Pro vs hifi drivers - pros and cons?

[45]

Originally Posted by gedlee

I agree with him too, but it completely misses the point!! The point is that IN NATURE air absorption is high enough that HFs did not reach our ancestors to any appreciable degree and hence there was no reason for our hearing to develop at these frequencies - and it didn't. The absorption rates drops significantly below 10 kHz and these frequencies will propagate great distances.

Our hearing developed precisely in that range where best localization is possible as the result of shorter wavelengths and a sufficient perevalence of signal content to be useful. This is precisley why the region from 1 kHz to 10 kHz is so critical, because its this region where the most advtange is gained from high resolution. Below 1 kHz localization is becoming poorer, albeit still useful, but above 10 kHz the content is simply becoming insignificant. .

I can blast a room with 30 kHz at 120 dB and you will DETECT it. Thats completely irrelavent. (Wow, is it ever hard to get people to comprehend a simple point.)

Do you listen to your speakers from 100 m!? Or 20 m? Or 3 m?
I don't miss the point. It's obvious that 1-10KHz is the critical band and should always be the last to sacrified. Removing higher harmonic content from the original musical signal has clearly audible and significative effects. It is significant because our attention to sonic events works in differential mode. You may want to consider the brain selection and elaboration of information.

Following your line of reasoning, I could also say that you could remove frequencies below 80-100Hz because they are not so important according to our physiological hearing. In fact if you had at 80Hz the same sensitivity you have at 1KHz you would be in serious trouble. You will be listening to your heartbeat all the time! So why do you use a 15" woofer?

[markus76]

Originally Posted by gedlee

I agree with him too, but it completely misses the point!! The point is that IN NATURE air absorption is high enough that HFs did not reach our ancestors to any appreciable degree and hence there was no reason for our hearing to develop at these frequencies - and it didn't. The absorption rates drops significantly below 10 kHz and these frequencies will propagate great distances.

Our hearing developed precisely in that range where best localization is possible as the result of shorter wavelengths and a sufficient perevalence of signal content to be useful. This is precisley why the region from 1 kHz to 10 kHz is so critical, because its this region where the most advtange is gained from high resolution. Below 1 kHz localization is becoming poorer, albeit still useful, but above 10 kHz the content is simply becoming insignificant.

I can blast a room with 30 kHz at 120 dB and you will DETECT it. Thats completely irrelavent. (Wow, is it ever hard to get people to comprehend a simple point.)

Earl,

I think you gave the right answer to the wrong question. Is or was it important for human survival to perceive frequencies as high as 20kHz? Apparently not. But music was never a tool for human survival (although some musicians live better than the rest of us). Music is a cultural development. Barry Blesser describes in his book ("Spaces speak") how music and the spaces in which music was played were always closely coupled. Spaces defined the music. So the question is "Can high frequncy content be a vital part of music"? and the answer has to be "Yes, it can". Now look how multitrack recording, close-miking and home sound reproduction changed music. Even if you have to be young to hear high frequency content, high frequency content can be part of music. The audio reproduction chain has to preserve that, not change it.

Best, Markus

[kevinkr]

I haven't contributed much lately to this conversation, but I find the debate extremely interesting and follow it every day. Just my two cents worth.

[technofreak]

AFAIK, Void designs it's own drivers, so no off-the-shelf stuff...

If I had the chance to design a box with any commonly available drivers, PHL would be probably my choice. Personally I'm a big fan of 6,5" pro mid drivers - what I like most is their ability to go high, so that critical 300...4000 Hz range is free from crossovers. Even cheap Eminence Alpha 6 is excellent if used correctly. Detailed, dynamic and low distortion; there simply is no match for it at this price point.

[thoriated]

Here's a scenario where musical energy above 10khz can contribute to the overall experience that one probably wouldn't argue with. Or maybe one would, depending on who one is Consider a musical ensemble or orchestra with percussion instruments and brass at different distances from the microphones. Those at a few feet distance would present appreciably more HF energy than those farther way from the microphones because of air absorption and this effect due to absorption differentials would be available to the listener as an audible distance information cue.

[45]

The influence of ultrasound and infrasound on our emotional state can be pretty huge. For example, an echocardiogram consists of looking at the heart activity by ultrasound stimulus. Firstly this means that it does propagate easily through the body. In turn the heart has a preferential connection to the brain, obviously. Sounds are perceived/elaborated in many ways, not just through the ears.

[J.R.Freeman]

Gentlemen,

Let us move on from the HF content debate, which appears to be going in circles. It seems as though there is some to discuss with respect to that topic - perhaps in its own thread? It would be nice if we could stay on topic.

[Andre Visser]

Originally Posted by thoriated

Consider a musical ensemble or orchestra with percussion instruments and brass at different distances from the microphones. Those at a few feet distance would present appreciably more HF energy than those farther way from the microphones because of air absorption and this effect due to absorption differentials would be available to the listener as an audible distance information cue.

Exactly, also on a hi-fi system, the fact that you can hear the sound from mic position and not 20m away from the performance, allow for the possibility to get better SQ from a good hi-fi system than at 20m away at a live show. Not claiming that a hi-fi can ever replace the feeling of a live event though.

[doug20]

Originally Posted by J.R.Freeman

Gentlemen,

Let us move on from the HF content debate, which appears to be going in circles. It seems as though there is some to discuss with respect to that topic - perhaps in its own thread? It would be nice if we could stay on topic.

I agree.

Im still waiting for a link to measurements showing hifi drivers are better.

[HiFiNutNut]

Very interesting discussions by all participated.

Just a thought: the discussions can go on and on with the pros and cons of pro vs HiFi drivers. Many are based on excellent theories and experiences. Suerly they are correct in many cases but can they be biased as well? Is there any data?

One claimed that the Scanspeak 7" sucks while another claimed it is excellent. With regards to objective truth, logically the above two can't be right at the same time, so at least one of them was merely a subjective opinion.

Here is something that will clear some clouds:

If someone compares one of the best 7" pro drivers to the Scanspeak 7" revelator and produces all the major driver parameters, it will be more helpful for one to get an approximate answer to the pros and cons of pro vs HiFi drivers.

We need some data!