Yeah all one has to do is look back on the history of speaker measurements and all the criteria that were established and later discarded. My favorite is flat frequency response.
Pro Gear vs Audiophile Gear
- Thread starter marty
- Start date
Yeah all one has to do is look back on the history of speaker measurements and all the criteria that were established and later discarded. My favorite is flat frequency response.
Second order filter on the sub input from the controlling monitor, adjustable from 20 - 100hz. No proprietary connections. Not ideal theoretically, but my experience with the gentlemen of AVi is they do everything for a reason, and everything they do works. Or they stop doing it pretty quickly.
P
Last edited:
In the context of one piece of gear claiming to reproduce small dynamic differences better than another piece of gear, that difference can only be distortion. Take the case of a loud sound. For simplicity let's say it's a 100 Hz sine wave. That sine wave traverses every possible signal level from zero through its full amplitude. If any portion of that slope is not reproduced linearly, the result is distortion which is very easy to measure. So the notion that small differences in volume level will be minimized, or exaggerated, or reproduced correctly, is a function of the distortion of the audio device.
There's a difference between people using a word incorrectly, versus not being able to explain at all what they mean. If you asked me to define "shouty" I'd say it's a boost in the midrange around 1 KHz. Piercing would be more around 3 KHz. Tubby is more like 150 Hz. Hollow could be a broad null around 700 Hz. Of course these frequencies are approximations. Buzzy would be high-order distortion, and Thick might be 10 to 20 percent 2nd harmonic distortion. If I use a subjective type word to describe audio, I know exactly what I mean and can explain it using other words.
I have no idea what that means.
--Ethan
I'm sure a competent but deaf engineer could design a great sounding speaker. Hey, look at what Beethoven accomplished in his later years!
The main reason to listen, which of course everyone does, is to be sure you didn't overlook something silly. I've designed lots of circuits (years ago) that sounded fine when I listened. So those circuits would have sounded fine even if I didn't listen to verify.
Loudspeakers are more complex than most preamp and EQ type circuits, and it's 100 times faster to play music and walk around than to measure every angle in 1 degree increments with an RTA. That doesn't mean measuring alone is inadequate. So while no sane person would not listen to a product design before sending it off for 10,000 units to be made, that doesn't mean it can't be done successfully.
--Ethan
Sure.
Again, if gear really does behave that way then it can be expressed as distortion. I can't help adding that the effect you describe is common in untreated listening rooms. The issue is the relative level of reflections, and masking, and possibly also Fletcher-Munson.
Folks, I'll be away for a few days, so further replies will have to wait until Monday or Tuesday.
--Ethan
Ethan
Strong wording... Any deviation from linearity is a distortion that much we all know it but that is not a claim , rather an observation. I have observed the same and I think there can be scientific measurable explanation for this... Not an expert in the field of Psycho Acoustics, simply a Telecom engineer.. I can perfectly imagine a system that is less linear with low level signals than another... In my experience, that is one of the strong point of (some) electrostatics... Rejecting any observation or description of perceptions so broadly is to me unwise ... especially when such is consistent with repeatable experiences.
@Myles
I would repeat we need to know more but on the surface of it We need Flat Frequency response .. We need something to return all frequencies with the exact same relationship they had at the source, in that case the medium .. The real problems are that : By just pursuing that sole parameter , that is, flat FR don't we end up messing with other important parameters? Moreover Does what reach our ears remain flat ? Even if it were so then do our ears/brain accept that as correct when other elements of reproduction are not properly or at least adequately reproduced? I am still trying to find a better way to express this but I hope you got the point ...
Gross rejection of "numbers" on the false rationale that they can't tell the story is as unwise as rejecting all observations, or descriptions of perceptions. Both lead to stasis ... We are nowhere near reproducing the real thing well ... We are nowhere being able to just drop a few LCR , speakers and voila make a great speaker ... Not yet, The most expensive, mightiest Audio systems , can't reproduce to fool anyone (I hope) a trio in a Jazz Club. We still have a way to go , a long way to go. We may get there or at least continuously closer, by observing, measuring and relating those observations to measurements.
On the subject of Pro versus Audiophile, Firewire is potentially the better connection compared to USB anyway ... Firewire PCI cards are plentiful iin that sense I don't see how using Firewire weds anyone to Apple ...
Strong wording... Any deviation from linearity is a distortion that much we all know it but that is not a claim , rather an observation. I have observed the same and I think there can be scientific measurable explanation for this... Not an expert in the field of Psycho Acoustics, simply a Telecom engineer.. I can perfectly imagine a system that is less linear with low level signals than another... In my experience, that is one of the strong point of (some) electrostatics... Rejecting any observation or description of perceptions so broadly is to me unwise ... especially when such is consistent with repeatable experiences.
@Myles
I would repeat we need to know more but on the surface of it We need Flat Frequency response .. We need something to return all frequencies with the exact same relationship they had at the source, in that case the medium .. The real problems are that : By just pursuing that sole parameter , that is, flat FR don't we end up messing with other important parameters? Moreover Does what reach our ears remain flat ? Even if it were so then do our ears/brain accept that as correct when other elements of reproduction are not properly or at least adequately reproduced? I am still trying to find a better way to express this but I hope you got the point ...
Gross rejection of "numbers" on the false rationale that they can't tell the story is as unwise as rejecting all observations, or descriptions of perceptions. Both lead to stasis ... We are nowhere near reproducing the real thing well ... We are nowhere being able to just drop a few LCR , speakers and voila make a great speaker ... Not yet, The most expensive, mightiest Audio systems , can't reproduce to fool anyone (I hope) a trio in a Jazz Club. We still have a way to go , a long way to go. We may get there or at least continuously closer, by observing, measuring and relating those observations to measurements.
On the subject of Pro versus Audiophile, Firewire is potentially the better connection compared to USB anyway ... Firewire PCI cards are plentiful iin that sense I don't see how using Firewire weds anyone to Apple ...
I just started a new thread where the discussion of separate woofer enclosures vs. stand-alone speakers can be followed. Hopefully, this will allow for less drift from the "pro vs. audiophile" theme of this thread.
Lee
Lee
Sure. Where along the slope the non-linearity is most pronounced can affect this. If a class AB power amp has severe crossover distortion, that will give much more distortion on soft signals than loud signals. But with modern gear having very low distortion overall, this should not create the effect people report. If you want strong wording, how about this: IMO the real issue when people report music sounding different at low versus high levels is due simply Fletcher Munson.
--Ethan
I disagree with both
We are talking about loudspakers here and they are far from linear. In small speakers, to take an example some mini-monitors... i-e what used to be called bookshelves .. The issues of Power compressions are well documented. Moreover that compression is not linear neither in amplitude nor in frequency. Everything else being equal, (strong supposition but since we are dealing with hyperbole, why not?
) the speaker with the least amount of power compression is likely to reproduce the differences in loudness level in a more linear fashion. It is not simply a matter of SPL... The average SPL or even the peak SPL from two speakers can be the same . The relationship between the softest and the loudest portion of the signal , with respect to the input signal may be vastly different ... I would think that the more efficient speaker or the one suffering the least from power compression issues would preserve those relationship audibly better
I was addressing non-linearity in general, and I thought someone earlier referred to a preamp that sounded bad at low levels. Maybe that was another thread? Regardless, what I said still applies about where in the range the device is most nonlinear. With speaker drivers it will be at the excursion extremes = loudest. And Fletcher-Munson is still a huge factor.
--Ethan
Ethan
It was about speakers . although. I also disagree on the subject of electronics ... but let's keep it to speakers. For now
Thermal modulation is a well known phenomenon that affect several drivers.. There were some time ago a push toward ferro-fluid cooled drivers and that made sense, as it it helped the drivers literally shed faster the heat produced in their voice coils ... I haven't seen that many of these lately .. Yet the problem remains.
Thermal modulation is not present only in loud passages. It can well be present in softer ones .. Also let's keep in mind the behavior of a given driver , after a loud passage or sustained loud passages followed by several soft passage while the driver still has not return to a cooler state, where it performs more linearly .. There again , the speaker with less of that will tend to remain more linear, its efficiency precluding it to be driven by higher current ...
I am speculating somewhat but it is clear to me that Higher Efficiency designs tend to have that, jump factor. That audiophiles often call "speed" .. Horn for example seem to have it in drove not because of their particular brand of distortion but because of the much higher efficiency afforded by the horn essentially an acoustic transformer. This acoustic transformer allow the driver to couple better with the air , making it work with less power, thus lowering its thermal budget. Other non-horn but efficient speakers do have that the top of the line Wilson or Von Shcweikert for example ... There are many others but these two come to mind .. These have efficiency in the over 94 dB with the VR-11 claiming 99 dB!!!
@Gregadd
Very interesting video but that is dynamic compression not power compression in loudspeaker driver ... A good illustration of power compression in speakers can be inferred from various Soundstage speaker measurements in which the FR change with the average SPL ... Look for those of mini-monitors ... but full range do also exhibit the same ...
It was about speakers . although. I also disagree on the subject of electronics ... but let's keep it to speakers. For now
Thermal modulation is a well known phenomenon that affect several drivers.. There were some time ago a push toward ferro-fluid cooled drivers and that made sense, as it it helped the drivers literally shed faster the heat produced in their voice coils ... I haven't seen that many of these lately .. Yet the problem remains.
Thermal modulation is not present only in loud passages. It can well be present in softer ones .. Also let's keep in mind the behavior of a given driver , after a loud passage or sustained loud passages followed by several soft passage while the driver still has not return to a cooler state, where it performs more linearly .. There again , the speaker with less of that will tend to remain more linear, its efficiency precluding it to be driven by higher current ...
I am speculating somewhat but it is clear to me that Higher Efficiency designs tend to have that, jump factor. That audiophiles often call "speed" .. Horn for example seem to have it in drove not because of their particular brand of distortion but because of the much higher efficiency afforded by the horn essentially an acoustic transformer. This acoustic transformer allow the driver to couple better with the air , making it work with less power, thus lowering its thermal budget. Other non-horn but efficient speakers do have that the top of the line Wilson or Von Shcweikert for example ... There are many others but these two come to mind .. These have efficiency in the over 94 dB with the VR-11 claiming 99 dB!!!
@Gregadd
Very interesting video but that is dynamic compression not power compression in loudspeaker driver ... A good illustration of power compression in speakers can be inferred from various Soundstage speaker measurements in which the FR change with the average SPL ... Look for those of mini-monitors ... but full range do also exhibit the same ...
Very interesting video but that is dynamic compression not power compression in loudspeaker driver ... A good illustration of power compression in speakers can be inferred from various Soundstage speaker measurements in which the FR change with the average SPL ... Look for those of mini-monitors ... but full range often exhibit this problem
It's a perfect example of what I was talking about. I'll leave the rest to you and Ethan. For a brief power compression explanation. See, http://www.audioholics.com/education/loudspeaker-basics/subwoofer-measurement-part-1/efficiency. Not that you did not do an excellent job.
It's a perfect example of what I was talking about. I'll leave the rest to you and Ethan. For a brief power compression explanation. See, http://www.audioholics.com/education/loudspeaker-basics/subwoofer-measurement-part-1/efficiency. Not that you did not do an excellent job.
?? OK but I thought we were discussing about dynamic compression as it relates to PRO vs Audiophile gear ...?
It's OK. We are on a different page. I think we have them both covered and I'll bow out.
Frantz-this is what you said about the video:
Very interesting video but that is dynamic compression not power compression in loudspeaker driver ... A good illustration of power compression in speakers can be inferred from various Soundstage speaker measurements in which the FR change with the average SPL ... Look for those of mini-monitors ... but full range do also exhibit the same ...
My point is I was referring to dynamic compression and you were talking about power compression. The video is a good demo of the former as it is introduced at the source.
Frantz-this is what you said about the video:
Very interesting video but that is dynamic compression not power compression in loudspeaker driver ... A good illustration of power compression in speakers can be inferred from various Soundstage speaker measurements in which the FR change with the average SPL ... Look for those of mini-monitors ... but full range do also exhibit the same ...
My point is I was referring to dynamic compression and you were talking about power compression. The video is a good demo of the former as it is introduced at the source.
Last edited:
I have no reason to doubt any of that. My point is always that whatever distortion there may be, it can be easily measured and understood. And there's no need for yet more terms such as "microdynamics" that mean different things to different people, or duplicate less precisely terms that are already standard.
--Ethan
I share that point of view.. Whatever we hear can be measured.. no doubt but what would you use to describe the differences between ffff and ff or ppp and pp .. Do you think ALL and every system reproduce these the same way? I don't ...
Last edited:
Seriously Ethan, get off the fence for once. Do you really believe that everything there is to know about the reproduction of sound is known, measured and already understood? That is the only instance where there can be any sort of standard lexicon. Barring that, there is simply no choice but to use language that is illustrative if not technically acceptable. The engineering vocabulary grows minute by minute yet you say all can be explained.
So do you?
Similar threads
