No, I did not miss your point.
Tourbillions for example, were introduced because they realized that the accuracy of the pocket watch depended on the position on the watch with respect to gravity.
Pendulum accuracy as well, depended on many variables. Yet, in 1900, they were able to attain accuracies 5 milliseconds per day regardless of room temp and barometric pressure.
Now, in this century, I would have difficulty measuring pendulum accuracy to 5 milliseconds per day.
They do not need EDM for new pivots, they machine them in a watchmakers lathe or equivalent. I am working the EDM angle for repair in my neck of the woods. And, quite honestly, I do it to learn. There is no way I will earn a living EDM'ing pivots in watch balance staffs. I do it to learn something new.
Same reason I'm even on this forum. To learn.
John
Simple answer, tweaking.
Tweaks industry is alive and well because just about every audio system has little faults that become bloody annoying eventually, and from the kitchen uber importantly.
Owners desperately seeking sound that they, or the wife/gf chained in the kitchen can at least put up with, or maybe genuinely enjoy is ultimately what drives the aftermarket audio industry.
I reel with horror at the bezerk prices charged for cables, stands/mounts, fuses etc and other 'magical' devices claiming to cure sound systems, when I know mere cents worth of particular ingredients OEM placed will simply end all of this nonsense into the future.
Yes, been there done that.....for decades.
Nowadays, with my tricks, my home systems, bathroom radio, car radio, etc etc have ZERO annoyance factor.
Sure, as I improve my main system or swap sources etc, the clarity and detail and realness improves bit by bit, but never any annoyances.
I hesitate to use the term vividness, to my mind this can imply false detail perhaps.
That said, I could say that MY system is vivid, but vivid in the sense that all information detail is portrayed, and sonically/positional/depth accurately, and without embellishment or negations of any particular kind.
It is this lack of embellishments/negations that enables/ensures enjoyment for very long periods on all kinds of genres and at any SPL.
Of course, none of us can sit on the couch for 15 hours per day, same here, but whilst I am at the PC out in the sunroom, in the bathroom, in the kitchen etc during my waking hours, I do much enjoy to have my main system running on a variety of sources, this being the result of zero listening fatigue.
This lack of fatigue is due to the brain not having to do any processing....the in room sound is natural sounding and the ears relax....and the brain....and the mind....and the body etc.
The cause of fatigue is enveloping principally, a subject that Greisinger discusses.
Signal embedded noise, circuit noise, signal dependent circuit noise combine/intermodulate, and combined with room reverbs/resonances/dips etc conspire to modify enveloping, and it is this modification of enveloping that causes reduction of intelligibility/naturalness and consequent mental fatigue/annoyance.
Rob, your swapping resistors is modifying your system enveloping
.It is the cashed up OCD types that drive the hi-end and the 'snake oil' industries, such types endlessly seek THE sound or THE cure, poor bastards.
I think that nobody can actually ignore typical system annoyances long term.
Consider the modern family surround system that sits in the modern common living space (kitchen included, tiled floors etc), and all present are long term exposed to that unintelligible kind of sound, sound that would drive most of us out of the room quick smart.
So, the family and critically the wife in the kitchen are all being deep down subtly irritated by fundamentally bad sound.....not good for family dynamics I have noticed, and perhaps an elephant in the room influence of modern social problems.
Sure it can, we just need somebody to write those equations
.Dan.
Last edited:
In a abstract imaginary sort of way, sure. But what is this "sound field" and how do you define it? By the sound pressure at an infinite number of points throughout the room? And since in practice an infinite number of points would be difficult to do, what of mesh of points is good enough?
We have two ears separated by a head that isn't stationary. We don't hear like microphones, so that needs to be taken into account.
But is a perfect replication of the sound field even needed? Music reproduction is an illusion, perfection isn't need to produce a good illusion.
Stereo isn't flawed, at least not as deeply as most people think. 2 channel audio is capable of amazing "you are there" or "they are here" illusions. So much so that you forget there isn't direct recorded sound all around you. Ever been to a good film at a big cinema? Did you get lost in the screen and the locality of the film? Were you aware - or did it bother you - that the image was not all around you?
Claiming that stereo is flawed and not capable of a realistic illusion of place and space - is like me sitting at home with my 50 year old portable black and white TV and claiming that all this new HD video content is bogus, flawed and not capable of a realistic image. Most people's speakers and rooms are that old 17" black and white TV.
Maybe what you call vividness is what he/others call transparency? These terms are hard to define for audio so it is definitely a possibility you agree after all.
Reverse check: try to define the difference between vividness and transparency. Can you?
This appears a semantic issue only.
Jan
Max,
Was out all day meeting some new engineers and checking out a Makers Space, actually an Urban Workshop, best equipped space I've seen so far. They may want me to teach some classes on injection molding and old fashioned pattern making. I got sucked into redesigning and updating some 100+ year old equipment being used in bakeries and adding some simple automation. A little fun while getting paid to do it.
On your remark about using Crit bars on a road bike you must have been reading my mind as that is what I always have on my bike. I just like the hand positions better than a standard bar and the faster drops. As far as adding clips to my clipless pedals that never crossed my mind, haven't had clips and leather straps since I had old Detto Pietro road shoes and wore those old fashioned bike hats. I never go out without my Giro helmet these days, just feel naked without it. As far as changing a flat I would bet money I can change a sew up and be back riding a lot faster than you can change a clincher. Glue be damned until you get home and put on some new adhesive, the old red style glue just needs a hot wheel to hold the tire to get back home and that just takes a few minutes of riding the brakes. I think of a clincher as being the equivalent to a bias ply tire and a sew up to being like a radial tire. Believe me I've tried the modern clinchers, they just don't cut it for handling and ride. They still use sew ups for the Tour de France, they just have trucks full of wheels and tires ready to go and don't care about the high cost of premium sew ups.
Was out all day meeting some new engineers and checking out a Makers Space, actually an Urban Workshop, best equipped space I've seen so far. They may want me to teach some classes on injection molding and old fashioned pattern making. I got sucked into redesigning and updating some 100+ year old equipment being used in bakeries and adding some simple automation. A little fun while getting paid to do it.
On your remark about using Crit bars on a road bike you must have been reading my mind as that is what I always have on my bike. I just like the hand positions better than a standard bar and the faster drops. As far as adding clips to my clipless pedals that never crossed my mind, haven't had clips and leather straps since I had old Detto Pietro road shoes and wore those old fashioned bike hats. I never go out without my Giro helmet these days, just feel naked without it. As far as changing a flat I would bet money I can change a sew up and be back riding a lot faster than you can change a clincher. Glue be damned until you get home and put on some new adhesive, the old red style glue just needs a hot wheel to hold the tire to get back home and that just takes a few minutes of riding the brakes. I think of a clincher as being the equivalent to a bias ply tire and a sew up to being like a radial tire. Believe me I've tried the modern clinchers, they just don't cut it for handling and ride. They still use sew ups for the Tour de France, they just have trucks full of wheels and tires ready to go and don't care about the high cost of premium sew ups.
Last edited:
Transparency goes hand in hand with depth and soundstage. All that is left to right (soundstage) and front to back (depth) perception. Vividness and vibrancy very often give a perception of placement above the level of the tweeters but also seem to give a feeling of the sound almost like the top end is bypassing the normal ear canal path and getting to your inner ear via your cranium.
This is faux color. The color gamut of the Samsung nano-screens is larger than that of the pictures displayed, resulting in overblown colors at the extremes. LG Oled is the only consumer screen that does it right at the moment.
The Makers Space stuff sounds like fun...I wish there was one around here, I could keep a 3D printer going for weeks.
Cool that you run Crit bars....I can't stand flat road bars either.
Not a whole lot in it, but yes changing a singles is a bit quicker.
I find modern tyres don't need tyre levers, and with spare tubes on board, and pre- dusted with talc they go in easy and fast with just the right amount of air in them, refit the bead and pump like hell.
I have Continental 4000S II 23mm (more like 25mm) and I love the way they grip, but not the way they alter handling....too big bag changes geometry too much.
I have modern narrow clinchers on my good wheels and they handle just the way I remember, but agreed, perhaps not quite the grip as good tubulars.
In the old days I had both tyres sliding on corners and roundabouts every day....frays the sidewall threads though
.Dan.
Last edited:
Bruno is at the extreme of controlled directivity, since the M2 and the Gedlees do not control directivity in woofer territory. Bruno's Kii does. Jan and I just come back from extended anaechoic measurements, and we can report to you that his claims of controlling directivity down to 80 Hz can be confirmed by measurements.
The B&O's polar will look like a dalmation. Serves those dentists right.
And in 10+ years you have not been able to explain it. Maybe you don't know either? Maybe you are just lucky in your dabbling?
You aren't discussing anything with Richard, or anybody else, for that matter. Insults, empty statements, 'mine's bigger than yours' and 'go for it' to a groupie who spouts BS, that's your version of an intelligent discussion? Gimme a break.
Jan
Seems to be that "vividness" is the third, vertical, axis as soundstage and depth he defines as left-right and front-back, ie 2 dimensional until "vivid" is mentioned..?
Would be interesting to get polars for the B&O and compare. I look forward to seeing the Kii plots as you would expect it to beam in the HF on inspection, but that's looking at photos not the actual speaker.
https://www.bang-olufsen.com/.../BeoLab-90/bang-olufsen-beolab90-whitepaper.pdf
Some plots there around pages 14-16. A little small for analysis but something the sonogram is a little jagged but not sure if thats the averaging or the actual performance. Nice of them to also include plots for effects of voice coil temperature and the compensation they have included.
Last edited:
They tried something like this at the technical university of Delft. First they wanted to measure the soundfield by measuring it in a fine grid at different locations. The idea was to then reproduce it using an array of speakers.
They never really got the first bit sorted out, the measurement part. A soundfield can be as recursive as a coastline - also impossible to measure lengthwise other than by approximation and agreement on minimum feature size to be included. It differs widely all over the room, with large differences small distances apart. And the more you zoom in, the more differences continue to appear.
This is easy to verify in live venues (but with your eyes closed because the ventriloquist effect will overrule your ears): even slight head movements can have pronounced effects on the perceived location where sounds are coming from.
You sound frustrated. But people aren't exactly clueless. More like they don't see things the way you do. And you can't get people to see things differently by calling them names. If anything, you will encourage them to start calling you names. I hope that's not what you want.
Last edited:
Maybe that's "vividness"
I still wonder why so often HD on a 4K display looks fake vivid. Agree on the OLED.
This is somewhat absurd, since it makes the assumption that the thing being received and displayed is somehow "neutral" or "accurate".
Almost all video is highly processed, and the last time I checked color "TV" cameras are not spec'd for accuracy of color rendition - nor could they be.
Accuracy in color rendition is a funny business, since reflected and transmitted color are quite different. Also RGB is a rather limited way to try to produce "accurate" colors.
In case you think that three colors are necessary to produce "full color" - they're not - check out Dr. Land's lectures on that subject! I was lucky enough to be present during a lecture/presentation where he demonstrated that he could produce a full color image with a B&W source and a single monochrome source! Think about that for a while.
Film, video, video screens, etc... all approximations, mostly make believe.
(arguably less "real" than audio approximations)
_-_-bear
- Status
- Not open for further replies.