JinMTVT said:i'd add that most of them aren't pretty at all!!!
but usually when i listen to music i don't look at my drivers directly
I don't know about any of you but I tend to "look" at the source (ie: cd player, turntable, etc) when I'm listening to music.
As far as my take on "Pro" Drivers. Sometimes it's marketing, nothing more. Not that they don't offer something other "regular" hi-fi drivers provide. But for the most part it's extreme durability (I have to second the comment made earlier) and high sensitivity. Usually their for PA type applications, though they can be used for what ever the designer wishes. I've had a lot of experience with "pro" speakers (DJing and all - and no not wedding or barmitzvahs, nor radio - mixing records at club/parties). Only a few ever sounded that good to me compaired to high-quality HI-FI (if you will) loudspeakers. The only benefit I've come to notice is shear volume (ie: decibels). "Pro" drivers can ruin your ears in about five seconds when driven by 1000 watt amps!
Anywho... there are some quality "pro" drivers out there that provide all the benefits of both "hi-fi" and "pro" but I've never seen any that were inexpensive (take the $1200 Fostex W400AII 16" woofer for example, or Cabasse drivers).
Everything "good" in this world has a cost of some kind. It's up to you to decide if the cost/benefit is worth your while.
Either way do your research and if posible listen to some of the drivers if you can....
Don't listen to us
Some Thruth about Electrodynamic drivers
Konnichiwa,
I think I need to put some basic facts down (again) most people seem to be unaware off....
A classic line of mine is that a speaker that requires more than 1 Watt for realistic levels and where you can see the cones moving is a confirmed compressor and distortion pedal, not a sound reproducer.
Here is why. In conventional (moving coil) drivers you observe a number of distortion mechanisms. First lets be clear, a moving coil driver is actualted only, strictly and purely by the current in the voicecoil. Any voltage present is purely incidental.
1) Thermal compression
The voice coils are wound with copper or aluminum wire/ribbon, if this is heated up by the power applied to the speaker the wires temperature goes up as does the resistance. The result is that the DCR of the voicecoil goes up (Re in T/S Parameters) and the sensitivity is reduced as a higher Re results in less current for a given terminal voltage.
At the same time the drivers electrical damping becomes less (Qe in T/S parlance goes up). In most typhical HiFi Speakers which eshew metal voice coil formers and have inefficient cooling systems compression appraoches 1db with 1 - 10 Watt. At rated RMS power as much as 5 - 6db compression is common, also noted that the instantanious compression (when a short burst of signal is applied) tends to be higher than the continous power compression level as in the continous power case a thermal equilibrium is reached, but instantanious compression is much harder to measure.
2) Distortion from mechanical and magnetic non-linearity
The magnet field in most magent systems is non-linear even within the magnet gap, moreso outside the gap, this means that especially with overhung voice coils that as soon as the voicecoil is subjected to any appreciable excursion large amounts of distortion MUST be produced.
Add to this the non-linearity of rear suspension (spider) and front suspension (surround) and as soon as a woofer cone makes any visible movement you will have distortion. Luckily this distortion follows a square law and thus is similar to that produced by SE Triodes and thus subjectively quite harmless, if kept to sensible levels.
3) eddy current distortion
The voicecoil in our speaker has a core of solid steel. This means currents are induced which are shortcircuited in a non-linear way and which are thus "lost" from the magnet field. The result is that if we apply a constant terminal voltage to the speaker our current flow is distorted and thus the force moving the cone is modulated. The exact elevls of distortion depend on many factors, but most "HiFi" speakers exceed 0.3-1% 3rd harmonics around the 1 - 10Watt Region. The distortion follows a cubic law to the current, so doubling the applied power gives 8 times the distortion!!!
So, what is the bottom line?
Most speakers will be highly non-linear with high level low frequency tones, Pro-Audio or Not. This is a good argument for seperate active subwoofers, as the human ear is much less sensitive to distortion at low frequencies.
Most speakers will also be progressively distorted and compressed with power levels aof 1 - 10 Watt, Pro-Audio or not (some Pro-Speakers are exempt as they are designed for very low distortion at high power levels).
So, the bottom line is that if we want a speaker that can play loud with low distortion and compression (and I assume that that is what we want) it needs to do so with little power (implying high sensitivity) and little voicecoil, motion (implying larger than normal cones). Given this many Pro-Audio drivers are in an infinitly better place than most if not all HiFi Drivers.
But of course, some people happen to like the sound of distortion and compression (they often for example descrive what is clearly and proovable audible compression as "good dynamics") and they don't usually happen to be the SE Crowd with their 100db/W/m+ horn speakers etc. and for those the compression and distortion effects masqueraded as HiFi Speakers are obviously the correct solution, generally the lower the sensitivity and the smaller the box the better.
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
I think I need to put some basic facts down (again) most people seem to be unaware off....
A classic line of mine is that a speaker that requires more than 1 Watt for realistic levels and where you can see the cones moving is a confirmed compressor and distortion pedal, not a sound reproducer.
Here is why. In conventional (moving coil) drivers you observe a number of distortion mechanisms. First lets be clear, a moving coil driver is actualted only, strictly and purely by the current in the voicecoil. Any voltage present is purely incidental.
1) Thermal compression
The voice coils are wound with copper or aluminum wire/ribbon, if this is heated up by the power applied to the speaker the wires temperature goes up as does the resistance. The result is that the DCR of the voicecoil goes up (Re in T/S Parameters) and the sensitivity is reduced as a higher Re results in less current for a given terminal voltage.
At the same time the drivers electrical damping becomes less (Qe in T/S parlance goes up). In most typhical HiFi Speakers which eshew metal voice coil formers and have inefficient cooling systems compression appraoches 1db with 1 - 10 Watt. At rated RMS power as much as 5 - 6db compression is common, also noted that the instantanious compression (when a short burst of signal is applied) tends to be higher than the continous power compression level as in the continous power case a thermal equilibrium is reached, but instantanious compression is much harder to measure.
2) Distortion from mechanical and magnetic non-linearity
The magnet field in most magent systems is non-linear even within the magnet gap, moreso outside the gap, this means that especially with overhung voice coils that as soon as the voicecoil is subjected to any appreciable excursion large amounts of distortion MUST be produced.
Add to this the non-linearity of rear suspension (spider) and front suspension (surround) and as soon as a woofer cone makes any visible movement you will have distortion. Luckily this distortion follows a square law and thus is similar to that produced by SE Triodes and thus subjectively quite harmless, if kept to sensible levels.
3) eddy current distortion
The voicecoil in our speaker has a core of solid steel. This means currents are induced which are shortcircuited in a non-linear way and which are thus "lost" from the magnet field. The result is that if we apply a constant terminal voltage to the speaker our current flow is distorted and thus the force moving the cone is modulated. The exact elevls of distortion depend on many factors, but most "HiFi" speakers exceed 0.3-1% 3rd harmonics around the 1 - 10Watt Region. The distortion follows a cubic law to the current, so doubling the applied power gives 8 times the distortion!!!
So, what is the bottom line?
Most speakers will be highly non-linear with high level low frequency tones, Pro-Audio or Not. This is a good argument for seperate active subwoofers, as the human ear is much less sensitive to distortion at low frequencies.
Most speakers will also be progressively distorted and compressed with power levels aof 1 - 10 Watt, Pro-Audio or not (some Pro-Speakers are exempt as they are designed for very low distortion at high power levels).
So, the bottom line is that if we want a speaker that can play loud with low distortion and compression (and I assume that that is what we want) it needs to do so with little power (implying high sensitivity) and little voicecoil, motion (implying larger than normal cones). Given this many Pro-Audio drivers are in an infinitly better place than most if not all HiFi Drivers.
But of course, some people happen to like the sound of distortion and compression (they often for example descrive what is clearly and proovable audible compression as "good dynamics") and they don't usually happen to be the SE Crowd with their 100db/W/m+ horn speakers etc. and for those the compression and distortion effects masqueraded as HiFi Speakers are obviously the correct solution, generally the lower the sensitivity and the smaller the box the better.
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
Hmmmm. But that much should be obvious. Just because it's called "HiFi" Driver does not mean it's a "quality" driver either, even for those jokes commonly called "HiFi" Drivers are at best.
Probably 9 out of 10 of any speaker drivers are not "quality" (Sturgons Law) pro or not.
Sayonara
ERICSPEEd said:
Hmmmm. But that much should be obvious. Just because it's called "HiFi" Driver does not mean it's a "quality" driver either, even for those jokes commonly called "HiFi" Drivers are at best.
Probably 9 out of 10 of any speaker drivers are not "quality" (Sturgons Law) pro or not.
Sayonara
Kuei Yang Wang said:
And I wasn't implying that "Hi-Fi" were the end all be all either!
It all really comes down to personal opinion. As you mention some people like what might very well be distortion in their Hi-Fi drivers. Some people like the color green, where others prefer blue. Each of us builds speakers for ourselves (some may be lucky enough to make them for the marketplace). Either way it comes down to personal preference - as far as what one does or does not like.
I could go on and on about those that prefer ESLs, and TLs, and Horns, Fullrange, MTMs, and this and that.
Pro speakers and "personal preference"
I always get turned off by the "personal preference" line to win an argument, or the "it sounds good to me" line.
Hi-Fi is sound "reproduction" its not a subjective thing! It either reproduces the original or it doesn't. Subjective tests have shown time after time that a large group of blind listeners will, on the average, always pick the best "reproduction" as sounding the best. No not everyone has the same opinion in these tests, but that is not relavent. The goal is "reproduction" no matter what any individual listener thinks. The goal is not "good sound" if that alters the original, although in cases and for individuals this may be the personal preference.
No, I am sorry, but there is an "absolute sound" and listening to "Hi-Fi" is not a matter of personal taste. If the "reproduction" is good then the performance or the piece CAN BE subjectively evaluated individually, BUT NOT the reproduction. It is either correct or it is not.
I always get turned off by the "personal preference" line to win an argument, or the "it sounds good to me" line.
Hi-Fi is sound "reproduction" its not a subjective thing! It either reproduces the original or it doesn't. Subjective tests have shown time after time that a large group of blind listeners will, on the average, always pick the best "reproduction" as sounding the best. No not everyone has the same opinion in these tests, but that is not relavent. The goal is "reproduction" no matter what any individual listener thinks. The goal is not "good sound" if that alters the original, although in cases and for individuals this may be the personal preference.
No, I am sorry, but there is an "absolute sound" and listening to "Hi-Fi" is not a matter of personal taste. If the "reproduction" is good then the performance or the piece CAN BE subjectively evaluated individually, BUT NOT the reproduction. It is either correct or it is not.
Re: Horn Sub
Tim,
Would you like to tell us more about your bass horn? Is it your own design or someone elses. Are plans available? How are you integrating it into a full-range system? How high do you cross it over? What driver(s) does it use? Perhaps a separate thread would be in order.
Tim Moorman said:
Tim,
Would you like to tell us more about your bass horn? Is it your own design or someone elses. Are plans available? How are you integrating it into a full-range system? How high do you cross it over? What driver(s) does it use? Perhaps a separate thread would be in order.
Re: Pro speakers and "personal preference"
Konnichiwa,
Yet it IS the absolute argument. No matter how "correct" something is, if to me personally it does not "sound good", it is by definition "bad".
Hmmm. What is "The Original"? Most recordings are NOT the Original and most indeed pay not even lip service to "the original".
Sorry, but listening to Music is ABSOLUTELY a matter of personal taste. Any Nazi Style "gleichschaltung" of reproduction cannot work, the moral implications completely ignored at that point.
Mastering and recording SHOULD NOT be a matter of personal taste (yet they most of the time are), instead recordings at least of acoustical music should take a documentary viewpoint, but they usually don't. If the recordings are not adhering to any standard, why attemp to enforce gleichschaltung on reproduction?
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
gedlee said:
Yet it IS the absolute argument. No matter how "correct" something is, if to me personally it does not "sound good", it is by definition "bad".
gedlee said:
Hmmm. What is "The Original"? Most recordings are NOT the Original and most indeed pay not even lip service to "the original".
gedlee said:
Sorry, but listening to Music is ABSOLUTELY a matter of personal taste. Any Nazi Style "gleichschaltung" of reproduction cannot work, the moral implications completely ignored at that point.
Mastering and recording SHOULD NOT be a matter of personal taste (yet they most of the time are), instead recordings at least of acoustical music should take a documentary viewpoint, but they usually don't. If the recordings are not adhering to any standard, why attemp to enforce gleichschaltung on reproduction?
Sayonara
Re: Re: Pro speakers and "personal preference"
Avoiding any arguments about the speaker/amp interaction, "The Original", in the context of this discussion, is the signal at the output of the amp. That is the signal that needs to get reproduced. Personal preferences are a completely different subject and I don't know why people keep bringing it up in conversations about reproduction.
Avoiding any arguments about the speaker/amp interaction, "The Original", in the context of this discussion, is the signal at the output of the amp. That is the signal that needs to get reproduced. Personal preferences are a completely different subject and I don't know why people keep bringing it up in conversations about reproduction.
Re: Re: Re: Pro speakers and "personal preference"
Konnichiwa,
The the whole discussion is completely irelevant to anything, unless that signal represents accuratly an "earlier generations" of "the original", in this context the original being the actual performance. Unless the signal recorded is ientical to the performance (which it is illustrably not), faithfull reproduction of something that is inherently distorted is academically interesting, but of ZERO relevance to reality.
So, if I suggest that THE ORIGINAL in the context of ANY discussion about music reproduction MUST remain the original (unrecorded) performance then we have indeed an ABSOLUTE SOUND. However that particular sound may not be captured with methodes that make sure than a completly unaltered reproduction of the recording matches the original.
In fact to anyone from a Pro-Audio recording background that fact that recording and original perfromance are not identical should be blindingly obvious. If then in fact the recording is fawed one might find that changing the RECORDING in certain ways will make the reproduction of said RECORDING (which is NOT the original) more pleasing and ameanable to a given individual.
If recording is not perfect (and it isn't) I it every listeners perogative to choose what makes the reproduction of this flawed recording agreeable to her- or himself. And that is why personal preference comes into music reproduction. Anyone failing to appreciate that is simply well off topic for Music reproduction.
Now I personally tend to prefer a recording to be reproduced largely as is, with perhaps slight enhancements on dynamics (eg subejctive expansion) and perhaps a slightly more laid back tonality. So to me the reproduction should indeed be reasonably close to the recording, but I can appreciate and tolerate preferences to the contrary and indeed find them unavoidable.
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
Bill Fitzpatrick said:
The the whole discussion is completely irelevant to anything, unless that signal represents accuratly an "earlier generations" of "the original", in this context the original being the actual performance. Unless the signal recorded is ientical to the performance (which it is illustrably not), faithfull reproduction of something that is inherently distorted is academically interesting, but of ZERO relevance to reality.
So, if I suggest that THE ORIGINAL in the context of ANY discussion about music reproduction MUST remain the original (unrecorded) performance then we have indeed an ABSOLUTE SOUND. However that particular sound may not be captured with methodes that make sure than a completly unaltered reproduction of the recording matches the original.
In fact to anyone from a Pro-Audio recording background that fact that recording and original perfromance are not identical should be blindingly obvious. If then in fact the recording is fawed one might find that changing the RECORDING in certain ways will make the reproduction of said RECORDING (which is NOT the original) more pleasing and ameanable to a given individual.
If recording is not perfect (and it isn't) I it every listeners perogative to choose what makes the reproduction of this flawed recording agreeable to her- or himself. And that is why personal preference comes into music reproduction. Anyone failing to appreciate that is simply well off topic for Music reproduction.
Now I personally tend to prefer a recording to be reproduced largely as is, with perhaps slight enhancements on dynamics (eg subejctive expansion) and perhaps a slightly more laid back tonality. So to me the reproduction should indeed be reasonably close to the recording, but I can appreciate and tolerate preferences to the contrary and indeed find them unavoidable.
Sayonara
I disagree. Whatever happened 'up the chain' in the recording/mastering process is out of my control. I want to hear whats on my software as accurately as possible. IF the recording engineer made it sound too lush or hollow or bright or whatever, I want to hear it. If the recording sucks I guess I have to get a new one. However - this is my personal preference.
I'm not sure I'm following what you mean by "origianl unrecorded performance" here. Are you saying that when you buy, say, a studio recorded Bob Dylan CD, you would want it to sound like a live Bob Dylan concert through your reproduction chain? And then what about music that is not originally performed anywhere? Or electronic music?
I do think there is plenty of room for both camps, the accurate reproduction camp and the pleasing reproduction camp, but I'm starting to think maybe we should be identifying what our particular predisposition is when discussing some of these things. It would certianly save MANY long arguments if one party or other sometimes just said: "Oh and BTW, my 1st priority is a sound thats pleasing to my ears, accurate reproduction come 2nd to that. " or "I want to build a speaker that is as true to source as possible, even if that makes some poorly recorded software sound like ****". I think that more often than not, these arguments arise from people not realizing/accepting that the person they are arguing with has different design goals alltogether.
rcavictim,
The bass horn was designed by John Sheerin. I met John while attending one of the Chicago Horn Clubs informal gatherings. John was from Indiana also, and was then a student at Purdue. He had built some of his own horns, and eventually built a horn sub using twin 10" Peerless drivers. John hosted a meeting and I listened to it at his Purdue rental house basement with some other Chicago horn folks. It was very impressive sounding when corner loaded. He mentioned that he had found some inexpensive 10" drivers at MCM that looked very good for a horn sub design. So, I agreed to build it, and he could then come measure and listen to it.
http://ldsg.snippets.org/HORNS/ John's stuff.
It is a 28 Hz cut-off design using twin 10" drivers, which have since been discontinued at MCM. These were imports from China and had numerous quality control issues. Big 130 oz magnets, stamped baskets, poly treated paper cones, 2 1/2" copper VC, foam surround, $38, and sold as high excursion sub drivers. MCM 55-2325.
T/S parameters:
Fs - 23.7 Hz
Qts - .22
Qes - .23
Qms - 6.68
Vas - 85.23
Re - 8 ohm
Le - 2.52 mH
Xmax - 12mm
88.8 dB
Mms - 106.55 g
175 watt
Horn loaded, the pair yields about 103 dB/w/m.
I use the plate amp crossover for the high pass, turn the volume way down and set to maybe 50 - 60 Hz.
The room must be large for such a system, and the walls solid. Mine are plaster. The whole house will resonante if not careful.
I have used both Edgar midbass horns, JBL 4648 cabs and Altec 416 15s in direct radiators above. The horn sub sounds best when crossed low. Above 100 Hz the enclosure resonance increases to audible if the volume is up. The horn should be pointed into a corner, so there is no benefit from running it up in frequency to where it may be identified as a source.
The LAB subs Brett uses goes perhaps a bit lower which is good, provides greater output though nothing you would need in a domestic setting, and is no doubt more durable.
Tim
The bass horn was designed by John Sheerin. I met John while attending one of the Chicago Horn Clubs informal gatherings. John was from Indiana also, and was then a student at Purdue. He had built some of his own horns, and eventually built a horn sub using twin 10" Peerless drivers. John hosted a meeting and I listened to it at his Purdue rental house basement with some other Chicago horn folks. It was very impressive sounding when corner loaded. He mentioned that he had found some inexpensive 10" drivers at MCM that looked very good for a horn sub design. So, I agreed to build it, and he could then come measure and listen to it.
http://ldsg.snippets.org/HORNS/ John's stuff.
It is a 28 Hz cut-off design using twin 10" drivers, which have since been discontinued at MCM. These were imports from China and had numerous quality control issues. Big 130 oz magnets, stamped baskets, poly treated paper cones, 2 1/2" copper VC, foam surround, $38, and sold as high excursion sub drivers. MCM 55-2325.
T/S parameters:
Fs - 23.7 Hz
Qts - .22
Qes - .23
Qms - 6.68
Vas - 85.23
Re - 8 ohm
Le - 2.52 mH
Xmax - 12mm
88.8 dB
Mms - 106.55 g
175 watt
Horn loaded, the pair yields about 103 dB/w/m.
I use the plate amp crossover for the high pass, turn the volume way down and set to maybe 50 - 60 Hz.
The room must be large for such a system, and the walls solid. Mine are plaster. The whole house will resonante if not careful.
I have used both Edgar midbass horns, JBL 4648 cabs and Altec 416 15s in direct radiators above. The horn sub sounds best when crossed low. Above 100 Hz the enclosure resonance increases to audible if the volume is up. The horn should be pointed into a corner, so there is no benefit from running it up in frequency to where it may be identified as a source.
The LAB subs Brett uses goes perhaps a bit lower which is good, provides greater output though nothing you would need in a domestic setting, and is no doubt more durable.
Tim
GRollins said:
I for one would love to see your proof that T/S simulations are "not much more than fantasy". Without proof you are akin to a guy standing up in church shouting
"there is no god".
Sorry dude, but the agreement between simulation and results is very close at small-signal levels, and amazingly accurate even at high levels for well-behaved drivers and well designed systems (i.e. no port compression, etc). The more nonlinear the device is, the more spread there is between small and large signals. The nice thing about pro driver in home is that they are always in the small-signal range, relatively speaking
Interesting how this thread went from a pro driver discussion to a discussion about the nature of reproduction..... Who knew there were so many philosophers among us
Konnichiwa,
Exactly. Your PERSONAL PREFERENCE (and I might add my own) is to hear the recording. As someone with some background in recording music I do appreciate the recording process "as art", even I primarily feel the duty of a recording is documentary, but that as they say is another thread. However it underlines that people "hear" different and enjoy music differently. I will readily complain about stuff where I don't like the sound, but I do not expect everyone to agree with me nor do I suggest that if they disagree with me as what makes "good sound" they are "wrong".
For much music there is such, or could be, if someone choose to record it. Music that is purely or particially artifically created in a laboratory, sorry, Studio is a rather recent development and one that is related primarily to commercial imperatives, often detracting from the actual performance. I tend to prefer live recordings of popular artists indefinitly over their studio recordings, most studio recordings are to music what McDonalds is to food.
I somewhat agree, however many of the higher profile contributors have their preferences quite well known.
Please note that I actually largely agree with Earl Geddes as to what constitutes "good sound", but I take exception to his insistence that anyone disagreeing is "wrong" and that the argument "but i like the way this sounds" as inadmissable. I guess it's about freedom, ultimatly.
Sayonara
morbo said:
Exactly. Your PERSONAL PREFERENCE (and I might add my own) is to hear the recording. As someone with some background in recording music I do appreciate the recording process "as art", even I primarily feel the duty of a recording is documentary, but that as they say is another thread. However it underlines that people "hear" different and enjoy music differently. I will readily complain about stuff where I don't like the sound, but I do not expect everyone to agree with me nor do I suggest that if they disagree with me as what makes "good sound" they are "wrong".
morbo said:
For much music there is such, or could be, if someone choose to record it. Music that is purely or particially artifically created in a laboratory, sorry, Studio is a rather recent development and one that is related primarily to commercial imperatives, often detracting from the actual performance. I tend to prefer live recordings of popular artists indefinitly over their studio recordings, most studio recordings are to music what McDonalds is to food.
morbo said:
I somewhat agree, however many of the higher profile contributors have their preferences quite well known.
Please note that I actually largely agree with Earl Geddes as to what constitutes "good sound", but I take exception to his insistence that anyone disagreeing is "wrong" and that the argument "but i like the way this sounds" as inadmissable. I guess it's about freedom, ultimatly.
Sayonara
I'm getting pretty satisfactory results with my 'basement blasters' that use an eq and tuning approach a little like the 'almighty subwoofer' using 3-2226J's in parallel for the low end, only I invested my xover money in passive components (polypropylene caps, good quality chokes) to get the boost down to about 25 hz. This gives me the added advantage, besides blocking any possible DC fault from the amplifier, of increasing the maximum voltage swing at the driver voice coils in the boost range above what the amplifier can provide to give a higher maximum SPL with any given amp as well as flat response to well below 30 hz (useable to 20) with101db/w/m efficiency and with less than 4 square feet of floor space needed a side. I'm running it 2 1/2 way with a 2445J driving a damped CD horn which I've actually managed to xover any overt sign of response harshness out of while still retaining response out to a bit beyond 20 khz.
These speakers have no problem playing at live SPLs, especially when backed by a 500w/ch amplifier, and their overall low distortion and wide response gives a fairly unique approximation of the original recording. I think the semi-line array configuration of the three stacked woofers helps give a more uniform bass response, and the upper one also running as the 1/2 way driver from 300-700hz puts lower midband energy out at a height that is subjectively plausible when reproducing instruments like pianos or short vocalists
These speakers have no problem playing at live SPLs, especially when backed by a 500w/ch amplifier, and their overall low distortion and wide response gives a fairly unique approximation of the original recording. I think the semi-line array configuration of the three stacked woofers helps give a more uniform bass response, and the upper one also running as the 1/2 way driver from 300-700hz puts lower midband energy out at a height that is subjectively plausible when reproducing instruments like pianos or short vocalists
The room is 5,4m x 4,6m x 4m (wxdxh), the loudspeakers are at the front wall an listening chair is ca. 1,5m from the back wall.
There are few modes in the bass (40-50 and 200-250Hz), but as the bass drivers (at higher frequencies) and horns are pretty directional, they don't interact much with the room.
Yes, I built my own crossovers and the drivers meet at ca. 900Hz. These are 12dB/oct. with some high freq. compensation and broad & gentle notch in the midrange for horn.
Here is how they look in room...
There are few modes in the bass (40-50 and 200-250Hz), but as the bass drivers (at higher frequencies) and horns are pretty directional, they don't interact much with the room.
Yes, I built my own crossovers and the drivers meet at ca. 900Hz. These are 12dB/oct. with some high freq. compensation and broad & gentle notch in the midrange for horn.
Here is how they look in room...
Attachments
Re: Pro speakers and "personal preference"
Ok.
But perfectly reproducing the recording itself is to reproduce that which has no particular context to either the original event or the intent of those who made the recording.
The recording process involves reproductoin as well seeing as we can't directly experience the recording itself. And the decisions made in the making of a recording will be influenced by the reproduction system used as well as the acoustic environment it's used in.
So what ends up on the recording itself doesn't necessarily have any particular context to either the original event or the intent of those who made the recording. What ends up on the recording itself is ultimately the inverse transfer function of those elements in the reproduction system and acoustical environment which infludenced the making of the recording.
Let's take an overly simplified example and say that the reproduction system used to make a particular recording was a little peaky in the bass and a bit rolled off in the highs. And the goal of the recording engineer was to accurately capture a live acoustical event.
So the recording engineer makes adjustments for this in the recording process to even things out a bit better on playback so that the result is closer to the original event.
If we were to play back this recording with perfect accuracy (i.e. "Hi-Fi"), what we'd end up with would be rolled off bass and peaky highs, the inverse of the playback system used to make the recording. And while it would be accurate with respect to the recording itself, it will not be accurate with respect to either the original event or the intent of the recording engineer.
But it would be "Hi-Fi."
se
gedlee said:
Ok.
But perfectly reproducing the recording itself is to reproduce that which has no particular context to either the original event or the intent of those who made the recording.
The recording process involves reproductoin as well seeing as we can't directly experience the recording itself. And the decisions made in the making of a recording will be influenced by the reproduction system used as well as the acoustic environment it's used in.
So what ends up on the recording itself doesn't necessarily have any particular context to either the original event or the intent of those who made the recording. What ends up on the recording itself is ultimately the inverse transfer function of those elements in the reproduction system and acoustical environment which infludenced the making of the recording.
Let's take an overly simplified example and say that the reproduction system used to make a particular recording was a little peaky in the bass and a bit rolled off in the highs. And the goal of the recording engineer was to accurately capture a live acoustical event.
So the recording engineer makes adjustments for this in the recording process to even things out a bit better on playback so that the result is closer to the original event.
If we were to play back this recording with perfect accuracy (i.e. "Hi-Fi"), what we'd end up with would be rolled off bass and peaky highs, the inverse of the playback system used to make the recording. And while it would be accurate with respect to the recording itself, it will not be accurate with respect to either the original event or the intent of the recording engineer.
But it would be "Hi-Fi."
se
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.