I would say the failure of the Geddes designs to really become a standard of the industry shows the failure of that argument. Controlled directivity is nice but not the only way forward. it has been a failure as much as a success. We are not talking about PA. I do understand the need for proper placement of speakers in a room and room treatment when possible, at the same time I have heard great sounding speakers in terrible rooms and rooms that were treated and directivity controlled in a studio environment and the sound was awful. It is the whole of the combination that matters, not a few specific details.
A flat frequency response does not address the decay rate, and one frequency hanging on in time can ruin a speakers sound, we hear the comments about ear fatigue all the time, this is one of those reasons we hear that, some frequencies who are not decaying along with the rest of the band. A ringing frequency can fit perfectly into a flat frequency response and if that is all you are looking at you will miss the real problem.
Now can we get back to talking about the electronic side of this equation. I think that Derek keep trying to bring this conversation back to the important aspects we need to discuss. I personally think that a consumer is not going to want to pay an additional 500 pounds, ( ( I don't know the keystroke for the pound symbol) for this type of speaker filtering, the costs must be much lower than that in a consumer product. A professional or audiophile would think nothing of it but I don't believe we can add that much cost for just that function to a small speaker, we would lose 95% of the target market I feel.
So part of this discussion should be the cost benefit aspects of different implementations. Here is a place where the KISS principal must be applied, it is to easy to go overboard on this trying to reach an absolute solution.
A flat frequency response does not address the decay rate, and one frequency hanging on in time can ruin a speakers sound, we hear the comments about ear fatigue all the time, this is one of those reasons we hear that, some frequencies who are not decaying along with the rest of the band. A ringing frequency can fit perfectly into a flat frequency response and if that is all you are looking at you will miss the real problem.
Now can we get back to talking about the electronic side of this equation. I think that Derek keep trying to bring this conversation back to the important aspects we need to discuss. I personally think that a consumer is not going to want to pay an additional 500 pounds, ( ( I don't know the keystroke for the pound symbol) for this type of speaker filtering, the costs must be much lower than that in a consumer product. A professional or audiophile would think nothing of it but I don't believe we can add that much cost for just that function to a small speaker, we would lose 95% of the target market I feel.
So part of this discussion should be the cost benefit aspects of different implementations. Here is a place where the KISS principal must be applied, it is to easy to go overboard on this trying to reach an absolute solution.
Where is the price point?
Re costs and system value:
The cost of designing a really great DSP board is high, both in time and the BOM.
It will not be £ viable in budget systems, but it will be perceived as great value in high end audio / Pro systems.
The tricky part is the mid ground....How low can we go???
If the DSP board RRP was £500 it would not be possible to integrate it in a £1,000 system.....
Easy in a £10,000 system....
Where do we draw the line?
Cheers
D.
I totally agree!
Re costs and system value:
The cost of designing a really great DSP board is high, both in time and the BOM.
It will not be £ viable in budget systems, but it will be perceived as great value in high end audio / Pro systems.
The tricky part is the mid ground....How low can we go???
If the DSP board RRP was £500 it would not be possible to integrate it in a £1,000 system.....
Easy in a £10,000 system....
Where do we draw the line?
Cheers
D.
Since I am new to this discussion I really don't know all the costs of the components necessary to create this type of dsp filtering and control. At the same time the cost to implement this shouldn't be higher than the cost to produce the raw frame drivers and enclosures plus amplification. So I really need to have a clear understanding of where the costs are coming from. The software could be a one time cost to develop as long as there are no licensing fees for use of some proprietary IP.
I'll need to go back and take a look at some of the component costs at such sites as the TI sire and see what a raw dsp chip costs and some of the better dac chips. I have only seen some commercially available unit costs, so don't have a handle on actual build costing.
I'll need to go back and take a look at some of the component costs at such sites as the TI sire and see what a raw dsp chip costs and some of the better dac chips. I have only seen some commercially available unit costs, so don't have a handle on actual build costing.
You are crawling back into monkey coffin. Under these conditions a coil, a capacitor and maybe a resistor or two works just great.
Overkill has your agenda all figured out. Re-skin what's already been done, claim it's got all the best, and market market market. Let's see some DIY.
If learning DSP is what your after, cut to the chase.
Don't use your dream child as public example of your learning prowess. Knock any stuff together and use any modern soundcard and play with DSP.
Derek, I feel sorry for your misconceptions, I am not apologetic about that. Disregard research by people like Floyd and Olive at your peril.
Perspective is everything....So are references...!
Mouth putting you words my into are....I will let you re-arrange😉
Flat is bad, Genelec etc are flawed....Facts.
Where did I say I disregard anyone's research.....?
Tut tut vacuphile ....Straws clutching at....
Cheers
Derek.
Mouth putting you words my into are....I will let you re-arrange😉
Flat is bad, Genelec etc are flawed....Facts.
Where did I say I disregard anyone's research.....?
Tut tut vacuphile ....Straws clutching at....
Cheers
Derek.
A not so beautiful mind.....
Of course as always you are right Barley....
Your attitude is well matched by your ability to advance the art of audio reproduction.....
Your inside knowledge & summary of our University JV is ......amusing!
I thank you from the heart of my bottom, good luck on your life search.
D.
Of course as always you are right Barley....
Your attitude is well matched by your ability to advance the art of audio reproduction.....
Your inside knowledge & summary of our University JV is ......amusing!
I thank you from the heart of my bottom, good luck on your life search.
D.
Aren't the Genelecs found in very many studios and mixing rooms? That must say something about their quality of reproduction, even if it would mean all our music is mastered wrongly...
Jan
From one of the Guru's you mention:
Sean Olive's Blogspot said:
Audio Musings by Sean Olive: The Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Room Correction Products
Just thought I should mention this 😉.
Barley,
I guess you're thinking your still in the Blowtorch thread, I don't appreciate the attitude, but perhaps that is just how you make your point.
A passive xo is something that still works and comes with all the issues of passive components and precision along with the efficiency loss. I am not asking for an off the shelf solution, if I wanted to do that I'm sure that already exists.
I said it before and I'll say it again, this thread is not about me or my speakers. It is about what is required and how to implement digital networking and integration of a power amp and a speaker. All the other things you can do with a dsp and dac's are bonuses in my eye
If you have anything to add about how you would create a self powered speaker go ahead and state your ideas. I agree generally with Derek, at the same time I think we are looking at different levels of this, I am not looking to create a $10K speaker system here. If JBL was trying to do this and sell it at the consumer level, not their professional audio level of speakers but something they could sell in volume how would they do that?
I guess you're thinking your still in the Blowtorch thread, I don't appreciate the attitude, but perhaps that is just how you make your point.
A passive xo is something that still works and comes with all the issues of passive components and precision along with the efficiency loss. I am not asking for an off the shelf solution, if I wanted to do that I'm sure that already exists.
I said it before and I'll say it again, this thread is not about me or my speakers. It is about what is required and how to implement digital networking and integration of a power amp and a speaker. All the other things you can do with a dsp and dac's are bonuses in my eye
If you have anything to add about how you would create a self powered speaker go ahead and state your ideas. I agree generally with Derek, at the same time I think we are looking at different levels of this, I am not looking to create a $10K speaker system here. If JBL was trying to do this and sell it at the consumer level, not their professional audio level of speakers but something they could sell in volume how would they do that?
"Flat" is only one aspect. "Controlled dispersion" is one other. The one that's often missed is decay time/resonance.
There are many ways to achieve both the response curve you want and controlled dispersion is also possible. I believe "monkey box" sound comes from box resonances. These need to be controlled, not equalized.
I also don't believe that "in room" response is better than "proper speaker" response. We become accustomed to our rooms, and as long as most of the room reflections are reasonable later than direct sound, we don't appear to find them coloring our impression of the sound quality. I've tried equalizing rooms, and always prefer the"'before" to the "after". Equalizing a decent speaker, though does appear to work for me, as long as the speaker isn't too bad.
There are many ways to achieve both the response curve you want and controlled dispersion is also possible. I believe "monkey box" sound comes from box resonances. These need to be controlled, not equalized.
I also don't believe that "in room" response is better than "proper speaker" response. We become accustomed to our rooms, and as long as most of the room reflections are reasonable later than direct sound, we don't appear to find them coloring our impression of the sound quality. I've tried equalizing rooms, and always prefer the"'before" to the "after". Equalizing a decent speaker, though does appear to work for me, as long as the speaker isn't too bad.
Jan,
I guess you could say the same thing about the NS-10 speaker, they are everywhere in studios and I have never heard anyone praising the sound of those speakers. My understanding is that they are used after the real work has been done to see how the sound would be on a typical consumer speaker. I don't think many engineers are actually doing the mastering using the Genelec speakers, it is a secondary level for listening in playback.
I guess you could say the same thing about the NS-10 speaker, they are everywhere in studios and I have never heard anyone praising the sound of those speakers. My understanding is that they are used after the real work has been done to see how the sound would be on a typical consumer speaker. I don't think many engineers are actually doing the mastering using the Genelec speakers, it is a secondary level for listening in playback.
Compromised near-field monitors dominate home studio's...
Absolutely!
As I wrote a few posts ago " The widespread use of Genelec (and similar "compact" monitors) studio monitors is one of the reason so many studios produce such terrible mixes...."
There are so many compromised mini and near-field monitors in use today that they are doing exactly what it says on the tin....Producing mixes which only sound right when replayed on the same or very similar loudspeakers.
Now all these Genelec's & the dozens of clones, are designed to provide the flattest possible on axis response when sitting very close ( 1 meter ish) with your ears bang on tweeter height.
Play the mix back through anything else and / or listen any other way and it sounds......Well take your pick of the modern mass market recordings....
The majority sound compressed and overly bright with an exaggerated presence zone and a hump round the kick drum or whatever synth bass line they sample.....
This is a huge issue and one which is now being recognised by many top studio's who are moving back to larger sofit mounted main monitors or at least bigger ( broader baffles) floor standers to allow producers to check what the "real"mix sounds like.....
Now even when the music will be played back on modest equipment or headphones they can still correct the balance to cover a wider range of replay situations.
The ideal is of course to have a dynamic and even sounding mix without obvious bias towards any one replay chain, but market forces will of course still tilt the balance in most cases.
Hope this helps.
Cheers
Derek.
Absolutely!
As I wrote a few posts ago " The widespread use of Genelec (and similar "compact" monitors) studio monitors is one of the reason so many studios produce such terrible mixes...."
There are so many compromised mini and near-field monitors in use today that they are doing exactly what it says on the tin....Producing mixes which only sound right when replayed on the same or very similar loudspeakers.
Now all these Genelec's & the dozens of clones, are designed to provide the flattest possible on axis response when sitting very close ( 1 meter ish) with your ears bang on tweeter height.
Play the mix back through anything else and / or listen any other way and it sounds......Well take your pick of the modern mass market recordings....
The majority sound compressed and overly bright with an exaggerated presence zone and a hump round the kick drum or whatever synth bass line they sample.....
This is a huge issue and one which is now being recognised by many top studio's who are moving back to larger sofit mounted main monitors or at least bigger ( broader baffles) floor standers to allow producers to check what the "real"mix sounds like.....
Now even when the music will be played back on modest equipment or headphones they can still correct the balance to cover a wider range of replay situations.
The ideal is of course to have a dynamic and even sounding mix without obvious bias towards any one replay chain, but market forces will of course still tilt the balance in most cases.
Hope this helps.
Cheers
Derek.
Last edited:
Hitting the nail on the head!
Thanks wesayso,
Now that is a concise and appropriate post.....!
Cheers
Derek.
Thanks wesayso,
Now that is a concise and appropriate post.....!
Cheers
Derek.
Please re-read your clip. There are two different things, loudspeaker response, and in room response. A straight on axis loudspeaker in room will have a downwards sloping room response for reasons which should be obvious. Sean cautions against correcting room gain out, one of the two main mechanisms that naturally cause the room response to slope down.
Costing the system
Hi Steven,
Just thinking about how to cost the system and the DSP in particular.
If you were to sell your speakers as a passive design with separate DAC's, Pre Power / cables etc what do you feel would be a good well balanced total system cost?
Knowing this would make it a bit easier to come to some approx DSP / component costs?
Cheers
D.
Hi Steven,
Just thinking about how to cost the system and the DSP in particular.
If you were to sell your speakers as a passive design with separate DAC's, Pre Power / cables etc what do you feel would be a good well balanced total system cost?
Knowing this would make it a bit easier to come to some approx DSP / component costs?
Cheers
D.
I still stand by what I posted, did you read the thread title here and it's following discussion? Exactly on target (pun intended) I'd say.
Edit; here, I'll include one of his famous graphs from the presentations:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
That is not to say I don't agree that flat response would be a good target when developing a speaker while having access to an anechoic chamber.
But as we are talking DSP and room correction, that's exactly the point Sean Olive was making on his blog.
Last edited:
Wesayso,
Thanks for that post. Perhaps I will ask Sean some questions, I am linked to him on LinkedIn.
Thanks for that post. Perhaps I will ask Sean some questions, I am linked to him on LinkedIn.
Overkill,
I think for a speaker of this size and look you would have to be in the $1,500 to $2,5000 range at most. I could just put a simple passive or active analog network inside with a pair of power amps and come in under the lower number. But then the consumer has to have a preamp and source to play them. That is becoming very rare these days outside of the group here on this site. A simple solution would be to just hide inside an ESS ES9023P and be done with it.
I think for a speaker of this size and look you would have to be in the $1,500 to $2,5000 range at most. I could just put a simple passive or active analog network inside with a pair of power amps and come in under the lower number. But then the consumer has to have a preamp and source to play them. That is becoming very rare these days outside of the group here on this site. A simple solution would be to just hide inside an ESS ES9023P and be done with it.
No Wesayso, we were not discussing room equalization. It was about whether a loudspeaker should have an as flat as possible FR, the answer is yes. Also according to Olive.
The angle on the DSP is not room correction but integration into an enclosure to provide xover and correction functions. My point here was that a good analog xover may have advantages over a DSP based one.
The angle on the DSP is not room correction but integration into an enclosure to provide xover and correction functions. My point here was that a good analog xover may have advantages over a DSP based one.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.