Sound Quality Vs. Measurements - Page 103 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

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
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 15th January 2012, 08:56 PM   #1021
a.wayne is offline a.wayne  United States
Sin Bin
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Front Row Center
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek View Post
Originally Posted by ThorstenL
However my experience is that certain types of replay systems appear to handle what is on the recording in a way that aggravates the audibility, often severely so, while others appear to not cause such aggravation and if such a thing is even possible seem to "fix" the problem.

EXACTLY, but in my wife's case it is horns and some violins. So, what objective measurement can we make in the amp/driver system that quantifies this problem? It would be easy to just say pony up for well designed above average equipment, except her favorite amp is a mid-fi, but well executed, Rotel 840! I am sure my mid-fi speakers "allow" this more than decent ones will.

One gentleman who did some recording engineering in his time suggested it was common to boost the 4K range a bit to make the recording "pop". Maybe true, but I tried a gentle broad dip (via my DCX) and it did not seem to help. Of course adding that monster in the mix might have done more harm than good. I should build a passive notch filter for a better test.
I would bet as much speaker related as the electronics ..... The problem with studio monitoring is the poor speakers used in monitoring, where most changes are not noticiable until a fair amount of lift is used.



.
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th January 2012, 08:58 PM   #1022
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny2Bad View Post
When the job is creating the sound, fidelity may or may not be relevant. When the job is reproducing the sound, fidelity is paramount. Two distinct objectives that happen to use similar technology.
And the third- when archiving the sound (the goal of some types of recordings), fidelity is paramount. That's an aspect of recording that many producers/engineers don't get.
__________________
You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.- Wilford Brimley
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th January 2012, 09:07 PM   #1023
diyAudio Member
 
vacuphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Seaside
Quote:
Originally Posted by john curl View Post
Switching supplies IM garbage back, and, as well, the HIGH frequency garbage MUST be 'nulled', if possible, by power supply rejection, which REQUIRES the feedback loop to work extra hard, OR it becomes part of the output signal.
Wow, do our 'critics' actually think anything through?
I am not a critic of persons, just critical towards ideas that don't fit into my conceptual framework and/or hands on experience with the matter at hand. Since I am here to learn, I am more than prepared to modify my ideas, given proof of my errors in thinking. In this instance, this has yet to occur.

There are a number of reasons for that. The first is my observation, mentioned before, that the supply rails of an amplifier under load fed by a linear ps look much nastier to me than the same fed by a SMPS. The second are the size and composition of the nasties; with a linear ps the deviations are larger and more inside the audio band than with a SMPS, where they typically are way above the audio band and relatively small. This makes filtering them out not that hard. In short, with a well regulated and well designed SMPS, less work will be required from the feedback loop to reject power supply irregularities.

vac
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th January 2012, 09:39 PM   #1024
diyAudio Member
 
vacuphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Seaside
Quote:
Originally Posted by DF96 View Post
A high Q resonance (either peak or null) could cause problems, but might not show up in measurements unless one of the test frequencies happened to hit it spot on. Music, where the higher frequencies could be mainly percussive noise, might excite the resonance because noise hits all frequencies within its bandwidth.
You might be right in the case of a stepped sine sweep, but it should show up in MLS, since the impulse to excite the driver contains all frequencies without discontinuities.

My take on sibilance is that diffraction might be a primary cause. The FR at the top end may flip flop around a great deal when a loudspeakers is measured at different angles off-axis, even taking very small angle steps, diffraction being the cause of this. Different wavefronts alternatively combining constructively and destructively will lead to much higher local peaks than any mechanical form of resonance in a driver can cause.

The ribons as mentioned by Thorsten and DBMandrake may suffer a bit less from this as long as the listener stays within the beam.

vac
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th January 2012, 09:53 PM   #1025
DF96 is offline DF96  England
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by vacuphile
it should show up in MLS, since the impulse to excite the driver contains all frequencies without discontinuities.
Almost, but not quite. All frequencies will be a harmonic of the sequence repetition rate, so this must be low enough that the harmonic spacing is sufficiently narrow.
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th January 2012, 10:07 PM   #1026
tvrgeek is offline tvrgeek  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Md
Is it a valid concept to look not directly at the rails, but at the amp output in evaluating the effect of the supply, be it SMPS or linear? This looks at it as a system for the case at hand, not as a general rule. One amp may be far more tolerant of issues from one or the other so there may not be a simple answer for which is best. "it depends"
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th January 2012, 10:14 PM   #1027
DF96 is offline DF96  England
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Its only the amp output which connects to the speakers (apart from any induction between cables).

There is more to a PSU than output voltage - output impedance will vary with frequency too. A regulated supply, including SMPS, is likely to have a rising impedance with frequency because of the need to stabilise the feedback loop. A conventional unregulated supply will have a mainly falling impedance.
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th January 2012, 10:29 PM   #1028
diyAudio Member
 
vacuphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Seaside
Quote:
Originally Posted by DF96 View Post
Almost, but not quite. All frequencies will be a harmonic of the sequence repetition rate, so this must be low enough that the harmonic spacing is sufficiently narrow.
sure, and you must have enough bins in the subsequent fft to analyze the response, but my point is that even narrow peaks will show up, given the right methodology.
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th January 2012, 10:39 PM   #1029
diyAudio Member
 
DBMandrake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Glasgow, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by vacuphile View Post
My take on sibilance is that diffraction might be a primary cause. The FR at the top end may flip flop around a great deal when a loudspeakers is measured at different angles off-axis, even taking very small angle steps, diffraction being the cause of this. Different wavefronts alternatively combining constructively and destructively will lead to much higher local peaks than any mechanical form of resonance in a driver can cause.
Although I agree that diffraction at high frequencies is bad (quite bad in fact) and can be a source of "harshness", I'm not sure that I would pin it as the sole culprit for sibilance.

What you're saying implies that it's the perturbations in the frequency response caused by diffraction that are to blame - yet EQ, even accurate narrow band EQ doesn't seem to eliminate it on drivers which have it.

My take is that it's a time domain phenomenon, whether that be one or more high Q resonances that ring for a long time, or perhaps the time delayed signal from a diffractive edge - both stretch out the original signal in time.

Significant diffraction which is centered in the sibilance range could indeed be a contributor, but I think not the only culprit.
Quote:
The ribons as mentioned by Thorsten and DBMandrake may suffer a bit less from this as long as the listener stays within the beam.
With the ribbon you have both a very clean CSD, as well as greatly reduced diffraction effects, assuming its a wave-guide type with directivity control. Whatever the reason, sibilance isn't an issue, even if the treble is turned up.
__________________
- Simon
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th January 2012, 10:39 PM   #1030
DF96 is offline DF96  England
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Yes. (to post 1028)

Last edited by DF96; 15th January 2012 at 10:40 PM. Reason: clarify
  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 12:02 AM
Sound Card for Measurements Marik Solid State 2 2nd January 2012 08:59 PM
Sound Card Recommendations (For Audio Measurements) dchisholm Equipment & Tools 5 16th July 2011 09:40 AM
How to protect sound card during amp measurements? okapi Everything Else 13 2nd September 2008 03:06 PM
Sound cards - test and measurements jackinnj Everything Else 2 5th July 2003 03:02 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:16 PM.


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