I can't say that it is or is not with respect to non-linear distortion at very low levels over time because I've never had a reasonable comparison. 
I can say though that the overall result of irritation to sounds over time (even very low level sound) is very much a real thing. (..the audio version of Chinese water torture.) ..and have recently had to deal with this problem
I can say though that the overall result of irritation to sounds over time (even very low level sound) is very much a real thing. (..the audio version of Chinese water torture.) ..and have recently had to deal with this problem
Here's a thought, if Joe Shmoe can listen to his distorted awful box store speakers with dented in dust caps for years and be perfectly happy then people can adjust to high levels of distortion.
So then what a person adjusts to or doesn't adjust depends a lot on their willingness to adjust, knowledge, and personal preferences. Of course at some point you really truly can't tell a difference and I suppose that's the goal.
Non-linear distortion is mostly just the tonal quality of the drivers, it's there, not a mystery. I don't find it all that hard to adjust to.
So then what a person adjusts to or doesn't adjust depends a lot on their willingness to adjust, knowledge, and personal preferences. Of course at some point you really truly can't tell a difference and I suppose that's the goal.
Non-linear distortion is mostly just the tonal quality of the drivers, it's there, not a mystery. I don't find it all that hard to adjust to.
Last edited:
That people can adapt to poor sound is very true. But we have been told for years that "distortion" sounds bad, so, whenever we hear bad sound we immediately think "distortion/THD" when, in fact, we really don't know what it is. From my work I have to conclude that it's usually not nonlinear distortion in the speakers unless they're overloaded.
To further my point (I was on the road and typing was difficult):
People will acclimate to what they have - speaker wise - and judge most other speakers based on their expectation of what a speaker should be, which is usually close to what they have. I have had people not like speakers that I have had, but when I heard what they had I could see why. In every case what I had was flatter/smoother/whatever objective you want to use. So they had gotten used to something "distorted" whaile I was used to something that was not. The point here is that one needs to be careful that what they are getting "used to" is not "bad", or they will judge truly "good" as not so good. Toole calls this the "circle of confusion" (although Toole uses this phase a little differently it comes down to the same thing.)
People will acclimate to what they have - speaker wise - and judge most other speakers based on their expectation of what a speaker should be, which is usually close to what they have. I have had people not like speakers that I have had, but when I heard what they had I could see why. In every case what I had was flatter/smoother/whatever objective you want to use. So they had gotten used to something "distorted" whaile I was used to something that was not. The point here is that one needs to be careful that what they are getting "used to" is not "bad", or they will judge truly "good" as not so good. Toole calls this the "circle of confusion" (although Toole uses this phase a little differently it comes down to the same thing.)
I don't claim that everyone will like them, I do claim that no/few (very few!) other commercial loudspeaker measures better. None that I have tested that is for sure. The database on my website attests to that. I have always offered to post anyone's speakers, but no one has the guts I guess! The Behringers and JBL's look good on those plots, but they do not have anywhere near the MaxSPL capabilities of mine. MaxSPL is a big factor, but there is no standard as to how to do this. Some attempts, but nothing that has garnered a following. I tend to like Coherence versus level as used in hearing aids.
Most horns and pro drivers could knock birds out of the sky. They usually maintain the dynamics at normal volumes. But the ones I have need a lot of breathing room. I think its the ambient vs direct sound issue. If there were horns for near field listening I'd consider building them.
The ones I have now (quad 4 fusions) came from DIY sound group. Diysoundgroup would probably be thrilled to offer a Geddes design akin to the Summas or Abbeys in a lower price range.
Horns generally have higher second order distortion from what I understand, but personally I like the sound. Great for home theatre or heavy music.
Last edited:
-but that might not be a factor at all given the spl that most people listen at, even with a typical 9-10 feet from the loudspeakers for "critical" listening.
..perhaps more so in the context of using a monitor speaker as a monitor speaker (at close proximity) in the case of those Behringers or similar loudspeakers. (..though somewhat unusual for domestic listening distance, I'm personally at about 5-6 feet from each speaker for personal enjoyment.)
Last edited:
What you state is highly unlikely in view of research by Toole and Olive, which shows that audiences prefer low over high distortion, and flat over non-flat FR. Even people with bad speakers seem to recognize a good speaker the moment they hear one, according to their findings.
The 'circle of confusion' has to do with the fact that many studio's do not work with flat monitoring systems for editing, so that the end product will have compensations in it for monitoring system aberrations. Then, in the listening location, there is reproduction system with its own quirks and presto, confusion rules.
In short, if people don't like your speakers, other explanations should be looked for.
Last edited:
Only if the engineer is not particularly professional in his/her working methods.
I don't know a single working sound engineer who does not have 2 pairs of monitors (or more) and fails to test the result of their work on as many different audio systems as possible. Typically it will be checked on nearfields, alternative nearfields/mono, mains, car stereo and mate's home hifis.
The less problems in a system, small problems will be more annoying. This is very similar when trying to animate real people created virtually. I forget what effect they call it, but once you can cross that barrier, then you are at a new level. Then trying to do the same thing with audio, we will reach similar barriers. My current suspicion is that the material in the diaphragms of the drivers may be causing what is putting Earls speakers down. This is where the general measurement methods used for publishing speaker specs do not get to, rather small signal linearity may come to play. This information is generally not shown.
Interesting discussion......
Anyone have any experience with regard to distortion in Bandor 50 drivers? The thread is about who makes the lowest distortion drivers so these might be one of them......and I’ve just bought a pair to try out. They have a good reputation and their impulse response is pretty decent according to the supplied graph......
Anyone have any experience with regard to distortion in Bandor 50 drivers? The thread is about who makes the lowest distortion drivers so these might be one of them......and I’ve just bought a pair to try out. They have a good reputation and their impulse response is pretty decent according to the supplied graph......
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
This is actually a part of the problem. If the translation aspect of mastering were only done on truly high quality monitors, i.e., flat FR and largely free of other nonlinear distortions in well set-up studios, then I believe that most of these discussions would die out and we would find other topics to argue about.
The problem is that the mastering guys have this notion that using bad loudspeakers is justified--like the NS-10Ms that are still being used today, or even other later generation monitors having a "NS-10M mode" selector switch--which is all talked about in Toole's and Newell's books, among other sources. However in my experience, this notion of mastering translation using bad loudspeakers and nearfield monitors is wrong.
There is something that any DIY person can do to reverse many or most of the effects of bad mastering practices (i.e., limiting, EQ, residual noise, compression effects, etc.), and the tools used are free.
Chris
Once something has been compressed/limited there is nothing that could reverse that correctly.
Not even if you pay for the tools.
Personally I use Auratones and I regard them as essential, especially to get the low bass right.
Engineers could get away with one set of really good monitors only if one could guarantee that the product will be replayed on the same speakers in an acoustically treated environment. Short of that every mix will be a compromise and frankly you can't get anywhere if you only mix for <1% of the market who actually have the right conditions and the same speakers.
Not even if you pay for the tools.
Personally I use Auratones and I regard them as essential, especially to get the low bass right.
Engineers could get away with one set of really good monitors only if one could guarantee that the product will be replayed on the same speakers in an acoustically treated environment. Short of that every mix will be a compromise and frankly you can't get anywhere if you only mix for <1% of the market who actually have the right conditions and the same speakers.
An aspect of that always seemed circular. From infancy the vast majority of reproduced sound is heard over point-source, voice coil/piston speakers. Should it be surprising that accident of history garners the highest preference?