritating, abrasive character if you don't. Correctly taken response graphs of such speakers are pretty fair indicators of what they're going to sound like in this regard, don't you think? I, for one, am often struck by the correlation between the way certain speakers measure in your measurements and how they actually sound, which I mean as a compliment to your testing procedures.

Paul Seydor

I surely did not mean to suggest that any ONE measurement characterizes speaker sound. But if one puts all of JAs (excelent!) measurements  on a speaker together and interprets them carefullu, one gets quite a good idea of what it will sound like, in my experience. (I suppose it is impractical to do, but it would be interesting to add a power response measurement to the collection in each case).

People who are interested in these topics might like to join my forum on yahoo. To find it , go to www.yahoogroups.com and type into the search box        regsaudioforum

Then click on "join this group" under the picture on the left. This is a moderated group--you have to be approved for membership--but the only requirement is being interested in audio!

Measurement issues are vigorously discussed there. If the subject is of interest to you, I think you will enjoy the forum.

And thanks once again to JA for all his fine work on measurements(and everything else!) at Stereophile