Last week my system suddenly sounded really bad.
Power surge, or something, (operator error?), had wiped out the settings on the active cross over.
So i reset it and the system still sounded awful.
Decided to start from scratch. Measured everything. Got it really running flat as possible. Still sounded bad.
I've been listening for a couple of days. Sounds OK, now. Nothing's changed but my hearing.
Humbling.
Going to hear some live music tonight.
Earl, I find if the classical stuff sounds right, then the non classical studio recorded stuff sounds good, also. That is, the clean stuff, not the compressed to hell ****.
Power surge, or something, (operator error?), had wiped out the settings on the active cross over.
So i reset it and the system still sounded awful.
Decided to start from scratch. Measured everything. Got it really running flat as possible. Still sounded bad.
I've been listening for a couple of days. Sounds OK, now. Nothing's changed but my hearing.
Humbling.
Going to hear some live music tonight.
Earl, I find if the classical stuff sounds right, then the non classical studio recorded stuff sounds good, also. That is, the clean stuff, not the compressed to hell ****.
gedlee said:
Hmmm, "deeply offended"? And yet your perspective would counter that of many.
Patrick:
The "reality" is that we all hear a little differently and there is no "absolute", and with numerous variables from the time the sound is created to the time it is presented in whatever media you choose - there is no "accurate".
Now there may be something that is *more* accurate, at least in certain respects. And from this I think you'll find both Earl's and Lynn's perspectives are correct. Additionally there is likely to be something more *pleasing* to you. Of course for most of us its a hobby and you should *always* keep your ears on the latter, (whats pleasing), even if chasing the former, (a degree of accuracy), is what you find pleasing.
In this respect then chasing the novelty of hifi not only is NOT a problem, but is in fact the solution.
As far as a novelty being pleasing - THAT is entirely up to the listener. Just because its new does not necessarily equate with what will be pleasing (..and in fact often the case is the opposite). (..your early impressions of waveguides is one example.)
The reality is that we *learn* to listen to specific types of presentations - basically an equalization system. For some people it can take a while for certain eq. "curve" to reach the level of other "curves" our brain has. For others the "curve" is quickly learned (..and likely if they have a similar "curve" already processed). Moreover any particular "eq. curve" is *automatically* applied. Now more than a few of us have learned to effectively distinguish at least some aspects between our various "eq" settings. A very few can seemingly halt that automatic application for a short period. Of course it too is something to be learned.. In this respect then Earl's initial post presented the problem, and Lynn's initial post presented a modest "solution" (though it of course is only a process that *might* allow you a degree of objectivity).
panomaniac said:
There are things I've heard live that were absolutely hair-raising - one of them was the Bulgarian Women's Chorus, harshly dissonant and at times outright distorted on all their recordings, but wild, shockingly beautiful, and intensely powerful with astonishing in-the-hall 3D effects when heard live (with no PA system). I have NO idea how a group of twelve female singers can project sounds to the sides and behind you, but they can. Their weird atonal whoops and hollers have a downright electric effect when they're performing right in front of you - I can tell you the recordings a very dim and pale echo of the real thing. This is music you don't forget.
Always have been a big fan of Arabian, Indian, and Balinese music. I could listen to it all day, those complex polyrhythms going in all those different directions at once, it really illuminates just how different these cultures are. Now Cantonese Opera, well, that's more of acquired taste - one that I never acquired during the five years I was in Hong Kong, got to hear plenty of that live.
Hi Magnetar,
i am building speakers since i was 16, and i was never statisfied
with my results. Even when i became more skilled, and learned
more about acoustics, electronics, mechanics, physiology of the hearing system, human perception in general...
What Patrick says points to the Question what this hobby
is about.
For me personally, my view has changed a lot in the last years.
I always appreciated, that minimizing "errors" in a technical
way does not lead to good results. We have to consider the
qualities on which our perceptive system is based.
Nowadays i really think that trying to build good systems means
exloring our perception of things. What makes me wondering
every time, is when i feel forced to accept, that a certain systems give rather good performance subjectively even though there
are known technical drawbacks like
- patchy amplidute response vs. frequency
- high non linear distortion in a certain frequency range
and so on.
Those imperfect examples are often more instructional, than the
exploration of a system, which is "known" to be unobtrusive by
the measurement point of view. This is because it points me to
what is important and what is not.
I try to offer you MY current, very subjective and incomplete
list of important an unimportant things, maybe as a point of
further discussion. I am sure that your "lists" will differ, but maybe there is some overlap ...
- smooth amplitude versus frequency response at a fixed point
in the listening room is
NOT VERY IMPORTANT
- smoth amplitude response outside the critical bandwidth
(lets say telephone) at a fixed point in a room is even
LESS IMPORTANT
- balanced dispersion of energy over the whole frequency range
in the whole listening room is IMPORTANT
- controled directivity which means "no sharp discontinuities
in horizontal and vertical radiation angle vs. frequency" is
VERY IMPORTANT
- large bandwidth is IMPORTANT
- transient response above the "telephone bandwidth" is
NOT VERY IMPORTANT
- transient response in the very low frequency range is
NOT VERY IMPORTANT
- transient response from mid-bass to the presence
Range is
MOST IMPORTANT
- invariance of all parameters considerd important against
different power levels is VERY IMPORTANT epecially with
extremely low power levels. This is needed for the perception
of subtle dymamic changes and is difficult to achieve with
real existing mechanical systems.
The last point is more undefined, but i try to catch it with my
words although i am not shure if it hits the thing:
Every distinct pattern of behaviour of the
reproduction chain like
- a resonance pattern or
- a pattern of sharp directivity changes vs. frequency or
- a distortion pattern occuring at certain levels of power
...
makes the transducing device easily identifyable to our
hearing system and hampers it in its attempt to
compensate "minor flaws".
What made me believe in these assumptions were
certain experiences while working on this
http://www.dipol-audio.de
Yes Magnetar, it's a boxless dipole system. And i cannot imagine
to build a "box" ever again. This speaker is not perfect, but i am
able to enjoy music at home even after having visited a
concert hall or a church or an open air performance.
This was not possible for me with my former systems which
performed much better partially in those disciplines
i now consider less important.
i am building speakers since i was 16, and i was never statisfied
with my results. Even when i became more skilled, and learned
more about acoustics, electronics, mechanics, physiology of the hearing system, human perception in general...
What Patrick says points to the Question what this hobby
is about.
For me personally, my view has changed a lot in the last years.
I always appreciated, that minimizing "errors" in a technical
way does not lead to good results. We have to consider the
qualities on which our perceptive system is based.
Nowadays i really think that trying to build good systems means
exloring our perception of things. What makes me wondering
every time, is when i feel forced to accept, that a certain systems give rather good performance subjectively even though there
are known technical drawbacks like
- patchy amplidute response vs. frequency
- high non linear distortion in a certain frequency range
and so on.
Those imperfect examples are often more instructional, than the
exploration of a system, which is "known" to be unobtrusive by
the measurement point of view. This is because it points me to
what is important and what is not.
I try to offer you MY current, very subjective and incomplete
list of important an unimportant things, maybe as a point of
further discussion. I am sure that your "lists" will differ, but maybe there is some overlap ...
- smooth amplitude versus frequency response at a fixed point
in the listening room is
NOT VERY IMPORTANT
- smoth amplitude response outside the critical bandwidth
(lets say telephone) at a fixed point in a room is even
LESS IMPORTANT
- balanced dispersion of energy over the whole frequency range
in the whole listening room is IMPORTANT
- controled directivity which means "no sharp discontinuities
in horizontal and vertical radiation angle vs. frequency" is
VERY IMPORTANT
- large bandwidth is IMPORTANT
- transient response above the "telephone bandwidth" is
NOT VERY IMPORTANT
- transient response in the very low frequency range is
NOT VERY IMPORTANT
- transient response from mid-bass to the presence
Range is
MOST IMPORTANT
- invariance of all parameters considerd important against
different power levels is VERY IMPORTANT epecially with
extremely low power levels. This is needed for the perception
of subtle dymamic changes and is difficult to achieve with
real existing mechanical systems.
The last point is more undefined, but i try to catch it with my
words although i am not shure if it hits the thing:
Every distinct pattern of behaviour of the
reproduction chain like
- a resonance pattern or
- a pattern of sharp directivity changes vs. frequency or
- a distortion pattern occuring at certain levels of power
...
makes the transducing device easily identifyable to our
hearing system and hampers it in its attempt to
compensate "minor flaws".
What made me believe in these assumptions were
certain experiences while working on this
http://www.dipol-audio.de
Yes Magnetar, it's a boxless dipole system. And i cannot imagine
to build a "box" ever again. This speaker is not perfect, but i am
able to enjoy music at home even after having visited a
concert hall or a church or an open air performance.
This was not possible for me with my former systems which
performed much better partially in those disciplines
i now consider less important.
Magnetar said:
Come down to Ohio. Bring your Summa's, I'd like to compare them with my open baffles - you loose directivity real fast with your boxes - but I can keep it with virtually unlimited SPL -
I love open baffles, I really do, but there's no getting around the fact that they can't get loud easily. YES you can do it by using lots and lots of woofers, but that introduces a whole 'nother set of problems. Another option is to use exotic woofers with gobs of excurision, but that TOO introduces another set of problems
If I had the guts to rip open my walls, I would be inclined to go the Summa route where the room is designed to absorb low-frequency energy.
This is rather off-topic though.
No Problem
I don't see any "problem" with this hobby or any other - it's a HOBBY, which means we like to do it, continuously. For many the pleasure is as much in the journey as the destination, and if the destination is perfection it means we will always be on that pleasant journey, getting a little closer to the destination all the time.
I don't think that humans have ever "perfected" anything, but that doesn't mean we haven't done some things very well, and are continuing to improve them. I'm sure some people "...wind up in the vicious cycle of upgrading your audio gear until the end of time" - but for many it isn't necessarily vicious - it's simply fun to continually experiment and tinker. If someone gets frustrated that they can't make a perfect music reproduction system and are never happy with what they have they should probably consider taking up a different hobby.
I, for one, know that my speakers aren't and never will be perfect, and I am in the midst of "upgrading" them right now, but I love the way they sound already and it gives me endless pleasure to listen to them - they are good enough to be convincing and satisfying; trying to make them indistinguishable from a live performance is impossible and therefore pointless, but they are close enough to make the experience I'm looking for attainable.
No, we'll never have perfect, but it's our nature to persue it, and because no matter how close we get we always seem to be able to get a little bit closer, well, that's what drives us to keep going.
I don't see any "problem" with this hobby or any other - it's a HOBBY, which means we like to do it, continuously. For many the pleasure is as much in the journey as the destination, and if the destination is perfection it means we will always be on that pleasant journey, getting a little closer to the destination all the time.
I don't think that humans have ever "perfected" anything, but that doesn't mean we haven't done some things very well, and are continuing to improve them. I'm sure some people "...wind up in the vicious cycle of upgrading your audio gear until the end of time" - but for many it isn't necessarily vicious - it's simply fun to continually experiment and tinker. If someone gets frustrated that they can't make a perfect music reproduction system and are never happy with what they have they should probably consider taking up a different hobby.
I, for one, know that my speakers aren't and never will be perfect, and I am in the midst of "upgrading" them right now, but I love the way they sound already and it gives me endless pleasure to listen to them - they are good enough to be convincing and satisfying; trying to make them indistinguishable from a live performance is impossible and therefore pointless, but they are close enough to make the experience I'm looking for attainable.
No, we'll never have perfect, but it's our nature to persue it, and because no matter how close we get we always seem to be able to get a little bit closer, well, that's what drives us to keep going.
What broke the circle: I made a very long journey through the internet, tried to find every loudspeaker design invented by man and chose the one which seemed to be the best combination of tradeoffs. Then i build it and since it is, according to my own definition of good sound, the best speaker there is, i wont upgrade any more. Simple as that.
Does everything else sound wrong: What is wrong with hearing music from different speakers? I mean, all it is, is being different. "Wrong" is hard to apply to sound, since there is no absolute rule to judge by. Having a constant directivity speaker myself, i know what you mean with the dome tweeter remark, but then again, their sound is just different
Does everything else sound wrong: What is wrong with hearing music from different speakers? I mean, all it is, is being different. "Wrong" is hard to apply to sound, since there is no absolute rule to judge by. Having a constant directivity speaker myself, i know what you mean with the dome tweeter remark, but then again, their sound is just different
dome tweeters with 54 sq in of radiating area
But I like dome tweeters. Of course, when the tweeter load is only from 2500hz and above and each one is only carrying 3.3%(.033) of the total tweeter volume per channel, I daresay that the sound one gets from the tweeter is very different than an individual tweeter.
Using a dome tweeter with 54 square inches plus of surface area and a sensitivity of 106 db is a different animal than your common dome or even your common ribbon.
Zarathu
But I like dome tweeters. Of course, when the tweeter load is only from 2500hz and above and each one is only carrying 3.3%(.033) of the total tweeter volume per channel, I daresay that the sound one gets from the tweeter is very different than an individual tweeter.
Using a dome tweeter with 54 square inches plus of surface area and a sensitivity of 106 db is a different animal than your common dome or even your common ribbon.
Zarathu
Patrick Bateman said:
I love open baffles, I really do, but there's no getting around the fact that they can't get loud easily. YES you can do it by using lots and lots of woofers, but that introduces a whole 'nother set of problems. Another option is to use exotic woofers with gobs of excurision, but that TOO introduces another set of problems
If I had the guts to rip open my walls, I would be inclined to go the Summa route where the room is designed to absorb low-frequency energy.
This is rather off-topic though.
The room doesn't absorb low frequency energy! The Summa speaker is omni directional where omni sounds the worst!
To claim directionality matters and ignore the bass? Yikes!! Pretty backwards.........
Dipoles will play every bit as loud with much better precision in the room! Why compromise if you build your own?
What problem is mult woofers? Size? Cost? Looks? -- sonics? NO
I think, this is one problem that we each have to solve ourselves. But listening to live music and trying to appreciate the performance to every detail certainly helps to generate more consistent feeling for what reproduction is more realistic. Being more realistic in reproduction might not even be what some consumers want. So each product needs to be developed with a specific target customer category in mind.
LineArray said:
I would tend to agree with your list adding perhaps that nonlinearity in a speaker is "not very important", and that no speaker can be optimum in a sub-optimal room. And I'm not sure about your rankings in the "most important" area.
BUT, I don't see where your list leads to open baffle designs at all.
Your last point is a big one with me and I am finding it to be critical. Far more important than generally held.
Transient response in your usage is ill-defined and I would like to see a better definition in this context. I don't see how you can have a transient response in different frequency ranges as this is not really consistent with the standard deffinition. If you mean by this a well defined and time limited impulse response (no ringing and group delay), then I would tend to agree. But thats not what you said.
I think many people here, including Lynn, should read our papers on the perception of distortion http://www.gedlee.com/distortion_perception.htm . Lynn's points about IM distortion don't hold up when tested scientifically. I may agree with Lynns comments about musical "density" as being a problem, but I don't agree with his presumption of the reason for this. The data says otherwise.
Magnetar said:
You haven't read the white paper have you?
I love ya man, but you're KILLING ME
The room DOES absorb low frequencies... IF you follow the instructions outlined in the white paper. Read the home theater book too, it goes into specifics. I see a lot of people buying Audio Transducers, but I think the home theater book has been unjustly ignored. I reference it all the time.
All the secrets are in the white paper.
gedlee said:
Hee, hee! That's true!
But I don't remember any conscious bias toward the speakers, didn't even know they were going to be there. And certainly did not expect them to be "Best in show" IMO. Had not heard or used them for many months before the show. So I had pretty clean ears.
However, my conscious lack of bias might not have trumped my subconscious bias, no matter how surprised I was.
gedlee said:
Yeah, know what you mean. It took me some time to get used to the big horn systems when I first heard them. Expected them to be "overblown" if you'll excuse the pun. But they weren't. They were very subtle and not bombastic – took some getting used to. Same reaction when I first listened to the big Maganaplanar 3 panel jobs.
At the last RMAF I heard a lot of gear that was "bigger than life" - real whiz-bang hi-fi sound. But not a lot that was subtle. Maybe that just doesn't sell. Or we don't think it does.
Patrick Bateman said:
You haven't read the white paper have you?
I love ya man, but you're KILLING ME
The room DOES absorb low frequencies... IF you follow the instructions outlined in the white paper. Read the home theater book too, it goes into specifics. I see a lot of people buying Audio Transducers, but I think the home theater book has been unjustly ignored. I reference it all the time.
All the secrets are in the white paper.
I have used up to 24 pro 15" bass drivers in a 1800 cubic foot, well damped room (spread out, sometimes with delay to some, sometimes with some placed in extreme nearfield) and it doesn't sound as good as a good bass horn (one) mated with my multi ten inch driver dipoles, mid bass horns, or Karlson couplers - and the the part about dipoles performing the same in a damped room - phooey!
gedlee said:
I just visited your Homepage an i am shure, that i will engage
in your work some more, which was unknown to me before.
In the past i was mainly inspired by by a german scientist, Jens Blauert, who has worked a lot in spacial hearing.
I agree with you, that my previusly discussed list does not lead
to open baffle design necessarily. In fact it does not lead to any design necessarily. But it leads to the requirement of
a high directivity index. This leads IMO to horns and waveguides, line arrays and dipole radiating devices.
My way was to choose a line array on an open
baffle to achieve this directivity in the vertical and in the
horizontal plane as well. Directivity is kept nearly constant by
shortening the array with increasing frequency, wich is a
well known techique.
A waveguide is still an attractive option but it tends to get
very big, when directivity in the bass range is required. Your Summa design has its strength in the constant directivity
above 1 Khz and the matching of the directivity index at
the crossover frequency.
As you pointed out, the term "transient response" was somewhat
misleading. For a first attempt i mean the decay time vs. frequency seen in a waterfall plot when white or pink noise
is applied to the system. I will think about a better formulation.
I am a little surprised, that my "ad hoc" list basically
found some agreement. Getting more used to your work, my surprise will disappear i think.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.