On the topic of musicality I certainly see a parallel with my field of expertise, namely photographic equipment. Optics have improved over the years increasing in resolution and sharpness, yet there is a devoted following who hearken to the legends of the past, with decreased on-paper performance but a certain "look" that is simple, unpolished, "unprocessed". What it lacked in technical competency it makes up for with naturalness.
FIR "cliff" filters are the vogue of the day and it wins almost 100% of the time. When you look at the response curve you say how can this be with all the ringing? But it is like you take the same 2 drivers and you ABX people with 1st order vs. FIR the latter has a significantly higher likelihood to win regardless of how good your 2 drivers may be.
Don't get me wrong, I am not writing off 1st orders. I am merely saying they don't stand a chance with the average listener against a steeper slope. In optics it is exactly the same. Every time you correct a lower-order aberration, you introduce a higher-order aberration of a smaller magnitude, but still most people will find correcting is better than not correcting, until you have way too many of those smaller high-order aberrations and people begin to find it objectionable. I guess audio is no different.
"Musical" does not convey much meaning, but I guess when people utter that word they actually meant "natural".
FIR "cliff" filters are the vogue of the day and it wins almost 100% of the time. When you look at the response curve you say how can this be with all the ringing? But it is like you take the same 2 drivers and you ABX people with 1st order vs. FIR the latter has a significantly higher likelihood to win regardless of how good your 2 drivers may be.
Don't get me wrong, I am not writing off 1st orders. I am merely saying they don't stand a chance with the average listener against a steeper slope. In optics it is exactly the same. Every time you correct a lower-order aberration, you introduce a higher-order aberration of a smaller magnitude, but still most people will find correcting is better than not correcting, until you have way too many of those smaller high-order aberrations and people begin to find it objectionable. I guess audio is no different.
"Musical" does not convey much meaning, but I guess when people utter that word they actually meant "natural".
Last edited:
Here is a study on a quasi-transient perfect 2-way with a passive Harsch XO:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ed-tl-monitor-dc130a-dc28f-6.html#post4504336
But first order can work very well too, and is my main reference speaker:
10F/8424 & RS225-8 FAST Ref Monitor
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ed-tl-monitor-dc130a-dc28f-6.html#post4504336
But first order can work very well too, and is my main reference speaker:
10F/8424 & RS225-8 FAST Ref Monitor
I guess I can see the parallel but I am not sure I can say most average people will prefer FIR filter speakers vs. low order filter. I remember reading an audio article way back in which they just pick the average people off the street and compare the sound between an Resolution Audio Opus 21 cd player vs. another player (which I don't remember the name). The Opus 21 is know for having an analog sound but the other player is a bit more analytical, more clean, and maybe a little digital HiFi. The article claimed that most people actually prefer the sound of the Opus 21 even thought it was not technically better vs. the other cd player. It's possible that the other players was just too clinical and digital that people ended up choosing the Opus 21. But I would tend to agree with you that most average people would make the choice of something "clearer" until that "clearer" becomes too much of an aberration that they start to notice. In the end, it's having the right balance - sort of like yin vs. yang, hot vs. cold.
I remember awhile back when plasma TV was still around. I always found that the Panasonic plasma screens were more natural, while the Sony LED screens were a little too sharp, too bright, and while some people may find that more technically better, I much prefer the natural color of the Panasonic plasma.
Andy 2,
my apologies for making my previous remark to you, you are entitled to express yourself the way you wish. I agree with you that the Panasonic plasma's were more natural and film like (and it is still working fine), though now that I have a 65 inch 4K Panasonic Oled the Oled simply knocks the socks off the plasma with its stunning blacks and natural colours. Technology done right can open wide horizons.
C.M
my apologies for making my previous remark to you, you are entitled to express yourself the way you wish. I agree with you that the Panasonic plasma's were more natural and film like (and it is still working fine), though now that I have a 65 inch 4K Panasonic Oled the Oled simply knocks the socks off the plasma with its stunning blacks and natural colours. Technology done right can open wide horizons.
C.M
I think you're comparing a Ferrari to a Toyota. Even a bad Ferrari is better than the best Toyota.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I really liked the look of this one, you did some great work there. Did you have a chance to consider the concerns raised by Byrtt on the readiness of that design (in another thread). I don't think additional XO parts would be a bad thing if it raised the performance.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.