Anechoics - Many. Telecom companies like Polycom, etc. Some of them I designed myself. If the requirements are not extreme, it's not a big deal.
Hearing is highly adaptive. If you just come home from a long highway drive, the "normal" loudness could be +10dB or more. Same (but -) after coming from a quiet place. About 15 years ago, I designed an automatic level control for a well-known pro-audio company. Since then it has been used in lots of places. It is not perfect... but better than nothing.
It does not take a good recording engineer to set proper loudness levels. AFAIK, practically anyone can do it after 2-3 months of daily practice - if background noise levels "thresholds" have not been prebiased.
Yes, which measurements?
From a mathematical point of view, the test vectors shall cover the entire space of inputs to be used in real life. The size of such vectors can be approximated by the time it takes for a signal to decay below the hearing threshold, which depends on the room, say 0.5sec *fs=24000. Then you have the space of 24000 dimensions. Take 1000 songs | concertos of your preferred genres, and plot the vectors {(t-24000:0), (t-23999:1), ...}. A sine sweep does not cover the space in any similar fashion. Neither MLS nor AWGN. Thus, what are the reference test vectors?
How to process the measurements is actually a different question.
I also have never understood this thinking. If we are both exposed to a sound in nature, after it is processed by each of our ears and brains, it is equally "real" to both of us. Likewise, if we are then both exposed to a theoretically perfect reproduction of a sound, it will again sound "real" to each of us despite the physiologic (or pathologic) differences in our pinna, external audio canals, middle ear, cochlea, auditory nerve, and auditory cortex.
While presbycusis at some point (or other hearing problems) may make us not a good candidate to participate in scientific studies to determine audio quality (as would have difficulty perceiving problems in the treble of the reproduction), we maintain an internal perception of "real," as that is how we experience and perceive the sounds around us, even as our apparatus changes/deteriorates.
Bill
Having the beguiling experience of your first sentence when I owned ML CLSs in the early 90's, it contributes to me currently being "in the weeds" as I have been endlessly contemplate overlapping and interacting aspects of transducer types, psychoacoustics, dynamics, room acoustics including diffusion and absorption, constant directivity or the lack thereof, early reflections, time delay before first reflections, point source, line source, horns, panels, etc., not ad nauseum, but perhaps "ad crazy" or to "paralysis by analysis."
The original post listed cones and domes only, but as I read and realized there are some very smart cats with relevant prior work participating, I tried to draw out a comparison between cones/domes to other transducer technologies as it relates to the original question of the significance of measurements- how do ESLs perform in the measurements being discussed? Are there measurements where they don't perform as well (aside from obvious things like directivity, etc., though of course that is important) that indicate a subjectively important weakness? Certainly I don't think they can have Barkhausen noise
. Is that important subjectively? How much so?As I am currently testing my wife's patience with our family (my listening) room ceiling and front walls torn down to the studs as part of an acoustical remodel, an understanding of our beguiling experiences with ELSs would be cool as I try to weed out some of at least at least 4 new speaker designs in mind for when I complete the remodel....!
Bill
No, they don't. A driver will sound the same before and after a measurement. (Unless damaged by the measurement.)
Were you expecting some sort of conclusive answer to the nebulous title/query of this thread?
Dave.
mayhem13,
You don't agree with much said by others here judging from your previous posts in this thread.
A reference does exist. The master copy of the performance. Our job is simple, to reproduce (notice the word "reproduce"?) that master in the listening environment as reasonably possible. It isn't any more complicated than that, don't bother trying to throw anything else in the mix. How each person interprets this on any given day or moment is really their problem and not our concern. These same issues would exist with a live performance.
Some speaker manufacturers did and do produce equalizers to correct for their loudspeaker deficiencies. The Bose 901 is an early, if very poor, example of this. We also have room correction DSP units that can attempt to equalize the room and loudspeaker as a unit. Room position plays a major role. Whether this approach works or not really doesn't change anything, the goal and reference is identical.
What I see is a person trolling this thread trying to drag as much noise as possible in to confuse the issue. Read the thread title, read the responses that pertain to that title. Then think. Every concern you have advanced has been discussed.
Now you are attempting to put words into my mouth. I do not appreciate it.
You don't agree with much said by others here judging from your previous posts in this thread.
A reference does exist. The master copy of the performance. Our job is simple, to reproduce (notice the word "reproduce"?) that master in the listening environment as reasonably possible. It isn't any more complicated than that, don't bother trying to throw anything else in the mix. How each person interprets this on any given day or moment is really their problem and not our concern. These same issues would exist with a live performance.
Some speaker manufacturers did and do produce equalizers to correct for their loudspeaker deficiencies. The Bose 901 is an early, if very poor, example of this. We also have room correction DSP units that can attempt to equalize the room and loudspeaker as a unit. Room position plays a major role. Whether this approach works or not really doesn't change anything, the goal and reference is identical.
What I see is a person trolling this thread trying to drag as much noise as possible in to confuse the issue. Read the thread title, read the responses that pertain to that title. Then think. Every concern you have advanced has been discussed.
Davey,
What exactly are you saying? Measurements only matter if the damage a driver?
Measurements matter. They show you what the performance is, possibly the path to follow to correct defects and certainly how best to use that driver. No speakers were damaged in those studies. Of course, you could if you wanted to, but what would be the point?
What exactly are you saying? Measurements only matter if the damage a driver?
Measurements matter. They show you what the performance is, possibly the path to follow to correct defects and certainly how best to use that driver. No speakers were damaged in those studies. Of course, you could if you wanted to, but what would be the point?
Not sure why you’ve replied to my response to anatech?…..i‘ve read your contributions and agree that there is significant ambiguilty as to the existence of a reference standard If that‘s what you intended…..otherwise we can agree to disagree.
I am sometimes too optimistic. I was hoping for a discussion about real-world practical measurements, the sort that serious DIYers can perform today, with off-the-shelf measurement equipment and software.Were you expecting some sort of conclusive answer to the nebulous title/query of this thread?
I was hoping for a discussion that might rank the importance of the many measured parameters. For instance, if driver A has a modest resonance within its useful range, but otherwise has odd-order HD below -50 dB, while driver B has no resonances in the passband, but HD3 is around 10 dB higher... which driver would you prefer? How do people interpret CSD waterfall and/or burst decay plots? How much importance is placed on IM distortion, and how do folks measure it?
Oh well. If I want to discuss those things, I can start my own thread.
Not sure I understand your quoted use of ‘real’?…….and then you go on as to ‘theoretical’. And not clear at all about our ‘internal perception’……to real?
It’s the quantitative value placed on your examples that’s under contention here as well the attempt by some to theorize that there exists a reference for content that can be directly associated with listeners and measurements to create yet another reference standard for speaker performance……it’s not going well for some folks here…..they‘re starting to trip up on the language and now resorting to name calling and other derogatory measures. At one point, quite ‘fascist’ ……really…..’keep quiet’ I believe was used if you don’t agree with the narrative…….disappointing behavior. Never been called a Troll before…..I believe I’ve contributed helpfully to many of your posts as you have to mine over the years…… not really a trolling kinda behavior no?
M
https://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/294-652--bc-8pe21-spec-sheet.pdf
There are third party measurements of it as well
http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/midrange-drivers.htm
and sorry for you to have to weed through this mess which didn’t address the root of your thread.
sorry…it’s attached to the product page but here’s the direct link
https://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/294-652--bc-8pe21-spec-sheet.pdf
There are third party measurements of it as well
http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/midrange-drivers.htm
and sorry for you to have to weed through this mess which didn’t address the root of your thread.
If you read my posts you would see there is no ambiguity at all. The issue is the accuracy of a transfer function.
To be fair, the thread opener did better explain the question posed in the title. I suggest the lack of conclusiveness results more from the cluelessness of the respondersNo, they don't. A driver will sound the same before and after a measurement. (Unless damaged by the measurement.)
Were you expecting some sort of conclusive answer to the nebulous title/query of this thread?
Dave.
You can by all means start another thread, but it is no more likely to come to a conclusion about how to rank such a multi-dimensional query. This thread has at least explained some of the real-world reasons why this is so, and provided some information about how to better interpret routinely used measurements too.
The original post listed cones and domes only, but as I read and realized there are some very smart cats with relevant prior work participating, I tried to draw out a comparison between cones/domes to other transducer technologies as it relates to the original question of the significance of measurements- how do ESLs perform in the measurements being discussed? Are there measurements where they don't perform as well (aside from obvious things like directivity, etc., though of course that is important) that indicate a subjectively important weakness? Certainly I don't think they can have Barkhausen noise
Hi, it's difficult to say in general because there are many ESL designs out there. In general, an ESL should measure good linearity, low distortion in mid/highs(<0.3= percent or so from 300 Hz and up).
However, often membranes have partial resonance modes. This can result in worse decay spectrum compared to a really good dynamic system.
As sound in mid-bass was just a slightly bit resonant, so yes, it can also be heard subjectively IMO.
Regards,
Lukas.
It is strange, as I have read your posts for years and enjoyed them, but I also am starting to feel that what you are writing in this thread seems a little strange. If I didn't know you by your writing I would be tempted to say "disingenuous."
"Real" in the sense that our perception of a sound is all our brain knows, therefore we believe it is the real sound of the thing. The way the sun looks when I perceive it is my reality. The way it looks to you is what you perceive as "real." If you are color-blind, distorting you perception, it doesn't matter, the sun would still look the same to you, "real," if it was replaced by a perfect replica.
I only used "theoretical" when describing perfect audio reproduction as we know that isn't possible. Just remove it, as in: "if we are then both exposed to a perfect reproduction of a sound, it will again sound "real" to each of us despite the physiologic (or pathologic) differences in our hearing systems."
Not sure I can explain any more basically, sincerely,
Bill
Yes, this is one of the measurement issues very much in my mind. The decay on a CSD plot of an ESL is typically not as good as a well-designed electromagnetic driver, say, a beryllium tweeter. So why is our subjective experience of an ESL that of startling, see-through clarity? Is it a measurement artifact? Does it mean that the beautiful decay of some drivers doesn't matter/we are chasing the wrong thing? We know that the membranes (ESL now) have a fundamental resonance, but what if we cross over above this drumhead resonance? We still frequently see "hash." I have read speculation that despite the dense electrostatic field, it isn't perfect, so the membrane still moves "chaotically." Then we have the fact that we are not measuring a large panel in the far field, so is it just multiple arrivals?
Lots that I wish I knew,
Bill
"disingenuous."?.....not at all or at least not my intention. After nearly 40 years in the recording/live sound industry i can't afford that guilty pleasure.
I object to the near entire premise of this thread based on the obvious.....my 'real' so to speak.....in that the creation, production and enjoyment of music are purely subjective experiences. A crude example would be trying to explain the masochist and what lies beneath the behavior......no less 'real' for the masochist while getting kicked in the groin?......no.....no less 'real' for the individual experiencing gender fluidity or conflict. The key words here are 'individual' and 'real'.
What's happening here in this thread is pure scientism........a dangerous outlier of mass delusion that is literally dehumanizing in it's context.....a cult of collective group think that DEMAND you SHARE in their experience as an accepted state of reality. Nonsense. This perverse behavior attempts to replace both the joy and fear of the unknown with a bastardization of the scientific method.
i'm not including you in this camp and while i appreciate the kind words and you're 'humanistic' understanding of what and how i write, it would be truly 'disingenuous of me not to ask for an explanation of reality, theory and perception all in the same point......
And without say, i firmly reject the notion of a system of reference to any of this......i have the will and subjective experience to 'choose' whatever mic i feel will work in a situation.......the choice to select a specific preamp.....the choice to apply PeQ and compression before the desk.....the choice to set a gain level.....or gain stage if desired......there is no formula here....never has been.....never will.....or at least shouldn't IMO........my perception is my individuality that i wish to share with you, the listener.....while i RESPECT your right or desire to not accept the invitation.
Scientism......mass psychosis.....AI programmed as such.......dehumanization.......makes my skin crawl.
To be fair, if the premise of this thread weren't so nebulous, yourself and others wouldn't have drifted off topic so easily.To be fair, the thread opener did better explain the question posed in the title. I suggest the lack of conclusiveness results more from the cluelessness of the responders
I certainly consider measurements a matter of importance with drivers/systems. I have built a system before without them........but that was probably in 1975 or so.
The general topic here has been discussed previously on the forum myriad times through the decades. I can remember a thread (can't seem to find it right now) in 2003 maybe with a very similar discussion.
That said, there is a sticky thread by one of the illustrious moderators on this forum that outlines how to design system 'without' measurements.
So, maybe they aren't all that important??
Maybe we're all clueless, not just me?Dave.