Beyond the Ariel - Page 622 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

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 27th September 2009, 04:42 PM   #6211
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
"The film industry adheres to a set of strict standards that are used in the creation of the content and in the reproduction of the content in movie theaters."
Emphasis is on "movie theaters", not "home theaters". Apart from that it depends what you compare it to. Looking at the music industry that has no standars even for such basic things like a reference volume level, anything else is "pretty strict"

Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
He seems to contradict your claim that the standards are "pretty basic". And your saying "not so" for DVD's? Doesn't "the film industry" control DVD production as well?
"They" might control movie theaters but it's the studios/distributors like Lionsgate that task studios with remixes for DVD/Blu-ray. This article provides some insight: http://micasamm.com/newsite/articles...review0408.pdf

Best, Markus
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2009, 05:46 PM   #6212
Pano is online now Pano  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
Pano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kona, Hawaii
Blog Entries: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post
Are you sure you're not the one confusing loudspeaker/soundwaves "system" with brain process/filtering "system"?
Yes, sure. They work together normally. The first isn't much good without the second.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2009, 05:51 PM   #6213
ScottG is offline ScottG  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: US
Quote:
Originally Posted by panomaniac View Post

ScottG says he does not think he has heard this kind of quality, but then does a good job of describing it - and more. =)

That's so true.
Thanks for you comments.
No, no.

I don't think many *others* have heard this kind of quality.
__________________
perspective is everything
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2009, 07:18 PM   #6214
mige0 is offline mige0  Austria
diyAudio Member
 
mige0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Austria, at a beautiful place right in the heart of the Alps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mige0 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
Again John I completely agree.

.... from what I can tell and if the recording IS bad then it should SOUND BAD and any speaker that makes it sound better is inferior.


No


The implication is to have a pair of speakers for each and every recording to address every recording error that ever has been made. That's just not practical. What's so wrong about having a standardized sound reproduction system that finally helps the art and not the ego of the audiophool?

Best, Markus

Hmm, not exactly what I'm after – but pano already has answered better than I ever could have put it into words, he is speaking directly from my heart:


Quote:
Originally Posted by panomaniac View Post
Oh dear, oh dear. You just don't get it at all, do you? Such a pity. But understandable - because it's unusual.

A really great system can reveal enough information buried in a recording to bring across the emotion and soul of that lie buried beneath technique. It's isn't about enhancing the recording, it's about revealing what is already there. And such a system tends to put the noises, clicks, pops, hiss, buzzes and distortions in another space. You can hear them clearly, but they just don't bother you much, as they don't seem part of the music (they aren't, you know). A system like that will make good recording sound spectacular. But this must be something you've never experienced, or you would certainly not disdain it. It really is NOT a bad thing - it's delightful.

The better my system gets, they fewer "unlistenable" recordings I find. The bad recordings are not magically turned into great ones - it's just that the bad parts become so much less objectionable. The bad is still there, it just doesn't get in the way any more.

But no reason to beat the poor dead horse. If you've never heard it, it may be too hard to believe. As for me, I'm happy to know that there is real treasure buried in many sub-par recordings. Getting it out isn't a goal, it's a result of a great system. A surprising result. For those who don't like that sort of thing - OK. There are plenty of good recordings available. Enjoy them! ( I know I do).

Besides that I *am* on what might be useful design guidelines for loudspeakers – and at least in my perception there has been some development on what is desirable and what is less important because there are ways to correct for at other places.

Standardisation (room and speaker) is a whole different task as there *never* will be any standard that fits all our's desire.
THX & Co ? – big monopoly money making ! at best – and for home-fi especially.


Michael
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2009, 07:29 PM   #6215
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cz Rep.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottG View Post
No, no.

I don't think many *others* have heard this kind of quality.
Hmm, kind of reminds me when auditioning a Clear Audio LP player with two different riaa. A budget and one over my cash limit.
With the better riaa, the noise from badly handled LP's seemed out of phase and totally disconnected from the music.
Cheaper riaa, the noise was right in your face. Explanation was, according to the owner, was that the cheap riaa did not have enough headroom for the transients made by the scratches on the LP's.

Peter
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2009, 07:36 PM   #6216
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by mige0 View Post
Standardisation (room and speaker) is a whole different task as there *never* will be any standard that fits all our's desire.
Having none limits the art more than having standards. It's not the standards that is the limiting factor but the recording and reproduction technique itself. E.g., there will never be real LEV with stereo. So the recording and reproduction has to evolve.
Maybe that's all happening right now and I'm just too impatient.

Best, Markus
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2009, 08:11 PM   #6217
diyAudio Member
 
Lynn Olson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Northern Colorado
Quote:
Originally Posted by panomaniac View Post
It isn't about enhancing the recording, it's about revealing what is already there. And such a system tends to put the noises, clicks, pops, hiss, buzzes and distortions in another space. You can hear them clearly, but they just don't bother you much, as they don't seem part of the music (they aren't, you know). A system like that will make good recording sound spectacular.

The better my system gets, they fewer "unlistenable" recordings I find. The bad recordings are not magically turned into great ones - it's just that the bad parts become so much less objectionable. The bad is still there, it just doesn't get in the way any more.
Here's a mundane example, although kind of old-school: Back when LP's were the reference standard (yes, yes, I know mastertapes are more appropriate, but they're hard to get), we twiddled around with different preamp topologies at Audionics. Matching the RIAA equalization as close as possible (small fraction of a dB), we found that slew rate, of all things, correlated with perception of pops and ticks. Our production preamp was 3 V/uSec, and the prototype was 13 V/uSec. Keeping the rest of the circuit the same - including the same parts for RIAA - the fastest preamp had a variety of audiophile buzzwords - more open, more spacious, blah blah - but the most obvious quality, something anyone off the street would notice, was that the records became a lot quieter, almost like listening to tape instead of records. It had a surprising effect on the presentation - it sounded "soft" until real HF content came along.

Turns out the moving-coil cartridges we were using were flat to 50 kHz (suitable for CD4 playback), and the sharp edges of groove wall defects - which of course were not subject to cutterhead limitations - were slewing the production preamp. This was confirmed by storage-scope pix of the different preamps - the slower one was indeed slewing the pops and clicks, stretching them out and making them much more audible than the extremely narrow clicks they really were. A conventional, moving-magnet cartridge, although it didn't slew, also stretched out the pulses, making them more audible. So this was a good example of a higher-quality preamp & cartridge "rescuing" worn-out and overcut records.

I have seen similar things with the analog stage of CD players. It's very common to use 5532-class opamps with CD, SACD, and DVD-A players. These opamps are slew-limited to 13V/uSec. Unfortunately, they are used in stages that exposed to the direct switching transitions of the DAC converter, before the mandatory 3rd to 9th order analog LP filter.

I've measured - on a HP spectrum analyzer that goes out to 100 MHz - a comb spectra that extends out to 20 MHz from the raw output of the DAC. To avoid slewing, that demands analog electronics that have a minimum slew rate of at least 1000V/uSec, 76 times faster than the popular 5532 op-amp. What does it sound like when everything in the CD player is kept the same, and the offending parts are swapped out?

Guess what - so-called "bad" CDs become listenable again. They sound tipped up and bright, but not distorted. Replace the opamps for the 5532 oldies (they date back to 1978), and the "bad", distorted CD sound returns. This is simple, repeatable, and obvious on an A/B test with non-audiophile listeners (two players, otherwise identical).

The slewing distortion, although extremely brief, does represent a short interval of 100% distortion, as does mistracking on an LP - the input and output become decorrelated for a brief interval. Due to the brevity of the slewing, it doesn't really show up on THD measurements, but is quite visible in the time domain (with a storage scope) and with a wideband RF spectrum analyzer.

Unfortunately, very few audio companies own a $30,000 Hewlett-Packard RF spectrum analyzer. Most audio companies are completely unaware of RF problems or multi-MHz HF oscillations in the regulators. These HF problems are actually quite common in high-end audio gear, but since they go unmeasured by the manufacturer and review magazines, they are out of sight, and out of mind. But they are really there nonetheless, and I've seen it in very expensive gear that is advertised for big bucks in the magazines.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2009, 08:24 PM   #6218
mige0 is offline mige0  Austria
diyAudio Member
 
mige0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Austria, at a beautiful place right in the heart of the Alps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
Having none limits the art more than having standards. It's not the standards that is the limiting factor but the recording and reproduction technique itself. E.g., there will never be real LEV with stereo. So the recording and reproduction has to evolve.
Maybe that's all happening right now and I'm just too impatient.

Best, Markus
Do you see any chance to do that "new evolving reproduction" loudspeaker-free?
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2009, 08:30 PM   #6219
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
No, but why should it be "loudspeaker-free"? I'm talking about multichannel (Holman is working on 10.2), virtualization (Smyth Realiser, Beyerdynamic Headzone) or wave field synthesis.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2009, 08:38 PM   #6220
mige0 is offline mige0  Austria
diyAudio Member
 
mige0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Austria, at a beautiful place right in the heart of the Alps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynn Olson View Post
..we twiddled around with different preamp topologies at Audionics. Matching the RIAA equalization as close as possible (small fraction of a dB), we found that slew rate, of all things, correlated with perception of pops and ticks. Our production preamp was 3 V/uSec, and the prototype was 13 V/uSec. Keeping the rest of the circuit the same - including the same parts for RIAA - the fastest preamp had a variety of audiophile buzzwords - more open, more spacious, blah blah - but the most obvious quality, something anyone off the street would notice, was that the records became a lot quieter, almost like listening to tape instead of records. It had a surprising effect on the presentation - it sounded "soft" until real HF content came along.
My same sonic impression between really good and good pickup preamps.
In addition to what you already layed out technically there is a biiiiig issue in common mode pick up.
This finally brings subtil earthing and shielding tricks into the centre of your considerations (and/or symmetric versus asymmetric connection)


Michael

Last edited by mige0; 27th September 2009 at 08:45 PM.
  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



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:06 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