Sound Quality Vs. Measurements

[a.wayne]

Originally Posted by mr_push_pull

you have no idea how funny this is to me, as I have have too fallen into the trap of thinking how come all my speakers sounded rather thin at low volumes. *although* all the necessary info was there in my head (F/M). it took very long and the luck of me running into a discussion about recommended mixing/mastering levels. oh and maybe the help of reading/hearing too much mumbo-jumbo about speakers that miraculously solve this.
now that I think about it, that may be partially true as I think there are some bass drivers that are deliberately non-linear to somehow compensate for this but OTOH not sure it's the way to go (the hell with reducing distortion, let's embrace it). now where did I read about those drivers?

Tone controls aside ( I'm not against) a properly built speaker does not sound thin at low levels , this is a fallacy. the speaker tonal balance should not change from low to high, if it does, it's not balanced .....

@ DVV,

I prefer the sound of past British speakers to German speakers, I have had Revox and tanberg electronics in the past and they were not competitive sonically to their competition, B&O was the worst, i guess German Bose..

I really dont get the finish issue, i cannot think of an US made amp that had poor cosmetics. My 1970 mcIntosh was well beautiful to me, as AR. I had the obligatory DC300/IC150/tuner package , cosmetically good in my eyes , Sonics, better than B&O ..

Frankly, there was no competition for US gear until late 90's IMO, of course there were the odd euro choices that did lift the standard , but not as an industry on the whole ( sonus faber / speaker cosmetics for eg.)


Of course MHO, mileage may vary ....

[mr_push_pull]

Originally Posted by a.wayne

Tone controls aside ( I'm not against) a properly built speaker does not sound thin at low levels , this is a fallacy. the speaker tonal balance should not change from low to high, if it does, it's not balanced .....

fallacy? how? what you're saying basically contradicts Fletcher-Munson.

[a.wayne]

Fletcher-munson..? never had them over !

So it's best to have loudness contour on soft passages and off on the dynamic stuff , interesting concept ...
What about ISO 226:2003 vs F/M..?

[a.wayne]

What I'm saying ,

If your speaker system sounds thin at low levels it will sound thin at high levels. The F/M curves or loudness contour represent what we hear as steady test tones not taking into account pressure waves created above and below, the set frequencies, which is how we hear and sense real world sound ...

Well that's my understanding of it.

Now picture a speaker with an FR like the F/M curve, good , bad, or just right, I'm listening to one now ......

[bcarso]

Of course we all adapt to the level-dependence versus frequency effects, to some extent.

The perception of bass is complicated, since most bass instruments have complex timbres, and the ear/brain tends to extract information about the fundamental even when it is nearly missing, provided there's energy at 2f, 3f, and even above. This is exploited in small low-cost speakers, and is the basis for certain synthetic bass enhancement schemes.

When Wolfgang Klippel was doing some of his early work on backing out nonlinear distortions in loudspeakers, he demonstrated some practical realizations for Harman Multimedia people. It was indeed impressive that so much distortion could be reduced markedly. But the overall sense was of less bass than before, so it attracted little interest for applications to little powered speakers.

[mr_push_pull]

a.wayne,
I see what you're getting at.

about ISO 226:2003 vs F/M... how about the 120ps (quoting from memory) jitter audibility limit established by BBC in the 70's against currently accepted standards? although ISO... vs F/M is not that different.

concerning dynamic levels, I have considered it too. what's certain is that as long as your speakers are good enough and you listen at a level close to the one used in the mixing/mastering process, you don't need tone controls. when you're listening at a different level, well, IDK. we could even go on and ask how about fundamental vs harmonics as they have different levels? you'd obviously have to compensate differently.
I frankly haven't investigated so far in order to understand what's different in perception with music compared with pure tones but it's a good moment to do so. you obviously have a point there.

Originally Posted by bcarso

Of course we all adapt to the level-dependence versus frequency effects, to some extent.

back when I first discovered computer audio, I used to play with Winamp EQ settings and tried to find the most weird sounding EQ curve. funny how my brain adapted even to those and how what initially barely sounded like music began to sound listenable, given enough time. of course, to an extent.

[bcarso]

Originally Posted by mr_push_pull

back when I first discovered computer audio, I used to play with Winamp EQ settings and tried to find the most weird sounding EQ curve. funny how my brain adapted even to those and how what initially barely sounded like music began to sound listenable, given enough time. of course, to an extent.

When I got a laptop last year, after a main machine crash that took me off the air as it were, I listened to the built-in system, branded both SRS and Altec Lansing. Horrible, totally unlistenable. So I plugged in some small speakers that I knew were reasonably flat. Still sounded terrible, but I listened for a while and began to get somewhat accustomed, besides the timbral distortions as well to the curious spatial effects.

Finally I waded in to the settings and figured out how to defeat SRS. It was a vast improvement. However, my adaptation was already such as to make high frequencies seem somewhat recessed for a while.

[a.wayne]

Listening environment noise level is important, a headphone represents a totally different scenario on how sound is sensed, because of such there is only ear sensory input, no wave pressure/compression to hear/sense bass frequencies or dynamics..

[dvv]

Originally Posted by a.wayne

... @ DVV,

I prefer the sound of past British speakers to German speakers, I have had Revox and tanberg electronics in the past and they were not competitive sonically to their competition, B&O was the worst, i guess German Bose..

I really dont get the finish issue, i cannot think of an US made amp that had poor cosmetics. My 1970 mcIntosh was well beautiful to me, as AR. I had the obligatory DC300/IC150/tuner package , cosmetically good in my eyes , Sonics, better than B&O ..

Frankly, there was no competition for US gear until late 90's IMO, of course there were the odd euro choices that did lift the standard , but not as an industry on the whole ( sonus faber / speaker cosmetics for eg.)


Of course MHO, mileage may vary ....

So, we agree that we disagree. Fine with me.

[dvv]

Originally Posted by a.wayne

Listening environment noise level is important, a headphone represents a totally different scenario on how sound is sensed, because of such there is only ear sensory input, no wave pressure/compression to hear/sense bass frequencies or dynamics..

Now, here we seem to be close together, like brothers.

Headphones are a different set of compromises. Like every other compromise, they give and take. They take the entire physical contact of the body with bass lines, as below 500 Hz, our entire body progressively start to be a frequency receiver (lokee momma, no hands!).

But they give clarity such as very few speakers ever made can, assuming quality headphones, not necessairily wildly expensive, and assuming quality headphone drive electronics (now, THAT is rare!). Even if open backed, they still provide some level of isolation/attenuation of ambient noise.

Much as I love them dearly, I would never give up my speakers though, they have their virtues not easily forgotten.

So, my personal preference is not either, but both.