Does Tonal Balance Affect Perceived Pace and Perceived Resolution?

[dcathro]

generalizations with a negative bend can seem to be more pointed than intended. no doubt some systems succeed at peripheral things, but miss the musical connection and not be engaging by degrees. it can happen. but one needs to hear it to know.

Yeah, I over generalised, which is not fair. I am sure that there are quite a few American audiophiles who do get PRAT.

i don't subscribe to locations being evidence of any particular result with a particular system; but it's fair to recognize the plus's and minus's of styles of living.

i grew up in a home built in 1917 with heavy lath and plaster walls. but the rooms were quite small. never had any serious hifi there, but i am familiar with different type construction than more recent homes here. and that it "can" be an asset built in that newer homes might need to do some work to achieve. but that work can be done. old buildings do not have any singular right to good sound. even pictures rarely tell much of the story.

All the places I lived in the UK were old construction. I used to set up systems for friends and they would always sound decent with very little effort
Coming back to Australia, after 16 years in 2007, I got quite a shock when I tried to set up a stereo in the typical modern Australian room - it sucked. I have been living here the last 17 years, struggling to get a system to work to my expectations. I have a few audiophile friends here who are lucky enough to live in homes built pre-WWII.

 

[sbnx]

I do not believe that PRAT and imaging are at odds with one another. Imaging is an artifact of stereo that happens when the two speakers are in phase with one another at the listening position. I say artifact but in Blumlein's patent for Stereophonic sound there is language about reproducing the sound as heard from a listener in the audience of a concert hall. The idea was that we could "see" the musicians as if we were there. So maybe it is an artifact but it was actually his intent.

Back to PRAT and imaging. We get imaging when we setup the two speakers such that they are in phase with one another. Another way of saying in phase is that they are in time with one another. The wavefronts reach our ears at the same time. This is exactly what is needed for PRAT. Again, I think the "T" in PRAT should be first as it drives the whole thing.

One poster said he noticed better PRAT with single driver or small two way speakers. This is because the fewer drivers are easier to time align (or in the case of the single dirver is time aligned by default).

 

[mxk116]

Same tape, same performance, two recordings that sound different from one another. I probably misunderstood.

Yes, agreed. I was so surprised by the stark difference between the 2 videos I contacted Ron for clarification. Same source tape, same performance, demonstrably different sound.

 

[DaveC]

One poster said he noticed better PRAT with single driver or small two way speakers. This is because the fewer drivers are easier to time align (or in the case of the single dirver is time aligned by default).

Any modern speaker is going to be perfectly time aligned within the frequency range where it's critical no matter how many drivers or how complex, as it's a requirement for basic stereo performance. Single drivers also are not necessarily perfectly time aligned, especially if a whizzer cone is involved. A complex speaker can also have great PRaT if it uses quality drivers, good crossover and cabinet design, and is properly paired with a complimentary amplifier.

Compromises are made due to cost and size of the speaker system, imo these are the primary issues that reduce many aspects of system performance including PRaT and tone. The lower the cost and smaller the size, the more compromises must be made. Examples are single drivers... good PRaT but compromised performance at high SPLs and complex music... or a small 3-way, it may do a reasonable job with complex music but will have to compromise on other things.

 

[morricab]

Any modern speaker is going to be perfectly time aligned within the frequency range where it's critical no matter how many drivers or how complex, as it's a requirement for basic stereo performance. Single drivers also are not necessarily perfectly time aligned, especially if a whizzer cone is involved. A complex speaker can also have great PRaT if it uses quality drivers, good crossover and cabinet design, and is properly paired with a complimentary amplifier.

Compromises are made due to cost and size of the speaker system, imo these are the primary issues that reduce many aspects of system performance including PRaT and tone. The lower the cost and smaller the size, the more compromises must be made. Examples are single drivers... good PRaT but compromised performance at high SPLs and complex music... or a small 3-way, it may do a reasonable job with complex music but will have to compromise on other things.

Explain what you mean about any modern speaker being time aligned within the critical frequency range. What range are you referring to and how can you justify this statement when a step response shows clearly that most speakers are not time aligned or all in phase.

 

[PeterA]

Yes, agreed. I was so surprised by the stark difference between the 2 videos I contacted Ron for clarification. Same source tape, same performance, demonstrably different sound.

Different speakers and set up. Perhaps different mic position. The mic position is different from where he sits, which may explain why he says recordings don’t represent what he hears in the room.

 

[DaveC]

Explain what you mean about any modern speaker being time aligned within the critical frequency range. What range are you referring to and how can you justify this statement when a step response shows clearly that most speakers are not time aligned or all in phase.

I'm not going to explain time alignment, sorry. Critical range is In the region where it's audible. I spent months experimenting with this and correlating measurements to what is heard by the ear/brain. I'm not going to be specific nor am I going to argue about it.

All speakers NEED to be time aligned, otherwise it would be easily audible. The theory of phase shift due to crossover order and driver alignment is in any introductory book on speaker design.

 

[PeterA]

Do we sometimes mistake a difference in tonal balance for a difference in pace or a difference in resolution?

I presume you are asking us to compare two different recordings or two different presentations of the same recording with changes to the system. We hear a difference, and you are asking us to analyze this difference.

Resolution is about how much information on the recording gets through to the listener. Information presented convincingly means information of all types, including convincing tonal balance, and convincing pace.

Tonal balance that is not convincing or a sense of pace that is not convincing means the system’s resolving capabilities is not convincing. If the listener uses live unamplified acoustic music as a reference, he should not mistake these qualities for each other. If he does, something is wrong.

 

[Holmz]

Thank you.

Do you think the best, or perhaps the only, way to achieve PRaT is with high sensitivity speakers and SET amplifiers?

Are you rolling over on the question”

Does Tonal Balance Affect Perceived Pace and Perceived Resolution?​

And specifically that the tonal balance is not part of it?

For instance a SET and higher efficient speakers that have their FR altered by a DSP would have the same PRaT as with a different FR?
And with digital playback, where FR adjustment capability is built in, that the PRaT changes with the FR EQ changes?

 

[morricab]

I'm not going to explain time alignment, sorry. Critical range is In the region where it's audible. I spent months experimenting with this and correlating measurements to what is heard by the ear/brain. I'm not going to be specific nor am I going to argue about it.

All speakers NEED to be time aligned, otherwise it would be easily audible. The theory of phase shift due to crossover order and driver alignment is in any introductory book on speaker design.

I know what time alignment is Dave. I don’t know what you mean by it because in fact, and it’s easily measurable, most speakers are not even remotely time aligned. We as humans don’t hear a mess due to forgiveness in our perception that essentially integrates sound over time. In that respect, you could say they are aligned enough that it doesn’t cause an immediately obvious lack of continuity, as they would if the woofer played a full second before the tweeter, for example.

That doesn’t mean speakers are all time aligned in the technical sense, meaning the speaker makes a right triangle response on a step input. You can argue if that is audible or not but you can’t say all speakers are time aligned because they are not.

 

[sbnx]

Only first order crossovers have the potential to time align the drivers. Other crossover do "time" align but they are typically one or more cycle out of phase. You can still align the peaks. Basically they are 360 degrees out of phase. There is also phase rotation in the crossover region. Many speaker companies will talk about this with statements like "Less than 5 degrees of phase difference within the crossover region". Whatever they say.

I have never setup a pair of speakers in my driveway so I don't know if it is the room or the speaker. All I know is all I have to do is listen to music and I can hear instruments not in time with other instruments. For example, take a tom-drum (Midrange) and a cymbal (Tweeter) in some jazz piece. I know they are supposed to be on the same beat but what I hear is that they are not on the same beat. To me that means the speaker is not time aligned.

 

[DaveC]

Well, all competently designed speakers are time aligned and phase shift isn't exactly the same thing. If a speaker isn't time aligned you get audible effects in the crossover region. Hearing instruments out of time with one another is simply not possible due to phase shift in any normal speaker, do the math and you'll see it's just not in the realm of what's possibly audible.

In any case, time alignment has nothing to do with PRaT in a competently designed speaker.

 

[sbnx]

Well, all competently designed speakers are time aligned and phase shift isn't exactly the same thing. If a speaker isn't time aligned you get audible effects in the crossover region. Hearing instruments out of time with one another is simply not possible due to phase shift in any normal speaker, do the math and you'll see it's just not in the realm of what's possibly audible.

In any case, time alignment has nothing to do with PRaT in a competently designed speaker.

I don't know who/what you classify as competently designed? Do you consier the big name speakers as competently designed? e.g Magico, WIlson, YG, Avantgarde, Goebel, KEF, B&W ....

I pasted three pictures of impluse response as measured by stereophile. One is almost a perfect triangle. This one is from an old Thiel model. It used a first order crossover and all of the impluses from the various drivers arrived at the same time. But only on one axis. If you shift the axis they won't arrive on time as is shown in the second picture. The third picture shows a well known speaker brand reviewed in 2024. We can see that the tweeter, midrange and woofer arrive at different times. And that the midrange is even out of polarity with the tweeter and woofer.

I don't need to do math. I can hear it. Whether it is the speaker or the room I don't know and it really doesn't matter. The fact is the instruments are either playing together like a band or they are not. This is the definition of praT.

 

[Robh3606]

You are not alone.

I think most audiophiles don't know what it is and very few systems are able to portray it properly. It is something you have to be highly aware of and go after.

Obsession with frequency extension, imaging and detail is at odds with reproducing it.

This is such nonsense! Only the few systems can do it right? We are all looking the other way!

Highly aware? More like obsessive compulsive disorder.


Rob

 

[Robh3606]

Well, all competently designed speakers are time aligned and phase shift isn't exactly the same thing. If a speaker isn't time aligned you get audible effects in the crossover region.

Almost no speakers are time aligned and if they are it is only one physical location in room where this is true.

Rob

 

[DaveC]

Almost no speakers are time aligned and if they are it is only one physical location in room where this is true.

Rob

I think the definition of "time aligned" is not the same for everyone here.

Time aligned means matching alignment through the crossover zone so you don't get cancellation or other out of phase effects. Every speaker is time aligned, every book on speaker design goes over this in great detail and is an introductory subject on how to design speakers. Speakers simply don't work without it.

Phase shift vs frequency is not the same thing, and neither are measurements at different places in the room. The fact that drivers are not coincident or coaxial makes perfect alignment at all places impossible, but this isn't the same thing.

Definitions and semantics matter.

 

[godofwealth]

I have owned Quad electrostatics for almost 35 years. Quads are phase true. They will reproduce square waves really well. In fact when the ESL 63 was released, the standard test jig for each produced unit was to feed it a square wave and compare its output to an inverted square wave played through a reference unit. Placing a microphone at the null point ensured that the speakers were measurably identical. More than 40 years later, I can’t think of a high priced “audiophile” loudspeaker that would survive such a test of neutrality.

 

[DaveC]

If "time alignment" (in quotes for a reason) is so important every speaker would use coaxial drivers and need to have phase corrected via DSP too.

I actually own speakers with the TAD Evolution coax mid/tweeter. It causes more problems than it solves. There's a good reason why most all speakers are NOT coax and I think many people are confused about what it is they are hearing and attributing what they hear to "time alignment" when it's really not.

 

[Robh3606]

Time aligned means matching alignment through the crossover zone so you don't get cancellation or other out of phase effects. Every speaker is time aligned, every book on speaker design goes over this in great detail and is an introductory subject on how to design speakers.

Hello

Agree to disagree

No time aligned means when you look at the step response you only see a single triangular peak. What you are talking about is essentially proper acoustic summation and with an L/R 24dB you have an offset of one complete cycle. You are talking time coincident where there is a smooth transition as opposed to true time alignment.

Rob

 

[DaveC]

Hello

Agree to disagree

No time aligned means when you look at the step response you only see a single triangular peak. What you are talking about is essentially proper acoustic summation and with an L/R 24dB you have an offset of one complete cycle. You are talking time coincident where there is a smooth transition as opposed to true time alignment.

Rob

Some speakers may use a full 360 out of phase alignment but you're cherry picking examples to make your point.

I don't think the vast majority of speaker manufacturers simply don't know what they are doing wrt to time and phase, and I don't think this subject has anything to do with PRaT either.