I appreciate your courageous words indeed.
[IMHO]
Maybe everything starts from personal insecurity of everyone.
Then with the free sharing of one's thoughts on the Web that insecurity has been transferred to those who for one reason or another need more to feel sheltered from uncertainties.
For a long time, those with more in -depth technical knowledge such as engineers, physicists, technicians of various kinds and even some fanatics, still very insecure, have done a shield for their insecurity with the screen of their knowledge.
And they began to deride those who shared their auditory impressions by listening to their audio systems.
Yet the progress of audio cannot do without share your own auditory impressions relating to an audio system because audio exists precisely to be listened to.
Since those who do not have that same scientific baggage have been systematically attacked with false arguments relating to the fact that if you cannot demonstrate a feeling then that feeling must be imaginary, many have felt too fragile to support an adequate exchange of ideas and have begun to assume the same attitude of intellectual arrogance feeling strong of an apparent logical certainty that is instead a weakness.
Without taking into account those who cheat where he lies knowing that he lies and/or even for private interest (recognizing them is not always immediate, but since as everyone knows lies have short legs then sooner or later they spit on their own and forever) the exchange of auditory sensations between audio enthusiasts is essential, enriching and a it constitutes a nourishing food to move forward steps and to grow.
Since this exchange is essential and unstoppable, for some time it seems that you began to read about auditory impressions relating to a device in terms of "SQ", that's Sound Quality.
Which means everything and does not mean anything and for this reason it began to be "tolerated" by those listed above and slowly has become an alternative way to exchange its auditory experience without being attached or worse, mocked.
And today you can read around that the replacement of a resistor rather than of a capacitor improves the SQ, and I'm willing to believe that.
The singularity is that not only it is tolerated, but it seems to be accepted almost like a dogma, without any need not only to be demonstrated, but even without even specifying in what aspect one witness that improvement in the SQ, that's the extraordinary way of finding a road of humans...
However, this seems to me better than nothing, or worse, than be derided.
At the end of the day what really matters in an audio system is that high are right, middle are right, bass are right and the 3D scene is right.
After that what more to want? 😉
[/IMHO]
i was reading a lab report of a 2 way bookshelf speaker showing a good amount of distortion in the woofer range
still this speaker have received many positive reviews based on listening sessions
this tells me that humans are very limited and often transform their limits in a strong point
this is arrogance
still this speaker have received many positive reviews based on listening sessions
this tells me that humans are very limited and often transform their limits in a strong point
this is arrogance
I do not agree.
I believe that arrogance is when one knows really too little and when he is convinced himself of knowing really a lot and when he derides who shares his own experience by telling that the others are idiots because they do not realize that it is all imagination.
This is true arrogance.
I believe that arrogance is when one knows really too little and when he is convinced himself of knowing really a lot and when he derides who shares his own experience by telling that the others are idiots because they do not realize that it is all imagination.
This is true arrogance.
Last edited:
Speaker harmonic distortion may not be a good example because is not especially audible until there is a fair amount of it. It often however, gets blamed.
I think measurements and science based design are very important, but not saying it all as subjective taste is impossible to measure and put in objective parameters that fit everyobdy because it's subjective. So listening is the final test, to see if it fits your subjective taste.
But all aspects of sound can be put to parameters, and should be. And a designer can choose how he uses those. But no magic happens with speakers or audio electronics, it's just physics that can be explained and measured.
I know i like a healthy dose of harmonic distortion and need to have the driver phase aligned, hence my preference for tube and class A and single driver fullrange systems. But that is not everybodies cup of tea. And i can also appreciate very neutral multiway designs. I'm a big fan of Klein & Hummel that is now bought a while ago by Neumann (that kept all the good stuff) and those are absolute neutral and controlled in dispertion, from the smallest to the biggest model. It's almost technically perfect, but still does not bring the enjoyment that my flawed fullrange drivers drived by a tube amp give (altough it's close, even if it's technical totally different). I had the fun job to install, calibrate and test extensivly a set of Neumann KH420 with a MiniDSP Flex with Dirac in a musicians "music room" and that was a weekend full of musical fun...
And your taste may be totally different, that is no issue. But keep in mind that all those tastes can be measured and put in parameters. If it matters to you is an other question, that is your problem, but it can be done.
But all aspects of sound can be put to parameters, and should be. And a designer can choose how he uses those. But no magic happens with speakers or audio electronics, it's just physics that can be explained and measured.
I know i like a healthy dose of harmonic distortion and need to have the driver phase aligned, hence my preference for tube and class A and single driver fullrange systems. But that is not everybodies cup of tea. And i can also appreciate very neutral multiway designs. I'm a big fan of Klein & Hummel that is now bought a while ago by Neumann (that kept all the good stuff) and those are absolute neutral and controlled in dispertion, from the smallest to the biggest model. It's almost technically perfect, but still does not bring the enjoyment that my flawed fullrange drivers drived by a tube amp give (altough it's close, even if it's technical totally different). I had the fun job to install, calibrate and test extensivly a set of Neumann KH420 with a MiniDSP Flex with Dirac in a musicians "music room" and that was a weekend full of musical fun...
And your taste may be totally different, that is no issue. But keep in mind that all those tastes can be measured and put in parameters. If it matters to you is an other question, that is your problem, but it can be done.
Some things we don't measure include the stereo illusion of soundstage (with width and depth), and accurate reproduction of dynamics. The latter might in principle be done using the Hilbert transform.
People notice differences in acoustic presentation but what and how to measure the acoustic for noted difference is largely left unpublished. Probably to protect trade secret, keep the science in the mythical realm or something else of that nature.
Agreed.
I strongly doubt, but I'm open to the new: please expand if not with all possible parameters at least with some examples. Thanks.
I strongly doubt, again.
I do not want at all to start a controversy of course, but please note that my view is that the empiricism is an absolutely important and necessary part of scientific and technological progress both in Audio and in any other scientific and technological matter as much as science.
Both empiricism and science should always walk arm in arm respecting each other, but the empiricism should not be confused with science.
As far as I know, what you have described is empiricism, it is not science.
You told us your respectable "how", you didn't tell us the "why" it happens: the "why" would be science.
Moreover, please note that "how" was reached after about 100 years of electronic technology where things are more or less remained the same for almost a century and most of all thanks to the fact that in the last 25 years our opinions have been able to share instantly with those of anyone else in any other part of the world and most of all (again) thanks also to the force of a few "elected" ones who had the knowledge and courage to advance certain hypotheses that just before they were derided and finally it was noticed that in some cases the distortion 2nd harmonics can be pleasant to certain ears.
Do you think this is science?
People are still debating exactly what constitutes science, as the question at some level is a philosophical one. One paper on the subject:
https://research-information.bris.a...8878687/ExperimentalObservational_Science.pdf
https://research-information.bris.a...8878687/ExperimentalObservational_Science.pdf
I think it's fair to say that all woofers generate distortion in single, if not double whole digits; 2-3 orders of magnitude higher than the electronics powering them. I think it's probably also fair to say that even good-sounding speakers also generate high levels of LF distortion, but in more pleasing manner...
I'd never heard of them. What level of LF distortion at, say, 40Hz 100dB?
Don't know distortion numbers at LF, but its the basic type of technology used in condenser mics (i.e. electrostatic). Since Sound Lab in particular are large panel, they don't require much transducer displacement to produce higher volume levels. IIRC diaphragm thickness is 0.00012". Some more info on them: https://www.soundlabspeakers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/The-Complete-White-Paper.pdf
Understood. I was commenting following Mr. Klinky comments about speaker distortion magnitude. I may have been typing at the same time you were. Point is some speakers are low distortion enough so that the distortion in electronics is more readily audible. Not that people can't hear a lot of the imperfections in electronics with some box speakers too.
Ok but between a woofer with 3% of distortion and another with 0,5% at same Hz and SPL i would take the second without even listening to them
Usually it will be also the more expensive ... unfortunately
I thought this thread is about "importance of measurement in audio", not electrostatic speakers.
I am simply pointing out a measurement which, in my experience, is quite relavant and important and yet almost noone makes.
Okay. Here is a quote from Dr. Earl Geddes on the topic of measurements that seems applicable:
"The bottom line here is that we know so little about how humans perceive the sound quality of an audio system, and in particular the loudspeaker, that one should question almost everything that we think we know about measuring it. From what we have found most of what is being done in this regard is naive. Things like distortion measurements that don’t consider masking, or axial frequency response that does not consider the reverberant field or arrival time issues of group delay. Maybe someday in the future we will be able to quantify perceived sound quality and move audio away from a marketing dominated situation to a data driven one."
http://www.gedlee.com/Papers/Comments on howard.pdf
My comment: Regarding dynamic linearity, wondering how to best measure it, and how to interpret and or weight the measurement result in terms of some kind of figure of merit, say, as compared to the importance of HD/IMD? Seems to me those are sort of similar to the kinds of issues Dr. Geddes talks about?
"The bottom line here is that we know so little about how humans perceive the sound quality of an audio system, and in particular the loudspeaker, that one should question almost everything that we think we know about measuring it. From what we have found most of what is being done in this regard is naive. Things like distortion measurements that don’t consider masking, or axial frequency response that does not consider the reverberant field or arrival time issues of group delay. Maybe someday in the future we will be able to quantify perceived sound quality and move audio away from a marketing dominated situation to a data driven one."
http://www.gedlee.com/Papers/Comments on howard.pdf
My comment: Regarding dynamic linearity, wondering how to best measure it, and how to interpret and or weight the measurement result in terms of some kind of figure of merit, say, as compared to the importance of HD/IMD? Seems to me those are sort of similar to the kinds of issues Dr. Geddes talks about?
Last edited:
I have the feeling that Dr. Geddes speakers exhibit very low distortion even at high SPLs
If this is correct i guess that he keeps an eye on distortion
The ultimate goal of a driver/speaker is to reproduce a signal ... not to generate other signals not present in the the source signal (I know it is trivial ...)
The more the distortion the more the behaviour of the transducer is deviating from ideal
To design and build a very low distortion transducer is a great tech challenge Distortion like noise are not music
If this is correct i guess that he keeps an eye on distortion
The ultimate goal of a driver/speaker is to reproduce a signal ... not to generate other signals not present in the the source signal (I know it is trivial ...)
The more the distortion the more the behaviour of the transducer is deviating from ideal
To design and build a very low distortion transducer is a great tech challenge Distortion like noise are not music