Are You Able to Detect Horn Colorations in Today's High End Horn Speakers?

[Atmasphere]

No it doesn't.

We are different people, with different brains, and different ears, and different priorities, and different preferences m... explains the disconnect.

I just heard a pair of Class Speaker horns. They sounded very good. Still sounded like horns.

The fact that you hear or don't hear something, doesn't mean that thing does or doesn't exist. The fact that a million people hear or don't hear something .... doesn't mean it does or doesn't exist.

Maybe I'll hear your specific horns and think they sound like quads. Maybe not. Doesn't mean they do or don't.

Many people hear your amps and think they sound, thin, sterile, or cold. I don't. Doesn't mean they are or are not sterile or cold sounding.

Again, all humans use the same rules for hearing, that is why we can use terms like deciBels and have it mean something.

If you used the word 'Some' instead of 'Many' in the first sentence of your last paragraph above it would be true. Usually that has to do with how the equipment is set up rather than it being an innate property; generally because amps with a prominent 2nd or 3rd harmonic are perceived as 'warm' by the human ear.

That is due to a human hearing perceptual rule which is simply that harmonics are responsible for tone color; consequently harmonic distortion is largely responsible for the tonality any amplifier has.

I use LPs I recorded as reference. I know how they are supposed to sound because I was there when the recording was made. When I play Sound Lab ESLs, I don't hear them sounding particularly different from my speakers at home. The big difference seems to be that my horn speakers need less power. Others have commented on this as well. I am interested to hear the new Popori ESLs since they make one model that is rated 96dB. Since its a line source you have to add 6dB to that value to get an equivalent to a box speaker; how they pulled that off I have no idea.

 

[lordcloud]

Again, all humans use the same rules for hearing, that is why we can use terms like deciBels and have it mean something.

If you used the word 'Some' instead of 'Many' in the first sentence of your last paragraph above it would be true. Usually that has to do with how the equipment is set up rather than it being an innate property; generally because amps with a prominent 2nd or 3rd harmonic are perceived as 'warm' by the human ear.

That is due to a human hearing perceptual rule which is simply that harmonics are responsible for tone color; consequently harmonic distortion is largely responsible for the tonality any amplifier has.

I use LPs I recorded as reference. I know how they are supposed to sound because I was there when the recording was made. When I play Sound Lab ESLs, I don't hear them sounding particularly different from my speakers at home. The big difference seems to be that my horn speakers need less power. Others have commented on this as well. I am interested to hear the new Popori ESLs since they make one model that is rated 96dB. Since its a line source you have to add 6dB to that value to get an equivalent to a box speaker; how they pulled that off I have no idea.

This sounds like you're saying that given a particular sound, everyone will interpret the sound in the same way, as we all follow the same rules of hearing. Which isn't correct at all. And I imagine that's not what you're saying, and maybe I'm interpreting what you're saying incorrectly, as I highly doubt we all interview decibels the same way, even though we can measure it objectively.

If I said a large number of people hear your amps and think they sound a particular way.......that would be accurate. Many means a large number. Many is accurate.

You believe your amps sound a particular way in a vacuum. I don't think that's accurate at all and I don't think there's any way to know this for sure. There's no way to know how literally anything sounds by itself.

Being in the room a recording was made doesn't tell you how the recording will sound. It tells you how the original event sounds. Which isn't the recording. Change a microphone/preamp/etc, and the recording sounds different, no matter how you perceived the original event. And then the recording has to go through a bunch of equipment that will change the recording itself. There is no such thing as an unassailable, completely objective absolute reference. Your memory of an event isn't even the memory of the actual event. It's the memory of the last memory of that event.

 

[Atmasphere]

This sounds like you're saying that given a particular sound, everyone will interpret the sound in the same way, as we all follow the same rules of hearing. Which isn't correct at all. And I imagine that's not what you're saying, and maybe I'm interpreting what you're saying incorrectly, as I highly doubt we all interview decibels the same way, even though we can measure it objectively.

OK, since you're having difficulty with this idea, try to imagine a world where different humans used different hearing rules. This is an exercise that really shows how this works. FWIW there are many companies that make VU meters; do you think they might be on to something? Anyway:

For example the ear hears sound pressure on a logarithmic scale. That is why a 3dB increase in volume needs twice as much amplifier power but is barely audible to the ear (1dB being the minimum change its possible to hear). Perceptually, 10dB (10x amplifier power) is only twice as loud.

So imagine if there were people for which this wasn't true- for example they heard things on a linear scale. Sounds we consider only slightly on the loud side would be deafening to them!

What if the range of 20Hz to 20KHz wasn't the range of all humans? That there were people that heard from 100Hz to 100KHz instead? They would think most of our audio equipment was rolled off. We'd have heard about people like that by now.

One more. Let's imagine there are people who can hear, but harmonics of fundamental notes are not perceived as tonality. I really wonder how that could be, but it seems to me a Stradivarius violin would be lost on them.

In short, we do indeed perceive deciBels in exactly the same way across the entire world's population unless there is damage to an individual's ears. The other rules apply too. Hear are a few more:

To sense sound pressure the ear looks for higher ordered harmonic rather than the fundamental tone. The reason for this is simple: fundamental tones by themselves (IOW, a sine wave) do not exist in nature (or are very rare).

The range of human hearing without pain is about 120dB. You have to be very close to a lightning bolt striking to hear a natural sound louder than that and it may not be good for your health.

We perceive where a sound is coming from through phase relationships and timing (part of why we have two ears instead of 1). You can take advantage of this in a speaker design by having rear firing information; if the wall behind the speaker is 5 feet or more, the ear can use the rear firing information (which is arriving at the ear later) as echo location, which is to say the center image will be more palpable.

I can go on; do you see what I'm saying? The rules of human hearing perception (which includes the brain's unconscious processing) is universal.

 

[lordcloud]

OK, since you're having difficulty with this idea, try to imagine a world where different humans used different hearing rules. This is an exercise that really shows how this works. FWIW there are many companies that make VU meters; do you think they might be on to something? Anyway:

For example the ear hears sound pressure on a logarithmic scale. That is why a 3dB increase in volume needs twice as much amplifier power but is barely audible to the ear (1dB being the minimum change its possible to hear). Perceptually, 10dB (10x amplifier power) is only twice as loud.

So imagine if there were people for which this wasn't true- for example they heard things on a linear scale. Sounds we consider only slightly on the loud side would be deafening to them!

What if the range of 20Hz to 20KHz wasn't the range of all humans? That there were people that heard from 100Hz to 100KHz instead? They would think most of our audio equipment was rolled off. We'd have heard about people like that by now.

One more. Let's imagine there are people who can hear, but harmonics of fundamental notes are not perceived as tonality. I really wonder how that could be, but it seems to me a Stradivarius violin would be lost on them.

In short, we do indeed perceive deciBels in exactly the same way across the entire world's population unless there is damage to an individual's ears. The other rules apply too. Hear are a few more:

To sense sound pressure the ear looks for higher ordered harmonic rather than the fundamental tone. The reason for this is simple: fundamental tones by themselves (IOW, a sine wave) do not exist in nature (or are very rare).

The range of human hearing without pain is about 120dB. You have to be very close to a lightning bolt striking to hear a natural sound louder than that and it may not be good for your health.

We perceive where a sound is coming from through phase relationships and timing (part of why we have two ears instead of 1). You can take advantage of this in a speaker design by having rear firing information; if the wall behind the speaker is 5 feet or more, the ear can use the rear firing information (which is arriving at the ear later) as echo location, which is to say the center image will be more palpable.

I can go on; do you see what I'm saying? The rules of human hearing perception (which includes the brain's unconscious processing) is universal.

Yeah, it's that last sentence that I don't agree with.

If we all had the exact same ears on the same head, on the same body, with the same brain, and having had the exact same memories....the yes, I would agree. But we don't.

If we look at humans as a physical head, a brain, and experiences.....then regardless of the rules that we all adhere to, the changes in head sizes, brains, and experiences would alter the perception of the sounds we all hear.

No two people hear the same sound(s) exactly the same, as everything is relative. What I hear today is just a comparison to what I've heard every other day before today. And that depends heavily on a number of psychological and psychological things. Yes, the data may enter in kind of a similar way, but the processing of that data differs. Yes, most of us can tell that a loud dangerous sound came from over there. But we won't all perceive that sound in the same way.

 

[Atmasphere]

Yeah, it's that last sentence that I don't agree with.

If we all had the exact same ears on the same head, on the same body, with the same brain, and having had the exact same memories....the yes, I would agree. But we don't.

If we look at humans as a physical head, a brain, and experiences.....then regardless of the rules that we all adhere to, the changes in head sizes, brains, and experiences would alter the perception of the sounds we all hear.

No two people hear the same sound(s) exactly the same, as everything is relative. What I hear today is just a comparison to what I've heard every other day before today. And that depends heavily on a number of psychological and psychological things. Yes, the data may enter in kind of a similar way, but the processing of that data differs. Yes, most of us can tell that a loud dangerous sound came from over there. But we won't all perceive that sound in the same way.

So why do you think meter manufacturers can make VU meters? Why did Ampex put such a nice meter on their recording equipment?

Why is hifi bandwidth from 20Hz to 20KHz?

 

[lordcloud]

So why do you think meter manufacturers can make VU meters? Why did Ampex put such a nice meter on their recording equipment?

Why is hifi bandwidth from 20Hz to 20KHz?

......... Ok

 

[PeterA]

So why do you think meter manufacturers can make VU meters? Why did Ampex put such a nice meter on their recording equipment?

Why is hifi bandwidth from 20Hz to 20KHz?

Ralph, would you concede that there are some components that measure the same but sound different? I understand what you’re saying in general terms, but in specific terms, I have heard live music with friends and reproduced music with friends, and we describe what we hear differently afterwards, focusing on and prioritizing different aspects of the sound. Some well suggest that to them the reproduction sounds similar to the sound of a live instrument while others will say otherwise. Don’t these support our preferences for completely different components and systems? If not, why do we all like the sound of different typologies, for instance?

 

[Atmasphere]

Ralph, would you concede that there are some components that measure the same but sound different?

No. If you have the right measuring equipment (and know what to look for, which is something entirely different) then you find that if they measure the same, they sound the same too. What you are describing is a situation where not all the measurements were made, in particular the important ones!

I've quoted Daniel VonRecklinghausen fairly often by it applies to your question: If it measures good and sounds bad, — it is bad. If it sounds good and measures bad, — you've measured the wrong thing.

What has not been discussed between lordcloud and myself (since I tend to be really literal) is taste. When I was a kid I turned the treble and bass on my Knight KA95 amp up all the way. My speakers at the time were terrible! But as the speaker situation improved I found I had no need for tone controls.

There is also the sophistication of the listener to be understood. Before the war, RCA did a famous tour using a Victrola acoustic 78 rpm player behind one curtain and a tenor singing the same song behind the other and the audiences couldn't tell the difference. Keeping in mind of course that a brand new 78 being played on a brand new Victrola probably sounded a lot better than the antiques they are today; nevertheless the audience had no prior exposure to recorded music. This aspect should be taken into account.

why do we all like the sound of different typologies, for instance?

I think that has to do with how successful we personally have been setting up our individual systems. We get satisfaction from a job well done.

One thing I forgot to mention to @lordcloud is that many home audio horns are designed to work with amps of a higher output impedance. When such speakers are used with amps of a low output impedance the crossover may not work correctly, causing out of band frequencies to be presented to the various drivers. When that happens, its fairly easy to get a properly designed horn to have artifacts that other speakers may not have. My apologies for not mentioning this sooner. For more on this topic see Voltage vs Power Paradigms

 

[hopkins]

No. If you have the right measuring equipment (and know what to look for, which is something entirely different) then you find that if they measure the same, they sound the same too. What you are describing is a situation where not all the measurements were made, in particular the important ones!

It's hard to argue against this - it can't be any other way. But I doubt you will ever find speakers that measure exactly the same, or that sound the same. So for all practical purposes, as a consumer, you may as well skip the speaker measurements step and just listen.

 

[wil]

No. If you have the right measuring equipment (and know what to look for, which is something entirely different) then you find that if they measure the same, they sound the same too. What you are describing is a situation where not all the measurements were made, in particular the important ones!

I've quoted Daniel VonRecklinghausen fairly often by it applies to your question: If it measures good and sounds bad, — it is bad. If it sounds good and measures bad, — you've measured the wrong thing.

What has not been discussed between lordcloud and myself (since I tend to be really literal) is taste. When I was a kid I turned the treble and bass on my Knight KA95 amp up all the way. My speakers at the time were terrible! But as the speaker situation improved I found I had no need for tone controls.

There is also the sophistication of the listener to be understood. Before the war, RCA did a famous tour using a Victrola acoustic 78 rpm player behind one curtain and a tenor singing the same song behind the other and the audiences couldn't tell the difference. Keeping in mind of course that a brand new 78 being played on a brand new Victrola probably sounded a lot better than the antiques they are today; nevertheless the audience had no prior exposure to recorded music. This aspect should be taken into.

The paragraph above is really interesting, but maybe I don’t understand.

Are you saying that despite the universal parameters of human hearing, that we need to learn (as adults) how to distinguish the sound of a primitive Victrola vs a professional human singer?

I would think an audience with no prior experience with recorded music would be more likely to easily distinguish which is the human voice from a Victrola. I think, on the contrary ,we audiophiles have learned how to not hear the difference as much. It keeps us happier

 

[Atmasphere]

Are you saying that despite the universal parameters of human hearing, that we need to learn (as adults) how to distinguish the sound of a primitive Victrola vs a professional human singer?

I would think an audience with no prior experience with recorded music would be more likely to easily distinguish which is the human voice from a Victrola. I think, on the contrary ,we audiophiles have learned how to not hear the difference as much. It keeps us happier

You'd think; but it was consistently the other way 'round.

Keeping in mind there is a difference between 'primitive' and 'crude' and the fact that a new Victrola sounded a lot better than an antique, also keeping in mind that the comparison was between solo voice and a recording of a solo voice that was withing the limited bandwidth of the Victrola;

We do seem to need ear training as does any musician or when learning a new language. When I started out doing audio I know this was the case for me. I've seen it in others too. Its about making the connections in the brain.