Frequency response is everything!?...

[Hear Here]

I remain amazed when I think that a good two way speaker can present the many instruments of an orchestra all playing together with the large range in timbres and volumes, and still sound convincing. It's really an amazing technology when you think about it.

Perhaps even more amazing is the microphone that picks up the multiple instruments and sends the signal to the recording medium. Granted most recordings use a number of mics, but these tiny devices are capable to capturing the entire frequency range in thefull range of amplitudes with great accuracy.

 

[schlager]

produce accurately multiple frequencies also had an impact on "dynamics"

I don't think that is correct, but it would increase IMD.

 

[schlager]

tiny devices are capable to capturing the entire frequency range in with the range oge of amplitude with great accuracy.

Ears are also tiny devices

 

[hopkins]

I don't think that is correct, but it would increase IMD.

And IMD would cause lack of clarity and "realism" of individual instruments - veil, compression, lack of space and air, poor imaging, etc... - very similar to lack of dynamics, no ?

We can categorize different electrical and sound wave phenomenon, but their relative significance and how they translate into auditory perception may not be so easy.

Moreover, the same auditory effect could have various different causes: how do we distinguish between distortion caused by driver characteristics and distortion caused by room/reverberation effects ? Everything contributes to the end result, and assigning one single aspect of sound reproduction to a single cause seems difficult.

 

[schlager]

Well, then I think we could deduct everything that is considered distortion as a limiting factor of dynamics, I don't believe that is the case. But compression, thermal and mechanical, is certainly a limiting factor. And normal hi-fi drivers have that in spades compared to PA-drivers or horn coupled drivers. Horns impedance couple the driver to macht the air, so energy transfer is much better, that is what gives us better transient response and ultimately better dynamics. Phase also plays a role, as correct phase will align the transients of the different drivers in time. Incorrect timing will smear the transient response in time, resulting in perceived lower dynamics.

 

[hopkins]

Well, then I think we could deduct everything that is considered distortion as a limiting factor of dynamics, I don't believe that is the case. But compression, thermal and mechanical, is certainly a limiting factor. And normal hi-fi drivers have that in spades compared to PA-drivers or horn coupled drivers. Horns impedance couple the driver to macht the air, so energy transfer is much better, that is what gives us better transient response and ultimately better dynamics. Phase also plays a role, as correct phase will align the transients of the different drivers in time. Incorrect timing will smear the transient response in time, resulting in perceived lower dynamics.

I guess i am not as analytical in my approach to listening!

Vis a vis horns, they do some things better than other speaker types (smaller membrame movement) but they have their own issues (coloration, limited frequency range requiring multiple driver setups).

Large surface areas with minimal membrane movement can also be achieved with line arrays, which have their own drawbacks.

There’s no free lunch in audio, and every solution introduces new issues.

 

[schlager]

When I listen to music I relax and don't do a bunch of analytical listening. The analytical part comes in the system build up, including the room. Once that is in place, it's time to enjoy the fruits of a systematically approach.

Not all horns are created equal. Sometimes it is possible to have your cake and eat it too

 

[Keith_W]

Horns impedance couple the driver to macht the air, so energy transfer is much better, that is what gives us better transient response and ultimately better dynamics.

This has been my subjective experience with horns - much better dynamics than any other type of driver. However, I have never seen measurements that can confirm or quantify this. Are you aware of any?

 

[schlager]

I don't think there is 1, as in one measurement, that will give you an exact number, as a mean to quantify "dynamics". But I'm pretty sure that I'm more or less correct, with my assessments in the last 3-4 post I wrote. In short dynamics would be related to transient response, that I'm almost 100 % certain of. Speaker directivity/radiation pattern also plays a role. More direct sound, will be perceived as more dynamic. Then phase and efficiency comes into play. Compression in drivers. I would look at decay plot or spectrogram, to see frequency vs time energy. Step response for phase and time alignment.

Even if we don't have an exact measurement for dynamics, at least we know what to do in speaker designs, to increase dynamics, I think we have to settle with that.

 

[hopkins]

When I listen to music I relax and don't do a bunch of analytical listening. The analytical part comes in the system build up, including the room. Once that is in place, it's time to enjoy the fruits of a systematically approach.

Not all horns are created equal. Sometimes it is possible to have your cake and eat it too

You should provide some more details on your speakers (though probably not in this thread).

 

[schlager]

Look at post #164, there is a bit of info, scratching the surface.

 

[Hear Here]

Vis a vis horns, they do some things better than other speaker types (smaller membrame movement) but they have their own issues (coloration, limited frequency range requiring multiple driver setups).

Large surface areas with minimal membrane movement can also be achieved with line arrays, which have their own drawbacks.

There’s no free lunch in audio, and every solution introduces new issues.

I've owned speakers of various types (omni, box, horn, electrostatic) and each has its good and not so good points - as do ss and tube amps, CD, vinyl and streaming.

I've pretty much concluded that the topmost important decision when choosing an ideal speaker is the room it will be used in. Some rooms may be happy with one type but other types will disappoint. I leant this lesson quite recently when I thought I should replace my 17 year old horns with new electrostatics. Showroom demos and reviews reinforced my enthusiasm, but once in my room, and despite the efforts of the UK distributor and Anthem, they sounded significantly less good then my aging horns - on all types of music and agreed by all my informed visitors.

My room seems to suits horns above other types. In theory, I should probably be using omnis as my speakers are placed mid-room with my dining and kitchen areas behind the speakers, but sadly demos of the 2 top brands led me to discount them on account of inferior imaging compared with spectacular imaging that is a feature of well set-up horns. I've since ungraded to better horns and an very happy with them.

 

[schlager]

Is the reflection at just under 2ms a floor reflection

Overlooked this one. No it is a metal beam in the ceiling above the speakers, it's a part of the room construction. Have to cover that with absorbing material some day

 

[Bjorn]

I guess i am not as analytical in my approach to listening!

Vis a vis horns, they do some things better than other speaker types (smaller membrame movement) but they have their own issues (coloration, limited frequency range requiring multiple driver setups).

Large surface areas with minimal membrane movement can also be achieved with line arrays, which have their own drawbacks.

There’s no free lunch in audio, and every solution introduces new issues.

It's possible to design a 2-way horn speaker. We have designed it as a 3-way with a separate subwoofer, but 2-way can work great as well.

 

[PeterA]

It's possible to design a 2-way horn speaker. We have designed it as a 3-way with a separate subwoofer, but 2-way can work great as well.

My corner horns are two way with FR of 35-15k Hz. Crossover at 500 Hz, horn loaded woofer.

 

[Tim Link]

Only in the bass and only if the top end completely bypasses any singnal processor - ie you need a bi-amping system with DSP only appled in the bass amp.

DSP built into a full-range amp may well flatten the frequency curve (particularly if the owner can't or won't do this in less invasive ways), but it will reduce the sparkle and goosebump factor that un-proceesed top end can and should provide.

I have generally not been satisfied with attempts to EQ the high frequencies even on modest priced speakers. However, I recently started using FIR filtering with a tailored inverted impulse response from my room's measurement. The tailoring of the impulse involves only EQing things that can be effectively addressed by the processing, so it leaves high frequencies basically untouched. If the filter is somehow ruining the high frequencies it's not processing, I'm not perceiving the loss. I like running it all together to keep it all time synchronized. The FIR filtering introduces some latency.
Nevertheless, now that you've mentioned it, I am running an active crossover and can set the FIR filter to only work on the bass channels, and I can delay the highs as needed, so I guess I'll give that a try.

I should add that I have used EQ on tweeter/horn lens combinations of my own assembling, and they really do need the EQ. Getting it right is a long process involving a lot of measuring and listening until you get some idea of what measurements correspond to what perceptions. Shooting for perfectly flat on axis never seemed to work.

 

[Tim Link]

I have generally not been satisfied with attempts to EQ the high frequencies even on modest priced speakers. However, I recently started using FIR filtering with a tailored inverted impulse response from my room's measurement. The tailoring of the impulse involves only EQing things that can be effectively addressed by the processing, so it leaves high frequencies basically untouched. If the filter is somehow ruining the high frequencies it's not processing, I'm not perceiving the loss. I like running it all together to keep it all time synchronized. The FIR filtering introduces some latency.
Nevertheless, now that you've mentioned it, I am running an active crossover and can set the FIR filter to only work on the bass channels, and I can delay the highs as needed, so I guess I'll give that a try.

I should add that I have used EQ on tweeter/horn lens combinations of my own assembling, and they really do need the EQ. Getting it right is a long process involving a lot of measuring and listening until you get some idea of what measurements correspond to what perceptions. Shooting for perfectly flat on axis never seemed to work.

I tried last night to apply the FIR filters to just the bass but was struggling with time alignment due to latency. I'll keep trying.

 

[pjwd]

What time difference do you get Tim .. I have minidsp on the base ( not FIR) and from what I recall it is supposed to have a latency that would require woofers moved about 300mm but it sounds pretty good to me .. I am going to build an active analogue xover to improve it ( once I settle on the right transfer function )so that will be interesting.
I an all digital system crossovers or dsp done by convolution filters in the digital domain should present no issues with any fr if done correctly as far as I can see

Cheers
Phil

 

[Tim Link]

What time difference do you get Tim .. I have minidsp on the base ( not FIR) and from what I recall it is supposed to have a latency that would require woofers moved about 300mm but it sounds pretty good to me .. I am going to build an active analogue xover to improve it ( once I settle on the right transfer function )so that will be interesting.
I an all digital system crossovers or dsp done by convolution filters in the digital domain should present no issues with any fr if done correctly as far as I can see

Cheers
Phil

I'm getting about 0.1 second latency on my FIR filter. That's about 11 feet off the top of my head. I can put in 100ms latency easy enough. Last night I was doing multiple experiments, also trying to implement an FIR crossover into the impulse response for the bass. Not sure what happened there but I definitely did not do it right. It was a total mess of weird reverb. The real problem wasn't the time alignment. So tonight I'll try again but just use the IIR crossover filters as usual.

 

[pjwd]

I'm getting about 0.1 second latency on my FIR filter. That's about 11 feet off the top of my head. I can put in 100ms latency easy enough. Last night I was doing multiple experiments, also trying to implement an FIR crossover into the impulse response for the bass. Not sure what happened there but I definitely did not do it right. It was a total mess of weird reverb. The real problem wasn't the time alignment. So tonight I'll try again but just use the IIR crossover filters as usual.

That is a long time ! Hopeless for video sync ( I am going to run apple tv sound through convolution filters on another system)
What program is that.. I imagine all FIR are similar