Disturbing "Sonic Trend" showing up on most all current "Big Buck" systems!

[Orb]

If it's a question of bass, I find it strange that the issue of sealed enclosures versus vented is hardly mentioned. The standard line is "Both are capable of excellent performance" or some such, but really only one is capable of being 'correct'. 99% of modern speakers go for 'incorrect'.

Yeah, then there is also phase consideration with the reflex port.
I did a post a little while ago that touched upon exactly this type of aspect, including important behaviour 20Hz and below (this was research that came out of KEF in the 70s or 80s).
Cheers
Orb

 

[Joe Whip]

That is interesting. This is almost exactly what advocates of Magico say in response to detractors of the brand's bass quality. It takes a while to get used to the sound of correct bass reproduction. But once you do, you realize that it sounds more accurate and it brings more joy to the listening experience.

Amir, you should become a spokesman for Magico speakers. Science and technology are the basis of their designs and the sonic result is what you describe above.

Now that kick drum experience. Explosive dynamics and impact can also be heard with these speakers if set up properly in the right system and room. I've heard it and it can be startling.

That may be why I have never been impressed with the sound of Magicos at shows. I have yet to hear any in a person's home or showroom however. They have left me cold each time.

 

[Groucho]

Yeah, then there is also phase consideration with the reflex port.
I did a post a little while ago that touched upon exactly this type of aspect, including important behaviour 20Hz and below (this was research that came out of KEF in the 70s or 80s).
Cheers
Orb

Yes, in a vented speaker the cone is uncontrolled below the resonant frequency. If it was just a question of phase it could be corrected with DSP, but in fact the bass reflex system combines inversion, delay and resonance off the back wave of the cone, so while it can be corrected for a steady state sine wave, it can't be made correct for reproducing transients.

Linkwitz on vented speakers:

Vented bass speakers are resonant structures and store energy which is released over time. For accuracy, bass must be reproduced from sealed or open baffle speakers that are non-resonant.

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/conclusions.htm

And yet almost all box speakers these days are vented.

 

[Groucho]

yep, the issues with boxed and vented enclosures and speaker cabinet size are well known to those in the art, so since loudspeakers can not reproduce three dimensionally the reality of a live performance they themselves become the performance in their own right. And along with those different ideas of how to do speakers comes loss of tranisients, details, etc. That is why many just settle for how well a speaker transmits the "emotions" of the event, despite that the mix and master engineer are really creating them for us. It is remarkable when you look at it technically how well our ear/brain adapts to this sound at all.

So is it true that bass reflex is inherently inaccurate whereas sealed is more 'correct'? Or at least that sealed can be made closer to correct? If so, isn't it remarkable that most box speakers, no matter how expensive, are vented?

High end audiophiles can put up with all kinds of inconveniences from their equipment, so would they sacrifice accuracy merely to make the boxes somewhat smaller?

My gut feeling is that every novice speaker designer starts wanting maximum bass from whatever size box he's building, thereby dictating a vented design, and he probably never loses the habit. It's certainly conceivable, it seems to me, that a configuration can become the de facto standard so that no new entrant into the game questions it.

 

[Al M.]

Yes, in a vented speaker the cone is uncontrolled below the resonant frequency. If it was just a question of phase it could be corrected with DSP, but in fact the bass reflex system combines inversion, delay and resonance off the back wave of the cone, so while it can be corrected for a steady state sine wave, it can't be made correct for reproducing transients.

Linkwitz on vented speakers:


http://www.linkwitzlab.com/conclusions.htm

And yet almost all box speakers these days are vented.

I don't disagree that vented speakers often have problems with the bass. Yet the dogma that it holds in all cases is disputable. My subwoofer, a REL Storm III, has a bass port, and here is what Madfloyd, who has Magico M Project speakers (sealed, obviously), said about the bass of my system (see thread linked in my signature):

"It has FAST bass, with no overhang and transients that floored me." -- "And the percussion was dynamite!" -- "We played a cut off Eric Dolphy's Out To Lunch and everything, including the acoustic bass was fantastic. Detailed with a dig-in punch that was very realistic and enjoyable."

Apparently it is just a matter of expertise to make vented designs work, and the engineers at REL have it. It may help that the subwoofer is active (built-in 150 W amp).

 

[Al M.]

Linkwitz on vented speakers:

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/conclusions.htm

And yet almost all box speakers these days are vented.

Well, I took a look at that link and I wouldn't put much stock into what he says. Here he is on the listening room:

"The room is rarely at fault. If it is comfortable for conversation and living in it, then it is also suited for sound reproduction."

Ouch. My room was comfortable for conversation and living in it way before it was also suited for sound reproduction. Only acoustic room treatment made suitable for the latter.

 

[rockitman]

Exaggerated high frequencies and etch = "details"

Biting unnatural attacks = "fast transient response"

Unnaturally dry bass = "taut" and “tight”

This is what I hear at audio shows over the last several years!

Have "new" audiophiles lost their way, in relation to what "natural sound" of "non-amplified acoustic" music sounds like?

This "type" of sound is increasingly selling as current "State of Art".

Audio has more BS, and nonsense, than any hobby that I know of!

And as "Crazy" becomes acceptable, it drives more "Crazy".

I have been in this hobby since the 70's and heard it all.

Maybe those that kept their older systems, and got off the "marry-go-round", of latest and most expensive is best, are the most intelligent!

The entire premise of the post is bull sheet. How much is your system worth ? and yes, it is relevant. !

 

[stehno]

The entire premise of the post is bull sheet. How much is your system worth ? and yes, it is relevant. !

Interesting. Got any charts you care to share reflecting the general price / performance cutoff points or categories?

BTW, I've got a friend with the Odin 2 cables that he claims are incredible performers. He then informed me of a buddy of his who recently purchased a pair of $65k speaker cables (forgot the mfg'er) for his $6k speakers. Now that's amazing.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Thats why i covered it all , different reflex pipes and they can be closed all as well if the room or placement is an issue , a big bass reflex system needs room to breath,i prefer reflex if possible for more impact
20150626_182800 by andromeda61, on Flickr

DSC_0363 by andromeda61, on Flickr

 

[Groucho]

Well, I took a look at that link and I wouldn't put much stock into what he says. Here he is on the listening room:

"The room is rarely at fault. If it is comfortable for conversation and living in it, then it is also suited for sound reproduction."

Ouch. My room was comfortable for conversation and living in it way before it was also suited for sound reproduction. Only acoustic room treatment made suitable for the latter.

In general, I tend to agree with Linkwitz, in that I think we have an in-built ability to hear past the room to the direct sound - which is unaffected by the room. Our ears and brains ignore the delayed reflections.

When we find ourselves needing to treat our rooms, are we sometimes, in fact, merely attempting to use 'acoustic EQ' to correct something wrong with our speakers, rather than the room itself?

Maybe vented speakers are the culprit? Vented speakers are now almost universal and I would love to know why. Maybe the changeover from sealed to vented occurred at a time when hi fi was a more mainstream interest, and therefore more generally budget-, and space-, conscious. Since then, only the real high end enthusiasts remain in the hobby, for whom larger boxes would not be an issue, but the reason for the changeover to vented has become lost in the mists of time..?

Edit: just thinking about the OP. Could a reason for the perceived trends in sound be the relatively recent move towards room treatments themselves? Maybe the bass is becoming 'taut' and 'dry' because people are now installing bass traps left right and centre whether they're necessary or not.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Good bass is supposed to be taut and dry when asked for and is to be able to swell when a big orchestra is played .
You might be mistaken by bass delivered by 1 inch thick mdf /wood cheap LS boxes

 

[Al M.]

In general, I tend to agree with Linkwitz, in that I think we have an in-built ability to hear past the room to the direct sound - which is unaffected by the room. Our ears and brains ignore the delayed reflections.

When we find ourselves needing to treat our rooms, are we sometimes, in fact, merely attempting to use 'acoustic EQ' to correct something wrong with our speakers, rather than the room itself?

Maybe vented speakers are the culprit? Vented speakers are now almost universal and I would love to know why. Maybe the changeover from sealed to vented occurred at a time when hi fi was a more mainstream interest, and therefore more generally budget-, and space-, conscious. Since then, only the real high end enthusiasts remain in the hobby, for whom larger boxes would not be an issue, but the reason for the changeover to vented has become lost in the mists of time..?

Edit: just thinking about the OP. Could a reason for the perceived trends in sound be the relatively recent move towards room treatments themselves? Maybe the bass is becoming 'taut' and 'dry' because people are now installing bass traps left right and centre whether they're necessary or not.

(Emphasis added.)

The bass in my room was always excellently fast, without overhang, before any room treatment. Yet with acoustic room treatment I went from a compeletely flat and congested sounstage to one with enormous depth, if required, and superior aural separation of intsruments within the soundstage, aural separation of an effortlessness that reminds me of a good concert hall. The timbral resolution has also progressed spectacularly, from a barrage of harsh sounds to fine differentiation without any artificial harshness. That the timbres still do not approach live music (they don't with any system) is another matter. So yes, room treatment was essential to significantly progress with sound reproduction in my room. Prior to it I couldn't even hear much of a difference in timbral and spatial resolution between my 20-year old Wadia 12 DAC and my current Berkeley DAC, with room treatment the difference is huge.

In terms of bass, the only difference -- and an important one -- is that with the implementation of ASC window plugs the midbass has become so much stronger; the midbass response from my minimonitor/subwoofer system is now quite comparable to that of a large floorstander.

Yet in terms of bass speed, nothing or hardly anything has changed. For others this will be a major area of benefit when it comes to room tretament -- it's all dependent on the room and the room/speaker interaction.

So yes, Linkwitz is flat-out wrong about the room.

 

[microstrip]

Well, I took a look at that link and I wouldn't put much stock into what he says. Here he is on the listening room:

"The room is rarely at fault. If it is comfortable for conversation and living in it, then it is also suited for sound reproduction."

Ouch. My room was comfortable for conversation and living in it way before it was also suited for sound reproduction. Only acoustic room treatment made suitable for the latter.

Al M.,

IMHO taking this single part of the sentence form Linkwitz text http://www.linkwitzlab.com/conclusions.htm can give a distorted view of his intentions. His main concern was speaker-room interaction, suggesting that most of the time proper selection and position of speakers allows us to get excellent results from normal untreated rooms.

The same think applies to his comment about vented speakers.

His excellent site is filled with very interesting facts and opinions - it shows diversity is part of this hobby.


Listening rooms

The room is rarely at fault. If it is comfortable for conversation and living in it, then it is also suited for sound reproduction. The problem is usually the inadequate polar response of the loudspeakers and their placement in the room.

Loudspeakers should be positioned out in the room, at least 3' (1 m) away from reflecting surfaces. The further the better.

Speaker placement to the inch based on some room acoustic calculation is nonsense.

Rooms should have lots of diffusive elements and not sound like a stuffed pillow if open baffle or omni speakers are used.

Placing absorbers at reflection points is the wrong approach. It only absorbs high frequencies and increases the difference between the direct sound and the delayed room response. It works against perceptually masking the room response as merely a copy of the direct sound.

Equalization for a certain response at the listening position is fraught with serious problems. DSP can do many things, but which acoustic inputs to take, and how to process them, is still very much at a research stage. It will change the sound you hear.

When I hear an unfamiliar loudspeaker in an unfamiliar room and it does not sound right, then I look for faults in the loudspeaker's design and placement long before I blame the room.

 

[DaveC]

If it's a question of bass, I find it strange that the issue of sealed enclosures versus vented is hardly mentioned. The standard line is "Both are capable of excellent performance" or some such, but really only one is capable of being 'correct'. 99% of modern speakers go for 'incorrect'.

Really? So if 99% of folks think one way and you another you just assume they are all wrong? Lol...

 

[stehno]

Listening rooms

The room is rarely at fault. If it is comfortable for conversation and living in it, then it is also suited for sound reproduction. The problem is usually the inadequate polar response of the loudspeakers and their placement in the room.

Loudspeakers should be positioned out in the room, at least 3' (1 m) away from reflecting surfaces. The further the better.

Speaker placement to the inch based on some room acoustic calculation is nonsense.

Rooms should have lots of diffusive elements and not sound like a stuffed pillow if open baffle or omni speakers are used.

Placing absorbers at reflection points is the wrong approach. It only absorbs high frequencies and increases the difference between the direct sound and the delayed room response. It works against perceptually masking the room response as merely a copy of the direct sound.

Equalization for a certain response at the listening position is fraught with serious problems. DSP can do many things, but which acoustic inputs to take, and how to process them, is still very much at a research stage. It will change the sound you hear.

When I hear an unfamiliar loudspeaker in an unfamiliar room and it does not sound right, then I look for faults in the loudspeaker's design and placement long before I blame the room.

Wow, a breath of fresh air.

 

[cannata]

Really? So if 99% of folks think one way and you another you just assume they are all wrong? Lol...

And that would be the first time that the 99% are wrong? Lol...
The supremacy of properly executed acoustic suspension design is well documented. The problem is cost.

 

[blutto]

Really? So if 99% of folks think one way and you another you just assume they are all wrong? Lol...

....the irony is that it could also be said that 99% of the general population think that audiophiles are mad obsessives ( note mad in the English sense...not crazy.. )....so in terms of LOL where does that leave us...and more importantly, by that thinking, are they right, and we wrong ?....

Cheers

 

[blutto]

Wow, a breath of fresh air.

...not meaning to pull the scab off a recently healed wound but he also says...

"I find it disappointing when loudspeaker manufacturers run extensive double-blind listening tests with trained and untrained listeners where they only compare loudspeakers to each other, but not to any live source. These are strictly preference tests within a given paradigm."

Cheers

 

[DaveC]

And that would be the first time that the 99% are wrong? Lol...
The supremacy of properly executed acoustic suspension design is well documented. The problem is cost.

I don't think so, and neither do a majority of major speaker manufacturers.

The truth is implementation of the chosen design is far more important. Excellent speakers can be built sealed or ported. There are pros and cons to either design choice.

I don't need to list all the highly acclaimed top end, cost-no-object speakers that use ported cabs, I hope... but the fact they are so prevalent in cost-no object designs by the world's best speaker designers should be a clue. To assume you know better is sort of ridiculous imo.

 

[stehno]

...not meaning to pull the scab off a recently healed wound but he also says...

"I find it disappointing when loudspeaker manufacturers run extensive double-blind listening tests with trained and untrained listeners where they only compare loudspeakers to each other, but not to any live source. These are strictly preference tests within a given paradigm."

... not meaning to pull the scab off yet another recently healed? wound but I suspect the real difference between trained and untrained listeners is anybody's guess.