Can you measure what should/would/could be percieved as ”fast” bass, or at the other end, ”fat” and ”slow”?
Yea. It can somewhat be measured: Frequency response: A lean and lacking bass is often percieved as ”fast” bass. But thats still really bad bass. Lacking bass is always really bad bass, even if it sounds ”fast”.
So?
A extremely high quality, modern, low db/w/m, extreme x-max, high power bass driver sounds significantly ”slower” than:
A old school low x-max, high db/w/m, extremely high quality bass driver.
A closed box solution delivers what many percieve as a ”faster” bass than a bass reflex solution.
It can so far, year 2023, only be clearly and reliably measured with your own ears. 🙂
And Somewhat ballpark measured as impulse response (overhang) and frequency response (volume).
So still, you WILL have Trust your ears if you REALLY want to find what sounds good in your own system and room🙂
My guess is that this works exactly the same way as above in the midrange and treble.
🎷🙂🎸
Yea. It can somewhat be measured: Frequency response: A lean and lacking bass is often percieved as ”fast” bass. But thats still really bad bass. Lacking bass is always really bad bass, even if it sounds ”fast”.
So?
A extremely high quality, modern, low db/w/m, extreme x-max, high power bass driver sounds significantly ”slower” than:
A old school low x-max, high db/w/m, extremely high quality bass driver.
A closed box solution delivers what many percieve as a ”faster” bass than a bass reflex solution.
It can so far, year 2023, only be clearly and reliably measured with your own ears. 🙂
And Somewhat ballpark measured as impulse response (overhang) and frequency response (volume).
So still, you WILL have Trust your ears if you REALLY want to find what sounds good in your own system and room🙂
My guess is that this works exactly the same way as above in the midrange and treble.
🎷🙂🎸
Continuing from the post before: What I was always wondering then is if a room-corrected bass reflex must not sound more like a closed box.
Also, to extend on this, do we hear the difference between anechoic bass response and room related bass?
As an example: 1) a speaker with lean anechoic bass, which after room gain showcases a balanced bass response with slightly elevated low/sub bass and a gradual slope.
2) a bass reflex system with anechoic flat response all the way down, that needs strong correction to remove elevated bass hump. This with room. correction.
Would they sound broadly "the same"?
Also, to extend on this, do we hear the difference between anechoic bass response and room related bass?
As an example: 1) a speaker with lean anechoic bass, which after room gain showcases a balanced bass response with slightly elevated low/sub bass and a gradual slope.
2) a bass reflex system with anechoic flat response all the way down, that needs strong correction to remove elevated bass hump. This with room. correction.
Would they sound broadly "the same"?
Fair enough. So you don't hear that characteristic.
Still, why experiment with other types of drivers if just about *everything is already "normal done right"?
*ex. any number of typical tweeters will objectively cleanly produce the "fastest transients".
Last edited by a moderator:
In my experience you simply cant make a racehorse out of a hippopotamus with a DSP. No matter how hard you try.
But you absolutely can tune and polish a LoFi- turd of a system/room to a somewhat reasonable and fairly half-shiny piece of HiFi sh*t. With a good DSP.
But it is always better to have some really good and tuned sh*t to start with, for the final DSP-polish. Absolute Best thing is no need for DSP at all?
Always: In my opinion 🙂
Since Einstein, I have problems with the fast word meaning... It is way more easy to measure fat... sorry, mass, I mean.
No, this makes no sense. Without room correcting low bass with a powerful system will be overwhelming. The only workaround is a deficient anechoic bass response as for example many KEF speakers have it, but here, anechoic response is compromised, not "fast".
I understand your point. Yes a system can be done right without DSP, for that matter it can also be done right with DSP. It can easily be done wrong as well.
Funny how most posts here are about how we perceive bass while the original post used 2 tweeters to make a point. 🤔
Don't make the speakers too fast though, they might end up playing a higher frequency than intended! 🙄
Seeing the results of the square waves of both tweeters isn't enough for me to draw any conclusion. It takes quite some bandwidth to make good looking square waves and that alone could make them look different.
Maybe use even more correcting on both tweeters using DSP and/or FIR could show that. In other words: make their bandpass more alike and retest.
Don't make the speakers too fast though, they might end up playing a higher frequency than intended! 🙄
Seeing the results of the square waves of both tweeters isn't enough for me to draw any conclusion. It takes quite some bandwidth to make good looking square waves and that alone could make them look different.
Maybe use even more correcting on both tweeters using DSP and/or FIR could show that. In other words: make their bandpass more alike and retest.
It would appear that many people think there isn't, and can never be one, because the other side is ________.
I take "fast" to mean: solo musical instrument "attack" (a musical performance term referring to the initial action to sound a note out) reproduced indistinguishably from live direct sound (guitar pluck for example), not smeared or stretched out. "Attack" sounds real and impulse/transcient response measures close to input signal. Repeat again, high fidelity/low distortion on the "attack", comparing live and replay both direct sound. (If venue or room is "slow" that's a separate matter.)
I take "fast" to mean: solo musical instrument "attack" (a musical performance term referring to the initial action to sound a note out) reproduced indistinguishably from live direct sound (guitar pluck for example), not smeared or stretched out. "Attack" sounds real and impulse/transcient response measures close to input signal. Repeat again, high fidelity/low distortion on the "attack", comparing live and replay both direct sound. (If venue or room is "slow" that's a separate matter.)
Last edited:
why measure? if your speaker is already built, listen to it to see if it sounds fast
compare to couple of other of your speakers. By itself, a fast speaker seem just right. its only in comparison to a slow speaker that you can ascertain how dynamic/fast a speaker is.
Aside: Ralph of AtmaSphere OTL etc. has said that odd-order harmonics contribute more to perceived loudness hence "dynamics". Which makes dynamics a questionable measure of fidelity -- can have too much as well as too little; depends on replay SPL and subjective preference, etc.
But there's another thing that gets a lot of flack from (some) members -- so-called "micro-dynamic linearity". I had thought it was commonly accepted that at very low signal level, tube/valves are generally more linear than solid-state -- a notable exception being VFET (why a lottery was even held, here, to share Papa's rare supply). I believe this linearity in very-low-level response is heard and perceived as correct "articulation", perhaps most obvious in voice fidelity in terms of subtle shades of loud/softness and minute variations of tempo/attack. In my opinion this is what marks almost all "Hi-Fi" as obvious fake to a musician/singer. In my audio experience possibly only once or twice did I react "geez that was no hi-fi" (1W 45-monoblocks Axiom 80).
But there's another thing that gets a lot of flack from (some) members -- so-called "micro-dynamic linearity". I had thought it was commonly accepted that at very low signal level, tube/valves are generally more linear than solid-state -- a notable exception being VFET (why a lottery was even held, here, to share Papa's rare supply). I believe this linearity in very-low-level response is heard and perceived as correct "articulation", perhaps most obvious in voice fidelity in terms of subtle shades of loud/softness and minute variations of tempo/attack. In my opinion this is what marks almost all "Hi-Fi" as obvious fake to a musician/singer. In my audio experience possibly only once or twice did I react "geez that was no hi-fi" (1W 45-monoblocks Axiom 80).
Notice the OP hasn't really put in much of his $.02 in this thread. Sorry, but I just think it was created to bait general discussion and generate buzz. It just smells that way to me.
Would you blame him for not putting more into this thread? Just read through it - it's a bunch of people *arguing over a subjective description, not really any of the detail from his blog.
*and you can find better threads on this topic (arguing the subjective description itself), one of which has already been provided (as of the 1st page of this thread). Obviously "Fast" as a subjective description is well known; that some haven't experienced it or simply don't believe it exists really doesn't matter - it's enough that some have and do. Honestly when you hear the effect (which is obviously comparative) the response is second-nature to exclaim that it sounds "Fast", I've seen this un-prompted response myself (on multiple occasions), and I've also seen the response in the "other direction" where the sound is described as "Slow" (horn-system aficionados often make this comment with respect to typical hifi systems, as have almost anyone trying to mate a typical commercial sub to a full-range electrostatic panel).
Sure it "smells bad", but that's not Joseph's (Troy's) fault. 😉
Last edited:
Since, electronics is all about the movement of electrons, this question comes to my mind: Are electrons fast? With a mass of 9.1e-31Kg, they have an inertia and cannot respond instantly to any forces.
Looking at what looks like sampling points in your square wave measurement, I think they look far apart? This is assuming the dots are the sampling points. Maybe increasing the sample rate or using a scope would give a more accurate picture of the square wave?
