I think we should all thank Lynn for opening this thread, and creating a cozy environment of discussion.
Once, we had a short talk with the Director of Meilon, whom pretty much has been with speaker driver building. He shared his experience in the industry, and pointed out that people with different living environments, clutural bacground, etc. all influency what they prefer as good sound reproduction. So as designers, we either have to go out and find commonalities and differences to satisfy the target customer base, or we can focus on trying to create masterpieces appreciated by very few, or nobody at all. I take, for example the Exaltation active speakers:
These started out as a quest to find out how good reproduction of sound could be accomplished with a certain cost limit, size limit, and features. What we see here is one of the various listening and commenting session in various environments. During this session, the Audiophiles were asked what difference they determine based on thier experience in listening to various versions of the BBC LS3/5a (note that it was intentional to a void the "which is better" question). Some expressed the sonic qualities were similar, some comments were the LS3/5a is a bit "stickier" in sound, some thought the bass of the LS3/5a had a bit more punch, some felt the Exaltation had a bit more bass. This was valuable information, because with each comparison, it's important to figure out what a designer might have missed in the process of looking at data and the designer's own listening preference.
Sometimes when we put systems together, each combination will sound different. The most mind boggling thing is to figure out what is causing a system to sound the way it does. I recall once I build a sort of simple peak unlimiting circuit just to know how it would sound like. Well, it delivered the most dynamic piano performance I had ever experienced. I did not know why then, but now I think I have better understanding of what was going on now.
Personally, I think if we always admit what our current design limits are, then we can hope for further improvement; if we think that "this is it", what do we have more to look forward to? For example, there is a very much sought after monito speaker made by Yamaha even though it's out of production. After listening to one, and also reading the book recommended by Lynn, I was convinced speakers of this quality would have to be listened to in a very quiet and well damped room; they would sound terrible otherwise.
As for faithfull reproduction. It is important to really go to any live performance and feel what the performer is trying to convey, feel the emotion, feel the effort they put into a good performance, feel the skill of each instrument. Once you get that feeling, go to the design board and figure out what improvement can be made technically to present something just a bit closer to that experience hopefully without losing other good aspects in the sound system. Don't rule out anything, just prioritize it. If changes that improve on a high priority issue does not result in the improvement we expect, maybe the prority needs to be changed.
Once, we had a short talk with the Director of Meilon, whom pretty much has been with speaker driver building. He shared his experience in the industry, and pointed out that people with different living environments, clutural bacground, etc. all influency what they prefer as good sound reproduction. So as designers, we either have to go out and find commonalities and differences to satisfy the target customer base, or we can focus on trying to create masterpieces appreciated by very few, or nobody at all. I take, for example the Exaltation active speakers:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
These started out as a quest to find out how good reproduction of sound could be accomplished with a certain cost limit, size limit, and features. What we see here is one of the various listening and commenting session in various environments. During this session, the Audiophiles were asked what difference they determine based on thier experience in listening to various versions of the BBC LS3/5a (note that it was intentional to a void the "which is better" question). Some expressed the sonic qualities were similar, some comments were the LS3/5a is a bit "stickier" in sound, some thought the bass of the LS3/5a had a bit more punch, some felt the Exaltation had a bit more bass. This was valuable information, because with each comparison, it's important to figure out what a designer might have missed in the process of looking at data and the designer's own listening preference.
Sometimes when we put systems together, each combination will sound different. The most mind boggling thing is to figure out what is causing a system to sound the way it does. I recall once I build a sort of simple peak unlimiting circuit just to know how it would sound like. Well, it delivered the most dynamic piano performance I had ever experienced. I did not know why then, but now I think I have better understanding of what was going on now.
Personally, I think if we always admit what our current design limits are, then we can hope for further improvement; if we think that "this is it", what do we have more to look forward to? For example, there is a very much sought after monito speaker made by Yamaha even though it's out of production. After listening to one, and also reading the book recommended by Lynn, I was convinced speakers of this quality would have to be listened to in a very quiet and well damped room; they would sound terrible otherwise.
As for faithfull reproduction. It is important to really go to any live performance and feel what the performer is trying to convey, feel the emotion, feel the effort they put into a good performance, feel the skill of each instrument. Once you get that feeling, go to the design board and figure out what improvement can be made technically to present something just a bit closer to that experience hopefully without losing other good aspects in the sound system. Don't rule out anything, just prioritize it. If changes that improve on a high priority issue does not result in the improvement we expect, maybe the prority needs to be changed.
I don't think many have heard this kind of quality..
The best way I can describe it to another is the difference between a full open-real quality tape transfer vs. a 44.1 CD. ..and unfortunately, precious few have even listened to good open-real recording on any system, let alone one that's good.
Both expose good and bad from a recording, but to me one sounds far more *real* than the other. The clarity from the tape is so great, that by contrast it doesn't sound initially as "clear" as the CD, largely because venue reflections are now much more pronounced, with even the venue's humidity level apparent (..where instrument harmonics change). It sounds "thicker" and "larger". Sources aren't as pin-point, yet are still more "present" and more identifiable in location without thinking about it. Sources are also more dynamically apparent, with even fairly quite passages often having a "startling" quality with no more than a modest change in pressure or tempo.
And yes, some tape hiss is also usually present, but separate from the performance.
Boy, this is a case of 1/2 full vs. 1/2 empty if I ever saw one. I've had a close relationship with one of the premier audio stored in New England for over 30 years. I've heard and designed systems of all qualities. I would say that the highest quality system, those that can reveal the lowest level of detail,...... also reveal, unmercifully, the flaws in poorer recording. Personally I am not interested in listening around those flaws for the hidden magic when I can find a recording of the same material free of those flaws. But I can understand where you are coming from. I just don't want to be there. It's not sour grapes (what ever that was suppose to refer to???). It's just taking out the trash.
Don't think so. They used Genelec speakers that have extended bass. But how deep is deep enough? Those speakers won't play a 20 Hz explosion as loud as they should. When listening with a bass managed system that explosion will be much louder because now the subwoofer is capable of reproducing the actual volume.
Apart from that the LFE is another channel not a physical speaker (subwoofer). When you apply bass management (fancy word for crossover) a low-pass filter is applied to the LFE. Information gets lost.
Furthermore there probably is a difference how 5 or 7 low frequency sources from "large" speakers sum acoustically when compared to a summed (bass managed) subwoofer output.
Best, Markus
That's a shame. The systems I'm talking about might be said to "mercifully reveal" those same flaws. There are there, they are obvious, but somehow they aren't nearly as annoying as they are on other systems. For me, that's a good thing.
Throwing out the baby with the bathwater? There are many old recordings (and some new bad ones) I've enjoyed that simply don't exist in any better form. I don't want to have to throw those out because they may be "bad". The music on them certainly isn't. I don't want to have to limit myself to "good" recordings. Yeah, I like Diana Krall, DSOTM, Jazz at the Pawnshop, chamber music, etc. But they are not the only things I want to listen to.
But I guess I'm just not up to describing it well enough, if no one understands it. My bad. If you heard it, you would understand. A lazy coward's statement to be sure - but I have not been able to do better!
ScottG says he does not think he has heard this kind of quality, but then does a good job of describing it - and more. =)
That's so true.
Thanks for you comments.
"The film industry adheres to a set of strict standards that are used in the creation of the content and in the reproduction of the content in movie theaters."
He seems to contradict your claim that the standards are "pretty basic". And your saying "not so" for DVD's? Doesn't "the film industry" control DVD production as well?
Well one of us is mixed up - I agree. I'll let readers decide who is making more sense.
There ARE plenty of great recordings availble. I never said otherwise.
Are you sure you're not the one confusing loudspeaker/soundwaves "system" with brain process/filtering "system"?
Emphasis is on "movie theaters", not "home theaters". Apart from that it depends what you compare it to. Looking at the music industry that has no standars even for such basic things like a reference volume level, anything else is "pretty strict"
"They" might control movie theaters but it's the studios/distributors like Lionsgate that task studios with remixes for DVD/Blu-ray. This article provides some insight: http://micasamm.com/newsite/articles/widescreenreview0408.pdf
Best, Markus
Hmm, not exactly what I'm after – but pano already has answered better than I ever could have put it into words, he is speaking directly from my heart:
Besides that I *am* on what might be useful design guidelines for loudspeakers – and at least in my perception there has been some development on what is desirable and what is less important because there are ways to correct for at other places.
Standardisation (room and speaker) is a whole different task as there *never* will be any standard that fits all our's desire.
THX & Co ? – big monopoly money making ! at best – and for home-fi especially.
Michael
No, no.
I don't think many *others* have heard this kind of quality.
Hmm, kind of reminds me when auditioning a Clear Audio LP player with two different riaa. A budget and one over my cash limit.
With the better riaa, the noise from badly handled LP's seemed out of phase and totally disconnected from the music.
Cheaper riaa, the noise was right in your face. Explanation was, according to the owner, was that the cheap riaa did not have enough headroom for the transients made by the scratches on the LP's.
Peter
Having none limits the art more than having standards. It's not the standards that is the limiting factor but the recording and reproduction technique itself. E.g., there will never be real LEV with stereo. So the recording and reproduction has to evolve.
Maybe that's all happening right now and I'm just too impatient.
Best, Markus
Here's a mundane example, although kind of old-school: Back when LP's were the reference standard (yes, yes, I know mastertapes are more appropriate, but they're hard to get), we twiddled around with different preamp topologies at Audionics. Matching the RIAA equalization as close as possible (small fraction of a dB), we found that slew rate, of all things, correlated with perception of pops and ticks. Our production preamp was 3 V/uSec, and the prototype was 13 V/uSec. Keeping the rest of the circuit the same - including the same parts for RIAA - the fastest preamp had a variety of audiophile buzzwords - more open, more spacious, blah blah - but the most obvious quality, something anyone off the street would notice, was that the records became a lot quieter, almost like listening to tape instead of records. It had a surprising effect on the presentation - it sounded "soft" until real HF content came along.
Turns out the moving-coil cartridges we were using were flat to 50 kHz (suitable for CD4 playback), and the sharp edges of groove wall defects - which of course were not subject to cutterhead limitations - were slewing the production preamp. This was confirmed by storage-scope pix of the different preamps - the slower one was indeed slewing the pops and clicks, stretching them out and making them much more audible than the extremely narrow clicks they really were. A conventional, moving-magnet cartridge, although it didn't slew, also stretched out the pulses, making them more audible. So this was a good example of a higher-quality preamp & cartridge "rescuing" worn-out and overcut records.
I have seen similar things with the analog stage of CD players. It's very common to use 5532-class opamps with CD, SACD, and DVD-A players. These opamps are slew-limited to 13V/uSec. Unfortunately, they are used in stages that exposed to the direct switching transitions of the DAC converter, before the mandatory 3rd to 9th order analog LP filter.
I've measured - on a HP spectrum analyzer that goes out to 100 MHz - a comb spectra that extends out to 20 MHz from the raw output of the DAC. To avoid slewing, that demands analog electronics that have a minimum slew rate of at least 1000V/uSec, 76 times faster than the popular 5532 op-amp. What does it sound like when everything in the CD player is kept the same, and the offending parts are swapped out?
Guess what - so-called "bad" CDs become listenable again. They sound tipped up and bright, but not distorted. Replace the opamps for the 5532 oldies (they date back to 1978), and the "bad", distorted CD sound returns. This is simple, repeatable, and obvious on an A/B test with non-audiophile listeners (two players, otherwise identical).
The slewing distortion, although extremely brief, does represent a short interval of 100% distortion, as does mistracking on an LP - the input and output become decorrelated for a brief interval. Due to the brevity of the slewing, it doesn't really show up on THD measurements, but is quite visible in the time domain (with a storage scope) and with a wideband RF spectrum analyzer.
Unfortunately, very few audio companies own a $30,000 Hewlett-Packard RF spectrum analyzer. Most audio companies are completely unaware of RF problems or multi-MHz HF oscillations in the regulators. These HF problems are actually quite common in high-end audio gear, but since they go unmeasured by the manufacturer and review magazines, they are out of sight, and out of mind. But they are really there nonetheless, and I've seen it in very expensive gear that is advertised for big bucks in the magazines.
My same sonic impression between really good and good pickup preamps.
In addition to what you already layed out technically there is a biiiiig issue in common mode pick up.
This finally brings subtil earthing and shielding tricks into the centre of your considerations (and/or symmetric versus asymmetric connection)
Michael
Last edited: