New Speakers or New Amplifier to Increase Sound Stage

Jump to Latest
#61
johnmath said:
On loudspeaker imaging, from the person who might just know more than the rest of the world put together when it comes to perception of acoustic space: http://www.davidgriesinger.com/Acoustics_Today/AES_preprint_2012_2.pdf (AES Paper: Pitch, Timbre, Source Separation and the Myths of Loudspeaker Imaging)
Click to expand...

Good contribution !


"This paper presents data on how both semantic
content and localization information is encoded in the harmonics of complex tones, and the method by which the
brain separates this data from multiple sources and from noise and reverberation. Much of the information in these
harmonics is lost when a sound field is recorded and reproduced, leading to a sound image which may be plausible,
but is not remotely as clear as the original sound field. "
 
  • Like
Reactions: tonyEE
#62
classicalfan said:
I’m looking to make an improvement over my current system but can’t quite decide on the best route being new speakers or a new amplifier.

Currently I use a pair of Jeff Bagby designed Piccolos. And as I have posted other places on this forum, I am very happy with sound quality from them. The dynamic range, low distortion, and particularly the high-end clarity, are outstanding and very satisfying.

New speakers or new amplifier. Maybe both are needed, but what should the first move be?
Click to expand...

Hi,
I've shortened your OP a bit and to get to the relevant question - What to do first?
First you need to set your speakers for optimum sound in the room as is.

Go here: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/speaker-positioning.337856/page-3 Go to Post #45 at the bottom of the page.
There are 2 links. Post #2 in the first link describes the process. The second link gives you some primers on what to listen for.

After that you can give it a go perhaps. You have small 2 way speakers so might be difficult to optimize the bass as described. But getting the speakers to be as if one is important, and you can do that. If you don't have the mentioned song, Ballad of a Runaway Horse, then just use a mono recording, and anything will do. By definition, mono is all in the center and you optimize for that. In my speaker positioning thread I do go over that earlier in the thread in Post #18.

It's worth a go and only costs you time.
 
#63
Sjef said:
Well, cheap is not a goal but it was a piece of advice to start experimenting without breaking the bank. I have experimented quite a lot with small loudspeakers and subwoofers and even with some crappy bad-sounding subs, I was able to transform the soundstage of small speakers into a whole lot bigger soundstage with more air, etc. It sounded crap, booming cabinet walls and the like that's for sure but most certainly bigger, wider, deeper. If experiments like that give you a feeling of what it is you are actually looking for you can replace this crappy sub with a serious contender.
Click to expand...
All psychoacoustic localization cues are mid-band and up, not 150Hz and down. The subjective term "air" has traditionally been used to describe high end qualities, but it's a confusing term and subjective anyway.
Sjef said:
I friend of mine had a Kef LS50 setup for a while in his rather small office and one thing he always liked to demonstrate was the LS50 with and without a sub (well actually with a 150Hz crossover, not a pure sub) and everyone was amazed what the addition of a sub and some eq could do compared to the LS50 alone full range (yes with measurements but that's so common nowadays it hardly needs mentioning) It soundstage becomes twice as wide and deep that way. In my small bedroom system, I have exactly the same experience. A loudspeaker that does not have any decent output below 70Hz like the LS50's really does fall short in recreating big venues. These are small speakers with a midbass hump to make them sound bigger than they are but they are missing acoustics information captured in the sub-bass. Of course, you are free to disagree but my question is, have you tried?
Click to expand...
Yes, I've built many systems with subs, starting with a studio in 1999. I've never equated LF response to the size of the "soundstage", whatever that is. They provide low frequency response extension, which might contribute to a large feeling, but again, it's a disconnect with "soundstage".
Sjef said:
If soundstage means big sound to you you are never going to get it with small loudspeakers. If soundstage means something else to you then it won't help you much. And of course, there are much more variables in play here but the question of the OP was how to improve his current system to get better soundstage, not to start from scratch.
Click to expand...
One speaker manufacturere defines soundstag this way: "In the world of audiophiles, soundstage (or speaker image) is an imaginary three-dimensional space created by the high-fidelity reproduction of sound in a stereo speaker system; in other words, the soundstage allows the listener to hear the location of instruments when listening to a given piece of music."

That's a founction of hearing localization mechanisms being "fooled" into placing phantom images in dimensional space. All localization occurs mid-band and up. That's why the location of a true sub (80Hz and down) is non-critical to the total image.
Sjef said:
And yes, decay of notes is something that helps a lot in sound staging. A lot of cheap amplifiers are 'cutting off' the sound too early. it is the little reverb information that also defines acoustics, micro detail, 'air', and microdynamics. It is all related. One of the main differences between bad and good amplifiers is exactly that, the ability to resolve the whole length of a note to let it extend to the point where it dies out itself, not to a point where the amplifier decides to stop. , to let the tiny little room reverb come through. Sorry English is not my native so I don't know how to describe this exactly but I hope you catch my drift.
Click to expand...
No, you are competely misleading your readers here. NO amplifier, correctly operating as a linear device, is capable of "cutting off" the sound too early, reducint the reverb tail, or altering the recorded signal dynamically in any way. That would imply a completely nonlinear gain function, which is frankly impossible without intentionally including variable gain devices that derive control voltages from the input or output signal. That does define a type of audio equipment found in studios and used purposefully, but it's not an amplifier, or preamp or power amp. By definition, them must be as linear as possible, altering as little as possible. The only thing that an amplifier might change dynamically is distortion, and the good ones don't even do that at all.

There is no such thing as "micro detail", it's an audiophile made-up term. There is no such thing as "microdynamics" either, same thing, it's a made-up audiophile term that helps them to describe things that they think they hear but do not actually exist.

This conversation has now deviated from fact and science. Since that's what I'm about, I'll leave you to your mythology. Ping me if you want to make a change that actually does something. An amplifier will absolutely NOT change your soundstage though. I've posted enough suggestions that definitely WILL change your soundstage, but I can't help you try them.

If you buy an exotic amplifier for a lot of money and have been told, with conviction, that it will improve your soundstage, then that's what you'll hear, regardless if it actually makes any change to the waveform passing through it or not.
 
#64
Like I said, english is not my native. language do don't pin me on the exact words. Thank God for grammarly that at least makes my spelling look right.

Anyways, I'm not buying anything that promissesme anything. I experiment, build and listen myself and I do have 30+ years experience as a sound engeneer I do hear live music, either pop, jazz, classical on and a daily basis and that is what 't I try to recreate at home. All I Can say is you cannot truthfully recreate the acoustic space of the classical concert hall over here without proper low end extension. I have the ability to compare it as almost directly live VS recorded, actually right as 't the moment while the recording is being made. You' ll never hear the proper 'size' of the concert hall on tiny speakers. I'll leave it to that

Cutting off of notes is Just an expression of resolving power or whatever it is called in english. Written words and interpretation, source of all conflicts these days. I guess we would agree on most in real life. For a whole lot of people that is what they mean by soundstage, that's what I'm trying to say Here. What is the difference between a good and bad amplifier to you? They most certainly do not sound all the same.
 
#65
academia50 said:
Good contribution !


"This paper presents data on how both semantic
content and localization information is encoded in the harmonics of complex tones, and the method by which the
brain separates this data from multiple sources and from noise and reverberation. Much of the information in these
harmonics is lost when a sound field is recorded and reproduced, leading to a sound image which may be plausible,
but is not remotely as clear as the original sound field. "
Click to expand...
In short. We would ike the harmonics to stay in their envelopes.

waveform-escaping-envelope.png


dave
 
#66
jaddie said:
The only thing that an amplifier might change dynamically is distortion, and the good ones don't even do that at all.
Click to expand...
I have not paid a whole lot of attention to distortion ever since it became clear in the 70’s that the usual measured numbers we see, and few of the graphs, actually tell us much.

Since Julian Vereker (as he handed me a beer Chicago 1979 (78?)) pointed out to me, a hifi is an information system, and we want to lose as little information as possible from the original recording thru to our ears.

It is the same thing, but we look at it from a different POV.

Some devices are better at not losing some types of information, some others. We keep seeking unatainable perfection.

While the most agreegous loses occur in transducers (speakers/microphones/cartridges…) an amplifier loses stuff we can hear, if the rest of the system does not.

jaddie said:
"micro detail” … "microdynamics"
Click to expand...
They mean something, but it is really kinda fuzzy and hand waving, with no clear definition.

Sometime late last century Allen Wright coined the term Downward Dynamic Range (DDR) which he defined (to paraphrase) as the ability to reproduce the small stuff even when the loud stuff is playing.

Their have been some here who have attempted to actually measure this somehow but it has been elusive. So we have to trust our ears. And there is a significant distribution of hearing capability, so that is a moving target. But in the end only yours is of big concern to you.

Toole sorta sasy the same thing:

Two ears and a brain are massively more analytical and adaptable than an omnidirectional microphone and an analyzer.
Click to expand...

The difference between great and good is what they do some 30-40 dB down even when there is 0 dB at the same time.

Good imaging requires that the really small pieces of information (amplitude/phase/time) are preserved.

Most recordings loose huge swaths of this information before you ever get it. But the good recordings can produce a spectacularlt solid 3D image/soundstage.

jaddie said:
An amplifier will absolutely NOT change your soundstage though.
Click to expand...
A comment from the school of “all amplifiers sound the same”. There is a whole thread on that.

dave
 
#68
Okay, so for those of us who think audiophile quality amplification is requisite to the needs of the OP, what is the consensus?

Class A to eliminate crossover distortion?

Dual mono setup to reduce crosstalk?

Zero NFB to keep the distortion profile low-order?

Single-ended to keep the distortion profile decreasing monotonically?
 
Last edited:
#70
Brinkman,

It is a set of compromises. And which are more important might well be dependent on the listener.

The OP needs to examine each piece and try to assess each one’s information loss.

No one tweak. Each of those has assets that can contibute but what compromises do they make?

dave
 
#73
Well, I don’t necessarily disagree with Jaddie but I know Earl Geddes tested some number of consumer AVRs and found some having unsuitable amounts of distortion at low levels (it may or may not have been related to crossover distortion, I would have to search). Either way, whether or not the amps that Earl found objectionable would be classified as such by Jaddie is unknown to me; for all I know Jaddie is in the ASR forum school of thought that ranks amplifiers according to SINAD regardless of whether any of its members could identify one from another in a double-blind test.
 
#75
jaddie said:
NO amplifier, correctly operating as a linear device, is capable of "cutting off" the sound too early, reducint the reverb tail, or altering the recorded signal dynamically in any way. That would imply a completely nonlinear gain function, which is frankly impossible without intentionally including variable gain devices that derive control voltages from the input or output signal. That does define a type of audio equipment found in studios and used purposefully, but it's not an amplifier, or preamp or power amp. By definition, them must be as linear as possible, altering as little as possible. The only thing that an amplifier might change dynamically is distortion, and the good ones don't even do that at all.
Click to expand...

A paragraph loaded with misinformation and distractions. No amplifier is a perfectly linear device, all produce some distortion and all add some noise. Since the distortion varies with signal level (and often with frequency too) the amp can't help but 'alter the recorded signal dynamically'. When music is playing the alteration of the noise floor due to IMD is termed 'noise modulation' - this artifact is perfectly able to reduce the perceived reverberation tail through masking.
 
#79
academia50 said:
I could have sworn I've already seen those graphs in some previous answer of some other thread.....
I have deja vu?
Or do you always have it ready to draw and trigger ? 🤔😉
Click to expand...
I would have done that some time ago for another thread, so you could well have.

Would have taken longer if i had to draw it, i would have originally to illustrate in a previous discussion, and i have a file called Sketches with many such.

dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom