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. "
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
A comment from the school of “all amplifiers sound the same”. There is a whole thread on that.
dave
Promulgating that false school is not only unhelpful but also plain wrong. If someone has nothing to add to a thread, they should add nothing to the thread IMHO.
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?
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:
The "all amps sound the same?" The tread title is pretty satirical from what i have rea din that thread.
Yes, said as a statement, is certainly false.
dave
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.
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 ?
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.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SINAD
I would put much more stock in such a metric if the average power of distortion was harmonically weighted (ie Gedlee metric).
see also: https://www.headphones.com/communit...SwYDvUwaDFbEiIW3f0BwyHPCd462GvSonth2QibjyBvrY
and the ensuing discussion:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/why-sinad-is-not-important-article.25962/
I would put much more stock in such a metric if the average power of distortion was harmonically weighted (ie Gedlee metric).
see also: https://www.headphones.com/communit...SwYDvUwaDFbEiIW3f0BwyHPCd462GvSonth2QibjyBvrY
and the ensuing discussion:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/why-sinad-is-not-important-article.25962/
Last edited:
I would have done that some time ago for another thread, so you could well have.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 ?
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
Would you please tell me the name of the translator you use so we can try to improve the site...