sound quality vs sound quantity. - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Full Range

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
View Poll Results: Is phase more important than frequency?
Holy you read my mind, spoooooky! 10 41.67%
UMMMMM, LOSER! 14 58.33%
Voters: 24. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 23rd February 2012, 05:57 AM   #1
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Default sound quality vs sound quantity.

I am sitting here listening to my system, hitachi tt, realistic phono pre, shuguang i12 tube int amp and B&W DM302's.

Sounds great, Tubular Bells, and im thinking, there might be a reason for most people to be happy with the mediocre one way bookshelf/htib speakers.

I read that we are not frequency based listeners really, we are time based, and frequency is a derivative of time.

Phase errors, time errors, can mean the difference between being lunch or eating lunch.

in a one driver system there are no phase errors as in a two or three way system.

so while a three way speaker can play more quantity of sound, 30-20,000hz, a one way system has better quality, no timing errors.

Fundamentally a phase error will trigger the fight or flight response weve spent thousands of years honing. A small error will be causing us to perk up our ears "something not quite right here" and this constant triggering of this is what leads to listener fatigue.

A fullrange system OTOH has no phase errors and where it falls down, the freq. extremes are not a cause for alarm in our brain so we can relax while we listen.

Question is can i accept this tradeoff? Can you?

Think im gonna find some cheapass 5 1/4" fullrangers to compare with my DM302's and report back.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2012, 06:12 AM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
Wavebourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
Send a message via Skype™ to Wavebourn
Make arrays from fullrangers, from floor to ceiling, and enjoy. I heard nothing better.
__________________
The Devil is not so terrible as his math model is!
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2012, 09:16 AM   #3
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
It's a nice idea, but don't kid yourself that wideband units are free from phase related issues. Just taking the most obvious example, a unit with a parasitic / whizzer cone is essentially a type of 2-way, albeit with a mechanical rather than electrical XO. And so on.

Granted, all other things being equal, drive units with as wide a linear response BW as possible is the ideal, since if XOs are required, you can push them out of our critical hearing BW to somewhere they're less likely to cause audible problems.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2012, 09:49 AM   #4
gk7 is offline gk7
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vienna, Austria
Would you make a line array "all in phase" or a bessel array ?
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2012, 10:03 AM   #5
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
You could always use DSP to correct the errors?

Does a full range speaker suffer more from 'Doppler shift'?

(e.g. Small higher frequency signals riding on top of larger low frequency displacements of the cone?)
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2012, 02:48 PM   #6
diyAudio Member
 
tuxedocivic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Ladysmith, BC
The research would say frequency response and extention far out way phase coherence (at least from what I've read). But I have been debating how downplayed phase is in the research out there. Good timing. I just was asking someone about this. I hope to steal there wisdom soon when I can visit. I'll wait to vote once I've had a chance to experiment.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2012, 06:05 PM   #7
diyAudio Member
 
Wavebourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
Send a message via Skype™ to Wavebourn
Quote:
Originally Posted by gk7 View Post
Would you make a line array "all in phase" or a bessel array ?
All in phase, of course. Reflections from floor and ceiling will go in phase as well. Endless nearfield, tiny displacements of cones even when bass is equalized below Fs, extremely low distortions. No sweet spot. Accurate imaging.

Nirvana.

I would add the 3'rd choice: "Both". Can't vote now.
__________________
The Devil is not so terrible as his math model is!
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2012, 07:55 PM   #8
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: was Chicago IL, now Long Beach CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by CopperTop View Post
You could always use DSP to correct the errors?

Does a full range speaker suffer more from 'Doppler shift'?

(e.g. Small higher frequency signals riding on top of larger low frequency displacements of the cone?)

If you plot air pressure or velocity against sound or watch it on a scope you see the same thing...high frequencies riding on the lows...so if your driver does the same thing accurately there's no "doppler shift" involved. As long as the speed of the highs and lows propagates the same, no problem. When people talk about doppler and "freuqency riding" as a problem it's usually in reference to a more complex situation like the old coaxial KEFs where the shape of a moving woofer cone was used as the horn for a tweeter...the effect of the "horn" (woofer cone) itself moving could be distorting the treble.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2012, 08:07 PM   #9
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: was Chicago IL, now Long Beach CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wavebourn View Post
All in phase, of course. Reflections from floor and ceiling will go in phase as well. Endless nearfield, tiny displacements of cones even when bass is equalized below Fs, extremely low distortions. No sweet spot. Accurate imaging.

Nirvana.

I would add the 3'rd choice: "Both". Can't vote now.
Bit of a sweet spot for phase and perfect soundstage image, but an in-phase line array definitely makes for better stereo balance and coverage everywhere; wonderful for large rooms IMHO. Up close, you tend to hear mostly the drivers (or line section) directly in line with your ear, and the off-center sources above and below don't create a comb-filter effect if they are a near-continuous line source and the ends terminate with ceiling or floor reflections to sound as if the lines were infinite-length. But as you get farther back, the sound intensity from the cylindrical wavefronts decreases linearly with the distance (intensity spread only horizontally), whereas the normal spherical wavefronts of a point source decrease with the square of the distance (spreading vertically and horizontally in 2 dimensions). So line sources sound "quieter" close-up and "louder" farther away, compared to point sources. Sometimes less impressive, but much easier to live with. Of course, carefully controlling dispersion can have even more effect on the farfield ...thus the ongoing debate in pro PA circles.

Last edited by cyclecamper; 23rd February 2012 at 08:11 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2012, 08:20 PM   #10
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyclecamper View Post
If you plot air pressure or velocity against sound or watch it on a scope you see the same thing...high frequencies riding on the lows...so if your driver does the same thing accurately there's no "doppler shift" involved. As long as the speed of the highs and lows propagates the same, no problem. When people talk about doppler and "freuqency riding" as a problem it's usually in reference to a more complex situation like the old coaxial KEFs where the shape of a moving woofer cone was used as the horn for a tweeter...the effect of the "horn" (woofer cone) itself moving could be distorting the treble.
Hi Cyclecamper

I was thinking some more about this today. Not sure if I understand the similarity with what appears on a scope trace of a microphone output. The way I'm thinking about it is imagining a mid-range driver or tweeter bolted to the wall vs. the same driver being whizzed backwards and forwards in an arbitrary pattern. The way I see it, the full range cone is behaving in just that manner as soon as the bass kicks in. It doesn't duplicate what a microphone would record, because the microphone diaphragm hardly moves at all, and I don't think the effect is constant regardless of scale.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Quality Control differences = variations in sound quality? KT Class D 3 4th June 2014 01:02 AM
Level-dependend Sound Quality by certainly Bass Drivers - very bad sound at low level tiefbassuebertr Subwoofers 11 3rd March 2012 11:54 AM
Level-dependend Sound Quality by certainly Bass Drivers - very bad sound at low level tiefbassuebertr Multi-Way 1 2nd April 2010 05:12 AM
Better Sound Quality LqDFx Car Audio 14 16th June 2006 05:49 PM
Sound quality,which is best? Richard.C Chip Amps 10 23rd August 2004 08:58 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:48 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2