Frequency response is everything!?...

[Hear Here]

That does not work for sure. The DSP bass part would be time delayed. The speakers will never sound "right." If DSP, then it is DSP on all drivers.

Not necessarily. Take a look at Martin Logan and Avantgarde speakers. The former has Anthem built into its bass amps, the latter has XD DSP built into its bass amps. Neither the electrostatic panels, nor the horns suffer DSP unless an additional DSP is buit into the main amp - a totally undesirable situation.

 

[Gregadd]

I want.
Thank.

 

[henrich3]

This is where you are wrong I believe. If the DSP is built into a full-range amp, the entire frequency rage signal has to suffer the processor. Only if you split the signal first and send bass only to an amp with DSP while the rest goes to another amp without DSP can you avoid the problem described. I have to agree totally with Amir that the top end is degraded as a result of being subjected to this complex processor and this can be easily demonstrated with high quality speakers. In fact the DSP in my amp can only adjust sub-500 Hz yet the top end is clearly slightly spoilt.

I see from your signature that you use NAD amps. The Dirac Live RC built in to those amps, while good IMO, is not the last word in room correction technology. You paint with too broad a brush when you disparage all room correction systems if you only have experience with mid-grade versions. The RC built into my Trinnov Altitude is more sophisticated and more in keeping with what an audiophile with a high-end system might use. It includes correction for amplitude, phase, and group delay, and these can indeed be limited in frequency, if desired. I see no need to limit its processing however, because everything sounds better when it's enabled full-range.

 

[microstrip]

Knowledge derived from studies on acoustics & psychoacoustics certainly should play a role in designing any high-end stereo or multi-channel listening room, as well as in correcting & tuning the sound (DSP).

Surely. But a lot of knowledge about high-end audio comes from experience and human knowledge, not from scientific studies.

Just plopping high-end equipment into an untreated room and not correcting acoustic problems will not provide optimal results.

Surely listening to music in the Musikverein is more rewarding that in many other halls with inferior acoustics. But this does not invalidate great music experiences these halls.

The nice thing in the high-end is that it designers enhance aspects in sound equipment the free us in part from room acoustics, allowing us to have great sound in most of our typical listening rooms. Evidently some problematic rooms need some treatment - I had to thoroughly treat my front wall in my very long room. BTW, did you read Toole about room acoustics and about his own room?

 

[microstrip]

Does the science/scientist of those mentioned above apply to low-fi, mid-fi, and hi-fi ? Yes/No.. I don't understand the "high end reproduction, something that is ignored in the book". Elaborate on what's missing. It sounds like snob appeal in the forum. And the usual reply is that measurements/science cannot tell you everything, but are good enough to make everyone's life easier. Subjectively of course.

Unfortunately it seems you still think in terns of low-fi, mid-fi, and hi-fi. Hi-end does not refer only to quality of audio, but to an attitude towards stereo sound reproduction. Toole also misunderstood this attitude - he bitterly regrets that people still prefer the inferior stereo to the much improved multichannel sound.

I often quote Nelson Pass when referring to high-end. His quotes clearly explain us what is the high-end audio

"In the end, the subjective experience is what our customer is looking for. Our taste in sound may not appeal to everyone, but it's what we have to work with, and we only need a small segment of the market to be successful."

"Our real customers care most about the experience they get when they sit down to listen to their music. We create amplifiers that we like to listen to, on the assumption that we share similar taste."

Sorry you find debates on high end a snob attitude - as far as I know this forum is an high-end forum.

BTW, if you are really interested on discussions around the F. Toole book I suggest you also read comments from people who disagree with him, not just the Harman marketing.



"

 

[hopkins]

Some answers to the OP’s question here, starting at 24 min

 

[henrich3]

Surely. But a lot of knowledge about high-end audio comes from experience and human knowledge, not from scientific studies.

Surely listening to music in the Musikverein is more rewarding that in many other halls with inferior acoustics. But this does not invalidate great music experiences these halls.

The nice thing in the high-end is that it designers enhance aspects in sound equipment the free us in part from room acoustics, allowing us to have great sound in most of our typical listening rooms. Evidently some problematic rooms need some treatment - I had to thoroughly treat my front wall in my very long room. BTW, did you read Toole about room acoustics and about his own room?

A lot of knowledge about high-end audio comes from experience and human knowledge *and* from scientific studies.

The only thing in high-end electronics that would "free us in part from room acoustics" is called room correction technology. Emphasis on the "in part". Room correction can't eliminate the comb filtering that muddies sound and reduces clarity. Acoustic absorber panels at first reflection points can however. That's why RC products should supplement acoustic treatments - not replace them.

Re: Toole's listening room, yes, I've read that he didn't follow his own advice when putting it together. I believe that his room has large windows and a nice view. Apparently maintaining the pleasant aesthetics of the room was more important to him than the sound quality.

 

[microstrip]

A lot of knowledge about high-end audio comes from experience and human knowledge *and* from scientific studies.

The only thing in high-end electronics that would "free us in part from room acoustics" is called room correction technology. Emphasis on the "in part". Room correction can't eliminate the comb filtering that muddies sound and reduces clarity. Acoustic absorber panels at first reflection points can however. That's why RC products should supplement acoustic treatments - not replace them.

Sorry to disagree - your view shows that have no interest at all in the high- end or discussing it.

Re: Toole's listening room, yes, I've read that he didn't follow his own advice when putting it together. I believe that his room has large windows and a nice view. Apparently maintaining the pleasant aesthetics of the room was more important to him than the sound quality.

It also seems you have not even read the book in full and did not understand his advice and his motivations.

 

[henrich3]

Sorry to disagree - your view shows that have no interest at all in the high- end or discussing it.
It also seems you have not even read the book in full and did not understand his advice and his motivations.

If you disagree with a specific claim that I've made, let me know and please provide evidence to support your point.

Cheers.

 

[microstrip]

(...) The only thing in high-end electronics that would "free us in part from room acoustics" is called room correction technology. (...)

This is the claim I mostly disagree. High-end designers manipulate the signal in a way that it focus our perception on some specific clues and hints that frees us from many room acoustics characteristics that could be otherwise problematic. IMO with a great, properly assembled and tuned high-end system you become less sensitive to room acoustics. My experience, YMMV.

If you disagree with a specific claim that I've made, let me know and please provide evidence to support your point.

Cheers.

 

[microstrip]

I had this debate. Harman has no proof that most people prefer anything. The best they can say is the most people in their test preferred the better measuring speaker.

No, the Harman team had proof that that people preferred something in the particular conditions they established. However many people consider that the conditions they established are too restrictive and are not a proof of audiophile preference in real life.

Harman mostly researched for a general statistical preference. However if 70 people prefer solid state and 30 people prefer tubes it does not mean that we should all listen to solid state or solid state is "better" than tubes!

It is a pity that most of the time the excellent Floyd Toole reasearch is obscured by its use in the Harman marketing.

 

[henrich3]

This is the claim I mostly disagree. High-end designers manipulate the signal in a way that it focus our perception on some specific clues and hints that frees us from many room acoustics characteristics that could be otherwise problematic. IMO with a great, properly assembled and tuned high-end system you become less sensitive to room acoustics. My experience, YMMV.

That's more useful than your previous post. Thank you.

What you hear in your listening room is a combination of direct and reflected sounds. At some frequencies the direct & reflected sounds will be in-phase, and those frequencies will sound louder than they should. At other frequencies the direct & reflected sounds will be out of phase and those frequencies will sound softer than they should. Absorbing first reflections attenuates the reflected audio so you hear more direct sound. That decreases comb filtering, levels out the frequency response, and increases the clarity of what you hear.

A good room correction product can correct for amplitude, phase, & group delay issues. Multi-sub setups can also help to smooth out low-end peaks & nulls that are difficult to deal with using either acoustic panels or RC solutions.

Re: "High-end designers manipulate the signal in a way that it focus our perception on some specific clues and hints that frees us from many room acoustics characteristics that could be otherwise problematic", the problem with room acoustics is those peaks & dips due to constructive or destructive interference when direct & reflected sounds hit your ear holes. The only piece of electronic gear that should be working to compensate for these acoustic problems is a room correction product. Amps, preamps, speakers, etc. should all just be focused on delivering an accurate representation of the signal that they receive - not "manipulating the signal in a way that focuses our perception on some specific clues and hints", whatever that means.

 

[Gregadd]

No, the Harman team had proof that that people preferred something in the particular conditions they established. However many people consider that the conditions they established are too restrictive and are not a proof of audiophile preference in real life.

Harman mostly researched for a general statistical preference. However if 70 people prefer solid state and 30 people prefer tubes it does not mean that we should all listen to solid state or solid state is "better" than tubes!

It is a pity that most of the time the excellent Floyd Toole reasearch is obscured by its use in the Harman marketing.

I am not sure I disagree with you. I argued this point some time ago. With Sean Olive not responding to me in particular. He argued the point his study proved the hypothesis that that the general publ8c preferred the better measuring speakers.
I suggested be could not make that claim because
1.His sample size was too small.
2..The test subjects were not selected from the general public. He never claimed they were and it was self evident because the group contained trained listeners.
A scholarly work nonetheless.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Honestly, this post isn't about much other than my need to vent out about those who insist there's no more to audio performance than frequency response

I think nobody has said that on this forum , if that was all it would be great , because i know some ( commercial) monitor loudspeakers that cost no more then around a 1000 bucks $$ that measure perfect
Often people with either home built loudspeaker designs that are put together without measuring and people who own bad measuring commercial speakers make the claims that flat FR is worthless

 

[Keith_W]

This is where you are wrong I believe. If the DSP is built into a full-range amp, the entire frequency rage signal has to suffer the processor. Only if you split the signal first and send bass only to an amp with DSP while the rest goes to another amp without DSP can you avoid the problem described. I have to agree totally with Amir that the top end is degraded as a result of being subjected to this complex processor and this can be easily demonstrated with high quality speakers. In fact the DSP in my amp can only adjust sub-500 Hz yet the top end is clearly slightly spoilt.

Well, I realize that you may not even share the same beliefs as me so we may as well be talking past each other. But in the interest of making my argument easier to follow, I will list all my underlying reasons why DSP is effectively transparent to any part of the frequency range that you leave unmolested.

- First, digital signals ONLY consist of two elements: 1's and 0's, and timing (jitter).
- Transmission of 1's and 0's is mostly perfect. If it isn't, there would be obvious signal dropout which is audible as interruption to the music.
- Jitter can be reclocked. If bits are not changed, then there is no difference whether it goes directly from CD to DAC, or from CD, transmitted to Timbuktu, transmitted back, then reclocked and into the DAC.
- Running a signal through a processor, and having the processor NOT do any manipulation with the signal, will result in exactly the same signal coming out the processor.

If we can agree with the above premises, then we can move on to the next points:

- It is possible to send a full range signal through DSP and only apply DSP to the frequencies you are interested in.
- Somebody mentioned delay. It is also possible to delay part of the signal and leave the bits completely unmolested so that when it is reproduced by the DAC, it is still bit perfect and will result in exactly the same signal.

Since you mention "high quality speakers", I will make a bold claim that there is no tweeter on this planet that is more resolving than mine, except for other manufacturers which use the same technology: plasma tweeters. No inertia, no momentum, no distortion, and no "character" from materials used to construct the tweeter. Sound literally emerges from thin air (or rather, a ball of plasma). I also use horns, like you. It is probably the only active DSP controlled speaker with a plasma tweeter in the world, and if it isn't, I would be interested in meeting other members of what must be a very small club. I am not using some low end DSP solution either, I built my own PC which upsamples everything and processes it at 64 bit with 65536 taps. The signal is then sent to a Merging NADAC which reclocks everything.

So yes, I can hear every little change that goes on in my system and I can tell you that if I do not apply any manipulation to the top end, there is absolutely no difference.

 

[Gregadd]

A speaker that measures perfect?

 

[Keith_W]

A speaker that measures perfect?

If you are referring to me, no it doesn't. There are some things I do not have the ability to measure, so I do it by ear.

 

[andromedaaudio]

A speaker that measures perfect?

Here is an add for home / studio mixing monitors , made for people who make music / record music
You can read what they have to say about it

7 Best Flat Response Studio Monitors (True Reference Grade)

Today in this post we are going to review the best flat response studio monitors that you can use in your home studio.

www.soundmaximum.com

 

[Gregadd]

There was a time I would lookup the curves and see the FR to see what they did.to get a ^flat'" curve.
Life is too short.
I will take the easy way out. You measure perfect not perfect FR.
Let's a perfect a complete ser of measurements from an independent neutral source.
Note: the author defines flat response as 'ifou put in a 250 hz tone in tou get a 250hz ring out.'

 

[andromedaaudio]

There was a time I would lookup the curves and see the FR to see what they did.to get a ^flat'" curve.
Life is too short.
I will take the easy way out. You measure perfect not perfect FR.
Let's a perfect a complete ser of measurements from an independent neutral source.

Sure thats where JA of stereophile comes in .
By the way who gets to choose the notary to put the results on paper , you or me ?