| pdan |
Inspired by the 'logic' of the 'first watt', I wondered if a similar 'logic' could be applied to the assessment of loudspeakers.
What I've come up with, as a suggestion, is the notion of the 'first test' which the loudspeaker MUST pass. Briefly put: Is the loudspeaker able to reproduce speech in a effortless natural manner. If yes then the loudspeaker has passed the first test and the loudspeaker design has merit. If not, then its back to the drawing board.
In other words, we do extensive listening of speech ( Audio books are great for this ) before listening to music. Since we are so directly familiar with speech any false 'notes' are easily heard, not only that but also, the fr ( about 100hz - 10000 ) takes us right to the heart of the matter.
So, just as the 'first watt' is the heart of a great amp, I suggest that a passed 'first test' is the heart of a great loudspeaker.
pdan |
|
|
| Cal Weldon |
| quote: | Originally posted by pdan
What I've come up with |
Wow, I'm glad to finally meet you after all these years. I was thinking you must be dead by now. ;)
What you have "come up with" my friend is probably the best, tried and true method for designing a loudspeaker. Start with the mid, see what it's capable of and work your way out from there.
Welcome to the world of diyAudio. What a long strange trip it's been. :) |
|
|
| Tenson |
I have to disagree. Our hearing is very tolerant of poor speech conditions since we are 'trained' to understand the meaning, not assess the tonal quality and subtle noises. Human hearing is great at picking out speech from below a noise floor or really bad acoustics but in most cases we don't pay attention to the voice itself.
Thats not to say you can’t determine anything from doing the test you describe. I find male voice can often tells you a lot about the 100Hz-500Hz range but it won't tell you if the rest of the frequency response is particularly flat.
Personally I find distorted electric guitar tells a great deal, as it is close to wide-band noise... I suppose playing in a band helps make that a good test for me too. |
|
|
| Cal Weldon |
| quote: | Originally posted by Tenson
I have to disagree. |
Uh-oh, now we're in trouble. ;)
Actually I can't say listening to voice is the best place to start but I do like the idea of starting at the mid. Perhaps I should have been more clear in my analysis of his post.
Now go to bed, you're up too late! :) |
|
|
| Hartono |
Hi Pdan,
"Inspired by the 'logic' of the 'first watt', I wondered if a similar 'logic' could be applied to the assessment of loudspeakers.
What I've come up with, as a suggestion, is the notion of the 'first test' which the loudspeaker MUST pass. Briefly put: Is the loudspeaker able to reproduce speech in a effortless natural manner. If yes then the loudspeaker has passed the first test and the loudspeaker design has merit. If not, then its back to the drawing board."
you mean we should asses the speaker when driven with current ? this might be a good idea.
I've particularly interested in using current drive for amplifier.
Hartono |
|
|
| Saturnus |
I partly agree with Tension. The tolerance of noise in vocal sounds is the main reason why phones, and especially mobile phone works. They have absolutely terrible sound quality and bandwidth but are none-the-less great for communication.
I only partly agree because the trick is to listen to voices in a language you don't understand at all. Then your brain will stop trying to understand the speech and you can more easily listen to tonal quality. |
|
|
| Cal Weldon |
Saturnus,
I'm having trouble with your comparison. The tolerance of noise in vocal sounds is just that, a tolerance. I think the midrange must be the least coloured part of the system as we are most able to distinguish good from bad in that area.
Interesting idea of listening to foriegn voices but how do you know what that person is supposed to sound like when you don't ever listen to them because you can't understand them? |
|
|
| Tenson |
How are you supposed to know what any other person is supposed to sound like unless you have talked in person with them?
Maybe make a recording of someone’s voice that you know well and use that. |
|
|
| Cal Weldon |
| I use pieces of music myself. No woofer, no tweeter, just me, the midrange, a Jimmy Buffett album and a fine pale ale. |
|
|
| soongsc |
| The voices of people that we really know are quite good for first test. If we hear something wrong, how do we identify whether it's the mic or the speaker? |
|
|
| pdan |
The way I understand the 'first watt' logic is , that if the first watt is nice and sweet then you have the basis of a great sounding amp. If the first watt is not as sweet as it could be then no amount of wattage will improve it.
My suggestion is along similar lines, in that the loudspeaker should be able to give a realistic account of speech.This not easy nor trivial.The justly famous Rogers monitor was developed for the natural reproduction of speech for the BBC. No amount of bass slamm,bandwidth nor high SPL's will improve matters if the heart of the loudspeaker fails to match or supass the Rogers monitor.
If any of you have the time or inclination, go along to your nearest high end shop, armed with several Audio books and use these to audition the best they can offer you. I was suprised, not all by any means, passed the 'first test' - Bit of chestiness here , sss hissss lissssp, constonantals - much too exaggerated and so on.
To sum up. The voice gives us greater insight into the important midrange than music does.
pdan |
|
|
| planet10 |
When i start evaluateing a speaker i use voice... male & female vocals... if it doesn't get that right then there is no hope.
dave |
|
|
| pdan |
Wow! Is that really you, thee Cal Weldon? Last I heard you were in a very strange place ........I dreaded the worst. Your survival gives us all hope! Good on yer.
:)
Oh, by the way, in your opinion what exactly is the mid range? |
|
|
| Cal Weldon |
| quote: | Originally posted by pdan
Oh, by the way, in your opinion what exactly is the mid range? |
It's the centre portion of the music spectrum found directly between the lows and highs. ;) |
|
|
| pdan |
When do the lows become the mids and when do the mids become the highs?
Speaking of highs...... |
|
|
| Cal Weldon |
There are many highs and lows in the business.
All kidding aside, the reason I didn't answer it any more clearly is that everyone seems to have their own opinion and I guess it comes down to how many divisions you wish to make. If you are asking high, mid & low then I would venture a guess that 500 - 5000 would work for me but there are a lot more divisions than that.
Sub bass
Bass
Midbass
Midrange
Upper mid
Tweeter and
Supertweeter.
I guess those last two deserve better names but you get the idea. These are my opinions only as there are many thoughts on this. Perhaps someone will pipe in and help me out.
I've released you from moderation. Enjoy. |
|
|
| pdan |
Thanks,
Curious tho' . don't you think, that on the one hand, loudspeaker design can be highly complex and technical, and on the other, what the mid - range is , is a matter of opinion.
What then do we mean by " A great mid - range", Is it just a matter of opinion ? |
|
|
| sek |
| I've just got to ask: What are those side notes about, Cal and pdan? :) |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by pdan
Thanks,
Curious tho' . don't you think, that on the one hand, loudspeaker design can be highly complex and technical, and on the other, what the mid - range is , is a matter of opinion.
What then do we mean by " A great mid - range", Is it just a matter of opinion ? |
My experience in working with wide range drivers is that if you tame one part of the spectrum, it effects ranges much more than that. So you really have not much control independently. |
|
|
| CeramicMan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cal Weldon
It's the centre portion of the music spectrum found directly between the lows and highs. ;) |
How about the 2 octaves either side of middle C, from 131Hz to 523Hz? :D |
|
|
| Cal Weldon |
| quote: | Originally posted by pdan
Curious tho' . don't you think, that on the one hand, loudspeaker design can be highly complex and technical, and on the other, what the mid - range is , is a matter of opinion.
What then do we mean by " A great mid - range", Is it just a matter of opinion ? |
Yes. No meter or graph will ever tell you how it sounds to you. Only your ear can do that. Personally I build mine to suit my tastes not to win a flat response contest.
| quote: | Originally posted by sek
I've just got to ask: What are those side notes about, Cal and pdan? :) |
Just the silly rantings of this speakerholic. We've never met, this is my first intro to the person and I don't know their name...yet. I was having fun with her thoughts about speaker design. Thankfully we seem to be on the same page so I took liberties.
| quote: | Originally posted by CeramicMan
How about the 2 octaves either side of middle C, from 131Hz to 523Hz? :D |
Sure, why not? There are many opinions., one for each of us.
EDITED: changed his to her |
|
|
| tinitus |
I have often tuned my speaker to sound just right .... and then after a while realised that it was not right at all
So what we seem to like at one moment might not be so in the long run .... it never seem to end :clown:
My conclusion is that our mind allows only fore short time flaws/faults .... or maybe I just get bored quickly .... and mostly I would them changes, rather than improvements
Its a lifetime lasting dedication .... searching fore the magical sound |
|
|
| Cal Weldon |
Well said.
I'd like to add that time of day, what kind of day you had, the weather, alcohol or other drugs, whether you are full or hungry and the amospheric pressure are but a few more of the variables to consider.
I've noticed that my speakers sound particularily nice after a lottery win. |
|
|
| pdan |
Cal, you mean thing don't you want others to share in the enjoyment of your lovely loudspeakers? Don't you want them to hear how great they are?
By the way , my name is Pricilla.I answer to Cilla.
Earlier I posted the range of speech as 100-10000hz (taken from Seashore's Psycology of Music, McGraw-Hill).Isn't this the crucial region? If you get this area right then everything follows.That's why I suggested the speech test. Everything comes from the voice, from first cry to last gasp. And if you allow me one further flight of fancy:
Music is the exaltation of speech. |
|
|
| Cal Weldon |
Hi Cilla and welcome to the forums.
For music, I like to say "give me 50 to 15"
And yes, I love to share my stuff. Some of it doesn't actually fit indoors so the neighbours always know when I'm out in the shop with nothing to do.
Have you built something yet? If so, give us a pic. |
|
|
| Cal Weldon |
| Here's a nice little set that were designed for me by another mod planet10 and member scottmoose. Still not finished. |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pdan
Earlier I posted the range of speech as 100-10000hz |
I totally agree -- i always strive to get my midranges to cover at least that range -- mostly i listen to full ranges and i get 50-70 up to about 15k. If a speaker doesn't get the critical midrange right (IIRC the telephone band is 300-3k) then it's time to start over.
dave |
|
|
| planet10 |
Hey Cal,
These are their latest cousins... so far they don't get the mids right (and after some 300 hrs of breakin and some tweaking, i despair that they ever will -- hopefully a driver swap will save the cabs from the fire-pit)
dave |
|
|
| Cal Weldon |
Try putting a wr 125 in there with another on the side and a helper tweet at 12K first order.
oh wait... ;) |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cal Weldon
Try putting a wr 125 in there with another on the side and a helper tweet at 12K first order.
oh wait... ;) |
Won't fit -- physically anyway. And no room to fit one on the side. (besides that is what Calhoun is for, this is Aiko :)) The FE108eS is a supposed drop in....
dave |
|
|
| sek |
Hehe, :)
| quote: | Originally posted by Cal Weldon
Wow, I'm glad to finally meet you after all these years. I was thinking you must be dead by now. ;)
[...]
Now go to bed, you're up too late!
[...]
I was having fun with her thoughts |
Well, I take it you had an evening with...
| quote: | | just me, the midrange, a Jimmy Buffett album and a fine pale ale. |
Cheers :D |
|
|
| Hartono |
Cal Weldon:
"I've noticed that my speakers sound particularily nice after a lottery win"
Funny, I've sudden urge to upgrade my system if I win a lottery
;) |
|
|
| Geoff H |
I'm inclined to agree. That is with the speech. If a transducer can not reproduce speech faithfully, it probably won't reproduce any complex sound faithfully. From there, go for vocal song. Male and female.
Next up I use sax and other woodwinds, then percussion.
Then listen at the extremes. If it can't do the above, don't worry about the extremes, what's the point?
In my lo-fi telephony days, "the band-width required for intelligent speech is 300 - 3300 Hz" (Unfortunately, even this amount of filtering won't reveal a lot of intelligence in some speeches)
Dave's close, it could be different up there. It's supposed to be enough bandwidth to identify the person, and differentiate between similar sounding syllables.
As a point of interest, I am "voicing" some drivers at present. I think transient response is more critical than outright frequency response.
Geoff |
|
|
| Baseballbat |
Hi,
you can't assess a loudspeaker with your ears. You have to exactly know the source, how it was recorded, mixed, filtered. Maybe the speech on the source is horrible (linear) distorted, and your loudspeaker reverses this distortion and the speech sounds great. You would say "what an awesome speaker", but what if you have another source where the speech isn't distorted?
There is only one way to check a loudspeakers quality: measure, measure, measure.
Of course, you have to measure the right things. The frequency response on axis is not enough, you need the whole 180° vertical and horizontal, and the energy response. You need non-linear distortion measurements, HD and IMD. You need to check the time domain behaviour, not if the time-alignment is right but where do resonances and reflections occur. You need to check the time-domain behaviour of the non-linear distortion (IMD is difficult, HD possible). And all measurements with different SPL. With a good measurement system those measurements take 1-2h.
After that, you can predict the sound of the speaker.
Bye
Baseballbat |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by Baseballbat
Hi,
you can't assess a loudspeaker with your ears. You have to exactly know the source, how it was recorded, mixed, filtered. Maybe the speech on the source is horrible (linear) distorted, and your loudspeaker reverses this distortion and the speech sounds great. You would say "what an awesome speaker", but what if you have another source where the speech isn't distorted?
There is only one way to check a loudspeakers quality: measure, measure, measure.
Of course, you have to measure the right things. The frequency response on axis is not enough, you need the whole 180?vertical and horizontal, and the energy response. You need non-linear distortion measurements, HD and IMD. You need to check the time domain behaviour, not if the time-alignment is right but where do resonances and reflections occur. You need to check the time-domain behaviour of the non-linear distortion (IMD is difficult, HD possible). And all measurements with different SPL. With a good measurement system those measurements take 1-2h.
After that, you can predict the sound of the speaker.
Bye
Baseballbat |
Agree.
More experience and experiments with different assement methods will allow for more accurate assessment.
In general there are a few things I look for in the beginning:
1. No high level resonances, as shown in the CSD charts, and phase charts.
2. Fast initial decay in CSD charts within the first 0.2ms.
3. Distinct difference in absolute polarity.
4. Reasonable frequency response. Generally within 2db.
More comprehensive evaluation cannot be described in short words. |
|
|
| liasom |
| quote: | Originally posted by pdan
...Briefly put: Is the loudspeaker able to reproduce speech in a effortless natural manner...In other words, we do extensive listening of speech ( Audio books are great for this ) before listening to music. Since we are so directly familiar with speech any false 'notes' are easily heard... |
Hi pdan,
I am a musician, primarily vocal, and I do extensive listening to music that contains a vocal content, both choral and solo. Both live and recorded. There is something to what you're suggesting here. When I audition loudspeaker systems for the first, and quite often the last time, the content I'm listening to usually contains the human voice.
The human voice, especially one that is "gifted" and/or has been trained to produce at a high level of quality, is probably one of the most complex waveforms that exists. That goes for speech or singing. I say that primarily because when you add language on top of the sound there are seemingly infinite variations of the waveform that have to exist to produce the vowels and consonants others recognize as words.
In studying vocal pedagogy, I've learned that the larynx, when coupled with the rest of the body, is an amazing instrument. There's a study (they used dogs, Hmmm) that has discovered that the vortices formed above the larnyx during phonation and interacting with structures in the neck and head are a possible reason for individuality in voices. Here's the Yahoo page about that.
I'll leave it up to everyone to decide if listening to the voice is a valid way for them to assess a loudspeaker. As for me, I trust my ears. I'm around live music all the time so have a fairly well grounded idea of what it should sound like in a space with decent acoustics.
There are exemplary recordings of the human voice and many are available on well produced source material. All genres of music have their "stars" and some of the recordings they've done are technically correct. How can they be found? I'd never say that one or two performers are the best, because frankly we all know that individual recordings can fail to be true reproductions. When adding to my collection I often seek out the ones that are popular, they're popular for a reason, and I suspect it is because they are the most beautiful to our ears...or because they are the most understandable and comprehensible. I also look to reviewers that write intelligent critiques. Grammy winning classical recordings are a good list to pick from but sometimes that involves politics. |
|
|
| pdan |
Have I "built something yet".
Yes. I've built a Lowther based back loaded horn.Its main novelty being its "pure" horn form, no straight lines or box forms - what the wave front "sees" is a constantly expanding circular horizon.
I made the thing at art school. It took ages to make. Happily for me tho', I only need one
as I like mono best. A single horn can provide great satisfaction.
Would love to send some photos, but I've only just got one of these things ( comput
er) so I'll need to get help and also borrow a dig-cam.
Some facinating posts. A lot to think about. |
|
|
| tinitus |
Lately I have used old recording by "Uriah Heep", good old fashioned rocknroll
It holds a lot of energy AND distortion - if the speakers stays calm under severe load and with most of the nastyness under controll, then I know I am on the right track - or maybe Im only distorted :clown: |
|
|
| Hartono |
I think many time the front end is a bit neglected. I prefer to try all kind of front end other than CD when available. If only CD available, the I try as many different recording as possible in assessing speaker.
Hartono |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Baseballbat
There is only one way to check a loudspeakers quality: measure, measure, measure. ....
After that, you can predict the sound of the speaker. |
Measurements are an invaluable developmental tools to help discover problems, but they won't tell you whether a speaker is good or not.
Speakers in general are so bad at what they do that the pleasing nature of the set of compromises that a designer makes, can, in the end, only be evaluated by listening.
"In all things audio, the ear is the final arbiter."
Harry Olson
Harry Olson was a master of measuring kit...
dave |
|
|
| Cal Weldon |
| quote: | Originally posted by Baseballbat
you can't assess a loudspeaker with your ears. |
It depends what you are trying to assess. I am looking for listening enjoyment not a graph to show my friends.
| quote: | | You have to exactly know the source, how it was recorded, mixed, filtered. [/B] |
I would assume that if evaluation is the order of the day, you already know the other variables as you are using the same source, same amp and same recording you always use for that purpose.
| quote: | [i]Originally posted by pdan
Would love to send some photos |
Please do. That sounds like quite a nice project.
| quote: | Originally posted by planet10
Measurements are an invaluable developmental tools to help discover problems, but they won't tell you whether a speaker is good or not. |
Thanks Dave.
| quote: | | [i]"In all things audio, the ear is the final arbiter."[/B] |
Fully agree. |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by planet10
Measurements are an invaluable developmental tools to help discover problems, but they won't tell you whether a speaker is good or not.
Speakers in general are so bad at what they do that the pleasing nature of the set of compromises that a designer makes, can, in the end, only be evaluated by listening.
"In all things audio, the ear is the final arbiter."
Harry Olson
Harry Olson was a master of measuring kit...
dave |
I use the ears more often as tools rather than as an arbiter. This is because audio development is really a continuous process. However, I am gradually finding out different aspects in measured data that to show how speakers will sound. Many measurements were used to determine whether capacitors, inductors, and internal wiring are good or not.
The ear is the arbiter to determine whether a design is satisfactory for now. |
|
|
| Cal Weldon |
| I like the ears as tools too. I still think they give you the final answers that no machine can. One example is that I am yet to find two tweeters that sound identical yet you'd never know it by the response graphs. |
|
|
| john65b |
Vocals you say? Magnepan is the end all for me. Nothing quite like it for vocals.
My 2 cents. |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Geoff H
As a point of interest, I am "voicing" some drivers at present. I think transient response is more critical than outright frequency response.
|
For the longest time, FR measures were the most accessible.... and with a "if your only tool is a hammer then everything is treated like a nail" kind of attitude, ruler flat FR was the goal. The resurgence of speakers with less than flat FR was a clear indicator that it wasn't the be all & end all. Their are lots of important parameters -- one of the least understood is what our ear-brain does with the sound once it captures it.
Fortunately we are slowly getting better tools into more hands and this is leading to a greater understanding of what each tool tells us and what it does not. Being able to correlate what you measure with what you hear is the most useful tool.
In the end the system has to make your feet tap, put a smile on your face, and transport you to another place.
dave |
|
|
| Baseballbat |
Hi,
| quote: | Originally posted by planet10
Measurements are an invaluable developmental tools to help discover problems, but they won't tell you whether a speaker is good or not. |
Of course they do. But, as I stated before, you have to do the right measurements.
| quote: | Originally posted by Cal Weldon
It depends what you are trying to assess. I am looking for listening enjoyment not a graph to show my friends. |
Right. But what is listening enjoyment? Is it listening enjoyment if a speaker adjusts your horrible record so it sounds acceptable to you? That's lying to yourself. Instead, use an objectively good speaker - means: good measurements, see above - stuff your bad records in the garbage can and kick the sound engineers *** for producing such a ****.
BTW, I've never heard an objectively good speaker that sounds bad.
Again, a good speaker does not only have a linear on-axis frequency response.
Bye
Baseballbat |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Baseballbat
BTW, I've never heard an objectively good speaker that sounds bad. |
I've heard quite a few of them...
dave |
|
|
| Cal Weldon |
| quote: | Originally posted by Baseballbat
Right. But what is listening enjoyment? |
That is the most subjective part of all. To each his/her own. I design my speakers to meet my needs, not somone elses. I know what parts of the spectrum I am over sensitive and under sensitive to and adjust accordingly. That's where I realize my enjoyment. |
|
|
| tinitus |
| Listening enjoyment ? .... that could be when you listen to music you normally wouldnt ;) |
|
|
| Cal Weldon |
Heck, a good set of speaker can make country and western sound good.
No, no they can't, my bad ;) |
|
|
| tinitus |
Ouch Cal, there are some very fine female country singers
And I believe country has been the foundation of some of the best rockbands |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by tinitus
Ouch Cal, there are some very fine female country singers
And I believe country has been the foundation of some of the best rockbands |
And an awful lot of the country today would have fit right in on a rock station in the 80s...
dave |
|
|
| TerryO |
| quote: | Originally posted by Baseballbat
Hi,
Of course they do. But, as I stated before, you have to do the right measurements.
``````````````````(SNIP)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTW, I've never heard an objectively good speaker that sounds bad.
Again, a good speaker does not only have a linear on-axis frequency response.
Bye
Baseballbat |
BBB,
I agree that you have to do the right measurements, but the question remains: Are they right?
IOW, If the measurements don't predict what you actually hear, then I suspect that perhaps the methodology isn't satisfactory or the tests themselves are flawed or too crude to be completely satisfactory. It may be that in the future we'll have the tests that will give a high level of confidence that what is measured will predict what we'll hear. However, that day hasn't arrived yet TTBOMK.
Never heard an objectively good speaker that sounds bad?
I certainly have, and I've built a couple of them myself ;)
Finally, you state that: "a good speaker does not only have a linear on-axis frequency response."
Has some international organization decreed this? A speaker is only as good as it fulfills it's intended function. I have to say that I tend to favor directional speakers over those with wide dispersion. It avoids more room interactions (or at least some of the worst ones) and while not as "airy" they tend to image more precisely. What all this boils down to is what compromises you find acceptable.
Remember the old saying (Just Released): "You can have any thing you want, but you can't have everything you want."
Best Regards,
TerryO |
|
|
| Geoff H |
"In the end the system has to make your feet tap, put a smile on your face, and transport you to another place."
Isn't that what we're all about?
I have to ask those who place so much faith in measurements and specs, if they would actually fork out cash for drivers or systems they haven't yet heard.
Sure, if your building for commercial reasons you must take that risk - that's R & D. But the majority of DIYers don't have the resources for that level of risk / investment.
I've heard some systems with a very flat response (in anechoic chambers). Most are inefficient (<90dB/W) and lack dynamic range, lifeless in the real world playing music.
Geoff |
|
|
| john65b |
The way I see it, a set of speakers with a perfectly flat response in a "Test" room would spec out totally different placed in my listening room due to different furniture, room dimensions, carpeting, etc. So everytime I see a speaker with great specs, I have to question it.
Granted, given the proper environment , a set of speakers may have the "potential" for flat response vs a speaker that has no chance of having that flat response.
Those with acute hearing (not me) may be able to hear the minute response dips and peaks...but overall, if it sounds good to me, it is good enough for me. |
|
|
| Cal Weldon |
| quote: | Originally posted by tinitus
And I believe country has been the foundation of some of the best rockbands |
Agreed. The Band, Neil Young and Jimmy Buffett come to mind. Thankfully they all saw the light in the end. ;) |
|
|
| Baseballbat |
Hi,
| quote: | Originally posted by Cal Weldon
I design my speakers to meet my needs, not somone elses. |
that's perfectly ok. Now, imagine you had a bad day, listen to your newly bought/built speakers, and they sound terrible in your ears. And on the other day, they sound great, without any reason.
Our sense of hearing depends an many factors, especially how well you feel. You can't trust your ears, they never tell the truth.
But, in years of experience, you found out that some sort of speaker sounds better to you than others. What about doing a complete measurement of them, and then build speakers with similar abilities. Maybe change one or two things and check if it sounds better.
This is something you can never do only with your ears.
Bye
Baseballbat |
|
|
| Cal Weldon |
| quote: | Originally posted by Baseballbat
that's perfectly ok. Now, imagine you had a bad day, listen to your newly bought/built speakers, and they sound terrible in your ears. And on the other day, they sound great, without any reason. |
| quote: | | [i]Our sense of hearing depends an many factors, especially how well you feel. [/B] |
I agree, that is similar to what I said in post 23:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/show...782#post1234782
| quote: | | [i]You can't trust your ears, they never tell the truth. [/B] |
Respectfully disagree.
| quote: | | [i]But, in years of experience, you found out that some sort of speaker sounds better to you than others. What about doing a complete measurement of them, and then build speakers with similar abilities. Maybe change one or two things and check if it sounds better. [/B] |
Agree again. That is how I have done it in the past.
| quote: | | [i]This is something you can never do only with your ears. [/B] |
I usually only do measurements out of curiosity after I believe I am happy with the product. So far they have not looked that good on paper so I usually avoid that conflict.
I did have a good experience measuring a system once. I took a set over to RAW Acoustics (Al Wooley) as they sounded slightly different and I was wondering if it was just another case of unmatched tweeters. Turns out one of the tweeters was out of phase. Not a fault of my wiring but an actual fault in the tweeter. I have never seen that before, didn't know it could even happen, would not have been able to track it down and there was the proof in the pudding, a big dip at the XO point. I like to keep the XO simple so it was a first order with plenty of overlap. A simple reversal and my two speakers sounded the same. You're right, there was no way I would have known about or been able to deal with it without that graph showing me. I had simply written off the difference as poor drivers.
So you see, I'm not against measurements or anyone that puts faith into them, I was simply stating what others have in that measurements do not tell if you will enjoy listening to the speakers and that I have particular areas of the spectrum I enjoy listening to more than others and henceforth build accordingly. I still have to use the published measurements before making decisions on which drivers to match with others but I don't need to see the measuremnts of the completed system to know whether I like them or not. That's part of the artistry involved in doing it the way I do.
Cheers. |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Baseballbat
You can't trust your ears, they never tell the truth. |
With that attitude you will never, ever build a great set of speakers on your own...
dave |
|
|
| pdan |
Now that understand the subjectivists position a little better, I think I should apologize to Cal for calling him mean.
I failed to consider the effects that aging has on the upper frequencies. From what I gather at 40, 8Khz is about yer lot, but not only that, that 8Khz is -10db of a 20 year old.
If you like your music hard and loud , then you'd probaly have to settle with 4khz. At 50..........
For now, I'm Khz rich. But its so depressing knowing that ever day is losing some sparkle.
:(
Still, the photo of Soongsc loudspeaker cheers me up. :) Any info?
Cilla |
|
|
| Cal Weldon |
| quote: | Originally posted by pdan
Now that understand the subjectivists position a little better, I think I should apologize to Cal for calling him mean. |
Already forgotten Cilla. Had to go back and find where you had called me a mean thing.
| quote: | | [i]I failed to consider the effects that aging has on the upper frequencies. From what I gather at 40, 8Khz is about yer lot, but not only that, that 8Khz is -10db of a 20 year old.[/B] |
From what I gather that just isn't the case. I wouldn't need tweeters if it were.
| quote: | | [i]If you like your music hard and loud , then you'd probaly have to settle with 4khz. At 50..........[/B] |
That would mean that some of the members here need only a telephone speaker.
| quote: | | [i]For now, I'm Khz rich. [/B] |
Sure, rub it in.
| quote: | | [i]But its so depressing knowing that ever day is losing some sparkle. [/B] |
You don't notice the loss as you age unless a specific event changes things (for the most part). It's not as though you are listening through a set of ear muffs. I still hear the cintilating highs of the cymbals, I just can't hear the really really high stuff. Think of it as a human Dolby NR system.
Cilla, everyday has sparkle if you want it to. :) |
|
|
| MJL21193 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Baseballbat
Our sense of hearing depends an many factors, especially how well you feel. You can't trust your ears, they never tell the truth.
|
It's the brains interpretation of the ears input that is affected by these factors. Within their limits, my ears never lie to me.
| quote: | Originally posted by planet10
With that attitude you will never, ever build a great set of speakers on your own...
|
Finally, something we agree upon. |
|
|
| tinitus |
| How do you think about making the assessment of a speaker upon how it reproduces the distorted signals in music :clown: |
|
|
| Hartono |
| sounds ugly :xeye: but interesting idea !!! |
|
|
| Taperwood |
| quote: | Originally posted by pdan
I failed to consider the effects that aging has on the upper frequencies. From what I gather at 40, 8Khz is about yer lot, but not only that, that 8Khz is -10db of a 20 year old.
If you like your music hard and loud , then you'd probaly have to settle with 4khz. At 50..........
For now, I'm Khz rich. But its so depressing knowing that ever day is losing some sparkle.
:(
Cilla |
OHHH! No, no, no. I'm 50 and can still hear to 12.5k easily. A friend of mine is in his early-40's and he can still hear to 16k. It's true, though, that damage done to your hearing at an early age is cumulative and once lost cannot be recovered. If you want to keep your acute hearing into old age, don't listen to averages higher than the mid-80 dB range. Listen above an 85 dB average for an extended period of time and you will suffer hearing loss. Unfortunately, I learned this too late and suffer the consequences, as my hearing should not be at this level for another 20 years. Medical conditions also play a big part in hearing as well. For instance, I am susceptible to ear infections, and when these strike I lose about half my hearing in that ear until it clears.
As to the subject of this thread, I too agree that vocals are primary in first assessing a speaker design. I guess that's why they call it "voicing a speaker." And it's no easy task to make a speaker sound great with vocals.
As for taking measurments, I take them extensively when I first build something, at least, to the best of my limited skills and equipment, but I at least do formal FR sweeps in room. That lets me know where there might be trouble spots. After a while, I take fewer and fewer measurements and rely more and more on my ears when making adjustments. I'm also a big believer in instant A:B switching between two speakers. I have found that the most minor changes can affect how two identically built speakers sound; it's quite amazing, really, and something I don't think most people realize.
The marriage of driver to cabinet to electronics is a hugely complex issue and not one that can be solved by measurments alone. The final word will always be how does it sound to you, the listener?
Doug |
|
|
| pdan |
Doug and Cal, Thanks for the cheery words. Glad to hear neither of you are ready for the Ear Trumpet Design Forum. :)
Doug, I found your post very helpful.
It helped me understand Tinitus' and Cal's seemingly wayward approach, ( posts 22, 23 ), a little more.
You wrote: "I have found that the most minor changes can affect how two identically built sound;......"
and: "The marriage of driver to cabinet to electonics is a hugely complex issue and not one that can be solved by measurment alone."
So the whole thing is a huge complex. A nexus of inter-relations, sensitive to subtle changes . Cal has pointed out how his moods affects his listening pleasure. ( I would say tho' we don't really have moods - they have us, and sometimes by the throat ! ) We then have to include ourselves within this nexus.
So then what the hell are we assessing ? When we are "voicing a speaker" are we voicing ourselves?? |
|
|
| Cal Weldon |
| quote: | Originally posted by pdan
When we are "voicing a speaker" are we voicing ourselves?? |
Ooh, that's too deep for me Cilla.
I stick to my wayward ways. ;) |
|
|
| pdan |
"Deep"
Humph!
Just tryin' to understand post 23.
As to sticking to your "wayward ways" you may find you've passed that way before.
:)
Cilla |
|
|
| catapult |
I think measurements are very useful to tell us if a speaker is bad. Take Cal's example of the reversed tweeter, the measurements will tell us in an instant what is wrong while it might take us much longer to discover the problem by listening -- we just have a vague feeling that something isn't right. But measurements can't be trusted to tell us if a speaker is good without actually listening to it and seeing if our toes start tapping.
About losing our hearing as we age, it's not all that bad. I can't hear the highs like when I was younger but I still know what a live instrument or voice sounds like TO ME with my limited hearing and I still enjoy it very much. The brain is pretty amazing that way. If a speaker doesn't make the instrument or voice sound real TO ME, it's not a good speaker. |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cal Weldon
I've noticed that my speakers sound particularily nice after a lottery win. |
When was the last time you won the lottery?
dave |
|
|
| Cloth Ears |
| quote: | Originally posted by CeramicMan
How about the 2 octaves either side of middle C, from 131Hz to 523Hz? :D |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cal Weldon
Sure, why not? There are many opinions., one for each of us. |
WARNING - personal opinion stated here :):
I'd tend to go wider - the 4 octaves either side of middle C (about 65Hz to about 1000Hz). Covers all the vocals (OK, not all, but 99%). That's what I call Vox range.
Then there's Piano range (and I don't mean quiet). From 27Hz up to 4KHz.
Below that is Sub-bass.
Above that is Treble (and I don't think my hearing extends to Super-Treble).
Itend to call the octave (and a bit) from 27-65 the Bass region, the octave to the next C the Midbass region, and then everything up to the top of the Vox range (1K) the Mid-range. The 2 octaves from 1K-4KHz I term Upper-midrange.
If your speaker can do 65-1000Hz real good, then it's real promising. I tend to use music (a well known piece - maybe Aaron Neville) to check this out when I'm listening to speakers.
End of personal opinion |
|
|
| Taperwood |
Not only is the link between driver, cabinet, and electronics difficult to sort out, here's a link that delves somewhat into how the ear and brain hear music and the physics of sound in relation to musical reproduction. There are tons of links and examples scattered throughout this article. I haven't gone through half of it, but from what little I've seen, it's quite thorough. Although I can't verify its accuracy, it's worth a look.
http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/EARS.htm
Doug |
|
|
|
